Stalin's reaction to losing the Winter War

After losing the winter war, Stalin gave a speech in April 17th 1940, at a meeting of Red Army commanders to discuss the results of war with Finland:

“Could we have avoided the war? No, I think we could not have.”

“The party and the government did the right thing to not delay this business and, knowing that we were not quite ready to wage a war in Finnish weather conditions, started the war in November-December. This was not our choice to make, but depended on the international situation.”

“Did we make the right decision to distribute the troops alog the front like we did? I think it was the right decision”.

“You know that after initial successful advances of our armies, as soon as the war started, we encountered complications on all sections of the front. This happened because our armies could not quickly adapt to the conditions of war in Finland. Question: what in particular hampered the ability of our units to adapt to the condidions of war in Finland? It seems to me that they were especially hampered by a psychological effect that was created by our previous campaign among the troops and officers - that it will be a walk-over. We were terribly harmed by the Polish campaign, because it spoiled us. In articles and speeches it was proclaimed that our Red Army is invincible, that it is peerless, that it has everything it requires, that nothing is lacking and never was, that it is invincible. There has never been an invincible army in history. The best of armies that have been here and there suffered defeats. Our comrades boasted that our army is invincible, that we can walk over anyone, that nothing is lacking. In practice there is no such army and never will be.”

“And this psychology, that our army is invincible, this boasting that is so terribly widespread in our ranks, and those are the most ignorant people, we must do away with. This boasting must be permanently done away with. We must hammer into our people the understanding that no army is invincible. “

“Our army has never yet been in a real, serious war. The civil war was not a real war, because there was no artillery, no aviation, no tanks, no mortars. Without all of this, what kind of serious war is this? It was a special kind of war, not modern war.”

“So what was it that made our commanders fail to wage the war in Finland in a new way, unlike the civil war, but in a new way? In my opinion it was the cult and the traditions of the civil war. How do they evaluate the commanders: did you participate in the civil war? No, I didn’t. Bugger off. And that one did he participate? Yes he did. Bring him here, he’s got a lot of experience and so on.

And I must say, of course the experience of the civil war is very valuable, but absolutely insufficient”

“Here’s what we’re talking about - why was the production of Degtyarev’s SMGs stopped. It had only 25 shots. This is stupid, but it was stopped. Why? I cannot say.

Why don’t we have mortars? This is not something new. In the age of the imperialistic war (the soviet monicker for WWI) the Germans saved themselves from the western and eastern troops - ours and French - mostly by mortar shells: people are scarce - shells are abundant. 24 years have pased, why do you still have no mortars? No reply, not a word.

What is the reason for all this? Because everyone has the traditions of the civil war in his head: we made do without mortar shells, without SMGs, that our artillery, our people are outstanding, heroes etc., we’ll push and get through. Speeches like this remind me of the red-skinned (this is not derogatory in Russian) in America who fought against rifles with clubs and wanted to win over the Americans with clubs, - to defeat a rifle with a club - and they all got wiped out. “

“Artillery is our first business”.

“Second - aviation, mass aviation, not hundreds but thousands of airplanes.”

“More shells, more ammo must be given, then fewer people will be lost. If you will save bullets and shells - you will lose more men. One must choose.”

“Next - tanks, this is the third, also decisive, mass tanks are needed, also not hundreds, but thousands. If the tanks are thick-skinned, they will work miracles with our artillery, with our infantry. We must throw more shells and bullets at the enemy, preserve our people, preserve the strength of the army”

“Mortars - fourth, there is no modern war without mortars, mass mortars. All corps, all companies, all battalions, regiments must have 6-inch mortars, 8-inch. This is terribly important for modern war. Those mortars are very efficient and are a very cheap form of artillery. It’s a remarkable thing - mortar. Don’t save the shells, this is the motto, save your people. If you save your bombs and shells and waste your men, we’ll have fewer men. If you want to have a war with little losses - don’t be greedy with the shells”.

“Next - automatic small arms. Still there are arguments: do we need ten shot semi-automatic rifles? People who live in the traditions of the civil war, - fools, though good people they are, are saying: why do we need a semi-automatic rifle? All you need to do is take our old five-shot rifle and a semi-automatic one with ten shots. We all know the drill - aim, rotate, fire, next target, aim, rotate, fire. And then take a fighter with a ten-shot semi-auto. He’ll fire three times more bullets than the guy with our rifle. A fighter with a semi-auto equals three fighters. How can we not embrace the semi-auto rifle, it’s half of an SMG. This is terribly necessary, the war has shown it to the troops. “

“Next - cultured, well-qualified and educated commanders corps. We don’t have any commanders like that or individual persons at best”

“Next - well-built and operational staff HQs”

“For a modern war we need politically resilient and well-versed in military matters political staff”

“How do you think, did we have an army like that when we enterd the war with Finland? No we did not”.

“Now the bottom line. What was the essence of our victory, whom did we win over in essence? So we waged war for 3 months and 12 days, then the Finns kneeled, we acquiesced, the war ended. So the question is whom did we vanquish? They say - the Finns. Well of course, we vanquished the Finns. No big deal vanquishing the Finns. Of course we were supposed to vanquish the Finns. But we vanquished not only the Finns, but we vanquished their European teachers - we vanquished the German defensive equipment, the English defensive equipment, the French defensive equipment. Not only the Finns, but the equipment of the leading states of Europe. And not only the equipment, we’ve vanqushed their tactics, their strategy. All of the defence of Finland was built on British and French guidance, their advice, and before that the Germans helped them a lot and half of the Finnish defensive line has been built on their advice. The results speak of it.

We have vanquished not just the Finns - that is not so great a task. The main point in our victory is that we’ve won agains the machinery, tactics and strategy of the most advanced states of Europe, who were the teachers of the Finns. That is the main essence of our victory.”