I read a book about soviet experiences (first hand interviews) against finland in ww2, 41-45.
Some ex-soviet military who were interviewed said that they really wondered why finland didn't continue their push towards Leningrad after their advance in Karelian isthmus.
It was stated that the red army troops suffered from diseases and were in no condition to put up any major resistance. Well we do know why this push never happened, but what if the finns would have done it? What if they would have commited their troops to the siege of leningrad and Leningrad would have fallen? How would this have affected the policies of moscow and the morale of soviet people? What do you think?
Some ex-soviet military who were interviewed said that they really wondered why finland didn't continue their push towards Leningrad after their advance in Karelian isthmus.
It was stated that the red army troops suffered from diseases and were in no condition to put up any major resistance. Well we do know why this push never happened, but what if the finns would have done it? What if they would have commited their troops to the siege of leningrad and Leningrad would have fallen? How would this have affected the policies of moscow and the morale of soviet people? What do you think?