I accept your explanation. The author wasn’t a general. I do recall now, without digging the book out, that they withdrew through Norway. The book didn’t have a great focus on the strategic level and whether or not they really wanted to go.
The Germans who withdrew weren’t destroyed. I think they left in pretty much good order. In a war that claimed millions and chewed up whole divisions in days the loss of Finland didn’t cost them much in terms of casualties. Loss of a strategic mineral asset wouldn’t have been a good thing but all of your points about nickel were new and interesting to me.
You would probably have to lay the unit diaries down side by side to get an idea of what really happened. My anchor point for judging this is the Das Reich at Normandy.
When comparing the French and German stories about the effectiveness of the resistance in delaying the 2nd SS Panzer Das Reich divisions arrival at the Normandy beach head you’ll find quite a difference in the two sides understanding of the events. The Germans report trivial losses and delays caused by the French while complaining about allied air attacks and mechanical breakdowns. The French believe (or claim) they really whupped the SS. They got Oradour-Sur-Glane for their trouble.
That’s not to say that the Finns weren’t great soldiers. I just think they showed most of their military prowess in fighting against the Russians. I wouldn’t compare what they did to the Russians and against the Germans in anything like equal terms.
The burning of Reindeer Crossing (as I translate it roughly) falls into the same category. They destroyed it angry with the fact they were being run out of the country by the Finns, and particularly the Sa'ami.
Germans eventually have to learn that they do not bring glory on themselves by trashing everything. Makes them no better than the Russians, and even there the Russians take months to trash up a place.