WI * Stalin* started a continuation war with Finland in summer 1940?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
WI Stalin went for round two, Finland delenda est, in summer 1940 while Germany and the western allies are busy with the battle of France.

Other than a Communist Finland, what are the consequences?

Are the Swedes more likely to get drawn into the war once Barbarossa starts? If so, what is Sweden's situation at the end of the war?

Will the swallowing of Finland mean no western lend-lease for the USSR?

Even if Sweden holds its neutrality, does a Soviet occupied Finland for the duration of WWII make it likely that Norway is broken into Communist and noncommunist states, or Norway and the Sami Soviet Republic or Democratic Republic of Finnmark? Or is the result a regulated neutrality for Norway, akin to either OTL's Austrian State Treaty or "Finlandization"?
 

Napoleon IV

Stalin wouldn't do this. A few months previously he had gotten his ass handed to him by the Finns in one of the greatest military debacles in Soviet history up to that point. Stalin was shocked at how poorly the Red Army fared, and he spent the next year and a half after the Winter War rebuilding. He had already gotten what he desired when the Finns were forced to give up (which was a protective space for Leningrad). An invasion of Finland would be difficult both due to the terrain and the people, who the Winter War had shown were willing to fight until the bitter end against Soviet domination.
 

Lee-Sensei

raharris1973 said:
WI Stalin went for round two, Finland delenda est, in summer 1940 while Germany and the western allies are busy with the battle of France.

Other than a Communist Finland, what are the consequences?

Are the Swedes more likely to get drawn into the war once Barbarossa starts? If so, what is Sweden's situation at the end of the war?

Will the swallowing of Finland mean no western lend-lease for the USSR?

Even if Sweden holds its neutrality, does a Soviet occupied Finland for the duration of WWII make it likely that Norway is broken into Communist and noncommunist states, or Norway and the Sami Soviet Republic or Democratic Republic of Finnmark? Or is the result a regulated neutrality for Norway, akin to either OTL's Austrian State Treaty or "Finlandization"?
Click to expand...
Given the shere disparity in resources, Finland wouldn't survive, but the Russians had already lost prestige for their poor performance there and I doubt Stalin would risk another disastrous invasion.
 

Gudestein

Napoleon IV said:
Stalin wouldn't do this. A few months previously he had gotten his ass handed to him by the Finns in one of the greatest military debacles in Soviet history up to that point. Stalin was shocked at how poorly the Red Army fared, and he spent the next year and a half after the Winter War rebuilding. He had already gotten what he desired when the Finns were forced to give up (which was a protective space for Leningrad). An invasion of Finland would be difficult both due to the terrain and the people, who the Winter War had shown were willing to fight until the bitter end against Soviet domination.
Click to expand...

I guess there is another interesting argument. He could have tried it in 1941 when the army presumably had improved.
 

wietze

Ivir Baggins said:
Besides, in summer much of the Russo-Finnish border is impassable bogs, and were only passable when frozen over.
Click to expand...

russia may have general winter (finland has him too), but the finnish bogs also have marshall mosquito (the swamps/bogs there outside winter literally sees black with bugs)
 

zoomar

raharris1973 said:
WI Stalin went for round two, Finland delenda est, in summer 1940 while Germany and the western allies are busy with the battle of France.
Click to expand...

Then Stalin would have completely alienated the west and been perceived even more as an enemy of the Allies. Also, I suspect that Germany (already knowing it would soon betray good ol' Uncle Joe) might be a might concerned. Russian control of Finland would essentially turn the entire eastern Baltic into a Soviet lake and complicate Barbarossa. Plus, as others have noted, the Red Army was in no state to attempt another invasion of Finland so soon after the first one. The whole idea makes no sense, even for Stalin.

Now what might make sense is a Soviet offensive into Finland before the Finns throw in with the Germans. Even if it was of limited scope it might alleviate pressure on Leningrad in 1941.
 

Napoleon IV

zoomar said:
Now what might make sense is a Soviet offensive into Finland before the Finns throw in with the Germans. Even if it was of limited scope it might alleviate pressure on Leningrad in 1941.
Click to expand...

When the German invasion happened the Red Army collapsed on multiple fronts and barely held itself together. They were in no state to launch any kind of attacks on the Finns, or really anyone for that matter.
 

Lee-Sensei

zoomar said:
Then Stalin would have completely alienated the west and been perceived even more as an enemy of the Allies. Also, I suspect that Germany (already knowing it would soon betray good ol' Uncle Joe) might be a might concerned. Russian control of Finland would essentially turn the entire eastern Baltic into a Soviet lake and complicate Barbarossa. Plus, as others have noted, the Red Army was in no state to attempt another invasion of Finland so soon after the first one. The whole idea makes no sense, even for Stalin.

Now what might make sense is a Soviet offensive into Finland before the Finns throw in with the Germans. Even if it was of limited scope it might alleviate pressure on Leningrad in 1941.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't alienate the Allies to the point that they wouldn't team up once Barbarossa started.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top