Continuity War - Did Finland have a viable alternative?

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
I was doing some reading that suggested that the Finns thought engaging the Soviet Union in 1941 was the lesser of two evils rather than their preferred choice.

Given;

Finland had already suffered an unprovoked attack by the Soviet Union.

And

The example of Soviet annexation of the Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

Did Finland have a realistic alternative to fighting the Continuity War?

Was Neutrality an option given that both the Soviet Union and Germany would have been looking to use Finish territory for their own strategic advantage?

Would siding with Russia have lead to Finland suffering the same fate as Eastern Poland after the war?
 
I was doing some reading that suggested that the Finns thought engaging the Soviet Union in 1941 was the lesser of two evils rather than their preferred choice.

Well, Finland actually was the "last unfilled part" of the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty as Molotov reminded Hitler in November 1940 - and up till January-February 1941 Finland was under intense pressure from the Soviet Union. It was widely thought that had Germany invaded Britain in the summer of 1940, the Soviets would have invaded Finland - Mannerheim was actually advocating full mobilization in August 1940. In that sense allying with Hitler (the only option left) was rather a defensive move, though of course a big risk and only a short term solution, but long views were a bit of a luxury just then for Finns.

Neutrality would have surely been violated with Hanko and Lapland, and I would not see that it would have even been in the best interests of Finland - it was a nightmare Europe then: England only barely surviving and the continent ruled by the two monsters...
 
One key thing to remember is that the Finns at the time very much believed that Stalin's armies would be coming back to finish the job in the near future. Everything in the USSR's actions after the Winter War in 1940 pointed this way - not only the invasion and annexation of the Baltics, but also the way the Soviet government continually made demands on Finland, regarding the Petsamo nickel mine, say, or the re-demilitarization of the Ålands (something not demanded in the peace negotiations), and the opposition towards planned Finno-Swedish defence cooperation. The Soviets also supported the Finnish Communists and the Finnish airspace was continually violated by Soviet aircraft. In the summer of 1940 the Soviets actually shot down a Finnish Ju-52 passenger plane, the Kaleva, en route from Tallinn when Estonia was being taken over by the Soviets. That the accident was not an accident but Soviet military action was not told to the people but the Finnish government and military knew it. In August 1940 a war scare broke out as the Finns thought a new Soviet invasion was imminent.

I have the habit of pointing out that the period after the Winter War was called "Interim Peace" already during the time, and this was not because revanchist feelings but due to the fear for that new invasion. Sure, many people in the military and in the political right wanted to join hands with Germany for revanchist and irredentist reasons. But without that existential fear for a Soviet takeover, and the untenable place Finland was in in terms of trade and economy (Germany and the USSR together being in a position to stop virtually all Finnish foreign trade if they wanted to), the highest political and military leadership would not have consented to allying with the Nazis.

It is very difficult to see Finland staying neutral - in my view this would require the USSR dropping the idea of conquering Finland and being ready to allow Finnish defence cooperation with the Swedish, as well as being generally ready to treat Finland as a benevolent neutral instead of a hostile nation on the waiting list to be conquered. This would also mean selling Finland cheap food, etc, to alleviate a potential German de facto embargo on Finland.

Then, of course, the Finns would after the Winter War be very sceptical towards any and all Soviet moves anyway, be they hostile or friendly, and if the USSR was suddenly too friendly the Finnish government would probably see it as a cynical Soviet trap to steer clear from.

So while I don't see the Continuation War as the only option, I think neutrality would have had only a very, very small chance even after the official Soviet line would have been to foster Finnish neutrality and keeping it out of the war after 1940. The Germans were looking into making Finland an ally on the northern flank in an upcoming assault against the USSR since 1940, and due to geopolitical reasons they were the only major power Finland could really turn to for protection against Stalin. They had all the weapons of persuasion, bribery, blackmail and threats to wield against Finland and to turn the Finns heads to cooperation on some level.

It is IMHO pretty hard to go against those odds, unless the Finnish government would be ready to take the chance of staying tenaciously neutral in spite of this possibly leading to many of its citizens starving, the military not getting the weapons it sorely needed and then both the Soviets and the Germans making war on Finnish soil and the Finnish sea areas and airspace anyway, with the Finnish state being at war against both.
 
Last edited:
After OTL Winter War and German performance in the West the answer was no - with the defeat of France and evacuation of Norway, the only realistic option left was Germany.

If Germany bogs down in the West and France fights on, if the Allies then hold Narvik and northern Norway, and if both Stalin and Hitler then suddenly and without explanation abandon their mutual disdain towards Finno-Swedish defensive cooperation...well, then there really is an alternative.
 

Which in fact really highlights the unlikely nature of a Finno-Swedish defensive alliance in 1940 in the first place, as that TL (as great as it definitely is in many ways) essentially handwaves away several of the OTL reasons the alliance did not come to fruition, for example the Swedish being unwilling to enter said alliance if the Germans and Soviets were against it, and also setting such demands on the Finns as a pre-requisite (like abandoning all future claims on the lost Karelian territory) that would be very hard to accept in Helsinki.

As this alliance becoming reality really hinged on the Swedish being ready to take (partial) responsibility for the defence of Finland against the USSR and thus being embroiled in a World War, I find it a really unlikely proposition given the Swedish history of neutrality. As it is, IOTL the Swedish government seems to have been only ready for a defensive alliance that would had been proofed against having to do any actual defending.
 
Last edited:
As this alliance becoming reality really hinged on the Swedish being ready to take (partial) responsibility for the defence of Finland against the USSR and thus being embroiled in a World War, I find it a really unlikely proposition given the Swedish history of neutrality. As it is, IOTL the Swedish government seems to have been only ready for a defensive alliance that would had been proofed against having to do any actual defending.

And for Finns to willingly relinquish the control of their foreign policy to Stockholm. While the relations between Finland and Sweden had improved a lot after the Winter War, it's still a demand that violates all the core tenets of classical Fennoman nationalism.
 
England only barely surviving and the continent ruled by the two monsters...
A gentle reminder. England is a nation within the United Kingdom but not a sovereign state.

To be fair, even the British government seems to deny that the English nation exists when devolution is discussed.
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
A gentle reminder. England is a nation within the United Kingdom but not a sovereign state.

To be fair, even the British government seems to deny that the English nation exists when devolution is discussed.

Well to be fair would the Cornish think they are English??

Or Yorkshire men?

England has just been a unified 'state' longer than the United Kingdom has been
 
A gentle reminder. England is a nation within the United Kingdom but not a sovereign state.

To be fair, even the British government seems to deny that the English nation exists when devolution is discussed.


Well, yes, thank you for that, I think I somehow knew it - but in Finland, I'm afraid, people routinely say England instead of Britain, which does sound rather overly fancy in Finnish anyway (Englanti vs Britannia). I believe rather a common mistake abroad. I'll try to mend my ways!
 
Well, yes, thank you for that, I think I somehow knew it - but in Finland, I'm afraid, people routinely say England instead of Britain, which does sound rather overly fancy in Finnish anyway (Englanti vs Britannia). I believe rather a common mistake abroad. I'll try to mend my ways!

I was about to point out the same - for Finnish-speakers, calling Britain "Englanti" is very common in everyday speech. It is pretty rare for another Finn go as far as to try and correct one over that particular faux pas, and so it is an easy mistake to make.
 
Top