Allied Intervention in Winter War

What you are discussing here is interesting, but verging on the ASB territory.

Yeah a prolongd winter war whit SU would be a bit ASBish, a war truly over by a cople of months, its the outcome thats changes.

Its the butterflies that is intresting. German reaktion to allied troops in scandinavia. Would Stalin pressure Romania over Bessarabia? And would Romania feel inclined to fold or would they say no and call for Allied support?
 
They had done that all through the 20s and the 30s, because the Finnish Army was designed and built for a big part by former German officers of the Reichswehr and a major contingent of the Finnish operational leadership had been trained in Germany (this includes, but is not limited to, the "Jäger" cadre). The co-operation between Finland and Germany was extensive. I guess my point is that there was quality training and experience present and already used in Finland, adapted to local conditions. Ten or even five years before British help would have certainly had a major influence, but I am at a loss to see anything major the Finnish military leadership could have learned from the British at this point. Anyway, most things we see as the British forte, such as naval warfare, did not necessarily apply to the Finnish situation at hand.

So, because the Finns have had technical support from a large nation in the history they'll never need any support whatsoever.

By following that logic into the ridiculous the Swiss for example IRL wouldn't have needed any British training whatsoever regarding their Hawker Hunters bought in the fifties from the British. After all, the Swiss know what works best in their environment and have experience with that.:p

No offense to the Finns, but they're a small nation with a limited military. What experiences do they have with tanks and groundsupport for example?
I doubt there isn't much the Finns can learn with regards to new technical advances, use of heavy artillery, new modern doctrines about cooperation between air and land etc etc.
There were plenty of technological advantages during the '30s and '40s and new doctrines developed of which the Finnish army wouldn't have any experience with.
If anything they could use training with the equipment the Allies would supply them with.

Do agree about not much learning at that point.

Like I wrote earlier, I think it is quite unlikely Stalin would go as far as wage a protracted war against the Western Allies over Finland. Finland was a minor concern that could be taken care of later, not enough to warrant war with Britain. IMO the Anglo-French intervention would have brought the war to a halt before any allied contingent, save aerial, could have time to make it to the front at Karelia. What you are discussing here is interesting, but verging on the ASB territory.
I'd sooner expect the Allies to blink then Stalin. Or at least I think it's more likely for the Soviets to take their chances and go on with their Finnish adventure, then it is for the Allies to start supporting the Finns actively.


I wouldn't be too surprised if the Brits would tell the Finns how to run their army. They would feel superior to the little guys.
Maybe there are still some other stereotypes we haven't used yet?
:D
Why would they?
We'd compare the Soviet support to Republican Spain during the civil war with this situation. There the Soviets managed to dominate the Republican politics and military thanks to their 'support' (dearly bought by the Spanish gold reserves). But during the Civil war the Soviets were the only nation supporting the Republicans and this gave them more influence.

In this timeline, there's also French and other support, so I doubt even if the British wanted, they would get any kind of control over the Finns or their army.
 
Maybe there are still some other stereotypes we haven't used yet?
:D

If we dig deep we just might find them... :D:D:D

Why would they?
We'd compare the Soviet support to Republican Spain during the civil war with this situation. There the Soviets managed to dominate the Republican politics and military thanks to their 'support' (dearly bought by the Spanish gold reserves). But during the Civil war the Soviets were the only nation supporting the Republicans and this gave them more influence.

In this timeline, there's also French and other support, so I doubt even if the British wanted, they would get any kind of control over the Finns or their army.

I didn't say CONTROL merely that they wouldn't hesitate to tell the Finns how to run their army. There is some difference in this you know!

We are still in 1939 or very early 1940.
I also doubt they would be able to teach the Finns much, heck RAF couldn't even hit Aalborg Airfield crammed with Ju-52s in April 1940.

Even the Norwegians expected the Brits to show them how to conduct modern warfare and had to rely on their own resources.
 
But we should not underestimate the capability of arrogant officers. Just imagine you are a british commander you have just arrived to Finland, you find that they have stopped the red army. That's impressive, but maybe the problem was that the russians were not so tough after all. You look at the finnish troops they have no modern wargear, few or no tanks, few or no aircraft and they tend to move over those stupid skis. So you feel tempted to teach them how real war is fought and how to exploit russian weaknesses.

You do not want to ruin everything and you feel that you will be really useful.
 
But we should not underestimate the capability of arrogant officers. Just imagine you are a british commander you have just arrived to Finland, you find that they have stopped the red army. That's impressive, but maybe the problem was that the russians were not so tough after all. You look at the finnish troops they have no modern wargear, few or no tanks, few or no aircraft and they tend to move over those stupid skis. So you feel tempted to teach them how real war is fought and how to exploit russian weaknesses.

You do not want to ruin everything and you feel that you will be really useful.

Exactly - but British means of waging war wasn't exactly meant to be carried out in Scandinavian winter conditions.

Whats so special about tanks in the Winter War?
Wheres the good tank country in Finland? In the area where they were fighting an infantrymans war!

But give them more artillery - they would know how to use that.
Give them more aircraft - they would know how to use those and get military pilots from Scandinavia. Who were able to shoot down Soviet a/c. As the Dutch were able to shoot down German a/c until they ran out of ammo.

Stupid skis??? Excellent means of transportation in -25C or more and in deep snow. Try going in your regulation boots.

What is it that makes the British army of 1939/40 so special its able to teach every nation how to beat up its enemies and why didn't they apply said concept in France May 1940?
 
Exactly - but British means of waging war wasn't exactly meant to be carried out in Scandinavian winter conditions.

Whats so special about tanks in the Winter War?
Wheres the good tank country in Finland? In the area where they were fighting an infantrymans war!

But give them more artillery - they would know how to use that.
Give them more aircraft - they would know how to use those and get military pilots from Scandinavia. Who were able to shoot down Soviet a/c. As the Dutch were able to shoot down German a/c until they ran out of ammo.

Stupid skis??? Excellent means of transportation in -25C or more and in deep snow. Try going in your regulation boots.

What is it that makes the British army of 1939/40 so special its able to teach every nation how to beat up its enemies and why didn't they apply said concept in France May 1940?


We should try to think not as someone that sees history almost seventy years ahead and knows what worked and what would have never worked. My point was that probably british officers would dismiss finnish tactics as useless.
 
The British army was far better equipped to fight a major european power than was the Finnish army. A british divish had much more equipment and all of that equipment was far more modern than that that was available to the Finnish army. Thus the intervention force would have guns that were both more modern and more powerful than most of what was available to the Finnish army.
I do not mean to say that the British were better fighters than the Finns just that they had the advantages of having far better equipment made available to them. In fact the Finnish army did an outstanding job of standing up to an enemy that outnumbered them by a fantastic amount.
I do not believe that Stalin wanted to have to fight the Western powers and there is evidence to indicate that if the west had reponded with force that he might have backed off. Remember that if the western allies really used their resources they could inflict incredible loses on the Soviets. In fact it might even have caused the Japanese to rethink their position and perhaps challenge the Soviets again.
 
Let us look at a possible start of allied intervention. The Finnish government has appeared to the western allies for assistance and a planned dispatch of aid is made. the Finnish government has included sending personnel that know the port of Petsamo quite well.
The British have dispatched a force of well trained Royal Marines to strike at the port and capture it. The force is a reinforced Battalion with attached Artillery and At/AA weapons. The invasion force is place aboard several transports and lendlease destroyers. The invasion force includes a Royal Sovereign class battle ship and several cruisers as well as the transport and escort ships. The marines have spent several days training to capture the facilities pbased upon the plans and photogaphs that were provided.
In addition to pilots that are farmiliar with the port there is a team of Finnish personnel that know the area quite well that will aid the British surprise attack.
 
Let us look at a possible start of allied intervention. The Finnish government has appeared to the western allies for assistance and a planned dispatch of aid is made. the Finnish government has included sending personnel that know the port of Petsamo quite well.
The British have dispatched a force of well trained Royal Marines to strike at the port and capture it. The force is a reinforced Battalion with attached Artillery and At/AA weapons. The invasion force is place aboard several transports and lendlease destroyers. The invasion force includes a Royal Sovereign class battle ship and several cruisers as well as the transport and escort ships. The marines have spent several days training to capture the facilities pbased upon the plans and photogaphs that were provided.
In addition to pilots that are farmiliar with the port there is a team of Finnish personnel that know the area quite well that will aid the British surprise attack.
Aren't they better off sending troops somewhere with decent infrastructure and on the main front; in the South?

You're suggesting an amphibious attack a la Dieppe in midwinter near the Polar Circle with at most a few weeks preparation time. :eek:
Even Churchill didn't come up with crazy schemes like that. ;)

Why not ship troops, artillery and supplies in by ship and try to get them to the Southern front mostly by rail and truck.
If Sweden and Norway cooperate, it wouldn't suprise me if the Allies can get several brigades on the frontline within a week or two.

The French have some 20 000+ 75mm artillery and I doubt they need them all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_de_75_modèle_1897
A constant stream of these to Finland with plenty of ammunition and the Soviets are in for a suprise.

Come spring you'd consider an amphibious attack somewhere, when the weather is better and preperations have been made.
 
The Attack that I was considering was a limited one which would be designed to capture the port and hold it. The force would be a reinforced battalion and surprise would definatly be a factor. As I pointed out the invasion force would have the benefit of Finnish sailors who knew the waters of the area as well as personnel who had lived in the Petsamo area.
I would have the main force coduct a landing in Norway, with that government's approval and move by rail to Finland. The is no way that the allies could force their way through the Baltic so this is the only possible way to get there in time to make a difference. Naturally if the war continued into the spring I would have the allies carry out operations against Murmask.
 
The Attack that I was considering was a limited one which would be designed to capture the port and hold it. The force would be a reinforced battalion and surprise would definatly be a factor. As I pointed out the invasion force would have the benefit of Finnish sailors who knew the waters of the area as well as personnel who had lived in the Petsamo area.
I would have the main force coduct a landing in Norway, with that government's approval and move by rail to Finland. The is no way that the allies could force their way through the Baltic so this is the only possible way to get there in time to make a difference. Naturally if the war continued into the spring I would have the allies carry out operations against Murmask.

If the troops aren't going to be landed amphibiously, then where's the advantage of using them around Petsamo, near the Polar circle in the middle of winter? The chance of disasters happening is much larger than with my plan. IRL the Allied landings in Norway didn't go exactly perfect, even without any opposing enemies.
You're running much less risk by using rail to get these troops to the main Front, several hundreds of kilometers to the South.

In the South, there'll be more infrastructure which suits the Allied way of making war much better.
 
Let me restate the reason that I have the landing at Petsamo. It is a key port, location of important minerals and by holding it the allies would deney the Soviets the ability to threaten northern Finland as well as Norway and Sweden. There would be a landing but not a massive amphibious landing. A well equipped British force would be able to hold the port against a larger soviet force.
The main movement would be through Norway and Sweden by rail. The allied force could then move the rest of the way by rail to reinforce the main front. I would think that perhaps they might reinforce the Finnish forces north of the lake as the French Alpine and Polish Divisions would be more suited to operating in that area.
The allies would bring with them those extra 100,000 rifles and the 100x 75mm artillery pieces thus allowing the rearming of Finnish troups and of the overseas volunteers. I would propose that the Hungarian Volunteers and the Scandinavian-American Volunteers would be sent to the main front as would the Italian Volunteers. These forces would strengthen the main front by at least 25-30,000 men plus the guns. The British Division might join the main front or remain with the other allied divisions thus allowing more Finnish forces to be deployed to the south.
 
The allies arrival came as a total surprise to the Soviet Union. Those 100 75mm artillery pieces also gave the Finns a lot more hitting power. The allies volunteers(Hungarian, Italians, Americans, Norweigans, Sweds) greatly strengthen the central front. But it was on the front in central Finland that the allied Expeditionary froce made a big impression. With the help of the allies the Finns were able to destroy totally the soviet thust and carry the war back into the Soviet Union with Lighting raids.
 
Let us now say that the allied intervention has resulted in the total distruction of all soviet forces north of the Lake. In addition the Allied Intervention Corp with attached Finnish units has slowly moved to the east and is capable of inflicting major loses on Soviet forces attacking Finland on the Central front. The Finnish Commander in Chief has also been heavily reinforced with those 25-35,00 foreign volunteers and the 100 x 75mm guns. The RAF has arrived with enough aircraft to support the allied intervention force and additional aircraft have arrived for the expanding Finnish air force including a foreign volunteer force.
The soviets have suffered incredible manpower loses and the allies have struck at the oil fields causing serious damage. The soviet economy is in serious state of decline and thing appear to be getting worse.
Does Stalin withdraw and try to reach a settlement with the Finns and the west or does he continue the fight ?
 
The allies arrival came as a total surprise to the Soviet Union. Those 100 75mm artillery pieces also gave the Finns a lot more hitting power. The allies volunteers(Hungarian, Italians, Americans, Norweigans, Sweds) greatly strengthen the central front. But it was on the front in central Finland that the allied Expeditionary froce made a big impression. With the help of the allies the Finns were able to destroy totally the soviet thust and carry the war back into the Soviet Union with Lighting raids.
To have as much effect as possible, the idea IMHO would be to advertise the troops sent there by other countries to get the Soviets to back off. Besides, with the leaking of intelligence from the Western democracies especially towards the Soviets, I doubt they're going to be in the dark for long.

Also you haven't taken into account a single reaction by the Soviets.
As soon as you start destroying divisions, what is to stop Stalin from sending 70% or so of his army?
This will only piss the Soviets off and the chance of any halfway considerate peace-deal will be gone, instead the Soviets will fight on untill they can annex the Finns.
They don't really have a choice, too; the Finns are too dangerous in this scenario to let them co-exist with the SU.
 
It is very unliely that the Soviet Union would continue the war. To begin with the losses would start a chain reaction that could very well undermine Stalin's crasp on the reigns of power as well as demoralize the Red army. A major victory by the west might result in the Japanese once again clashing with the soviets , which would be a reason why Stalin could not throw 70% of the Red army against Finland.
While the west could not throw a lot more manpower into the area it could as industrial production improved send a lot more modern weapons to the Finns. This would gratly increase the Finnish armys ability to inflict loses on the soviets so heavy that they would be able to reach a far more reasonable settlement.
I have little doubt that the Soviet military would descover that they were facing a far more powerful opponet in Finland and with loses being heavier the Finns would gain some time to reorganize and rearm.
To win the war the west would need to strike at the soviets oil fields thus severly damaging the economy of the soviet union and its ability to fuel mechanized forces.
 
Ok, the allied intervention has resulted in the Soviets being unable to achieve the victory that they achieved in OTL. Between allied help and the volunteers the Fins have held there own and have even managed to regain some territory.
As a result of serious loses the Red army is looking to the work as a paper tiger. Morale in the army is poor and there could be lots of trouble for Stalin as the Baltic states are unhappy and would love to regain independence. The French and British have bombed the Soviet oil field inflicting serious damage to it and the Soviet economy.
British intelligence has been trying to set the soviet empire aflame by supporting groups that are hostile to the Communist state. Could it be that Stalin may have brought about the second Russian Civil War?
 
Top