Could a better Soviet performance in the Winter War butterfly Barbarossa?

I'm not exactly sure how this would happen, but assume the USSR did at least OK against Finland. Could the German perception of the Red Army be made realistic enough that the OKW decides to at least postpone invading the Soviet Union? IIRC the abysmal Soviet performance against Finland was a major contributing factor to the assessment on the part of both Germany and the Wallies that the Soviet Union could easily be defeated, and when Hitler did find out the truth (after the war began) he stated that had he known beforehand he might have decided differently.
 
Here is an extension of that..

Let's say they do better in the Winter War.. does that mean they do worse in the opening of the June offensives? Under the impression that nothing was all that bad
 
do they forge ahead if Finland will not participate? they might be country most influenced by better Soviet performance in Winter War.
 
Put Timoshenko in charge of the invasion from the beginning. He might fight a traditional infantry war, but at least he would be competent in doing it. Germans see a vanilla WW1 operation which ends up with no surprises so Hitler does not need to make any changes in his plans.
 
Why would Stalin's USSR take Finland seriously ITTL when it did not do that IOTL? The biggest single problem of the initial Soviet campaign against Finland was that it was really not a campaign at all, but merely a belligerent parade march that was based on the idea that after the first Soviet artillery barrage, the poorly armed and barely trained "White bandit" Finns would shit themselves, flee in disorder and their defence would collapse in front of the massed ranks of the mighty, modern Red Army, after which the Soviet units would move to occupy Finland and install a pro-Soviet government in Helsinki.

Now, many level-headed Red Army officers knew that the Finnish Army would not be an easy opponent, especially in the dead of winter, fighting in eminently defensible terrain (and had in the interwar actually written studies that warned against doing exactly what the Red Army did in late 1939). Stalin, though, had either purged such officers or would not listen to them, deriding them as "cowards". So, the problem for the OP would be to explain what ITTL causes Stalin to treat Finland as a credible enemy, not a pushover. Given Stalin's personality and the fact that the Red Army officers were by 1939 terrified of him, it is IMO hard to go around this obstacle.
 
If Stalin annexes Finland and the Red Army looks to the Germans like a first rate military power instead of a third rate one then yah it would have given Hitler serious pause.

Much of the top brass already had pause, but the Red Army conquering Finland just might tip the scales in the debate.
 
Why would Stalin's USSR take Finland seriously ITTL when it did not do that IOTL? The biggest single problem of the initial Soviet campaign against Finland was that it was really not a campaign at all, but merely a belligerent parade march that was based on the idea that after the first Soviet artillery barrage, the poorly armed and barely trained "White bandit" Finns would shit themselves, flee in disorder and their defence would collapse in front of the massed ranks of the mighty, modern Red Army, after which the Soviet units would move to occupy Finland and install a pro-Soviet government in Helsinki.

Now, many level-headed Red Army officers knew that the Finnish Army would not be an easy opponent, especially in the dead of winter, fighting in eminently defensible terrain (and had in the interwar actually written studies that warned against doing exactly what the Red Army did in late 1939). Stalin, though, had either purged such officers or would not listen to them, deriding them as "cowards". So, the problem for the OP would be to explain what ITTL causes Stalin to treat Finland as a credible enemy, not a pushover. Given Stalin's personality and the fact that the Red Army officers were by 1939 terrified of him, it is IMO hard to go around this obstacle.
Aye, there's the rub. Having the Great Stalin depart this vale of tears before the Officer's Purge would help. OTOH, without Stalin, would the Soviets even go into Finland? But, then, you would need a leader (Ivan S'notstalin?) who a) gets better spies into Germany, b) builds a competent Red Army, c) the Red Air Force prepared not to be caught flatfooted, and d) not selling war material to Germany right up to the invasion. But that's asking a hell of a lot from one S'notstalin.
 
If Stalin annexes Finland and the Red Army looks to the Germans like a first rate military power instead of a third rate one then yah it would have given Hitler serious pause.

Much of the top brass already had pause, but the Red Army conquering Finland just might tip the scales in the debate.

I'll refer to my above post. Let us say that Stalin now, for some unfathomable reason, considered Finland a credible enemy and ordered the Red Army to prepare a strong, smart campaign against the Finns, after which the Red Army breaks the Finnish lines in under four weeks and takes Helsinki by the end of 1939. Now, why would the Germans now think of Finland as anything more than a military midget? Nobody saw Finland really as a military power in 1939, and indeed the very fact that it took all those four weeks to conquer Finland might be seen in Germany (and Britain and France, as well) even as proof that the Red Army is not as strong as is said. Clearly, any serious modern military (like that of Germany, or Britain, or France) would have broken the Finns in half the time it took Stalin's forces.

IOTL, after all, only after Winter War it was learned that the Finnish military was more formidable than it looked. But in 1939 it looked like this:

1417648.jpg


It would be easy to file away the Soviet victory as just Finnish weakness, even while wondering how the mighty Red Army managed to take so long to break Finland's ragtag militia.
 
I'll refer to my above post. Let us say that Stalin now, for some unfathomable reason, considered Finland a credible enemy and ordered the Red Army to prepare a strong, smart campaign against the Finns, after which the Red Army breaks the Finnish lines in under four weeks and takes Helsinki by the end of 1939. Now, why would the Germans now think of Finland as anything more than a military midget? Nobody saw Finland really as a military power in 1939, and indeed the very fact that it took all those four weeks to conquer Finland might be seen in Germany (and Britain and France, as well) even as proof that the Red Army is not as strong as is said. Clearly, any serious modern military (like that of Germany, or Britain, or France) would have broken the Finns in half the time it took Stalin's forces.

IOTL, after all, only after Winter War it was learned that the Finnish military was more formidable than it looked. But in 1939 it looked like this.

It would be easy to file away the Soviet victory as just Finnish weakness, even while wondering how the mighty Red Army managed to take so long to break Finland's ragtag militia.

If your point is the Red Army still might not look like an 800 pound guerrilla if they did things right in the Winter War? Yah. But, they would end up keeping their place in the eyes of the Germans as a first rate military not to be taken lightly vs. a third rate military.
 
If your point is the Red Army still might not look like an 800 pound guerrilla if they did things right in the Winter War? Yah. But, they would end up keeping their place in the eyes of the Germans as a first rate military not to be taken lightly vs. a third rate military.

My point is that it is, under the circumstances while Stalin is the Soviet leader, very difficult for the Red Army to prevail over Finland in such a way that will not make it look worse than it actually was. The OTL was probably pretty much the worst case scenario, but under Stalin with his OTL hangups, the Red Army's reputation would still most likely take a beating in a Winter War. It might well look just a second-rate military instead of a third-rate one, but that might be the absolute best it could do, in terms of foreign perception, unless you replace Stalin with someone else.
 
Then fine let's say it's good enough to convince the Germans they are a second rate military action instead of a third rate one. Might Hitler still invade in 1941? Yes, but it also might make Stalin's idea of carving up Turkey a good placeholder a fair bit more attractive to Berlin at least as long as the British are in the war.
 
Technically, both JMC and DrakonFin are probably right: a better Soviet performance against the Finns would probably give Hitler a little more pause... but "giving a little more pause" isn't the same as "actually deterring".
 

Deleted member 1487

Technically, both JMC and DrakonFin are probably right: a better Soviet performance against the Finns would probably give Hitler a little more pause... but "giving a little more pause" isn't the same as "actually deterring".
Well considering that the Germans thought that they needed to defeat the Soviets totally on the border to have any chance of winning, if improved Soviet performance gave them the impression the Soviets would be able to fight effectively enough to drag out the campaign they wouldn't have launched the invasion. The entire campaign was predicated on the war being over by August and simply spending the rest of the year occupying the USSR and taking over its resources, not fighting a campaign into Winter or even the following year. Supposedly Hitler even told Guderian in August that had he known the Soviets had such a capacity for resistance he never would have attacked.
 
I'm not exactly sure how this would happen, but assume the USSR did at least OK against Finland. Could the German perception of the Red Army be made realistic enough that the OKW decides to at least postpone invading the Soviet Union? IIRC the abysmal Soviet performance against Finland was a major contributing factor to the assessment on the part of both Germany and the Wallies that the Soviet Union could easily be defeated, and when Hitler did find out the truth (after the war began) he stated that had he known beforehand he might have decided differently.

Immediate answer to the question in the headline: NO!

Hitler's decision to invade the USSR was not subject to random influences that could be randomly affected by a different outcome of the Winter War. If he decided differently, it would be a knock-on.

However, it is possible, in that butterflies from the Winter War could have affected other butterflyable events. For instance, if there was no Mechelen incident, and the Germans did not adopt SICHELSCHNITT, the war in the west could have become a stalemate. In which case it is most unlikely that Germany invades the USSR.

Now, the question intended: if the USSR did better in the Winter War, would Hitler have decided against invading the USSR?

I think the answer is still no. Soviet conquest of Finland was what everyone expected. Finland was believed no more capable of resisting the Soviet army than Estonia. The initial repulse of Soviet forces was embarrassing, and probably emboldened Hitler, but after crushing France, Hitler thought the German army was invincible. and most agreed.
 
Well considering that the Germans thought that they needed to defeat the Soviets totally on the border to have any chance of winning, if improved Soviet performance gave them the impression the Soviets would be able to fight effectively enough to drag out the campaign they wouldn't have launched the invasion. The entire campaign was predicated on the war being over by August and simply spending the rest of the year occupying the USSR and taking over its resources, not fighting a campaign into Winter or even the following year. Supposedly Hitler even told Guderian in August that had he known the Soviets had such a capacity for resistance he never would have attacked.

It's still tricky whether to know that it would be a sure-fire way to convince Hitler. It's not exactly as if the Germans (both Hitler and the rest) made their decision to invade on a rational analysis of the situation. It's probably one of those "most of the times it doesn't, but sometimes it might" kind of deals.
 

Deleted member 1487

It's still tricky whether to know that it would be a sure-fire way to convince Hitler. It's not exactly as if the Germans (both Hitler and the rest) made their decision to invade on a rational analysis of the situation. It's probably one of those "most of the times it doesn't, but sometimes it might" kind of deals.
Fair enough.
 
Immediate answer to the question in the headline: NO!

Hitler's decision to invade the USSR was not subject to random influences that could be randomly affected by a different outcome of the Winter War. If he decided differently, it would be a knock-on.

Hitler double crossing Stalin in 1941 was not set in stone, he hemmed and hawed about when Germany and the USSR should come to blows, and at times he thought it should wait many years. If he thinks he can't win the war in one campaigning season I don't think he goes for it with the British in the war.

A whole bunch of factors including doing better then he hoped for in France and the Red Army's poor performance in the Winter War convinced him that a one season knock out blow to the USSR was the likely outcome of war.
 
Immediate answer to the question in the headline: NO!

Hitler's decision to invade the USSR was not subject to random influences...

Hitler double crossing Stalin in 1941 was not set in stone...

You missed my point. I object strenuously to the use of "butterfly" in this context. Whatever decision Hitler arrived at would not be randomized by the difference in the Winter War.
 
You missed my point. I object strenuously to the use of "butterfly" in this context. Whatever decision Hitler arrived at would not be randomized by the difference in the Winter War.

If he decides the Red Army is strong enough by their showing in the Winter War that the German Army can't knock the USSR out in one fighting season then yes thing might change. Hitler at this point in time wasn't the complete demented fool of the Downfall parodies as yet.

It was set in stone in his mind he wanted a great Empire in the East, but the timing of getting it was not set in stone.
 
Top