Finland Without the Continuation War?

I was wondering, what would be the likely effects if the Finns hadn't launched the Continuation War in 1941? Assume for the moment that Finland does better in the Winter War still having to cede the Riybachi peninsula and Salla as in our timeline plus Petsamo in the north, in the south however the border runs from just south-east of Hoilola down to the centre of Valaam island and then south-west roughly parallel to the modern border allowing then to retain more of Karelia and Viborg. There's no lease of the Hanko peninsula but they do still have to cede the five islands of Suursaari, Tytarsaari, Lavansaari, Peninsaari, and Seiskari in the Gulf of Finland.

With that being the case if the German invasion of Norway a month or so later had failed giving Finland a land border, albeit in the far north, with the Allies do people think it would be enough to make the Finns feel sufficiently secure in their position to declare armed neutrality rather than joining the Germans? If they decided to remain neutral I could see them doing like a number of other countries did and declaring war on Germany when if was obvious that they were losing and no longer a threat, in Finland's case probably after the Battle of Kursk, and inviting a small number of Western Allied military units into the country from Norway to help 'co-ordinate' things. Without an Allied Control Commission, no guilt from the Continuation War as in our timeline, and by dint of being on the winning side a founder member of the United Nations what does this do for Finnish-Soviet relations? Do they still get Finlandised or are they able to chart a more independent path?
 
I suspect they probably still get Finlandised. Depends more on the particulars of the ramp-up to the Cold War, IMHO, then it does on staying neutral. Couldn't hurt, though.
 
Not sure whether Finland is too small or if I just picked a bad point of divergence, either way bumping the thread one time before letting it sink down the front pages. :)
 
Well, it is not an easy scenario to realize. For one thing, I don't think it is realistic to expect Finland get out of the Winter War as lightly as you suggest: as it is, the peace terms were seen as humiliating for the USSR, and it is hard to see Stalin settling for anything less.

Then the question of what Finland would do if Germany can't manage to take Norway in 1940. I think I have earlier suggested a circa 30% possibility that Finland allies with the Germans anyway for Barbarossa. Finland needs two things, military support from a major nation, and trade with the outside world for food, fuels, etc, to keep itself independent and alive. Germany, even without taking Norway, could block the Baltic Sea from the Finns and as 90% of Finnish trade was carried on ships, not being able to use the Danish straits (and the Kiel Canal) would make it mighty hard to keep trade going. After that, even Norway being free, a Finland that does not ally with Hitler would be at the mercy of Swedish and Allied goodwill simply to keep its people from starving. And even if Finland manages to stay neutral in 1940-41, it would be virtually blockaded by two great powers in the Baltic Sea area. After Barbarossa predictably starts, Finland runs the risk of being alone and being invaded by the Soviets or the Germans (or both), wanting to use its area for their own purposes. With luck, such an invasion (or even an attempt at such) could be avoided, of course, but 41-43 especially would be pretty tense towards both Berlin and Moscow.

After the war, if Finland has still managed to stay out of it, there is a high chance Stalin and his successors would seek to make Finland into a part of the Soviet bloc. Some level of Finlandization, as understood today, is probably inevitable, though Finland might be in some ways in a better position to avoid Soviet influence - and in some ways worse. As the far right has not been put down as decisively as they were IOTL after the war, and as the Civil Guards and the Lotta Svärd and similar organizations are not disbanded, things could be dicy in terms of internal politics. Add the growth of the far left, with Soviet support, and the late 40s and early 50s could be really tumultuous in Finland - the Communists, with Soviet support, would still demand banning the nationalist organizations and parties as "Fascist", but as the nationalist right would have its power bases, they would not give up easily.

Thus, ITTL's 50s and 60s would probably seem like a combination of the OTL 20s and 30s and the postwar decades. This would be a more militarized nation, and as IOTL, parties like the Agrarians and the SDP, the sane moderates among the center-right and center-left would have to work hard to keep things from getting out of control, one way or the other - to curtail the far right on one side, and to resist Communist power and Soviet influence on the other. As it was IOTL, post-1944 the far right was broken and the nationalists for the most part went "underground" or joined the moderates after the war, to fight a common enemy on the left. ITTL, with the nationalist right its own independent bloc, the moderate center would be comparatively weaker, which would not be good for stability.
 
Last edited:
Top