Finnish army moves towards St. Petersburg 1941-42

I read a book about soviet experiences (first hand interviews) against finland in ww2, 41-45.

Some ex-soviet military who were interviewed said that they really wondered why finland didn't continue their push towards Leningrad after their advance in Karelian isthmus.

It was stated that the red army troops suffered from diseases and were in no condition to put up any major resistance. Well we do know why this push never happened, but what if the finns would have done it? What if they would have commited their troops to the siege of leningrad and Leningrad would have fallen? How would this have affected the policies of moscow and the morale of soviet people? What do you think?
 
The issue here is that the Finns have different war aims from the Germans. Indeed, the point is that the Finns are not participating in Operation Barbarossa, in the same way that Hungary, Italy, or Rumania were; the Finns only war objective was to regain the lost ground from the Russo-Finnish war of 1940. That is - they were fighting their war at the same time, rather than participating in the German war. Though granted, in order to fight their war there would be co-operation between the Germany & Finland.
If that had not been the case, i.e. Finland was part of the Axis, and took part in operations in Russia itself - rather than the perceived occupied Finnish territory, then Finland would have been treated must more severly by the russians than OTL.
Perhaps, Mannerheim wasn't that confident of German victory!!
 
Yes, finns did not continue their attack towards Leningrad coz that was the policy as you stated merlin. But the question is that What If? What if Mannerheim was eager to participate in the attack as German high command really wished him to? If Finns would have surrounded the Leningrad from north side and cut all access to even supply it during winter. The Leningrad would have fallen, what kind of effects would this have in short term to war? If Leningrad would have fallen like in september 1942, after being compeletely surrounded by finnish and german troops, and the germans still moving forward towards Caucasus and Stalingrad. Would the moral blow to red army be so mortal that they wouldn't have had the resolution to fight as fierce as they did in stalingrad? Or they would have to send those troops to northern front to relieve Leningrad that were used to encircle 6th Army in Stalingrad? Thus no stalingrad and no great victories by Red Army in 1942?
 
Well we do know why this push never happened, but what if the finns would have done it?

Any Finnish effort would have most probably failed. Finland had already crippling casualties, not only once, but twice, within a period of one year. First during Winter War, then during the offensive period of Continuation War Finland suffered casualties which were proportionally very heavy.
In Winter War alone, Finland suffered some 26 000 killed out of population of some 3,7 million.

In Autumn 1941 Finnish troops were exhausted, infantry units were in very low strength and ill-motivated as the advance over 1939 borders had never been popular. The mobilization of 1941 had been extremely extensive and the quality of army units was much lower than during the Winter War as bottom of the barrel in manpower had been scraped. Advance towards Leningrad might have well sparked a series of mutinies.

Then there are the technical issues. Finnish troops excelled in manouver warfare in the boreal forests. Advances against prepared defenses of Leningrad and the urban fighting in Leningrad itself would have been entirely different issue. Finnish troops lacked both experience and equipment to handle this kind of problems even if the troops had will the will for an assault against Leningrad.

In sum, any attack on Leningrad would have to be mainly a German effort and include very strong support for Finland if Finnish participation was required. This is certainly not impossible, but Finnish leadership did not certainly save Leningrad on issues of pity or humanitarian concerns. Taking Leningrad simply wasn't an option Finland could have unilaterally taken.
 
There where several major limiting factors

1. German attitudes towards the Finn's. Keitel was appointed to handle all the neogitiating and he had the military and technical knowledge of a house plant... a far superior choice would have been to employ Nicolas Von Falkenhorst (who was a close personal friend of Mannerheims and had served in Finland in WW1 and been an observer during the winter war) Falkenhorst should not only have handled the relations but should also have been given command of army group north (Leeb was no diplomatic and he and hitler hated each other which made AGN the last army group to carry favor in high command)

2. The Germans had no strategic reserves. If Germany had two good full strength corps of veteran infantry to put under Finnish command it could have spurred them to be more agressive

3. Hitler's decision to allow his war partners (not just finland but italy too) to conduct parallel as opposed to coalition war which necessarily made their efforts extremely disjointed

my open TL Rommel's Barbarossa is exploring this option
 

Bearcat

Banned
Whatever happens with Leningrad, if the Finns really piss off the Soviets, Finland gets the same fate as Latvia et al after the war.

OTL was probably close to the realistic best case scenario for Finland vis a vis the Soviets.
 

The Vulture

Banned
An attack like that by the Finns would have broken them utterly. It's possible that in the end, Finland would be one of many countries behind the Iron Curtain.
 

King Thomas

Banned
If the Finns take Leningrad, when the Soviets win they get beaten the crap out of and occupied until at least 1991 and maybe longer.
 

Old Airman

Banned
If that had not been the case, i.e. Finland was part of the Axis, and took part in operations in Russia itself - rather than the perceived occupied Finnish territory, then Finland would have been treated must more severly by the russians than OTL.
I just freaking LOVE the attitude. Finnish co-operation in the siege of Leningrad (one that starved 600 K of civvies to death and caused 400K more to die trying to evacuate, to a grand total of 1 freaking million) isn't something worth noting and Finnish noble restraint deserves much praise.

Now, back to practical aspects of POD. 1st, as Jukra said, there's no guarantee that all-out Finnish push toward Leningrad would bear fruits. 2nd, fall of the city would free not only German forces used to maintain the blockade IOTL but also Soviet forces involved into relief effort (even assuming that whole Leningrad front is lost, which is ASB in and by itself, a lot of people survived even in hopeless Sevastopol to fight another day), which weren't insignificant. So net gains wouldn't be as huge as you expect. 3rd, blow to the Soviet morale is hard to predict. It might be great, it might (after mind-numbing losses of Minsk, Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa, Smolensk there's not a lot of things to stun Soviet peoples more) be negligible. 4th, Finnish post-war territorial losses would, most likely, be bigger, but main driver would be Stalin's security paranoia, not his desire to get even with Finns. OTL he had been content with 1940 border and long-term lease on Porkkala (which caused Finns to have their guts in knots with full Western support of the feeling, as Helsinki was within range of Porkkala batteries; Soviet concern that Leningrad was within range of Finnish batteries between 1918 and 1940 is universally considered Soviet paranoia). ITTL Porkkala might be outright annexed a-la Gibraltar, together with Hanko. Finns might find a new Soviet-Finnish border drawn right at Eastern end of Helsinki's city border, just to discourage any future ideas of being naughty. Turku might be annexed too, theoretically, although I don't see how Soviets could profit from that (may be in order to show Swedes who's the new boss of the Baltic pond). I don't see Finland absorbed whole for much the same reason Romania (which was wading waist-deep in blood of the Soviet civvies IOTL, so USSR had a lot of reasons to get even with them) and Poland weren't. But Sovetization is possible.
 
I just freaking LOVE the attitude. Finnish co-operation in the siege of Leningrad (one that starved 600 K of civvies to death and caused 400K more to die trying to evacuate, to a grand total of 1 freaking million) isn't something worth noting and Finnish noble restraint deserves much praise.

On the other hand the situation in which Finnish troops participated in siege of Leningrad was entirely Stalin's own making. Like Pearl Harbor did not bring Japan Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere the Winter War did not bring Soviet Union nothing but misery. Unfortunately Stalin was not the one to bear the price of provoking Finland to rash actions. In case of Japan and Germany while the population bore the brunt of Allied counteractions at least many of the leaders got what they deserved in post-war trials.
 

wormyguy

Banned
If the Finns take Leningrad, when the Soviets win they get beaten the crap out of and occupied until at least 1991 and maybe longer.
Indeed. They'd almost certainly be annexed, and possibly to the Russian SFSR with copious amounts of population replacement.
 

Old Airman

Banned
On the other hand the situation in which Finnish troops participated in siege of Leningrad was entirely Stalin's own making.
Read http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Si...nt+within+range+of+Soviet+guns/1076154119137:

artillery batteries were set up on the peninsula and pointed towards Helsinki: they were so close that they could have more or less literally dissolved Parliament without difficulty.
I will admit Stalin's guilt (he provoked a war with hostile power 30 km from USSR city#2) if you admit entire Finnish population were suffering comparable case of paranoia. One Soviet paranoic versus 3 mln or so Finnish :) :) :)

copious amounts of population replacement.
ASB. Settlement? Probably (all Baltic regions didn't have enough labour force). Deportation of money classes and "nationalists"? Surely.
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
Read http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Si...nt+within+range+of+Soviet+guns/1076154119137:

I will admit Stalin's guilt (he provoked a war with hostile power 30 km from USSR city#2) if you admit entire Finnish population were suffering comparable case of paranoia. One Soviet paranoic versus 3 mln or so Finnish :) :) :)

Airman,
When I hit this link it comes up in Finnish (I assume), not English.

On the main subject,
I thought Finland’s survival was because Stalin diverted the forces needed to take Helsinki south to join in the drive into Germany. It wasn’t because of any generous feelings regarding Finnish restraint.
If Stalin had had more forces or felt he could spare the troops for another six weeks Finland would have been part of the Eastern Block.
 
I will admit Stalin's guilt (he provoked a war with hostile power 30 km from USSR city#2) if you admit entire Finnish population were suffering comparable case of paranoia. One Soviet paranoic versus 3 mln or so Finnish :) :) :)

Finland did not impose restrictions upon building up defenses or building up Soviet Armed Forces among other things. But of course there always must be a justification. After all, when you look at it, France, for example, is simply adjacent to Germany and a good offensive base against it. Thus it's merely logical that German borders should be on Pyrenees. Or whatever. Whenever there's will, there will be justification for more bases and more people to be oppressed.

After all, Czechoslovakia and Poland did pose a security threat towards Nazi Germany and thus simply had to be eliminated alongside Jews. Common sense, isn't it? After all, when a dictator has decided something it must be based on some sensible line of thought.

If you want to get technical, Finns did invade Red Russia (not government forces, volunteers) and it never invaded Finland pre-1939.

If one doesn't count involvement in Finnish Civil War, the Pork Mutiny, support for Finnish Communist Party (with stated goal of incorporating Finland to Soviet Union after a violent revolution establishing a dictatorship, all written down neatly in party program) etc...
 

Old Airman

Banned
Finland did not impose restrictions upon building up defenses or building up Soviet Armed Forces among other things. But of course there always must be a justification. After all, when you look at it, France, for example, is simply adjacent to Germany and a good offensive base against it. Thus it's merely logical that German borders should be on Pyrenees. Or whatever. Whenever there's will, there will be justification for more bases and more people to be oppressed.
Same old, same old. When my gun is at other guy's head, it is only prudent. When other guy's gun is at my head, it is outrageous. Stalin didn't put Finnish civvies into camps en masse when he could. Finns did brutalize Soviet civvies when they could. Finns, however, are good guys. I'm not going to discuss it anymore.

If one doesn't count involvement in Finnish Civil War
What universe are you from? Even WP (which never fails to accuse Reds of sins) says "Although some 60,000 to 80,000 Russian soldiers of the former Tsar's army remained stationed in Finland at the start of the Civil War, the Russian contribution to the Red Guards' cause was to prove negligible."
the Pork Mutiny
One week-long cross-border raid (did those guys managed to kill a single person) versus years of guerilla activity (hundreds of civvies murdered). Yeah, right.
the Pork Mutiny, support for Finnish Communist Party (with stated goal of incorporating Finland to Soviet Union after a violent revolution establishing a dictatorship, all written down neatly in party program) etc...
I don't count such insignificant things as harbouring political dissidents hell-bent on violent overthrowing of ruling regime. If you do, you must admit that USSR had a lawful cause to invade every country in Europe, as White emigre paramilitary organizations were everywhere (Finland included).
 
Stalin didn't put Finnish civvies into camps en masse when he could. Finns did brutalize Soviet civvies when they could.

Stalin didn't get his hands on enough Finnish civilians. The few which ended up in Soviet hands during the Winter War were sent to various working camps. Thankfully their time during internment was short. During the Continuation War Soviet partisans also killed whoever Finnish civilians they did run into during their forays to Northern Finland. It is true that Finnish troops did also put some of the Soviet population into internment camps in 1941 where deaths were more numerous than among free civilian population. Overall the civilian casualties were still low.

However, like Soviets, Finnish army did treat it's POW's brutally during the Continuation War. Although the percentage of deaths was much lower than in Soviet case the number of those perished was much higher.

What universe are you from?

In an universe in which every weapon the Red Guards used was willingly provided to them by Russian soldiers, there was no other source for them for the Reds. It is usually estimated that about 7000-10000 Red Russian soldiers served among Red troops.
 

Cook

Banned
Arguing the merits of one side or the other on the Eastern Front in World War Two is the top of a well greased slippery dip ending in a padded room and strong medication.

From all accounts it was as close to hell on Earth as you could get for the poor average bastard on either side, created and perpetuated by true believers with “either with us or against us” and “Can’t make an omelette without cracking eggs” attitudes.
 
Top