Is finland losing the war a given thing from the start or is there any hope for them?
Last edited:
Define "victory" in this context.
Considering Finland lost a relatively small amount of territory, and didn't end up as a Soviet puppet, that's not much of a loss, all told.
No, they just have to do what Vietnam did to China in 1979: do well enough that it's easier for the USSR to walk away and say "we showed them who's boss!" than it is to keep fighting. Then they'll end the war without losing any territory. It requires slightly better performance than Finland achieved in OTL, though (I'm not sure how much better Vietnam did in 1979).Is finland losing the war a given then thing from the start or is there any hope for them?
No, they just have to do what Vietnam did to China in 1979: do well enough that it's easier for the USSR to walk away and say "we showed them who's boss!" than it is to keep fighting. Then they'll end the war without losing any territory. It requires slightly better performance than Finland achieved in OTL, though (I'm not sure how much better Vietnam did in 1979).
The only truly winning move was not to play. Best case would have been vigorous rearmament and a neutrality pact with Sweden pre-war.The OTL Winter War is pretty much the best case scenario for Finland.
The OTL Winter War is pretty much the best case scenario for Finland.
The only truly winning move was not to play. Best case would have been vigorous rearmament and a neutrality pact with Sweden pre-war.
How ASB would a Nordic defensive pact/armed neutrality have been? I can't see the Soviets, Nazis or WAllies wanting to take on Finland, Sweden, and Norway simultaneously.
How ASB would a Nordic defensive pact/armed neutrality have been? I can't see the Soviets, Nazis or WAllies wanting to take on Finland, Sweden, and Norway simultaneously.
How ASB would a Nordic defensive pact/armed neutrality have been? I can't see the Soviets, Nazis or WAllies wanting to take on Finland, Sweden, and Norway simultaneously.