No Soviet Conquest of Baltics, War with Finland

Soviet losses from Baltic guerillas in 1941 were negligibly small comparing to their losses in fight with Nazi, so Soviet did not loose much because of local Baltic population being hostile. But they did have extra 1000 kms to fight Nazi off. FYI, 1000 km East of Moscow is where Urals region starts.

Key word "in 1941."

There was guerrilladom in the Baltics until the 1970s.

Furthermore, the hostile Baltic population provided a good recruiting ground for the Germans--IIRC there were entire SS divisions raised in the Baltics.
 
Soviet militaries in Baltic pre-1940 were air force bases and supply depots, localized, without significant infantry components or tank and prohibited by agreements from building fortified defences. Guess how much they are gonna last under combined attack of advancing Germans and their local allies, who know Soviet bases better than palms of their hand. I guess Danish defence would seem long-lasting in comparison.

If the Soviets did not rape the Baltic states, the Germans would have a lot fewer, if any, "local allies."
 
If the Soviets did not rape the Baltic states, the Germans would have a lot fewer, if any, "local allies."

I think you severely underestimate just how much people disliked the Soviet system. People throughout eastern Europe didn't suddenly go *oh, the USSR is evil* when it leaned on the Baltic states and invaded Finland. I don't think it was much of a surprise to anyone.

I also really struggle to see how you imagine it would take almost any time at all for Germany to plow through the Baltic states. They would fold almost as fast as German Panzers could advance. That is if the Soviets don't have forces there already or don't invade soon after the declaration of war in an attempt to take some ground.

Furthermore, the hostile Baltic population provided a good recruiting ground for the Germans--IIRC there were entire SS divisions raised in the Baltics.

One entire division on a front with hundreds isn't exactly going to be that drastic a change. Arguably the Germans shall probably recruit a division anyway. The problem wasn't so much manpower from the conquered peoples (even as they were being repressed and killed) but equipment and the logistical capacity of supporting them at the front. If you can only support five divisions with food and fuel in such and such a region sending in six doesn't really improve things, infact it makes it worse.
 
I also really struggle to see how you imagine it would take almost any time at all for Germany to plow through the Baltic states. They would fold almost as fast as German Panzers could advance. That is if the Soviets don't have forces there already or don't invade soon after the declaration of war in an attempt to take some ground.

Conquering Poland IIRC took around six weeks. The Baltics are smaller but they're also farther away.

Furthermore, would the Baltics fall any faster than they did as Soviet-annexed provinces?
 
Conquering Poland IIRC took around six weeks. The Baltics are smaller but they're also farther away.

Furthermore, would the Baltics fall any faster than they did as Soviet-annexed provinces?

Poland is far larger than the Baltic countries and was much more potent as a military threat. The population of Lithuania in 1940 was approximately 3 million with Latvia at about 2 million and Estonia was smaller still. Poland had a population in the region of 30-35 million at the time of invasion. While population figures might be a somewhat dubious way of comparing nations military might all in all the Baltics are not credible as an independent military force. A simple glance at a map will show the respective sizes of Poland as supposed to the Baltic states. As an example I think Poland raised a force about the same size as the population of Estonia. I think the Baltic countries would provide about as much resistance as Denmark, perhaps lasting a little longer by virtue of their worse infrastructure and the greater distance to cover from Memel to Tallinn.

In short I think we are talking mere days for a German attack to sweep through the Baltics rather than weeks. Imaginging Germany panzers will not simply sweep aside a handful of hastilly raised divisions, should the Baltic governments not immediately capitulate, seems wishful thinking of the highest degree. I think it took between one and two months from the start of Barbarossa to claim these territories, here they may well be under German occupation inside a week. That is if there are no Soviet forces there already.
 
One wonders whether the continued existence of independent Baltic states might have the unexpected major consequence of swaying Hitler's mind towards working with minorities.
I afraid only if one is obsessed with proving irrational dogma that leaving hostile territories next to your industrial heartland in a wake of struggle for survival was a really great idea for USSR's leadership. If anything, Stalin's annexion just heightened Baltics' willingness to work with Nazi. They became pre-fabricated just-add-water eager allies of Germans, begging Nazi leadership to let them collaborate. But even that eagernes did not lead Hitler toward pro-minority policy. What make you think that he would think otherwise if there's no invasion? Especially when he thought about Estonians and Latvians, who were German serfs fo 6-7 centuries. Work with governments of serfs, who started their regime with kicking their German barons out? Yeah, that's really really typical of Herr Hitler.

Key word "in 1941."

There was guerrilladom in the Baltics until the 1970s.
Guerilla had been dealt with before Stalin's death. Several crazy people who hid in woods on principle after that were more of local attraction, widely known secrets, and were tolerated as soon as they were non-violent. But as far as I understand we're talking about pre-1945, aren't we?

Furthermore, the hostile Baltic population provided a good recruiting ground for the Germans--IIRC there were entire SS divisions raised in the Baltics.
Balts' eagerness to serve Nazi has more complex explanation than Soviet brutality. After all, Soviets subjected Western Ukraine and Western Belarus to the same treatment in 1939-1940. Did they serve Nazi? Nosiree, they joined AK and OUN, nationalist movements that fought both Nazi and Reds (Edit - I should say that OUN was much more interesting in fighting Reds, but they still did not serve Germans with such unwavering eagerness). Germans were able to recruit single Ukrainian Waffen SS division (from 10 times more population) only after they made a lot of concessions to Ukrainians, including Orthodox priests, separate oath of allegiance and such.

Conquering Poland IIRC took around six weeks.
Polish government left Warsaw by Sep. 6 and Germans took every significant city and/or railroad station West of future Soviet-German border by Sep. 15 (couple of days before the Soviet invasion).

Furthermore, would the Baltics fall any faster than they did as Soviet-annexed provinces?
It took Germans 2 weeks to get through Poland. It took them two months to get through Red Army defending Baltic territories (Tallinn fell sometimes during last week of August). Well, that's pretty much answers your question, doesn't it?
 
One knock on effect of no winter war would be no reforms of the Soviet Military. Expect them to get hammered moreso than OTL when the Germans do invade... Which they might do later than OTL perhaps choosing to focus on the British first without the Winter War showing the Red Army to be incompetent...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Brothers

Nitpicking on how long guerrilla resistance lasted in the Baltics.

And why did the Soviets annex the Baltics and want the same for Finland? They had basing rights already in the Baltics already--that would satisfy any theoretical defensive needs on the Soviets' part.

Methinks there was a fair bit of imperialism, whether Russian imperialism in Bolshevik garb or full-on Communism expansion, involved.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Brothers

Nitpicking on how long guerrilla resistance lasted in the Baltics.

A minor annoyance, compared to the mortal threat the Third Reich poses.

And why did the Soviets annex the Baltics and want the same for Finland? They had basing rights already in the Baltics already--that would satisfy any theoretical defensive needs on the Soviets' part.

Didn't CanadianGoose already answer this?

CanadianGoose said:
Soviet militaries in Baltic pre-1940 were air force bases and supply depots, localized, without significant infantry components or tank and prohibited by agreements from building fortified defences
 
Ah. Thing is, given the predominance of Soviet power, why not force through another agreement allowing fortification rather than annex outright?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Brothers

Nitpicking on how long guerrilla resistance lasted in the Baltics.
Wikipedia is notoriously screwed as far as Baltic history is concerned. In any given time there's no less than dozen cases involving all kinds of destructive behaviour are prosecuted by admins, arbcoms and such. But even with that, this article generally echoes my statement - guerilla became extinct by 1955. And, truth be told, it stopped to be major nuisance around 1950.

Methinks there was a fair bit of imperialism, whether Russian imperialism in Bolshevik garb or full-on Communism expansion, involved.
I would not deny chances of that. By late 1930s Stalin saw former Russian Empire (all all it's bits and pieces) as his natural domain. It is no co-incidence that 1945 Soviet border mirrored old Imperial border within 1oo miles (except SOviet-Polish border, where it was close to the Curzon Line).
 
In fact the only reason Hitler didn't receive much more in the way of support from Ukrainians is because he could not bring himself to treat Slavs with any shred of courtesy and respect.

He gained several divisions from the Baltic States because he was willing to treat them with far more decency that the Ukrainians, not because the Balts were somehow inherently more pro-German or anti-Soviet.

Indeed, when the German forces entered the Ukraine they were greeted with great warmth, as the Ukrainians incorrectly but understandably found it quite impossible to imagine that they would have to cope with first Stalin and then someone even worse.

Which is fortunate for the world. Had Hitler managed in this one instance to get around his bigotry...well, Stalin would have sued for peace no later than early 1943, probably yielding Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic States, probably other border regions. Then we would have had the options of a triumphant Third Reich or the US using enough atomic weapons to break Germany and the Euro-Axis.

The former would put the world's survival at risk, the latter would probably mean effective genocide for most of the nations of Europe.:(
 
Wikipedia is notoriously screwed as far as Baltic history is concerned. In any given time there's no less than dozen cases involving all kinds of destructive behaviour are prosecuted by admins, arbcoms and such. But even with that, this article generally echoes my statement - guerilla became extinct by 1955. And, truth be told, it stopped to be major nuisance around 1950.
AFAIK in Lithuania military organization was crushed in 1947. The later groups acted mostly independently with little if any coordination.

</div>
 
Top