No Winter War

The offer by the Soviet Union to take lands, islands in the Gulf of Finland, and have the border defenses brought down was not fully rejected by the Finnish government at the time. It is said that the Finnish government was divided on the subject. More over it made counter offers which showed it was not against giving up lands.

WI Finland and Russia came to an agreement concerning borders, and land? Without the Winter War does WWII change in any significant way?
 
WI Finland and Russia came to an agreement concerning borders, and land? Without the Winter War does WWII change in any significant way?


Hitler doesn't think the USSR is "a rotting structure, ready to fall apart with a good kick", and thus prepares for a hard fight. At the same time, Stalin doesn't realize how bad a shape his purges have left the Red Army in.


Germany does even better than OTL against the Soviet Union.
 

Cook

Banned
Hitler doesn't think the USSR is "a rotting structure, ready to fall apart with a good kick", and thus prepares for a hard fight. At the same time, Stalin doesn't realize how bad a shape his purges have left the Red Army in.


Germany does even better than OTL against the Soviet Union.



Was Hitler’s assessment based on the Winter War?
And did Stalin really do much to improve the Soviet defences after the debacle of the Winter War?

I’ve always been persuaded by the argument that if Hitler hadn’t diverted forces south towards Kiev delaying the attack on Moscow then he’d have won.
 
The offer by the Soviet Union to take lands, islands in the Gulf of Finland, and have the border defenses brought down was not fully rejected by the Finnish government at the time. It is said that the Finnish government was divided on the subject. More over it made counter offers which showed it was not against giving up lands.

WI Finland and Russia came to an agreement concerning borders, and land? Without the Winter War does WWII change in any significant way?

Expect, then, a Soviet invasion of Finland in 1940-41. Something resembling the events that took place in a few other small nations bordering the USSR at that time.
 

Cook

Banned
Expect, then, a Soviet invasion of Finland in 1940-41. Something resembling the events that took place in a few other small nations bordering the USSR at that time.

So you are saying that if the Finns had given in to the Soviet land demands the result would just have been an attack later by the Soviets anyway and the Soviet start point would have been better?

Didn’t the Winter War took place because the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact put Finland in the Soviet Sphere, along with the other Baltic States, except the Finns decided not to play ball?
 
Can't We All Just Get Along?

So you are saying that if the Finns had given in to the Soviet land demands the result would just have been an attack later by the Soviets anyway and the Soviet start point would have been better?

Didn’t the Winter War took place because the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact put Finland in the Soviet Sphere, along with the other Baltic States, except the Finns decided not to play ball?
The Soviet attack on Finland was such a naked act of aggression only the Japanese and Nazis did better. Yes, the Soviets did make offers, but to say yes means an early start to Finlandization. Still, the Soviets would be left in a bind in that they "played nice", were rewarded, and pretty much are now in a position where Finland is their "friend" and you don't attack friends.
But the Finns can be in a position to do some hard bargaining THEMSELVES assuming Barbarossa goes forward. Like, "Strict neutrality if we don't get our lands back. We get them back, and you get back the worthless forests you gave us. Do this, and you have a full military alliance, basing rights in Finland for the Red Navy and Air Force, with open supplies coming into Leningrad from the Swedish-Finnish rail system."

What does Stalin do? A limited "Lend-Lease" lifeline coming into Russia breaking (or preventing) the Siege of Leningrad, saving between one to two million lives. Even Stalin won't snort at THOSE kind of numbers. Especially when it could mean a viable full-fledged northern front throughout the entire war.

Two questions really: [1)Are the Finns too dedicated as Anti-Communists to genuinely ally with the USSR?] I don't mean Finns fighting for the Soviets. Just sending supplies and providing a safe northern flank.
[2) Is Stalin too obdurate to accept an actual Ally?] Particularly if it comes with a hefty price tag, namely switching back the traded territories... :p
 
Last edited:
Hitler doesn't think the USSR is "a rotting structure, ready to fall apart with a good kick", and thus prepares for a hard fight. At the same time, Stalin doesn't realize how bad a shape his purges have left the Red Army in.


Germany does even better than OTL against the Soviet Union.

I'm not sure.
Lacking the winter war, the earlier precedent for CCCP warfare is the Soviet-Polish war of the early '20, in which the CCCP army performed even worse
 
The Soviet attack on Finland was such a naked act of aggression only the Japanese and Nazis did better. Yes, the Soviets did make offers, but to say yes means an early start to Finlandization. Still, the Soviets would be left in a bind in that they "played nice", were rewarded, and pretty much are now in a position where Finland is their "friend" and you don't attack friends.

If the Finns "play ball" and give away areas vital for national defense, Stalin will think they lack the will to fight and aims to give Finland something like the treatment Estonia got IOTL. Regime change, that is. The blueprints were there, and don't forget that the Balts were friends to the USSR too.

I'd like to think the Finnish army would mount a resistance, but if the defensive line on the isthmus is compromised, there are already Soviet bases inside Finnish borders (Hanko, frex) and the invasion takes place in the summer 1940, Finland would be in big trouble.

But the Finns can be in a position to do some hard bargaining THEMSELVES assuming Barbarossa goes forward. Like, "Strict neutrality if we don't get our lands back. We get them back, and you get back the worthless forests you gave us. Do this, and you have a full military alliance, basing rights in Finland for the Red Navy and Air Force, with open supplies coming into Leningrad from the Swedish-Finnish rail system."

What does Stalin do? A limited "Lend-Lease" lifeline coming into Russia breaking (or preventing) the Siege of Leningrad, saving between one to two million lives. Even Stalin won't snort at THOSE kind of numbers. Especially when it could mean a viable full-fledged northern front throughout the entire war.

Two questions really: [1)Are the Finns too dedicated as Anti-Communists to genuinely ally with the USSR?] I don't mean Finns fighting for the Soviets. Just sending supplies and providing a safe northern flank.
[2) Is Stalin too obdurate to accept an actual Ally?] Particularly if it comes with a hefty price tag, namely switching back the traded territories... :p

I don't think a Finland that "plays ball" has nearly the bargaining position you think it would. IOTL Stalin had some grudging respect towards Finland because of the Winter War. There would be no such thing ITTL.

Oh, a USSR- allied Finland would get some serious territories in Karelia from Stalin... If the country went Communist and was ruled by one Otto Wille Kuusinen. But the eastern border of that nation might become an internal border within the USSR pretty soon.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The offer by the Soviet Union to take lands, islands in the Gulf of Finland, and have the border defenses brought down was not fully rejected by the Finnish government at the time. It is said that the Finnish government was divided on the subject. More over it made counter offers which showed it was not against giving up lands.

WI Finland and Russia came to an agreement concerning borders, and land? Without the Winter War does WWII change in any significant way?
You give them a finger, ant they take the whole hand. Finland is doomed.
 

Old Airman

Banned
At the same time, Stalin doesn't realize how bad a shape his purges have left the Red Army in.
Actually Nomonhan (although victorious) did a lot to reveal Red Army's shortcomings, as well as "Liberation March" (annexation of territories East of Curzon Line) and experience of Spanish Civil War did. And Soviet leadership was very busy analyzing those lessons. People tend to think that ANY changes in Red Army, started later than 1st day of the Winter War, were direct result of the war. Completely ignoring the simple fact that huge highly bureaucratic structure of the army and Party-controlled state need some time to develop a plan for reforms, at very least. I would argue that precious few of changes started before Summer 1940 had been influenced by the Winter War.

And did Stalin really do much to improve the Soviet defences after the debacle of the Winter War?
Let's put it this way. He did a lot to change Red Army between summer 1939 and summer 1941. Were those changes for good or for bad is a matter of discussion.

Expect, then, a Soviet invasion of Finland in 1940-41. Something resembling the events that took place in a few other small nations bordering the USSR at that time.
Romanian experience proves that ceding part of territory to Stalin does not generate future demands. I understand that "we had no alternative" is a cornerstone of the Finnish lore, but it is not necessarily true.

The Soviet attack on Finland was such a naked act of aggression only the Japanese and Nazis did better.
Let me expand your knowledge:
1938 - Poland participates in Nazi dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, nibbling on it's territory.
1938 - Hungary participates in Nazi dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, nibbling on it's territory.
1939 - Hungary attacks Slovakia to get a piece of it's territory.
1939 - Slovakia teams up with Nazi to get part of Polish territory.
1940 - Hungary takes some territory from Romania, under German guns.
1940 - Bulgaria takes Southern Dobrudja from Romania.
Is Stalin too obdurate to accept an actual Ally?
Stalin was willing to accept any ally at this point. Remember, an idea of American and British forces fighting on the Eastern Front had been discussed seriously. So, would Finns offer such a deal, talks would happen. Now, I don't believe in him accepting pre-1939 Status Quo without some face-saving measure (like keeping a 100-meter wide strip of land along the Finnish side of the old border), but Finns would be under a serious pressure to reach an agreement too (they would perfectly understand that Joe's goodwill would last only while he's desperate).
Stalin invention of a 'Finnish government' in exile certainly did not suggest good motives on his part...
Yes, although it must be said that Terijoki Government was a hasty wartime invention. Very likely, it popped up only after talks collapsed.
 
Romanian experience proves that ceding part of territory to Stalin does not generate future demands. I understand that "we had no alternative" is a cornerstone of the Finnish lore, but it is not necessarily true.

When you look at the additional secret protocol to the MR pact, Finland is clumped together with the (other) Baltic states in the first part, and we know what happened to Estonia, Latvia and (after a revised deal) Lithuania. The Soviet interest into Bessarabia is mentioned specifically and in a latter part of the text: had Karelia (or just the isthmus) been mentioned in the same way, I might believe Stalin had no further designs on Finland. Besides, you might agree that Romania is strategically somewhat different from a country that "could reach Leningrad with its artillery", one which controls (together with poor Estonia) the sea approaches to the city and is in a position to menace the USSRs only Atlantic port.

The USSR did make new military plans in the Fall of 1940 for a renewed invasion of Finland in the near future. In these new plans, up to 50 divisions, 800 tanks and 3900 airplanes were slated to take part in the attack, after the 1940 Moscow Peace had more than satisfied all demands Finland could have possibly accepted in 1939. Considering this together with the fate of the Baltic states, I can't accept the viewpoint that Stalin would have just let Finland go with some (to the USSR) negligible border changes in 1939.
 
DrakonFin summed it up perfectly.

Where Hitler's partnership with Stalin granted Stalin part of a country Stalin took part of that country. Where it granted Stalin an entire nation then Stalin went for the entire nation. In Finland's fortunate case the Soviets suffered losses sufficient to deter conquest.

And Stalin grabbed not only Bessarabia from Romania but North Bukovina, a part not granted to him under Ribbentrop-Molotov.



Nice try glossing over the Soviet invention of a puppet regime but nothing changes the fact that Finland had every reason to assume that puppet was their future if they were unable to fight the Soviets sufficiently. And talks collapsed because the Soviet demands were quite rightly unacceptable to Finland.
 
I'd like to think the Finnish army would mount a resistance, but if the defensive line on the isthmus is compromised, there are already Soviet bases inside Finnish borders (Hanko, frex) and the invasion takes place in the summer 1940, Finland would be in big trouble.

On the other hand the Finnish Army will be far better equipped to handle any invasion attempt and Soviets will find Karelian isthmus far more difficult territory to advance than during Winter when swamps and lakes were frozen. North of Lake Ladoga Finnish troops will still be vastly superior to Soviet forces due to superior small-unit tactics as they were in 1941.

The political situation would be, however, much more difficult. Even without Operation Weserübung having taken place one might assume France has fallen and any latent threat of Franco-British intervention will not be there. Germany might not probably risk it's preparation time for Barbarossa to save an Untermensch Finland (it's military reputation was solely made during Winter War). Thus, if Stalin wants to, he can press on for as long as he likes, unlike in Spring 1940.
 

Old Airman

Banned
When you look at the additional secret protocol to the MR pact, Finland is clumped together with the (other) Baltic states in the first part, and we know what happened to Estonia, Latvia and (after a revised deal) Lithuania.
On the flip side, while Baltics were a part of former Russian Empire (and, therefore, the way Joe likely saw it, part of his realm), Finland was an autonomy before Lenin granted it independence. You might be right about Stalin's plans, but no one is able to get into his head. The facts are that Kuusinen's "government" had it's military forces had been hastily prepared between collapse of talks and start of the war. And Romania, which ceded the territory, avoided the invasion. Everything else are speculations and again, I understand Finnish desire to speculate as favourable for Finland's as possible.
Besides, you might agree that Romania is strategically somewhat different from a country that "could reach Leningrad with its artillery", one which controls (together with poor Estonia) the sea approaches to the city and is in a position to menace the USSRs only Atlantic port.
1. Yes, it is not smart to poke your neighbour next door, especially if it is much bigger.
2. Turkey had a fair bit of controlling too, but haven't been invaded.

The USSR did make new military plans in the Fall of 1940 for a renewed invasion of Finland in the near future. In these new plans, up to 50 divisions, 800 tanks and 3900 airplanes were slated to take part in the attack
My gut feeling tells me that this claim comes straight from Finnish history book and based on some materials no one but authors ever saw. Tell me it ain't so.
 
On the flip side, while Baltics were a part of former Russian Empire (and, therefore, the way Joe likely saw it, part of his realm), Finland was an autonomy before Lenin granted it independence. You might be right about Stalin's plans, but no one is able to get into his head. The facts are that Kuusinen's "government" had it's military forces had been hastily prepared between collapse of talks and start of the war. And Romania, which ceded the territory, avoided the invasion. Everything else are speculations and again, I understand Finnish desire to speculate as favourable for Finland's as possible.

Because we're not able to get into Stalin's head, we should base our assessment on what he actually did. In 1939-40, the Red Army attacked Finland with forces considered at the time sufficient to break the Finnish Army and occupy the country. In 1940 Soviet generals made new plans to attack Finland, based on conquering the whole nation instead of small parts of it. Given the opportunity, this plan was projected to be realized in 1941. And finally in summer 1944, before the drive for Berlin, again forces thought strong enough to smash the Finnish defense and occupy the country were committed against Finland. Given this, I'd say Stalin aimed to join Finland into his Soviet empire, either as an SSR or a Socialist puppet if the chance presented itself.

But lets say you are right: if Finland caved in the 1939 negotiations, Stalin might have just forgotten all about his small neighbour. Because, you know, small territorial concessions would have totally neutralized the threat inherent in the possibility of Finland allying itself with a hostile great power. Maybe Stalin would even have personally come to Finland to give out candy to small children, with delightful, multicoloured rainbows shooting out of his rear end. Because we can't get into his head, we will never know.


1. Yes, it is not smart to poke your neighbour next door, especially if it is much bigger.

In 1939, Finland had no intention to poke their neighbour next door.

2. Turkey had a fair bit of controlling too, but haven't been invaded.

Turkey is not mentioned in the MR pact, and is thus irrelevant to the matter at hand.

My gut feeling tells me that this claim comes straight from Finnish history book and based on some materials no one but authors ever saw. Tell me it ain't so.

These figures come from Ohto Manninen's 2008 study Miten Suomi valloitetaan: Puna-armeijan operaatiosuunnitelmat 1939-1944. ("How to Conquer Finland: the Red Army Operational Plans 1939-1944"). The study is based on Red Army archival sources and Soviet literature. Manninen, an author nearly 20 history books, is probably the most well-respected military historian in Finland, a professor at the National Defense College (and previously at Helsinki University) and known as a meticulous researcher. If the documents he has used in the study are hard to access, I believe it would be more due to byzantine Russian archival policies than the author himself.

If you know a recent study refuting the information presented by Manninen, please let me know.
 
Last edited:
The Baltic States yielded and each was crushed and absorbed anyway, as was clearly agreed to under the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.

Likewise Stalin did to Poland exactly per the terms of Ribbentrop-Molotov.

In Romania's case Bucharest yielded to Stalin's demands and Stalin grabbed additional territory, surely knowing how Hitler would feel about this and the implicit threat to Germany's oil supply.

Based on that historical record the argument that Finland should have just surrendered and left itself economically and militarily crippled in hopes that Stalin would not exercise his 'rights' under Ribbentrop-Molotov as he did to five other nations does not have much credibility.
 
Top