Outcome of a decisive Winter War

I'm working on a TL that goes into how Finland could have won the war and how the Soviet Union could have decisively won the war (I'm meaning an out-right annexation of Finland.)

I could use some help on what could be changed during or before the war for the Finns to win and the outcomes of that. I only need help on what the outcome of a Soviet Finland would be (I have a few ideas on how to make them decisively win.)

1.)Could the Soviets be stopped after the Mannerhain line fell?
2.)Could the Finns have amassed as large of an army as they did during the continuation war one year later? (250,000 compared to 530,000)
3.)What would it take for the Norwegian and Swedish governments to allow allied troops to move through?
4.)Would the thaw have been enough to stop the Soviet advance?

5.)If Finland is conquered within the first few weeks how would that change the military landscape of the Soviet Army? I remember reading that after the Winter War that massive reforms occurred more rapidly. Would those reforms still occur at the same rate as OTL?
6.)Would a guerrilla style conflict erupt? If so, how long could it possibly last and what support could it receive?
7.)What impact would this have on Barbarossa?
 
Define decisive victory please. As far as I'm concerned a decisive Finnish victory isn't possible. Stalin will sooner bomb Helsinki with mustard gas than let such a humiliation occur, besides the fact that he has limitless manpower reserves, at least as far as the Finns are concerned. OTL is the best outcome for the Finnish. Stalin will simply overwhelm them with massive numbers if all else fails.
 
A decisive Finnish victory probably means multiple great powers directly intervened, and Stalin called things off to avoid getting involved in a world war.
 
A decisive Finnish victory probably means multiple great powers directly intervened, and Stalin called things off to avoid getting involved in a world war.
Agreed.
If I remember correctly there was some movement in that direction from France and the UK (though that might have just been a ruse to grab Norway), and possibly Sweden as well. Obviously Sweden alone isn't going to tip the balance that much, but the future ramifications could be huge (potential Swedish co-belligerent in Operation Barbarossa, for example). If the British and French intervene, or credibly threaten to, Stalin might back down-Vyborg isn't worth the hassle. Or the USSR becomes a fully fledged ally of the Nazis for however long is convenient.
 
Define decisive victory please.

A decisive victory for the Soviets which would be an out and out annexation of Finland. For Finland I'm asking how they could have won the war, ceding as little to the Soviet Union as possible. Or being able to drag the war into a stalemate.

If I remember correctly there was some movement in that direction from France and the UK (though that might have just been a ruse to grab Norway), and possibly Sweden as well.

Their was such a movement that would have involved 50,000 allied troops plus 100 bombers. But the Norwegian and Swedish governments refused to allow the troops to enter their territory. That's why I ask what it would take for them to allow it.
Sweden at the governmental level had little interest in joining the war. Plenty of supplies were "lost" to Finland and many people volunteered, but no official support was given. The Swedish chief of army planned to send his entire corps of 26,500 men directly to aid Finland but once the government got wind of it, the plan was cancelled.

OTL is the best outcome for the Finnish. Stalin will simply overwhelm them with massive numbers if all else fails.

How long would he let it go on for though? I'm applying this to a situation where Finland has an army nearly double it's size of OTL (giving it an army the size it had during the continuation war only a year and a half later.) If Allied intervention occurs then that could solve a large amount of supply problems. Once thaw hits then Soviet armored columns will have a hell of a time to get through.
 
Apparently there was a Swedish general (in charge of the Swedish military in northern Sweden) who had said he would march into Finland and defy orders if the Soviet Army passed a certain point in Finland, so if Stalin wanted anything more than what he got, he'd have to fight both Finland and Sweden for it.

There would definitely be a guerilla war afterwards like in the Baltic states with the Forest Brethren, but the Soviets would crush them given time.
 
1.)Could the Soviets be stopped after the Mannerhain line fell?
2.)Could the Finns have amassed as large of an army as they did during the continuation war one year later? (250,000 compared to 530,000)
3.)What would it take for the Norwegian and Swedish governments to allow allied troops to move through?
4.)Would the thaw have been enough to stop the Soviet advance?

5.)If Finland is conquered within the first few weeks how would that change the military landscape of the Soviet Army? I remember reading that after the Winter War that massive reforms occurred more rapidly. Would those reforms still occur at the same rate as OTL?
6.)Would a guerrilla style conflict erupt? If so, how long could it possibly last and what support could it receive?
7.)What impact would this have on Barbarossa?

1) With the army Finns had? No.

2) There are things Finland could have done better.
-During the 30's draftees were rejected from military service either based on political affiliations or minor health problems. After winter war anyone with a pulse was fit for service
-Artillery had excellent training and most modern fire control in the world developed by Gen. Nenonen, but it simply did not have the tubes or ammunition.
-Anti tank arm was non exsistant
-Airforce had poor leadership 1937 FAH was buying bombers, but did not have modern fighters :confused:

3) One must take into account Swedens interest and the actual goal of the allied intervention force.
Sweden assisted Finland with money, men and materiel. During the winter war Sweden flat out gave Finns 1/3 of the flygvapnet's planes. As long as Stalin aimed total subjucation of Finland, Sweden was prepared to give Finalnd any and all help. Once the peace terms were given and it was possible to maintain Finland as buffer against SU, aid stoped.
On the other hand only a token force of the allied intervention force was destined to Finland and majority was to be used to secure the iron deposits in Kiruna. Maybe if Finland collapses suddenly and there is a threat of invasion?

4) Propably not, Russians were attacking along major rairoad and distances were a lot smaller than in central russia.

5) Red Army reformations were direct result of poor performance in Winter war.

6) Propably yes, guerilla resistance in the Baltics continued another 10 years after the war.

7) Assuming Invasion of Norway, Battles of Britain & France play out as in OTL then Sweden will propably join the Axis. They were happy to provide germans with iron & allowed transit through swedish rails. Pressure between Germany and SU would be overwhelming.
 
What if the UK/France are more coercive and able to get Norway and Sweden to grudgingly allow them to pass through their territory on their way to Finland.

Now that they have military allies Finland is encouraged to hang on and keep fighting. Stalin decides to try to crush Finland before the UK/France can complete their deployments. He begins large scale offensives which capture a little territory, but are extremely costly to the Red Army and are not able to convince Finland that resistance is futile.

The UK/France decide to do Operation Pike to degrade the Soviet war making ability with the beneficial side effect of hopefully cutting Soviet supplies to Nazi Germany.

Would this convince Stalin to reach a peace settlement with Finland and avoid further war with the UK/France? Or would he devote more forces to attacking Finland while also trying to attack French/British forces in the Middle East in retaliation for Operation Pike and to protect his oil fields from further attacks.
 
Top