Soviets do better in Winter War

Let's assume soviet purges are either different (couple of good officers are left alive, few bad ones get lead poisoning....) or there are competent people in charge of Winter war.

SU performs somewhat below what one could expect but not as bad as OTL. They achieve solid victory and are able to impsoe their conditions.

Results? Friendly Finland, Red army doesn't have that incompetent aura around them meaning Hitler will plan his war more carefully or differently. Maybe 2 year campaign from the start?

Thoughts?
 
Let's assume soviet purges are either different (couple of good officers are left alive, few bad ones get lead poisoning....) or there are competent people in charge of Winter war.

SU performs somewhat below what one could expect but not as bad as OTL. They achieve solid victory and are able to impsoe their conditions.

Results? Friendly Finland, Red army doesn't have that incompetent aura around them meaning Hitler will plan his war more carefully or differently. Maybe 2 year campaign from the start?

Thoughts?

the russians have vastley superior equipment (tanks and bombers)... the problem is they are attacking findland in the middle of winter and terrain (big forrests and lack of roads) and the forts (mannerheim line has over 100 reinforced concrete structures) are impossible to capture without a prolonged campaign.... finland had a very competent army with lots and lots of automatic weapons
even if zhukov has overall command of the whole operation it could be maybe be shortened a few weeks but bear in mind that zhukov doesnt care about casualties potentially their losses could be worse if that was possible
honestly the red army had a lot of reforms from the winter war if they had a cake walk the germans would obliterate them more... in fact the russians all carrying the ppsh submachine guns where directly based from the fins did to them
 
a big issue

Was that Stalin didn't want to use the best people for the job. They had men that had lived in the cold area near Finland on the border that were good soliders. But he was so paranoid that he was worried they might question their loyalties to the Soviet Union. The people he sent were from the warmer areas and didn't know how to fight in the snow. The Finns took advantage of this and frequently destroyed heating equipment and supplies.

A few good officers could have done wonders, but they still had the problem of logistics, untrained soliders, and a creative flexible defending force.
 
Was that Stalin didn't want to use the best people for the job. They had men that had lived in the cold area near Finland on the border that were good soliders. But he was so paranoid that he was worried they might question their loyalties to the Soviet Union. The people he sent were from the warmer areas and didn't know how to fight in the snow. The Finns took advantage of this and frequently destroyed heating equipment and supplies.

A few good officers could have done wonders, but they still had the problem of logistics, untrained soliders, and a creative flexible defending force.

:D EEEk...... in RH there was mix of different people from different states.:)
 
If Hitler plans for a two year effort against the USSR instead of 90 days and allows Speer and others to act accordingly...a very bad thing for the Soviets and the British/Americans.:(

If German production reaches peak levels a few months earlier that's going to be a terrifying number of tanks, planes, etc. in service.

Probably a few divisions of Free Finns and other Scandinavian volunteers for Hitler, possible Sweden enters the war and Stalin has to spend quite a few units to have any chance of holding Finland down. Not to mention the ugly chance that, without Finnish support, Germany doesn't drive so hard on Leningrad in 1941 but the forces freed up enable the isolation or even the capture of Moscow instead.:eek:


For a better Soviet showing just have the invasion early enough or late enough to make progress before or after the snows.
 
So, instead of the Soviet Union getting humilated by Finland, Finland is smashed in and either reannexed or Von Mackensen is put in charge with as a Stalinist puppet?

This has to really help the Soviets--it would certainly make the siege of Leningrad a non-issue and it would probably mean they could throw more forces south against the Germans.

I forsee a slighter shorter war with the Soviets faring better in 1941, and by extension, the entire war.
 
So, instead of the Soviet Union getting humilated by Finland, Finland is smashed in and either reannexed or Von Mackensen is put in charge with as a Stalinist puppet?

This has to really help the Soviets--it would certainly make the siege of Leningrad a non-issue and it would probably mean they could throw more forces south against the Germans.

I forsee a slighter shorter war with the Soviets faring better in 1941, and by extension, the entire war.

I think this is not a given. Like I argued in an another thread recently, the puppetization/annexation of Finland 1n 1940 might as well lead to a comparative weakening of the Soviet position. Remember that the Finnish front IOTL did not really require major strenght on the part of the Red Army in 1942-45 as the Finns had settled into defensive and there was very little chance they would move against Leningrad or deeper into Northern Russia - and Stalin knew that. If Finns manage major underground resistance and/or an open rebellion supplied by the Germans, holding Finland down might conceivably take a lot more troops and effort as guarding the Finnish front did IOTL, making the Soviet position weaker, not stronger.

Leningrad will probably be safe, but if Germans land in southern FInland and have enough support from Free Finns/the underground, the situation immediately north of the Neva might also become as bad (or worse) as it were OTL. The connection through Murmansk, both in the terms of railways and the convoys will be safer, but if Germany takes Norway as per OTL, transport might still be harassed almost to the degree they were OTL. Also, some German troops that were in Finland OTL might be used on the main front, even if in the large scale they might have a pretty small importance.

And a thought: if Finns manage a successful evacuation in 1940, and the Free Finnish leadership is skewed "the right way", you could see a couple of Finnish Wehrmacht/W-SS divisions on the Eastern Front rather than a battalion.
 
I think this is not a given. Like I argued in an another thread recently, the puppetization/annexation of Finland 1n 1940 might as well lead to a comparative weakening of the Soviet position. Remember that the Finnish front IOTL did not really require major strenght on the part of the Red Army in 1942-45 as the Finns had settled into defensive and there was very little chance they would move against Leningrad or deeper into Northern Russia - and Stalin knew that. If Finns manage major underground resistance and/or an open rebellion supplied by the Germans, holding Finland down might conceivably take a lot more troops and effort as guarding the Finnish front did IOTL, making the Soviet position weaker, not stronger.

Leningrad will probably be safe, but if Germans land in southern FInland and have enough support from Free Finns/the underground, the situation immediately north of the Neva might also become as bad (or worse) as it were OTL. The connection through Murmansk, both in the terms of railways and the convoys will be safer, but if Germany takes Norway as per OTL, transport might still be harassed almost to the degree they were OTL. Also, some German troops that were in Finland OTL might be used on the main front, even if in the large scale they might have a pretty small importance.

And a thought: if Finns manage a successful evacuation in 1940, and the Free Finnish leadership is skewed "the right way", you could see a couple of Finnish Wehrmacht/W-SS divisions on the Eastern Front rather than a battalion.

First of all, I can not imagine how badly things are going to suck for Finland after they attempt this kind of rebellion. Stalin will probably draw a circle in Siberia, stamp the word Finland on it, and that's where the Finns are going to wind up...assuming the Soviets fare as well in the war as OTL.

After the Norwegian Campaign, I'm not sure that the Germans have enough shipping to seriously consider an amphibious assault against Finland. They didn't have transports for Sealion, IDK if they had them one year later. Causing mischief is certainly fair game, though.

I'm also thinking about Stalin's use of Finland's resources as well. If Finland were a 'liberated socialist country' its armed forces would probably be commandered by the Soviets as well, which could represent a gain of more divisions than is required to keep the peace in Finland. Even if Finland SSR or whatever BS name Stalin wants to call it loses a great deal, I can't believe that the counterfactual occupation of Finland will not lead to Soviet gains in economic and manpower constraints.

So, what's the balance here?

Pro-Soviet:

  • Murmansk Rail Line is not cut
  • Finnish Manpower is (reluctantly) available
  • Finnish resources are available.
  • Leningrad-Tivkin line never under serious danger
  • Leningrad not placed under meaningful siege.
  • Soviets can probably commit less troops to the North.
Pro-German

  • Finland resists its enslavement much more profoundly than it resisted its exploitation OTL--partisans, volunteers and perhaps even world image is more sympathetic towards the Axis Bloc.
  • Threat of Amphibious Assualt (maybe?)
I still have to consider that this is likely to favor Stalin. I'd also point out that if the war follows a similar course to OTL, there will not be a Finland postwar...:(
 

Redbeard

Banned
It was the OTL Finnish campaign that first of all had Hitler believe that attacking SU was a matter of kicking in the door, and the whole house comes down.

As going east was the whole "raison d'etre" behind nazism, Hitler will attack anyway, but if allowing for a campaign to be planned into 1942 I'll second Grimm Reaper in a prediction of big trouble for the Soviets.

I also doubt that the absense of an independent Finland in 1941 will help the Soviets. If they need an effort like that Blue Max describes to keep Finland subdued, it will truely be a resource drain. Next the northen front was the part clearly given the least priority by both Germany and SU in OTL 1941. Armygroup North was much weaker than the two others and Leningrad practically was undefended in OTL late summer of 1941. It wasn't the presence of Finland and their participation that made the difference in taking Leningrad or not, but rather von Leeb (commander of Armygrp. N.) not taking the chance when he (perhaps) for a short moment had a window of opportunity.

With no independent Finland it will be even more obvious to von Leeb that he need to take a risk to take Leningrad, and that he need to act fast. That is if the Germans give priority to this front at all. It will not need much less attention than that of OTL, before it only is a demonstration. If more forces, German as well as Soviet are taken from the northern front to the central or southern, it will mean more fighting in terrain more suitable to German blitzkrieg tactics. Combined with the effects of the Germans actually being prepared for a lengthy campaign - it smells of really bad hair day for the Red Army.

It is of course also of importance how/why the Finnish campaign goes better in this ATL. In OTL the Red Army took some important lessons from its defeats, not at least in fire co-ordination, which was important when the Red Army ould go on the offenisive later. But if the PoD is mainly luck, like in having the Finnish collapse quickly (some political PoD on Finnish side), the Red Army will be a step behind when it comes to rebuilding the Red Army. The officers that defeated the Germans were in the academies in 1941 being taught tactics adjusted from the Finnish campaign.

If the PoD is the Red Army being a lean mean war machine not short of maintained equipment or well educated staff officers - well then it of course is a very different matter...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
It's look so, that stalin didnt want to occupy Finland-main soviet troops were again Mannerheim line(ML).
But i've read about one interesting story-in USSR didnt know about two Finns key pillboxes in the centre of their defence line-they were built summer 1939.
Sovs planned to separate ML on two parts and to defEAT troops, protcting it. Maybe PoD-finns didnt build this pillboxes?
 
Top