Soviets win the Winter war

[lionhead]

don't think its been discussed before what if the Soviets actually won the war against Finland in 1939-1940 and installed a puppet?

Lets make it a phyrric victory for the Soviets(at least 250,000 dead and over 4000 tanks destroyed) that lasted until end June 1940. No negotiations ever took place after the invasion by the Soviets, they wanted to keep on going despite losses or the weather all the way till the end. The weather conditions improved during March and that gave Soviets the chance to quickly smash the Finnish opposition with their air superiority. They capture Viipuri in March, and Helsinki in May 1940, after which the Fins surrenderd unconditionally(with a month of establishing a good hold on Finland).

Of course, Battle of France would be well underway at that point, plus Norway would have already been conquered by Germany. How would Stalin look at Sweden for example who helped the Fins a great deal, would they join the Comintern fearing the Germans, join the Axis when Barbarossa starts, stay neutral or join the allies?

But what i'm more interested in, what would a Soviet puppet Finland mean for Barbarossa?

 

[Hanul]

The British and France had plans to send troops to Finland to fight the Soviets, they were thwarted by the peace treaty and their own ineptitude. If the fighting went on, you'd see a British and French expeditionary force invading through Norway and Sweden and moving to fight the Soviets. If this happened, you'd also see the Baku oil fields in Russia being bombed.

Norway and Sweden would either do nothing about it, what the British and French hoped, or join Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union would find itself closer with Nazi Germany and actively fight the British and French, which would complicate things when Hitler does invade Russia.

The Germans also had a plan to take the nickel mines if the Soviets did take over Finland. Just my thoughts.

 

[Blackfox5]

I doubt the Western Allies ever would have implemented any of their plans against the Soviet Union. Once the Finns capitulated, any ideas to help them were moot.

I don't think Sweden would have joined the war in Barbarossa. First, I don't think Hitler would have trusted them enough with the plans. Second, unless the Soviet Union was clearly collapsing, I don't think any Swedish government would have risked it. Sweden might have let Germans do some volunteer recruiting or use some intelligence if they knew they'd be use to "liberate" Finland.

But without Finland, Hitler might think that it would be too hard to get Leningrad right away. If so, he might have allocatted more forces to the central and southern targets with a priority of the Donets Basin. He would probably still expect the USSR to collapse soon after the invasion, so I don't see too many changes. Amhibious landings in Finland are always possible, but Hitler would likely think it not necessary in 1941, and by 1942 would not have any extra manpower to devote to it.

Soviet control of Finland might mean more forces available to direct towards the Germans since they would not be occupied fighting the Finns. It might also create some problems for German naval operations in the Baltic.

 

[von Adler]

Sweden will most likely occupy Åland in case of a Soviet victory. Expect a huge exodus of refugees from Finland, along with the Finnish navy and whatever resources the Finns can evacuate. I see the entire Swedish navy and merchant navy doing their outmost to evacuate the Finns too. A lot of Finns will also cross the border at Haparanda-Tornio (Torneå). The Finns got a good road and an excellent railroad running along the coast up there - it will take a lot of time before the Soviets can cut it off.

Perhaps 500 000 Finns, the gold reserve, the government, parts of the army, the entire navy and the little merchant navy Finland had and Åland will end up in Sweden.

 

[Hkelukka]

Real question is this.

What happens when Hitler invades Norway and Allies land in Narvik while Finland is still at war with SU?

At that point the allies would probably reinforce Finland anyway. In your Tl this is before the fall of HElsinki. At which point we would have Norway-Denmark-Finland all allied with the allies and Finland at war with SU and in a near Blockade by Germany.

We could see a large movement by the remaining non-aligned countries against Germany at this point. Scandinavia would fall in its entirety and be split like Poland most likely but I would estimate a FAR earlier entry by US and S-American countries.

Also, I seriously doubt that Finland would surrender with the fall of Helsinki if N-Finland is even partially occupied by allied units withdrawing from Narvik.

Especially if the increased continuing tension between SU and Sweden spills open into an actual war (Sweden was already bombed by SU a few times.)

In this case the whole WW2 might go drastically different and Likely to do much much worse for Germany.

EDIT: Also, at this point in the war SU-Ger was seen as almost an alliance what with the joint attack on poland. Add to this a joint attack (Ger at Nor-Den and Su at Fin) and you might see a DW on SU by UK. Tho unlikely to occur but not impossible. Especially if Finland holds and winter war is still going on when weserubung happens. AT that point the entire scandinavia might join the allies. That would certainly throw a massive wrench into the german warplan.

 

[Hanul]

I doubt the Western Allies ever would have implemented any of their plans against the Soviet Union. Once the Finns capitulated, any ideas to help them were moot.

The only reason why the British and the French were planning to help Finland was to seize the iron ore mines of Sweden, and the nickel mines in Finland. France supported sending troops to Finland on the idea of diverting the front so they wouldn't have a western front 2.0 and destruction on French soil. If they send support to Finland, what's to stop them from bombing the Baku oil fields and really getting the Soviet Union involved?

Real question is this.

What happens when Hitler invades Norway and Allies land in Narvik while Finland is still at war with SU?

At that point the allies would probably reinforce Finland anyway. In your Tl this is before the fall of HElsinki. At which point we would have Norway-Denmark-Finland all allied with the allies and Finland at war with SU and in a near Blockade by Germany.

We could see a large movement by the remaining non-aligned countries against Germany at this point. Scandinavia would fall in its entirety and be split like Poland most likely but I would estimate a FAR earlier entry by US and S-American countries.

Also, I seriously doubt that Finland would surrender with the fall of Helsinki if N-Finland is even partially occupied by allied units withdrawing from Narvik.

Especially if the increased continuing tension between SU and Sweden spills open into an actual war (Sweden was already bombed by SU a few times.)

In this case the whole WW2 might go drastically different and Likely to do much much worse for Germany.

EDIT: Also, at this point in the war SU-Ger was seen as almost an alliance what with the joint attack on poland. Add to this a joint attack (Ger at Nor-Den and Su at Fin) and you might see a DW on SU by UK. Tho unlikely to occur but not impossible. Especially if Finland holds and winter war is still going on when weserubung happens. AT that point the entire scandinavia might join the allies. That would certainly throw a massive wrench into the german warplan.

This scenario is different from OTL, neither Norway nor Sweden would give the British or the French permission to move troops through their territory. If the war dragged on, Britain and France would have to invade Norway and Sweden to get to Finland. If anything, you'd see a Norway and Sweden allied to Germany. Iirc, Hitler only invaded Norway and Denmark out of fears of the British and French invading and taking over the iron mines in Sweden. Ironically, in otl if he actually waited abit you'd have seen a Norway and Sweden allied to Germany.

 

[Wendell]

Well, the Nazis likely still lose in the end, but this might alter their stance on the future status of Finland in their new order if they do win.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Any POD which sees a Soviet victory would involve a competent leader present in 1939. In that case the USSR may well ride roughshod over the Finns in a quick, decisive war.....and then be in deep shit when Barbarossa happens......

 

[Fearless Leader]

Any POD which sees a Soviet victory would involve a competent leader present in 1939. In that case the USSR may well ride roughshod over the Finns in a quick, decisive war.....and then be in deep shit when Barbarossa happens......

That being said, I doubt a lack of OTL's post-Winter War reforms would lead to the ultimate German victory over the USSR. Keep in mind that even a successful Winter War will showcase some of the flaws present within the Red Army so IMO some reforms are inevitable.

Another effect a successful Winter War might have on Operation Barbarossa is in the Soviet allocation of troops. How many troops would it take to hold down Finland? Might their be a "Finnish Insurrection" when most of said troops are redeployed to fight the Germans?

At any rate, though the Germans would surely benefit in numerous ways, their policy towards the civilians of the USSR and other factors that contributed to their defeat in OTL are still there making their ultimate defeat unavoidable. What does happen however IMO is that the Iron Curtain falls further east than it did in OTL. Exactly where depends on the permutations of the scenario but undoubtedly Finland would remain part of the Eastern Bloc.

The real question I have in regards to this scenario is Post-WWII Soviet policy towards Finland. Do they try to incorporate it into the USSR? Or is it made a satellite state like Poland?

 

[Wendell]

The real question I have in regards to this scenario is Post-WWII Soviet policy towards Finland. Do they try to incorporate it into the USSR? Or is it made a satellite state like Poland?

....And what, if anything, does this mean for Karelia?

 

[Cook]

Success in the Winter War would have required more extensive preparations, which is what Stalin’s military advisors wanted but he ignored. Such preparations would have delayed the start of the war beyond November, after which the bad weather would have prevented the start until the spring of 1940. Conceivably Stalin could have launched his offensive against Finland at the same time Hitler attacked Northern France; May 1940.

In such a situation the Anglo-French alliance would have made no plans to invade Norway prior to the German invasion, their intervention would have been even more ham-fisted than it was.

Finland would have received less external help, the allied would have been fully committed to just surviving and Hitler would want no distractions on his North-Eastern flank and would be happy that his ‘ally’ Stalin was keeping busy. Their offensives could conceivably have wound up at about the same time in late June, early July 1940.

 

[Wendell]

Success in the Winter War would have required more extensive preparations, which is what Stalin’s military advisors wanted but he ignored. Such preparations would have delayed the start of the war beyond November, after which the bad weather would have prevented the start until the spring of 1940. Conceivably Stalin could have launched his offensive against Finland at the same time Hitler attacked Northern France; May 1940.

In such a situation the Anglo-French alliance would have made no plans to invade Norway prior to the German invasion, their intervention would have been even more ham-fisted than it was.

Finland would have received less external help, the allied would have been fully committed to just surviving and Hitler would want no distractions on his North-Eastern flank and would be happy that his ‘ally’ Stalin was keeping busy. Their offensives could conceivably have wound up at about the same time in late June, early July 1940.

But do the Soviets learn enough in the alternate Winter Summer War to be better prepared for Barbarossa once it happens?

 

[DrakonFin]

Another effect a successful Winter War might have on Operation Barbarossa is in the Soviet allocation of troops. How many troops would it take to hold down Finland? Might their be a "Finnish Insurrection" when most of said troops are redeployed to fight the Germans?

These are important questions. I think many people tend to underestimate how much troops the Red Army would have to keep in Finland, in comparison with the OTL Finnish Front and also the need for other resources in Finland. IOTL, once the Finnish advance of fall 1941 had reached its goals, Stalin knew quite well that there is little further fear from Finnish attacks and could redeploy a lot of troops south. ITTL, it might not be a stretch to say that holding down Finland, garrisoning the Finnish Southern and South-western coasts and securing Lapland against an invasion from the West would take up seriously more resources. For one thing, the Soviet Baltic Fleet would have to do a lot more than it did IOTL, bottled up in Kronstadt and around Leningrad. It is a long coast from Viipuri to Tornio...

But the one thing going for the USSR is that Leningrad will not be under siege. It can always be reinforced through the Finnish rail network, and the Germans have much smaller chances of going after any part of the Murmansk railway. That is unless the Germans succeed in fomenting a Finnish rebellion and supporting it some way.

The Ålands situation is interesting. While some think Sweden would take the islands over, we would have to take into account that by doing that, Sweden might well become a combatant. The islands are the key to the approaches to the Gulf of Finland, the Gulf of Bothnia and Stockholm: they are a huge strategic objective to Stalin. A move to capture them by Sweden would be very likely to bring about a Soviet declaration of war. Things would be especially dicey if Soviet Baltic Fleet and Swedish ships meet near Mariehamn during the Finnish evacuation: if the USSR makes a determined effort to occupy the islands while the war is ongoing, I find it very hard for Sweden to avoid open war.

 

[von Adler]

The Finnish government would most likely do some kind of legal jump to transfer the islands to Sweden for the "duration of the war", which will allow Sweden to take them while retaining its non-belligrent status (yes, Sweden was non-belligrent, not neutral, in the Winter War). If the Soviets want them, they will have to start another war. The Baltic Red Navy going up agsint the combined Swedish and Finnish fleets? Dicy, to say the least.

 

[lionhead]

Thanks for all the repsonses. I hear all of you. Lets focus on Sweden then.

Now, Sweden was already really involved with Finland, if Finland where to fall and that happens right after Germany takes control of Norway Sweden is going to be in a real tight spot.... Probably the worst spot a country could be in.

Imagining this was all about tin and iron mines i would say any of those 3 powers would put as much pressure on Sweden as they could to ge them on their side. I think Neutrality for Sweden would be out of the question. But who would they choose? Would they really have a choice in the first place if the Soviets decide to push on and invade Sweden? If thats the case then the Allies would most definitly declare war on the SU, and that would create a whole different topic. Might the Soviets succeed and take Sweden, that would be the end for Barbarossa too.

If the Allies would push Sweden to an alliance the Germans would react in accordance. Again that would open up a whole different discussion. Might the Germans not succeed and Sweden fends them off, that would mean Yugoslavia would have to wait i think.

I for one don't think the Germans would attack Sweden at any point, not with Fall Gelb underway(remember its mid-May 1940 and they won't delay that). If they had to for strategic reasons and succeeded they would have stretched their armies so thin it would delay any more invasions for months. Gives time for the comintern and the allies to counter, even though German presence in Europe remains the strongest still. It would have put Germany into a deadlock.

If they all however decided to stay put, Sweden would remain neutral. Heaven knows what that would mean when Barbarossa is started. Soviet troops pouring over into Norway, perhaps take control of the Baltic sea with subs now based at Oslo and break out into the North sea(Kriegsmarine might be superior but not invulnerable).

Plus, i don't think the Swedish and Finnish navy would do any good for any sides... Together they had maybe 5 or 6 standard(and old) cruisers and a handful of basic submarines. Not gonna put a dent in German, Allied or even Russian navies(though the Soviets had only 1 battleship and a handful of other ships at their disposal in the baltic, they yet had a pretty good amount of subs). Germans would still rule the Baltic sea with their battlecruisers if they can hold Norway.

 

[Wendell]

Thanks for all the repsonses. I hear all of you. Lets focus on Sweden then.

Now, Sweden was already really involved with Finland, if Finland where to fall and that happens right after Germany takes control of Norway Sweden is going to be in a real tight spot.... Probably the worst spot a country could be in.

Imagining this was all about tin and iron mines i would say any of those 3 powers would put as much pressure on Sweden as they could to ge them on their side. I think Neutrality for Sweden would be out of the question. But who would they choose? Would they really have a choice in the first place if the Soviets decide to push on and invade Sweden? If thats the case then the Allies would most definitly declare war on the SU, and that would create a whole different topic. Might the Soviets succeed and take Sweden, that would be the end for Barbarossa too.

If the Allies would push Sweden to an alliance the Germans would react in accordance. Again that would open up a whole different discussion. Might the Germans not succeed and Sweden fends them off, that would mean Yugoslavia would have to wait i think.

I for one don't think the Germans would attack Sweden at any point, not with Fall Gelb underway(remember its mid-May 1940 and they won't delay that). If they had to for strategic reasons and succeeded they would have stretched their armies so thin it would delay any more invasions for months. Gives time for the comintern and the allies to counter, even though German presence in Europe remains the strongest still. It would have put Germany into a deadlock.

If they all however decided to stay put, Sweden would remain neutral. Heaven knows what that would mean when Barbarossa is started. Soviet troops pouring over into Norway, perhaps take control of the Baltic sea with subs now based at Oslo and break out into the North sea(Kriegsmarine might be superior but not invulnerable).

Plus, i don't think the Swedish and Finnish navy would do any good for any sides... Together they had maybe 5 or 6 standard(and old) cruisers and a handful of basic submarines. Not gonna put a dent in German, Allied or even Russian navies(though the Soviets had only 1 battleship and a handful of other ships at their disposal in the baltic, they yet had a pretty good amount of subs). Germans would still rule the Baltic sea with their battlecruisers if they can hold Norway.

The Swedes would play each side against the other and survive the war that way.

 

[DrakonFin]

The Finnish government would most likely do some kind of legal jump to transfer the islands to Sweden for the "duration of the war", which will allow Sweden to take them while retaining its non-belligrent status (yes, Sweden was non-belligrent, not neutral, in the Winter War). If the Soviets want them, they will have to start another war. The Baltic Red Navy going up agsint the combined Swedish and Finnish fleets? Dicy, to say the least.

This is what I imagined for the prologue of my TL. But then, my PoDs were in 1917: I can't recall we had a mutually established (public or secret) plan like this IOTL. There was the proposed, so-called Stockholm Plan of 1939 that would have made it possible to bring Swedish troops to occupy the islands if Finland requested it, but Soviet opposition to the plan (submitted to the LoN, as it would have revised the 1921 convention in regards to the demilitarization of Åland) caused the Swedish government to withdraw it from Parliament, after which Finland saw it pointless to pursue it alone. Indeed, in the early part of the war, Finland asked the Swedish government to send troops to Åland, and Sweden declined.

This was all part and parcel with Sweden's official non-belligerence, as was the Swedish determination to deny the passage of Allied troops in February - March. At his point in time, if someone respects pre-war international, LoN-backed conventions, it will be Stockholm rather than Moscow: this was something that the Finnish government found out the hard way IOTL. Finland might want to part with the islands, being sure of losing the war, but would Sweden accept the gift? I, for one, find it hard to believe that the Swedish government would change its policy (this late) so drastically as to risk war with Stalin - or anyone else, for that matter.

Any plan of handing over the islands, with a PoD during the war, would have to be very last minute and improvised - and if so, the possibility for the Swedish to end in a shooting war with the Soviets over the islands is bigger than in a situation where Sweden and Finland have a pre-arranged deal about a handover.

 

[Cook]

Now, Sweden was already really involved with Finland, if Finland where to fall and that happens right after Germany takes control of Norway Sweden is going to be in a real tight spot.... Probably the worst spot a country could be in.

I’m just wondering if Norway and Denmark would have been invaded if the Winter War was delayed.

 

[DrakonFin]

I’m just wondering if Norway and Denmark would have been invaded if the Winter War was delayed.

It is a good question. If the situation is as outlined in the OP, that the USSR is not interested in negotiations at all (that means, for example, that Stalin doesn't care if the Allies enter the war on the Finnish side), there is also the possibility that Finland has been seeking an Allied intervention much more openly and aggressively than IOTL.

In fact it almost seems that the OP presupposes an outside intervention: given OTL troop strengths, etc., the Finnish army alone could likely not stand the Soviet onslaught past, say, late March or more than weeks longer than IOTL. After that, a Soviet breakthrough could well lead to a wholesale collapse of the Finnish front between Viipuri and Helsinki rather than just a slow withdrawal towards west.

 

[lionhead]

In fact it almost seems that the OP presupposes an outside intervention: given OTL troop strengths, etc., the Finnish army alone could likely not stand the Soviet onslaught past, say, late March or more than weeks longer than IOTL. After that, a Soviet breakthrough could well lead to a wholesale collapse of the Finnish front between Viipuri and Helsinki rather than just a slow withdrawal towards west.

THe progress of the war is pretty much the same as OTL, yet the Soviets decide to push on through no matter what the costs instead of negotiating peace with minimal territorial gain. The death toll rises, but they keep on going untill they reach Helsinki, after which the Finnish government surrenders and the biggest part of the Finnish army surrenders, some escape, including the entire navy and a small group of planes.

I’m just wondering if Norway and Denmark would have been invaded if the Winter War was delayed.

Good question indeed, Almark incident would have happened as in OTL. So Hitlers plans to invade Norway to secure the flow of iron from Sweden would be unchanged. Though after March, with the Winter war turning Spring and the Soviets showing they ain't gonna stop untill the have full control would make Hitler doubt the invasion of Norway as it would possibly make a new border with the Soviets. Around April the war in Finland is still going on though, and Denmark would surely be attacked, even if Hitler decided not to attack Norway as Denmark is nowhere near Soviet Territory. Threats on the iron supply would still be very real and i don't think Germany particularily feared Sweden joining the Allies if he where to invade Norway. Of course the possibility would exist that Norway would be one step ahead of Germany and join the Allies so that the UK lands troops at Narvik, backed up by a large fleet. Might have led to a naval battle between Germany and the UK, but i think Germany would have lost that and the Allies succesfully land plenty of troops. If on land they would be evenly succesfull i doubt, Germany would have been able to land troops in Norway from the South. Without Sweden joining the Brits wouldn't have been able to stop German advance. At that point it would not be wise for the UK to declare war on the USSR, backing up Finland before they are fully occupied(at end of April).

Of course in the middle of the invasion of Norway its May, the time the Soviets take full control of Finland and now border Norway... No going back for Germany then, they occupy Norway(July?) and Barbarossa gets a whole new meaning.

Thats just what i came up with quickly right now(without info on the OTL invasion of Norway).