Soviets win the Winter war

lloyd007 · Mar 28, 2011

A 'successful' Winter War would be a really bad thing for the Soviets... It could well lead the US into thinking "Well those guys suck just as much as the Nazis!" and lead to less or even no lend lease for the USSR. It also might lead to a three way war if Stalin becomes belligerent or Churchill gets cocky in Caucus mountains and Northern Iran. Occupying Finland would also imo tie up many more troops than OTL where the Finns stopped at a pre set line and the Soviets knew they weren't going to move any further.

So the SU might be a bit stronger in the very start but if Barbarossa plays out in any way similar to OTL they will be FAR weaker in the long run. By the time 1945 rolls around I can see Germany still being pretty deep into the Ukraine / Russia. Maybe being a bit stronger but probably a bit / a lot weaker having fought just as hard with more territory to occupy and the Western Allies grabbing more territory quicker after they break out of the Normandy hedgerows.

lionhead · Mar 28, 2011

lloyd007 said:
A 'successful' Winter War would be a really bad thing for the Soviets... It could well lead the US into thinking "Well those guys suck just as much as the Nazis!" and lead to less or even no lend lease for the USSR. It also might lead to a three way war if Stalin becomes belligerent or Churchill gets cocky in Caucus mountains and Northern Iran. Occupying Finland would also imo tie up many more troops than OTL where the Finns stopped at a pre set line and the Soviets knew they weren't going to move any further.

You do know that the Soviets had already annexed the baltic states right? Even with that plus the bloody winter war the American still gave them the lend-lease. If they would have actually conquered Finland it would be no diffderent i would think.

lloyd007 · Mar 28, 2011

lionhead said:
You do know that the Soviets had already annexed the baltic states right? Even with that plus the bloody winter war the American still gave them the lend-lease. If they would have actually conquered Finland it would be no diffderent i would think.

Finland was in a radically different position wrt world politics at the time compared to the Baltic nations i.e. far above all three combined and multiplied by 10. You may argue that that shouldn't be but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Cook · Mar 28, 2011

My point being that the only way I can see the Red Army defeating Finland is with more preparation prior to beginning the war, which would have resulted in the Russo-Finnish war being delayed until spring 1940. No Winter War in 1939 means to Anglo-French planning for the war, the Germans don’t get wind of such plans and develop their own plans to intervene in Norway and Denmark.

lionhead · Mar 29, 2011

lloyd007 said:
Finland was in a radically different position wrt world politics at the time compared to the Baltic nations i.e. far above all three combined and multiplied by 10. You may argue that that shouldn't be but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

An embargo by the US would probably happen. but other then that i don't see any US intervention. Anyway, when the war starts with the Nazi's the US will try to get aid to the SU anyway, even though it has occupied Finland simply because they needed them.

Cook said:
My point being that the only way I can see the Red Army defeating Finland is with more preparation prior to beginning the war, which would have resulted in the Russo-Finnish war being delayed until spring 1940. No Winter War in 1939 means to Anglo-French planning for the war, the Germans don’t get wind of such plans and develop their own plans to intervene in Norway and Denmark.

Point was a phyrric victory by the SU. Not because they planned it better but because they didn't negotiate peace and just kept going. In OTL they did break the Finnish army, their losses where just too high to keep on going and they gave new peace demands that the Finns just had to accept. If not, the Finnish army would have been crushed eventually.

lloyd007 · Mar 29, 2011

lionhead said:
An embargo by the US would probably happen. but other then that i don't see any US intervention. Anyway, when the war starts with the Nazi's the US will try to get aid to the SU anyway, even though it has occupied Finland simply because they needed them.

Disagree that they would send aid because they 'needed' the Soviets... True... they do 'need' the Soviets in the fight to launch any serious invasion but the Western Allies could / would give not a care to the situation the Soviets are in i.e. getting the crap beaten out of them while at the same time slugging just as hard against Germany. Britain, China, Free France and etc. I'm sure would appreciate the extra lend lease material.

The Allies wouldn't have invaded the SU over Finland but seeing two expansionist murderous dictators fighting doesn't mean they are going to take sides in that fight. Invading Finland puts Stalin just barelyahead of Hitler invading Poland. As long as the Soviets are in the game they are going to draw off just as many German resources as OTL...