Strategic choices in an alternative inter-war period

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

Why not "Ukraine, Belarus and Finland", or just "Ukraine and Belarus"? Why would token pieces of Finland mean anything in the great scheme of things if token pieces of Ukraine or Belarus do not?

Because Karelian region is strategically vital in order to defend St. Petersburg, Salla area is full of copper and Petsamo area has a pretty big port, and is vital to defend Murmansk. The rest of Finland is useless to Russia, as proven by the fact that not even Stalin wanted to annex it.
Otoh Belarus and Ukraine are totally different, being core Russian territories

 

[DrakonFin]

Because Karelian region is strategically vital in order to defend St. Petersburg, Salla area is full of copper and Petsamo area has a pretty big port, and is vital to defend Murmansk. The rest of Finland is useless to Russia, as proven by the fact that not even Stalin wanted to annex it.
Otoh Belarus and Ukraine are totally different, being core Russian territories

This is your problem right here, in terms of OTL bias: the rest of Finland is/was not useless to Russia, and Stalin did want to annex it. Getting the whole nation would have naturally been better than just scraps of it, if just in terms of the defence of Leningrad, the Murmansk railway and the port of Murmansk. Twice Stalin did really try to take all of Finland, either to be joined to the USSR or made into a dependent, occupied puppet. But he just did not get the chance to finalise the conquest in our timeline - being the cautious gambler he was, when things got complicated he decided not to throw good money after the bad during the war or after it. He knew when to cut his losses, a quality that decidedly made him different from the likes of Hitler.

What happened between Finland and the USSR IOTL during WWII and after it was the result of various historical processes and contingency quite unique to our TL, and thus the events did not go the way Stalin would have wanted in a (to him) perfect world. Like the OTL is a product of various unexpected political, economic and military, etc, developments, so would be TTL. Taking the OTL Finno-Soviet developments as a simple template for how the Finno-Russian dynamic would play out in other TLs would IMHO be much too reductionist.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

This is your problem right here, in terms of OTL bias: the rest of Finland is/was not useless to Russia, and Stalin did want to annex it. Getting the whole nation would have naturally been better than just scraps of it, if just in terms of the defence of Leningrad, the Murmansk railway and the port of Murmansk. Twice Stalin did really try to take all of Finland, either to be joined to the USSR or made into a dependent, occupied puppet. But he just did not get the chance to finalise the conquest in our timeline - being the cautious gambler he was, when things got complicated he decided not to throw good money after the bad during the war or after it. He knew when to cut his losses, a quality that decidedly made him different from the likes of Hitler.

What happened between Finland and the USSR IOTL during WWII and after it was the result of various historical processes and contingency quite unique to our TL, and thus the events did not go the way Stalin would have wanted in a (to him) perfect world. Like the OTL is a product of various unexpected political, economic and military, etc, developments, so would be TTL. Taking the OTL Finno-Soviet developments as a simple template for how the Finno-Russian dynamic would play out in other TLs would IMHO be much too reductionist.

ok, ai take your words as true...but if USSR was not capable of annexing Finland, TTL Russia will even less so, and surely no sooner than 1940s. Now, provided that the Germans brokers a reasonable deal l, giving Russia what it really needs out if Finland, I do not see a conservative, isolationist,revolution-scary Russia going to war with Germany over useless lake-dotted snowfields...maybe they could wait for Germany to be busy with a war in the west, but I do not see the point in invading Finland anyway,enraging the Germans, especially if Germany allows them some level of participation in their economic area

 

[DrakonFin]

ok, ai take your words as true...but if USSR was not capable of annexing Finland, TTL Russia will even less so, and surely no sooner than 1940s. Now, provided that the Germans brokers a reasonable deal l, giving Russia what it really needs out if Finland, I do not see a conservative, isolationist,revolution-scary Russia going to war with Germany over useless lake-dotted snowfields...maybe they could wait for Germany to be busy with a war in the west, but I do not see the point in invading Finland anyway,enraging the Germans, especially if Germany allows them some level of participation in their economic area

Personally, I don't see any reason for Germany to give any concessions for Russia in Finland ITTL. Russia has no strength to demand it. As long as Finland is an ally or a satellite of Germany, and can station troops in Finland, whether the border is 50 km, 100 km or 200 km from St. Petersburg is just a detail compared to the fact that Germany can hurt Russia if it wants to. What Russia really needs to make a difference up north is a Finland it controls entirely, with an ability to keep naval units on the northern Baltic Sea to protect the approaches to St. Petersburg and to block the Gulf of Finland, and to have a decent buffer to protect Murmansk and the railway north as well. If it can't have this, then what it has in Finland is mere details in the big picture where the Germans can use Finland to threaten northwestern Russia at will. To wit: IOTL, Barbarossa and Finland's participation in it proved this. Compare the situation at the front within two months from the beginning of the war in 1941, and the events that led to the siege of Leningrad, with the early years of WWI where the imperial capital was quite safe from foreign attack.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

Personally, I don't see any reason for Germany to give any concessions for Russia in Finland ITTL. Russia has no strength to demand it. As long as Finland is an ally or a satellite of Germany, and can station troops in Finland, whether the border is 50 km, 100 km or 200 km from St. Petersburg is just a detail compared to the fact that Germany can hurt Russia if it wants to. What Russia really needs to make a difference up north is a Finland it controls entirely, with an ability to keep naval units on the northern Baltic Sea to protect the approaches to St. Petersburg and to block the Gulf of Finland, and to have a decent buffer to protect Murmansk and the railway north as well. If it can't have this, then what it has in Finland is mere details in the big picture where the Germans can use Finland to threaten northwestern Russia at will. To wit: IOTL, Barbarossa and Finland's participation in it proved this. Compare the situation at the front within two months from the beginning of the war in 1941, and the events that led to the siege of Leningrad, with the early years of WWI where the imperial capital was quite safe from foreign attack.

A) we are talking about the Habsburgs here; Habsburgs were compromisers
B) they (correctly for me) want to keep Russia appeased so to avoid having to care about it

 

[DrakonFin]

A) we are talking about the Habsburgs here; Habsburgs were compromisers
B) they (correctly for me) want to keep Russia appeased so to avoid having to care about it

Well, what ever small thing the Germans give to the Russians in Finland, both sides would know it is mere window-dressing. And then there is of course the question of what the Finns and Swedes, and other German (minor and middling) allies or prospective allies, think if Germany makes an ally give up territory to the Russians without standing up for it. Making concessions devoid of geopolitical meaning to a rival/potential enemy, just to weaken and piss off your allies - it might not be a prudent move in all circumstances. There are ways to appease Russia without selling out your allies - like trade access to the markets of Mitteleuropa, loans, help with infrastructure and technology, etc.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

Well, what ever small thing the Germans give to the Russians in Finland, both sides would know it is mere window-dressing. And then there is of course the question of what the Finns and Swedes, and other German (minor and middling) allies or prospective allies, think if Germany makes an ally give up territory to the Russians without standing up for it. Making concessions devoid of geopolitical meaning to a rival/potential enemy, just to weaken and piss off your allies - it might not be a prudent move in all circumstances. There are ways to appease Russia without selling out your allies - like trade access to the markets of Mitteleuropa, loans, help with infrastructure and technology, etc.

A) such concessions are not devoid of geopolitical meaning
B) Finland is not a german vassal or proxy; it is just a friendly country, and the Germans do not force anything on them, they just act as mediators and draft a deal acceptable to both parties involved

 

[DrakonFin]

A) such concessions are not devoid of geopolitical meaning
B) Finland is not a german vassal or proxy; it is just a friendly country, and the Germans do not force anything on them, they just act as mediators and draft a deal acceptable to both parties involved

A) If giving parts of Finland to Russia has any geopolitical meaning, it is a net loss for Germany. Like I said, both Germany and Russia would know that the exact position of the Finnish border is a mere detail. The real question, to the Russians, is whether Finland is (potentially) hostile (and allied with Germany), neutralised (by treaty, preferably), or friendly/under Russian control. ITTL, Finland is bound to be very pro-German as long as Germany treats it more or less cordially. In comparison to Finland's political and military position, whether the border runs at the OTL 1920 line or the OTL post-1944 line is more or less irrelevant in the big picture, in terms of the defence of St. Petersburg and northwestern Russia. IOTL, post-1944, the main issue for Moscow was that Finland was now a neutralised nation tied to the USSR by a mutual defence treaty, not the location of the border.

B) The only deal acceptable to the Finns, in terms of borders, would be the deal they get when they become independent post-WWI. The Grand Duchy borders and Petsamo, like IOTL, would be a good benchmark, but there are other options as well. The point is, though, that after the borders are decided (and Germany would have to be a guarantor for the deal), the Finns would oppose giving any of their sovereign territory to Russia. After this, giving "token parts" of Finland to Russia will not really make the Russians happy, but it would most assuredly make the Finns angry. It would also make Sweden and the other Nordics question Germany's policies, and make Germany's smaller allies or would-be allies wonder if Germany will cave in to Russia's demands towards other borders as well, and whether Berlin is losing its touch. Post-WWI, Germany is seen as the linchpin of the European system ITTL: as soon as it allows established borders to be called into question by unhappy states, then it will contribute to growing instability on the continent. Instability would be exactly what Germany would want to avoid.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

Mmm...listen I take your point, but the point bere is that I do not think the exact border of Finland would be a paramount geopolitical issue, nor one to spur a war between Germany and Russia.

 

[DrakonFin]

Mmm...listen I take your point, but the point bere is that I do not think the exact border of Finland would be a paramount geopolitical issue, nor one to spur a war between Germany and Russia.

It appears that we agree on the issue that far, we just disagree on the implications of it - you seem to believe that dismembering Finland in an attempt to appease Russia would somehow benefit the Germans, whereas I believe the results of such an action would have a negative impact on the German position, and no tangible positives for the Russians besides.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

It appears that we agree on the issue that far, we just disagree on the implications of it - you seem to believe that dismembering Finland in an attempt to appease Russia would somehow benefit the Germans, whereas I believe the results of such an action would have a negative impact on the German position, and no tangible positives for the Russians besides.

oh come on...dismembering is an exaggeration

 

[DrakonFin]

oh come on...dismembering is an exaggeration

It depends entirely on what areas we are talking about. Any part of Finland that would have any real strategic meaning to Russia would be more significant to the Finns, and can thus be seen as dismembering the nation. See the Moscow Peace Treaty of 1940 for reference: it was seen as a much bigger loss for Finland than it was a gain for the USSR.

EDIT: To avoid any later "discussions" with the Russians over Finland's borders, the Germans might want to lean on the Finns in 1918-20 to agree to such a border treaty with the Russians that leaves a bit more of the Karelian Isthmus to Russia (in comparison to the OTL 1920 border) and gives more land for Finland in Eastern Karelia as a compensation. This could include leaving the Ino fortress on the Gulf of Finland to the Russians, and generally drawing the border roughly between the island of Seiskari/Seskar on the Gulf of Finland and Konevitsa/Konevets on Lake Ladoga. Leaving a number of Isthmus parishes on the Russian side of the border, to include the parishes of Repola, Porajärvi and a few others north of the Ladoga to Finland. IOTL such a border was considered by some during the Tartu negotiations, the option was called "the industrialists' border" in reference to its proponents.

Losing those Isthmus parishes would be a heavy blow to the Finns, but it would be easier to stomach at this early point in time when the border lines are still not set in stone, and it might avoid some future friction with the Russians in terms of the "defensive zone of St. Petersburg".

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

It depends entirely on what areas we are talking about. Any part of Finland that would have any real strategic meaning to Russia would be more significant to the Finns, and can thus be seen as dismembering the nation. See the Moscow Peace Treaty of 1940 for reference: it was seen as a much bigger loss for Finland than it was a gain for the USSR.

EDIT: To avoid any later "discussions" with the Russians over Finland's borders, the Germans might want to lean on the Finns in 1918-20 to agree to such a border treaty with the Russians that leaves a bit more of the Karelian Isthmus to Russia (in comparison to the OTL 1920 border) and gives more land for Finland in Eastern Karelia as a compensation. This could include leaving the Ino fortress on the Gulf of Finland to the Russians, and generally drawing the border roughly between the island of Seiskari/Seskar on the Gulf of Finland and Konevitsa/Konevets on Lake Ladoga. Leaving a number of Isthmus parishes on the Russian side of the border, to include the parishes of Repola, Porajärvi and a few others north of the Ladoga to Finland. IOTL such a border was considered by some during the Tartu negotiations, the option was called "the industrialists' border" in reference to its proponents.

Losing those Isthmus parishes would be a heavy blow to the Finns, but it would be easier to stomach at this early point in time when the border lines are still not set in stone, and it might avoid some future friction with the Russians in terms of the "defensive zone of St. Petersburg".

ITTL the Finns are keeping Petsamo,while giving Salla and the karelian isthmus, under a guarantee that any further claim by Russia will see Finland military backed from Germany...the writing on the wall is "ok, Russian friends, we understand that you have genuine grievances concernibg5the situation of your border with Finland and therefore we agree to you taking some token territories...but behave bad in asking more and you may find yourself with German tanks in Helsinki

 

[DrakonFin]

ITTL the Finns are keeping Petsamo,while giving Salla and the karelian isthmus, under a guarantee that any further claim by Russia will see Finland military backed from Germany...the writing on the wall is "ok, Russian friends, we understand that you have genuine grievances concernibg5the situation of your border with Finland and therefore we agree to you taking some token territories...but behave bad in asking more and you may find yourself with German tanks in Helsinki

For the Finns, the Karelian Isthmus is in no way a token territory. Quite the opposite - it was seen as a core territory by the Finnish people and political establishment. Giving the entire isthmus away would be something the Finns would fight tooth and nail - especially if it includes Viipuri itself. Some border corrections (like I outlined above) might be acceptable, but if you make Finland lose the entire isthmus, the Finns will carry a permanent grudge. And, like I have referred to above, the comparative benefit of this move to the Russians would be very limited.

You might want to consider something like a Russo-German treaty to neutralise or "demilitarise" Finland instead of this blatant (and needless) "fuck you" to the Finns.

EDIT: This was the border suggested by the Soviets to the puppet "Kuusinen government" in 1939. Even Stalin (in a much stronger position where Russia is ITTL) would have been happy with less than the entire isthmus, provided Finland is not a threat:

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

For the Finns, the Karelian Isthmus is in no way a token territory. Quite the opposite - it was seen as a core territory by the Finnish people and political establishment. Giving the entire isthmus away would be something the Finns would fight tooth and nail - especially if it includes Viipuri itself. Some border corrections (like I outlined above) might be acceptable, but if you make Finland lose the entire isthmus, the Finns will carry a permanent grudge. And, like I have referred to above, the comparative benefit of this move to the Russians would be very limited.

You might want to consider something like a Russo-German treaty to neutralise or "demilitarise" Finland instead of this blatant (and needless) "fuck you" to the Finns.

EDIT: This was the border suggested by the Soviets to the puppet "Kuusinen government" in 1939. Even Stalin (in a much stronger position where Russia is ITTL) would have been happy with less than the entire isthmus, provided Finland is not a threat:

Ok that can totally work for me...the important things is that they get to defend St. Petersburg, wich ITTL is still their capital city