What if the UK did send troops to aid Finland?

In a Time Weekly article dated March 25, 1940, then Prime Minister Nevile Chamberlain said in a two-minute terse speech in the House of Commons that somehow, someway Britain would have sent men had Finland asked for them. During the debate, David Lloyd George replied to the PM, "It is old trouble--too late. Too late with Czechoslovakia, too late with Poland, certainly too late with Finland. It is always too late or too little or both, and that is the road to disaster."

That article forced me to take a second look at this situation.

What if Britain did send troops or at least pilots and planes to aid Finland against Russia?
I think it's not really far fetched idea since from the tone of the news articles during this period, it looks as if the USSR was also being lumped in with Hitler as an aggressor state. (It was only after Germany invaded the USSR that the view changed.) The only problem would be where the British would find the troops.

Would Germany still had invaded if the Russians were engaged against the English? (The enemy of my enemy is my friend is one saying that comes to my mind).

Could Germany, with Russian help, mount Operation Sea Lion successfully?
Personally, I doubt any German cross-channel invasion even with Russian help succeed, but the air war over Britain would've surely been altered. Russia might not send ground troops to Hitler's side but it's feasible to have Russian pilots, crews, and aircraft join Germany in a bombing campaign against "meddling Britain."

One more thing, I would view the alliance between Germany and Russia as more of an alliance of convenience. Once there common foe is gone, Stalin and Hitler would likely look for a chance to stab the other's back.
 

King Thomas

Banned
They end up at war with the Germans and USSR at the same time, without the USA helping them. Not the cleverest thing to do. If Japan does not attack Pearl Harbour and the USA stays out of the war, the UK just hangs on and tries not to get starved out by the U-boats, or makes peace. If the USA gets involved, nukes end up being used on Germany, Russia or both countries.
 
I think the problem would be the same one with Poland; how do you get the troops there? The British and French sat back and watched Germany overrun Poland and did nothing to assist the Poles. Why would they assist Finland, unless public opinion was really strong to aid them and the politicians were shamed into actually doing something. Even then the best the Finns would probably get would be a declaration of war against the USSR. That will force Germany and the USSR to cooperate on some level against the Western Allies. As for a successful Sea Lion, not a chance, the USSR does not have the navy, even combined with Germany's to challenge the Royal Navy.
 

Driftless

Donor
Churchill had interest in using Narvik as a point of access for helping the Finns, but also seizing control of the Swedish iron ore region around Kiruna.
 
The amount of troops an material they could send would be negligible. Besides, Norwegians and Swedes were not going allow overland transit due to fear of getting involved against Germany.

Furthermore, the main prize for the British would have been to cut metal supply from Northern Sweden to Germany, which requires military occupation. If they tried, expect the Swedes to grudgingly ally themselves with Soviets and Germany, as they warned that they would do in such occasion. Perhaps brothers-in-arms would be more correct term tho.

The British and French would be promptly kicked out of Scandinavia without really gaining anything. This of course might cause just enough grudge between the British and the Soviets to prevent lend-lease later on, especially if Op. Pike is launched. Nevertheless, it invariably leads to either Finland being occupied by the Soviets or a swift peace treaty between Soviets and Finns before the British would arrive in Finland. Regardless of who initiates the peace process, Finland would start to drift toward Germany as in OTL. There were no alternatives.

Germany will not, under any circumstance, outright ally with the Soviet Union, and will begin Barbarossa at some point if Hitler is in helm.

Swedes would probably return to nominal neutrality. Norway might experience an earlier weserübung or begin to view the allies with hostility if presented with fait accompli by landing in Narvik.

Simply put, if the British and the French were unable, and they were, to put several hundred thousand troops in the Nordics, such an attempt would likely only make things better for Germany and worse for anyone else. Perhaps the Soviets might gain Finland and Norway might remain unoccupied, but that's a small consolation prize, all things considered.

Come to think of it, there could be a chance to turn this into a win for the allies; if Norway and Sweden were friendly to allies from the get go, it could force Germany to spend resources in trying to occupy both of them. That'd be an interesting timeline. King-sized butterflies all around.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Simply put :
The Brits as well as the French didn't care a sh-- about Finnland (IMHO).

It was /would have been only a nice looking cover-up story to seizure Narvik and the swedish iron ore deposits to cut its influx to Germany.
 
Top