WI: Finland keeps part of Russia/ USSR?

I was just wondering about a scenario, in which Finland never left Russia in 1917 and became part of the Soviet Union.
Later - under Stalin in the 30s or early 40s - the Finnish SSR got united with Karelia and Kola.
That bigger Finland finally became independent in 1991.

How plausible is such a scenario and what would be effects on WWII, the USSR as a whole and further policies?
 
All other things being equal, and of course they won't be, the additional manpower and the lack of pressure/worry on Leningrad from the north would mean a quicker victory against Germany. When Finland becomes independent, it has a large Russian minority. Some areas, such as the Kola Peninsula and areas nearest Leningrad/Saint Petersburg, would probably have Russian-speaking majorities, and would be flashpoints for Russian irredentism--think Crimea.
 
First off, remember that Finland becoming a part of the USSR in 1917 would make for a lot of knock-on effects and butterflies. This is such a formative time in the Soviet state's history that things would be pretty different from the beginning. Just one immediate effect could be Finland going Red leading into the Baltics falling to the USSR as well through a north-south domino effect of sorts.

So, we probably would not have a WWII exactly like we did, and most likely the USSR ITTL would not fall on schedule in the early 1990s either - too much changed history in between. I think people tend to underestimate the changes to a TL such differences with small nations make. Finland going Red could butterfly WWII entirely, as it could conceivably butterfly Nazi Germany as well, etc, etc.

Generally, about Finland being a part of the USSR and being bigger than OTL, it would help the USSR in any war against Western powers like Martinus Paduei says. A sizable Russian minority in this larger Finland would be pretty much a given as well. We might also see a flight into Sweden by the Swedish-speakers in Finland, diminishing that traditional minority. Finland's internal geography would be different as well, if only because Viipuri would stay as one of the country's biggest and most affluent towns through the 20th century, the Finnish gateway to Leningrad. If this Finland ever gains its independence, it would be quite different from the OTL republic.
 
Sweden would probably abandon neutrality to get security against USSR. E.g total defeat of Finland in Winter War and Soviet annexation would have possibly driven Sweden to Axis.
 
OTL Finnland almost went communist at the end of WW1.

Over the centuries, Russia and Sweden have taken turns ruling Finnland. By 1917, the Swedish-speaking families might have been in the minority, but they owned large estates in Southern
Finnland.
The Finish Civil War started when Finnish-speaking small farmers from Northern Finnland rebelled against Swedish-speaking elites. This was a classic case of labourers rebelling against a ruling elite. The Russian Red Army was too busy suppressing reactionaries along other borders, so could only spare token support for Finnish communists who were forced to retreat towards St. Petersburg. After the Civil War thousands of Finnish communists were slaughtered.
 
OTL Finnland almost went communist at the end of WW1.

Over the centuries, Russia and Sweden have taken turns ruling Finnland. By 1917, the Swedish-speaking families might have been in the minority, but they owned large estates in Southern
Finnland.
The Finish Civil War started when Finnish-speaking small farmers from Northern Finnland rebelled against Swedish-speaking elites. This was a classic case of labourers rebelling against a ruling elite. The Russian Red Army was too busy suppressing reactionaries along other borders, so could only spare token support for Finnish communists who were forced to retreat towards St. Petersburg. After the Civil War thousands of Finnish communists were slaughtered.

The Finnish civil war actually begun when the Social Democratic Party's revolutionary wing took power in Helsinki, through what amounted to an armed coup, at the same time as the White troops under Mannerheim (and empowered by the Svinhufvud Senate as legal state forces) moved to disarm Russian troops in Ostrobothnia. I think it is pretty questionable to say that Finnish-speaking small farmers rebelling against Swedish-speaking landowners specifically would have been a significant reason for the war in general. On balance, the core of the Red Guards was made more of workers from industrial communities than small farmers, small farmers were comparatively more common on the White side.

The war's aftermath led to a lot of death among the supporters of the Reds, true. We can well say, though, that a Red victory would have led to a similar amount of death among the White supporters. Quite likely if the Reds won in 1917-18 in Finland, Finland would become a part of a larger Russian civil war and might in the next few years see even more death than IOTL. It would also see a large amount of refugees leaving west to escape Red rule, from among the bourgeois groups and more affluent farmers and landowners, as well as bourgois intelligentsia. Any which way, on balance a Red victory would have probably been more disruptive for the Finnish society than the OTL White victory was. There would have been a longer period of instability, more revolutionary societal change and less continuity from the prewar years.
 
Top