WI: Stalin decide to keep the winterwar going till the total occupation of Finland?

As per title: what are the repercussions of an enraged Stalin who decidento annex Finland at any cost during the Winter war?? How the WA will react? Germany? Sweden? Will this change Barbarossa? The LL will still be delivered as OTL?
 
If Stalin had waited little longer, he would have received information from his spies in Paris showing how ill-prepared the Allies actually were with all their plans regarding Finland. Other option was of course that Soviet spies had been more efficient. Finns had received the same information few weeks earlier and that had contributed to our willingness to sign the peace. Having that information might have persuaded Stalin to continue the war little longer and see what happens.

Finland will probably last few weeks more until its army totally collapses, though by then it has already retreated further west than the modern Russo-Finnish border. The situation in areas still controlled by the government will get chaotic as people will attempt to escape towards west away from the Red Army. Those who can will attempt to flee to Sweden. Sweden might attempt to occupy the Åland Islands, which Stalin might be even willing to accept as the man had strange sort of respect towards Swedes. I think the issue even came up in some unofficial discussions between Swedes and the Soviets but my memory being rusty take that with a pinch of salt.

It’s possible that in this sort of late Soviet victory scenario Finland might actually retain its nominal independence, at least for a while, though that depends much on Stalin’s whims. He can annex the country little later when the world’s attention is somewhere else after-all. At least few hundred thousand Finns will be moved to Siberia, in addition to those who had been executed during initial purges.

I don’t think there will be that significant effects on the Allies at this stage yet. Daladier will probably resign due to his inability to help Finland, as he did IOTL, and very soon the Norwegian Campaign will take the world’s attention. I suspect that we might be seeing first butterflies during that operation, but I must admit that I don’t have enough in-depth knowledge of that campaign to really comment anything.

Regarding Barbarossa, the Soviets have now a shorter front and have freed about 10-20 divisions to be used elsewhere. Some of those would be needed in Finland though to, to prevent German amphibious landings and against their forces in Norway, in addition to general pacification operations in the country. Probably few troops on the Swedish border too, just in case.

Sweden’s position ITTL is highly interesting, I think. They would be certainly experiencing much more pressure from all sides of the war due to their new geopolitical status. Germans would be probably still interested in moving their troops trough the country but now Sweden has also the Soviet Union as their neighbor to consider.

One interesting source of butterflies is also nickel mines in Petsamo, in Northernmost Lapland. Petsamo was one of the most important sources of nickel in the world during the WW2. While the production was just starting in the late 1930’s, it rapidly increased during the war and by 1943 it provided 73% of Germany’s nickel consumption. By 1944 this had increased to 87%. This might cause some butterflies regarding the German war production during the war. Just like the Soviets IOTL were able to defend their front in Kola very effectively, Petsamo would be just as defendable.
 
Last edited:
Do you think that a full occupation of Finland wuold have make the Soviet appear as bad as the German? Or at least enough evil that the Brithish will tone down the LL ? The USA how will they react? Will they prone to go full LL like OTL? Will not the occupation of Finland bogg down Soviet troops? Having the whole Finnish coast exposed can't be an issue fearig a German invasion ?
 
Do you think that a full occupation of Finland wuold have make the Soviet appear as bad as the German? Or at least enough evil that the Brithish will tone down the LL ? The USA how will they react? Will they prone to go full LL like OTL? Will not the occupation of Finland bogg down Soviet troops? Having the whole Finnish coast exposed can't be an issue fearig a German invasion ?

I think not. 'Enemy of my enemy' and all that. The Soviet Union is an extremely powerful nation which Hitler's Reich has just made an enemy of. That overrides all other considerations; the Soviet Union is too useful a potential ally to ignore. Do remember that in OTL—what was it exactly?—something like 80% of German divisions were engaged on the Eastern Front and not the Western Front. Stalin could be even more evil than in the real world but it wouldn't change the fact that the Western powers need the Soviet Union to help fight National Socialist Germany; they can't afford to allow the fighting in the east to end in Hitler's favour. Imagine Operation Overlord where the Germans had five times as many men at the Atlantic!

Sucks for the Finns, but I think Lend-Lease will happen just as much anyway because, although the governments of the Western powers hated communism in OTL, the sheer necessity (from the point of view of anybody wanting Hitler to lose the war) of seeing the USSR beat the National Socialists on the Eastern Front takes priority over everything else. Everything else.
 
Maybe the Allies can't get troops to Finland, but they can go ahead with Operation Pike.

The United Kingdom going to war against the Soviet Union, and thus driving it onto the side of Germany, against the United Kingdom? That would be one of the most cataclysmically stupid decisions ever made. Perhaps the biggest favour anyone ever did for Adolf Hitler.

Hence why it didn't happen in OTL. War Plan Red is of a similar sort. Militaries come up with contingency plans for lots of scenarios, in order to be prepared, but that doesn't mean the political leadership is willing to make them happen.
 
Will not the occupation of Finland bogg down Soviet troops? Having the whole Finnish coast exposed can't be an issue fearig a German invasion ?

The occupation of Finland will probably take roughly as much troops as the Soviets had on the Finnish border IOTL post-1940 anyway, or maybe somewhat more. I agree pretty much with everything General Tirpitz says above, save for the occupation of Finland saving Soviet troops for use elsewhere. Finland needs to be garrisoned, and as this is a fairly big country in comparison to population, it will need comparatively more troops to be pacified than the Baltic states. There will be a problem with underground resistance at first, as well. Stalin will also not take chances with Sweden, I believe, so the border would be defended.

In terms of the naval defence of the USSR, it will be only a positive thing that the Soviet defence now starts at the Hanko Peninsula, maybe even Åland, rather than on the eastern Gulf of Finland. After the USSR takes the Baltics, the Soviet Union's naval disposition in the Baltic Sea will be the same as the Russian Empire's in 1914. The entirety of the Gulf of Finland will be used for defending Leningrad, and German troops in *Barbarossa will need to take Estonia before they have a realistic chance to make a landing in Finland to make it a new front. The Soviet fleet would start the war from a much better position than IOTL, and might force the Germans to use more naval assets in the Baltic as well - for protecting iron ore shipments from Sweden, say. Like General Tirpitz said above, the Lapland front would be a serious problem for the Germans. Even if they take Norway, the USSR could defend Petsamo and Murmansk quite effectively due to the conditions up north heavily favoring the defender.

All in all, having Finland would be a net plus for the USSR. But like RightTosser pointed out, the possibility of a Operation Pike would be something that might mess things up ITTL. There are also various other knock-on effects and butterflies that the fall of the Republic of Finland would cause, many of which are not entirely obvious.


The United Kingdom going to war against the Soviet Union, and thus driving it onto the side of Germany, against the United Kingdom? That would be one of the most cataclysmically stupid decisions ever made. Perhaps the biggest favour anyone ever did for Adolf Hitler.

Hence why it didn't happen in OTL. War Plan Red is of a similar sort. Militaries come up with contingency plans for lots of scenarios, in order to be prepared, but that doesn't mean the political leadership is willing to make them happen.

Operation Pike is massively stupid in hindsight. But the 1940 Allied leaders would not have the benefit of hindsight like we do. In a TL where the USSR takes the whole of Finland, and thus is seen in the West as a lot worse aggressor than IOTL through 1940, *Pike may still not be very likely, but it would at least be more likely to take place than it was IOTL.
 
Operation Pike is massively stupid in hindsight. But the 1940 Allied leaders would not have the benefit of hindsight like we do. In a TL where the USSR takes the whole of Finland, and thus is seen in the West as a lot worse aggressor than IOTL through 1940, *Pike may still not be very likely, but it would at least be more likely to take place than it was IOTL.

I agree with you here: still unlikely but not as unlikely as in our world. Which is rather terrifying, as is any scenario which would so dramatically increase Hitler's chances. If the British government were actually principled/stupid enough to do it (choose your word!), the best-case scenario is "only" a horrific waste of human life (and supplies too) in a relatively minor campaign in the Baltic before the two sides shamefacedly have the world's most awkward session of "kiss and make up" once Operation Barbarossa comes; the worst-case scenario is that the British and Soviets waste even more of their strength in a significant campaign in southern and southwestern Asia and then the Soviet Union gets struck by Operation Barbarossa even more devastatingly than in OTL and loses the Eastern Front, and by the time of Operation Overlord, there are several times as many German divisions on the beaches of Europe.
 
I think one of the main issues with Operation Pike, just as with all these plans to send troops to Finland, was the fact that they lacked a definite political commitment. In addition, they seem to show quite bad understanding of the conditions in the field. The Pike is probably even a worse case than the planned Finnish adventure.

There were some rather wild plans which were supposed to support the aims of Pike. (To cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. No, really.) One of these was to agitate Turkic people inside the Soviet Union to rebel against the government. Turkish intelligence services had signaled their willingness to help the Allies with their contacts inside the USSR to achieve that and there was even talk about Turkish armed intervention to the Caucasus. I would assume that this was based on the idea that with oil supplies cut and rebellions in its Southern areas, the Soviet Union would be already so deep in the state of disorder that Turkish army could advance to the Caspian Sea supported by the Allied air forces.

In terms of the naval defence of the USSR, it will be only a positive thing that the Soviet defence now starts at the Hanko Peninsula, maybe even Åland, rather than on the eastern Gulf of Finland. After the USSR takes the Baltics, the Soviet Union's naval disposition in the Baltic Sea will be the same as the Russian Empire's in 1914. The entirety of the Gulf of Finland will be used for defending Leningrad, and German troops in *Barbarossa will need to take Estonia before they have a realistic chance to make a landing in Finland to make it a new front. The Soviet fleet would start the war from a much better position than IOTL, and might force the Germans to use more naval assets in the Baltic as well - for protecting iron ore shipments from Sweden, say.

I personally suspect that a German landing in Southern Finland is unlikely as the Red Navy could act much more effectively in the Baltic Sea which would limit German operations. However, the threat of that is serious enough that the Soviets must keep forces there and that will tie them to some extent. I could imagine that some older naval fortification on the southern coast might get some refurbishment ITTL. One (small) formerly Finnish territory, which I could see German very well trying to capture trough naval operation though, is Gogland.
 
Guys on your opinion how much time will take the URSS army to roll till Helsinki?? In the situation that the Brits will do THE mistake and do operation Pike, will the Swedes join axis? Will be the Norwegian more collaborative Especially in the possibility to fight the soviets to liberate the Finnish?
 
The United Kingdom going to war against the Soviet Union, and thus driving it onto the side of Germany, against the United Kingdom? That would be one of the most cataclysmically stupid decisions ever made. Perhaps the biggest favour anyone ever did for Adolf Hitler.

Hence why it didn't happen in OTL. War Plan Red is of a similar sort. Militaries come up with contingency plans for lots of scenarios, in order to be prepared, but that doesn't mean the political leadership is willing to make them happen.
Keep in mind, many during that time felt that the Soviets were already aligned with the Nazis.
 
Very, very long term question.

Assuming the Soviets take all of Finland (likely) and that Pike doesn't happen, what happens post war? Especially in the 1980s with a dying Soviet Union? Does this 'alt-Finland' have the OTL borders or would it have its 1938 borders I wonder (or even more)?

And looking well beyond that, does a resurgent Russia in the 2010's start causing trouble here as well as in the Ukraine?
(Though butterflies obviously do mean a lot of this isn't that likely)
 
Top