What if they never fought the Winter War, or how could they not?

[Jopa79]

In general, it is felt abroad that Finland suffered injustice in the Winter War. The opinion was the same then and is still the same now. It doesn't hurt foreigners, but it did hurt the Finns, the land, the territory was gone and a quarter of the people had to be taken to the road. No-one gave, but sympathy.

Since the Soviet Union's threat(s) on Finland did not end after March 1940, Finland did not disarm its army and considered the peace only a thin one. There were also clear indications, soon after the Winter War, e.g. the Loss of France and the Battle of Britain would widen the war in Europe.

Of course, when it was only a year and a half after the previous war, Finland wanted its own land, the lost territory back.

Since Finland had just been left alone, to fight against the eastern enemy in the Winter War, they did not want to experience the same thing again right away. The new war brewing on the horizon, between Germany and the Soviet Union, it was also understood in the North. Germany, waging war against the Soviet Union, Finland might regain the lost land.

From its independece, in 1917, Finland searched for a western ally, as it experienced, the threat from the east is not yet neutralized and the freshly gained sovereign status among the other global nations could be gone. As the former Russian Empire turned into the Soviet Union, it mostly created more willingness among the Finns, it was understood, the communist country, led by Stalin was a very serious threat.

Having serious doubts, but still presenting the military might in Europe, France and England, flatly refused to form an alliance with Finland. These Great Powers couldn't dare to play with the Soviet Union.

More likely, the both nations only gave sympathy for Finland in 1939-1940 and during 1941-1944 denounced Finland, even Great-Britain declaring war on the country.

I leave two trailers, first one, the Winter War, the second one, the Unknown Soldier.

 

[Rubidium]

Obvious possibilities:

• They get completely absorbed, like the Baltic states, and then gain independence when the USSR collapses (also like the Baltic states), with their 1939 borders.
• They cede some territory, and get a pro-Soviet puppet government. Like historically, but without the second round of cessions after the Continuation War.

 

[Jopa79]

Obvious possibilities:

• They get completely absorbed, like the Baltic states, and then gain independence when the USSR collapses (also like the Baltic states), with their 1939 borders.
• They cede some territory, and get a pro-Soviet puppet government. Like historically, but without the second round of cessions after the Continuation War.

These are very true possibilities and neither option sounds very appealing.

Edit:
With the remark, that in post-war Finland, however, the democratic social order was preserved - the Finnish parliament was elected by referendum and ministers for the government were elected from the parliament.

The Soviet Union, of course, announced who were desirable and undesirable persons as ministers. But in the case of Finland, you can't talk about the same kind of puppet government as elsewhere, for instance in Eastern Europe. The people and the politicians made the choices here, eventually, taking into account the Soviet's wish.

 

[Grosshaus]

I wonder if there remained any plans Nazi Germany made about Barbarossa without Finland being an ally? Surely they would have violated Finnish neutrality, but in which forms?

At least some Finnish ports and airbases would have been obtained, but through force or diplomacy? Would Germany have full-scale invaded Finland and installed a puppet regime? Would there have been a German thrust through the Karelian Isthmus towards Leningrad?

 

[JodelDiplom]

I wonder if there remained any plans Nazi Germany made about Barbarossa without Finland being an ally? Surely they would have violated Finnish neutrality, but in which forms?

At least some Finnish ports and airbases would have been obtained, but through force or diplomacy? Would Germany have full-scale invaded Finland and installed a puppet regime? Would there have been a German thrust through the Karelian Isthmus towards Leningrad?

Cutting Leningrad off from the rest of the USSR doesn't require surrounding it literally on all sides. The connections that mattered were those to the south and east, and those the Wehrmacht could plan to cut off via overland thrust from the Baltic region.

Finland was rather unimportant for overall war planning, since once Leningrad was under siege, the Soviet ability to control and reinforce Finland would also be mostly gone.

Theoretically the German Navy might want to seize control of Finnish ports to prevent them from being used as low key support bases by whatever Soviet naval power remained - stray submarines, coastal sloops etc which might withdraw north into soviet controlled ports once the Baltic countries came under German control. This could lead to some German operations on Finnish soil. Mostly it would I think be left to ad hoc actions based on what the circumstances on the ground would be. If there were a Finnish uprising, the Germans would of course support it. If the Swedes could be persuaded to join Germany in liberating Finland, that too would be a possible option. Finland didn't have much valuable resources that would be worth a larger effort so they would not feature much in German planning.

 

[Jopa79]

Cutting Leningrad off from the rest of the USSR doesn't require surrounding it literally on all sides. The connections that mattered were those to the south and east, and those the Wehrmacht could plan to cut off via overland thrust from the Baltic region.

Exactly. Connections to south and east of Leningrad were vital for the Soviets, if they would like to keep the city. The Germans and Finns were very well aware of it and in order to cut those connections they planned a joint military operation, known as 'Shaking hands at River Svir'.

After capturing the Baltic States, the Germans pushed towards Tikhvin, for instance. From Tikhvin to circa 100 km north, the Finns were at the River Svir and they already had captured a bridgehead on the southern banks of the river.

The idea was, Germans would attack to north from Tikhvin and the Finns would attack south from the River Svir. They would meet somewhere at the midpoint and "shake hands". In the meantime, Leningrad would be cut off completely of its supply directions and it would also mean a huge encirclement of Soviet troops in that direction.

However, this operation was cancelled as the Germans couldn't push any farter from Tikhvin, instead, the Soviet 1941-1942 winter offensive throwed Germans out of the town.

 

[Cavalry]

Of course the Winter War can be avoided. The Soviet just offered a good land exchange. Whatever an offer Finnland should have not refused.

Finn Congress may thought Germany as ally to back them, but they didn't get inform about Molotov Ribentrov Pact. Marshal Mannerheim probably knew this and gave the Congress a hint but they didn't listen to him. The Finn did try to talk right after the war broken out but it was too late. Stalin had decided for more.

Later Finns could try to "buy Soviet land" from the Germans and not fight. But the Germans sent big weapon aid to Finnland after Winter War for a reason. And Finnland did accept that aid.

 

[Henry IX]

The Winter War was necessary if Finland wanted to maintain its independence. The Continuation war was very much a Finninsh choice, and while it was an entirely understandable choice, it proved to be a bad one, and left Finland much worse off than it would have been otherwise.

The Soviet Union proved that it could not be trusted in its interactions with the Baltic states who did not sign up for a full occupation and total loss of freedom. If Finland had handed over the heavily fortified region the Soviets demanded, they would then have simply exploited Finland's much weaker position when they went for the next bite. Basically the same playbook as the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia.

It was only the Finnish resistance that convinced Stalin that Finland was not worth the effort. After all, if they give in to one outrageous demand, why not a second (and third and fourth). However, by dint of courage, leadership and sacrifice Finland did manage to convice Stalin that they were not worth invading and had to be negotiated with.

 

[Cavalry]

If Finland had handed over the heavily fortified region the Soviets demanded, they would then have simply exploited Finland's much weaker position when they went for the next bite. Basically the same playbook as the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia.

Finland did hand over more than Soviet asking before the war, when they lost in 1940.

There was many moments to check whether fighting or not

When Soviet asked for land exchange for security reasons , Finland should agree. If they liked to fight, at least have a confirmed ally to back them. Peoples should fight only when they have chance to win, or else they should preserve strength to fight another day.

But when the Soviet started the war and refused to receive just a piece of land but full annex, Finland should fight on.

 

[Jopa79]

The Winter War was necessary if Finland wanted to maintain its independence. The Continuation war was very much a Finninsh choice, and while it was an entirely understandable choice, it proved to be a bad one, and left Finland much worse off than it would have been otherwise.

The Soviet Union proved that it could not be trusted in its interactions with the Baltic states who did not sign up for a full occupation and total loss of freedom. If Finland had handed over the heavily fortified region the Soviets demanded, they would then have simply exploited Finland's much weaker position when they went for the next bite. Basically the same playbook as the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia.

It was only the Finnish resistance that convinced Stalin that Finland was not worth the effort. After all, if they give in to one outrageous demand, why not a second (and third and fourth). However, by dint of courage, leadership and sacrifice Finland did manage to convice Stalin that they were not worth invading and had to be negotiated with.

That was a quite true and realistic overview, thank you. Still, regarding the reference to the Continuation War, I dare to present a different point of view.

German soldiers in Oulu/Northern Finland/Lapland during the Continuation War. SA-Kuva.

What the Continuation War turned out to be, how history knows it, the Finns had a lot of influence on its final essence. And not least because of that, Finland was a major, significant party of that war.

But I wouldn't talk about Continuation War being only a Finnish choice in this case. World politics and conflicts between the great powers also defined Finland's room for maneuver and negotiation in the years 1939-1945. For example, when Germany had interests in Scandinavia, as well as an attack plan from the north against the Soviet Union (Leningrad and Murmansk), Finland was unable to influence the German will.

At the same time that Germany set its sights on Scandinavia, the Soviet Union annexed the Baltic States. Furthermore, the Soviet Union's pressure on Finland did not stop after the Winter War. The Soviets made continuous land, sea and airspace violations, trying to provoke Finland. The downing of the Finnish passenger plane Kaleva during peacetime is one example. Confirmed by currently known Soviet documents, it is revealed, that the Soviet Union planned a new invasion of Finland to take place in 1940, or in 1941. The outbreak of the operation Barbarossa eventually made the Soviets to abandon this planned, new invasion.

After the Winter War and during the interim peace, Finnish intelligence, and not really anyone in Finland believed that the peace period would be long in the North. When the Germans occupied Denmark and Norway, Sweden's balance between joining the war, or not joining, and the Soviet Union's eternal hatred of Finland did not create an image of maintaining stable conditions in here.

It was a Finnish choice, in light of these issues, the army was not demobilized after the Winter War, in contrary, younger men were called to service. And anyway, in every way, the losses of the war were replaced, supplemented, it was preparing for a new Soviet invasion, or a possible war between the great powers in northern Europe, in which Finland might be involved.

Even if Finland had not started the Continuation War, as it is now known, that war would have been fought in any case, bearing some other name, with, or without Finland. If the Finnish army had been demobilized, it would have been very easy for the Germans, or the Soviets to occupy Finland.

The Germans thought only of their own interests when they approached Finland both politically and militarily in 1940-1941. It was masked by kindness, camaraderie and brotherhood. Finland would be more useful to Germany as an ally than as an occupied country, considering Operation Barbarossa. From Finland, it would be a very short way to e.g. Leningrad, which was of course, one of Germany's main objectives. Germany's advantage was also awareness, that Finland had a strong desire to regain the lost territories and therefore the Finns were more willingly accepting allying with Germany, however, never signing the tripartite-pact.

Now, here’s again a moment, which is an actual Finnish choice. The Finns accepted the German approachment, having the awareness, the Germans would probably come in anyway, just like they did in Denmark and in Norway. There were two Finnish reasons for the alliance relationship, it was believed that Germany would nevertheless come and attack the Soviet Union from Finnish soil, secondly, the lost territories were wanted back.

It was Finnish negotiation skills that an agreement was reached with Germany, in which Germany agreed to remain militarily only in northern Finland, and did not participate in ground operations in the south. If it had happened otherwise, southern Finland would have been destroyed like Lapland in 1944-1945 by the Germans and the Soviet Union might have followed.

The Continuation War has a bad reputation abroad, but also in Finland due to Finland's relations with Nazi Germany during the war. It is very understandable. Instead, it is a pity that abroad it is rarely understood that the Continuation War was necessary, even more necessary, than the Winter War was for Finland, if the Finns would like to retain its newly gained independency and avoid experiencing a fate of an occupied country, like the Baltic States. Above, I have quite accurately presented aspects that are not always remembered outside of Finland.

The Winter War is internationally recognized as the heroic struggle of a small country alone against superiority, for good reason. However, it is true and realistic that the Continuation War has a much greater significance for Finland's current existence than the Winter War. That thing is not known, or they don't want to acknowledge it, or they don't want to talk about it.

 

[Jopa79]

Finland did hand over more than Soviet asking before the war, when they lost in 1940.

There was many moments to check whether fighting or not

When Soviet asked for land exchange for security reasons , Finland should agree. If they liked to fight, at least have a confirmed ally to back them. Peoples should fight only when they have chance to win, or else they should preserve strength to fight another day.

But when the Soviet started the war and refused to receive just a piece of land but full annex, Finland should fight on.

Yes, we handed over more than the original claim was, showing just the Soviet nature, unreliable when it comes to keeping word, always wanting more, more and more.

The moments, to check, whether to fight, or not, should have been told for the Soviets. Nobody here wanted that war, but the Soviet Union.

Like historically, Finland should never agree in Soviet land exchange proposal. The Soviet Union demanded a border transfer at the Karelian Isthmus citing the safety of Leningrad. The idea is absurd, why would Finland want to threaten Leningrad? On the other hand, if the Soviet Union wanted a border move because of the Germans, a 20-30 km border move means nothing when the Germans start the attack a little further.

Besides, the Soviet Union demanded, in addition to the border transfer, Finnish ports for naval bases, for rent, for the Soviet Baltic Fleet. It's very suspicious. As a whole, the entire border transfer proposal may have been a long-term plan to occupy Finland. The exchange land offered by the Soviet Union to Finland was also completely worthless.

Having an ally against the Soviet Union during the Winter War would have been very wise, yes. We asked, many nations, throughout the 1930’s and during the war itself, but guess what, nobody came.

If you’re a small nation and want to retain your sovereignty, you have to fight for it, even alone. A sure way to lose, is lay down your arms. It can hardly be said, the Soviet Union won the Winter War. Instead, Finland was able to block the primary Soviet objective, further Finland retained its independence and avoided occupation. There are very few European nations, experiencing, or achieving the same during the WWII.

 

[Cavalry]

At the same time that Germany set its sights on Scandinavia, the Soviet Union annexed the Baltic States. Furthermore, the Soviet Union's pressure on Finland did not stop after the Winter War. The Soviets made continuous land, sea and airspace violations, trying to provoke Finland. The downing of the Finnish passenger plane Kaleva during peacetime is one example. Confirmed by currently known Soviet documents, it is revealed, that the Soviet Union planned a new invasion of Finland to take place in 1940, or in 1941. The outbreak of the operation Barbarossa eventually made the Soviets to abandon this planned, new invasion.

Annex of Baltics were due to the Fall of Paris, changing balance of Powers. Sphere of influence in diplomatic pact usually is not meaning annex (except on Poland that could not exist after German captured a half). But Soviet did that in a few days before Germany armies can turn east. Even Germany was suprised by the Baltic annex.

Stalin didn't need to provoke Finnland, that is not the way he did things. They were checking on Germany because of there was Germans troops in Finnland and other clues. Any advisor should tell Stalin what to do with Finnland like the Baltics, rather praying for Finnland would not do anything in June 1941. Praying was not a strength of Stalin.

But Germany didn't need to send troops there to save Finnland. They just need to say hey Soviet, Finnland is my best friend so I want to change the Pact and save him. That's Ok, not very pleased but Ok, Germany just need to compensate for Soviet for changing the Pact, but they didn't want to pay seeing they have France now.

 

[Jopa79]

Annex of Baltics were due to the Fall of Paris, changing balance of Powers. Sphere of influence in diplomatic pact usually is not meaning annex (except on Poland that could not exist after German captured a half). But Soviet did that in a few days before Germany armies can turn east. Even Germany was suprised by the Baltic annex.

Stalin didn't need to provoke Finnland, that is not the way he did things. They were checking on Germany because of there was Germans troops in Finnland and other clues. Any advisor should tell Stalin what to do with Finnland like the Baltics, rather praying for Finnland would not do anything in June 1941. Praying was not a strength of Stalin.

But Germany didn't need to send troops there to save Finnland. They just need to say hey Soviet, Finnland is my best friend so I want to change the Pact and save him. That's Ok, not very pleased but Ok, Germany just need to compensate for Soviet for changing the Pact, but they didn't want to pay seeing they have France now.

The Battle for Denmark and Norway - which led to the German occupation of both countries - took place from April 9th to June 10th, 1940. The Germans occupied Paris on June 14th, 1940 and on the same day the Soviet Union annexed the Baltic States. So, in my opinion, all these events happened in a fairly short period of time, I don't know why you wanted to bring it up?

I strongly doubt that the annexation of the Baltics would have come as a surprise to Germany, or, in that case, they had completely forgotten that they had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

With all existing means - which cannot yet be interpreted as warfare - immediately after the end of the Winter War, the Soviet Union began to put pressure on Finland. In addition to what I mentioned earlier, according to the Soviet Union, Finland was not allowed to establish a defense alliance with Sweden, for example. And this Soviet pressure was not connected with the German military presence in Finland. The pressure began in the spring, 1940, first German units (for the Operation Barbarossa) arrived Finland not until in early June, 1941. Some units, e.g. the Luftwaffe, had already arrived in Finland earlier, but before the late autumn of 1940 there were no Germans in Finland other than vacationers.

 

[Cavalry]

The Battle for Denmark and Norway - which led to the German occupation of both countries - took place from April 9th to June 10th, 1940. The Germans occupied Paris on June 14th, 1940 and on the same day the Soviet Union annexed the Baltic States. So, in my opinion, all these events happened in a fairly short period of time, I don't know why you wanted to bring it up?

Fall of France is a major event that change balance of powers. Now German and Axis become the supreme power in the world. Every other power stopped neutrality and try to limit the gain of Axis, but of course not to run into war themselves. The US asked Japanese to go back to 1937 China border or get oil embargo, and escorted British ships.

The Soviet was quite precisely on these events. There were records that Molotov asked Germans continuously where they reach in Poland so the Red only invade Poland after the fall of Warsaw, not too early not too late. So the Baltic annex could not happen randomly. Many knew Paris would fall in a few days, but Soviet had the calm to wait for exact date, and they blockaded Baltic nations several days in advance. If they had started too early the British/France can protest and that could be considered an act against the still fighting British/France forces. Now France had fallen, other powers can see the annex is just a way for Soviet to help themselve before the German juggernaut.

In contrast the Japanese started Pearl Harbor a few day too early than the Moscow Counter offensive and they paid dearly for that. Had they know Moscow stayed firm, they should have help the Germans first.

 

[Henry IX]

The Winter War is internationally recognized as the heroic struggle of a small country alone against superiority, for good reason.

Internationally, that is not how it is viewed. It is either seen as a Finish betrayal of Western democracy, by allying themselves with Nazi Germany, or as an unfortunate decision by a minor nation caught up in events too big for it to handle (like so many other European nations). This is not an argument for these views, my opinions are clear from my other posts, but simply to point out that there is not a great deal of International sympathy for Finland's descision to ally with Nazi Germany. Certainly, any Non-Finn who knows enough about the Eastern Front to have an opinion about the issues is also aware of Nazi Germany's support for Finalnd, including aircraft, weapons, tanks and assault guns, and entire divisions of German soldiers.

The heroic bit is certainly the mainstream view, however.

 

[Jopa79]

Internationally, that is not how it is viewed. It is either seen as a Finish betrayal of Western democracy, by allying themselves with Nazi Germany, or as an unfortunate decision by a minor nation caught up in events too big for it to handle (like so many other European nations). This is not an argument for these views, my opinions are clear from my other posts, but simply to point out that there is not a great deal of International sympathy for Finland's descision to ally with Nazi Germany. Certainly, any Non-Finn who knows enough about the Eastern Front to have an opinion about the issues is also aware of Nazi Germany's support for Finalnd, including aircraft, weapons, tanks and assault guns, and entire divisions of German soldiers.

The heroic bit is certainly the mainstream view, however.

I guess, you mixed the two wars accidently, I was talking about the Winter War in the quote.

 

[Henry IX]

I guess, you mixed the two wars accidently, I was talking about the Winter War in the quote.

Ha, ha, yes I did.

The winter war is just as you describe...

 

[Rubidium]

Fall of France is a major event that change balance of powers. Now German and Axis become the supreme power in the world. Every other power stopped neutrality and try to limit the gain of Axis, but of course not to run into war themselves. The US asked Japanese to go back to 1937 China border or get oil embargo, and escorted British ships.

The Soviet was quite precisely on these events. There were records that Molotov asked Germans continuously where they reach in Poland so the Red only invade Poland after the fall of Warsaw, not too early not too late. So the Baltic annex could not happen randomly. Many knew Paris would fall in a few days, but Soviet had the calm to wait for exact date, and they blockaded Baltic nations several days in advance. If they had started too early the British/France can protest and that could be considered an act against the still fighting British/France forces. Now France had fallen, other powers can see the annex is just a way for Soviet to help themselve before the German juggernaut.

In contrast the Japanese started Pearl Harbor a few day too early than the Moscow Counter offensive and they paid dearly for that. Had they know Moscow stayed firm, they should have help the Germans first.

Japan had its own interests and concerns, that really couldn't be met with an invasion of the Soviet Union. In particular, it needed access to oil and other resources after the oil embargo, something it couldn't get from invading Siberia (as Siberian oil hadn't been discovered and wouldn't be feasible to discover and develop until well after the war was over).

Japan was not an adjunct of Germany, and had neither the obligation nor the desire to bail out Germany from its own mess. The Japanese made plenty of mistakes, both militarily and diplomatically during this period, but not invading Siberia wasn't one of them.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

Red only invade Poland after the fall of Warsaw,

Factually wrong.

 

[Jopa79]

Siege of Warsaw (1939) took place during 8-28 September. The Red Army invaded Poland on 17 September. Also, on 30 September, the evacuation of the Polish forces to German prisoner of war camps started and it was not until the next day, when the Germans entered the Polish capital.