Winter War done wrong for the 4th time in HoI

[darth254]

You attacked him personally, because you assume he is finnish. You didn't attack his arguments. That's racism.

Edit: You attacked what he is, not what he stands for. Got it?

lol, his argument is biased . I attacked his argument because it stems from his cultural background. In fact, he should confirm whether he has ties with the region. If he doesn't, I'll cease responding. He puts up a topic criticizing the significance of Khalkhin Gol, that Soviets had interest in annexing Finland without any link, and then bashes Paradox over it. Garbage in topic, garbage out with the replies he'll get.

 

[Secret Master]

Soviets did not demand the borders of Moscow Peace Treaty of 1940 in the negotiations conducted in autumn 1939, they did not go to war to merely annex the Finnish Karelia but invaded with plans to occupy and annex whole Finland, and only gave up of this strategic objective and opted to sign an interim peace with the Finns when it seemed likely that the Western Allies would intervene to the conflict.

Why is this so hard to portray correctly in the game, Paradox? It doesn't take long to mod it in to the previous parts of the series, and it's certainly possible and even easy to do with the current game mechanics.

Did I miss something? Was HOI3 patched to remove the option for the Soviets to puppet Finland and turn them into a Soviet satellite?

There is an option during the Winter War in TFH (no mods mind you) that when the Soviets reach certain surrender progress on the Finns, they can demand far more than the 1940 treaty. You can puppet Finland and turn them into a Soviet client.

I should know, I do it quite often. After all, the strategic effect from controlling Finland's provinces is well worth the effort.

You can also manually add war goals against Finland in HOI3 to do whatever you want. If you want to annex Finland, by all means do so. No one is coming to help the Finns anyway, and even half-way decent HOI3 player should have no problems winning. :shrugs:

 

[omnib]

I think what the original post complained was, that there is no reason in game for the Soviet Union to stop of full annexation, except the claim which didnt existed before the war. In the game there is nothing about the Soviet Union relations with the West and maybe some other factors why Soviet Union decided to make a peace deal. During the Winter War Soviet Union and Allies relations were very bad and Germany did not look like the only evil.

To understand the Soviet Union plans, it is good to take a look at the occupation of the Baltic States. There were very similar ultimatum for some territory and army bases to all 3 Baltic States which they all accepted. Finland was the last of them and declined. Occupation of Baltics followed only next summer, while world was busy with the Fall of France. No one told Baltic States that Soviet Union plan is full occupation, but that don't mean that such plans did not existed, I guess same plans were ready for Finland.

 

[jaava]

lol, his argument is biased . I attacked his argument because it stems from his cultural background. In fact, he should confirm whether he has ties with the region. If he doesn't, I'll cease responding. He puts up a topic criticizing the significance of Khalkhin Gol, that Soviets had interest in annexing Finland without any link, and then bashes Paradox over it. Garbage in topic, garbage out with the replies he'll get.

No actually you did not attack his argument. In any way. You just stated that it must be biased and that should be obvious.

If you read the wikipedia article about winter war it lists some sources for the complete annexation and a couple against it. In any case just looking at the facts it seems clear that the soviet military aim was to at least puppet finland as they did set up a puppet regime at the beginning of the war and that puppet regime then asked soviets to "liberate" them. I would also point out that finnish territory was part of the molotov-ribbentrop pact with the baltics and they got annexed.

My only problem with the winter war is that the diplomatic tensions it created internationally are not modelled in any way.

 

[darth254]

No actually you did not attack his argument. In any way. You just stated that it must be biased and that should be obvious.

If you read the wikipedia article about winter war it lists some sources for the complete annexation and a couple against it. In any case just looking at the facts it seems clear that the soviet military aim was to at least puppet finland as they did set up a puppet regime at the beginning of the war and that puppet regime then asked soviets to "liberate" them. I would also point out that finnish territory was part of the molotov-ribbentrop pact with the baltics and they got annexed.

My only problem with the winter war is that the diplomatic tensions it created internationally are not modelled in any way.

labeling an argument biased is an attack on the argument lol. his name, your flag....yet again. my goodness. though at least you seem to present arguments in a less crybaby nationalist fashion than he did.

 

[Secret Master]

Let's all stay on topic. Further discussion of avatars, supposed ethnicity, supposed nationalism, or anything of that ilk will result in thread closure and moderator action.

 

[Pippo Franchino]

I think there is no Point discussing about a war goal about an ipotetical think that someone assume. If the soviet player want to puppet them they can add wargoal. Of course if the Soviets continue the Winter war Finland become a communist state as it would happen in real history. Finland called For peace because they were going to loose and the soviets accepted because they have a Long agenda to bring out.

 

[Opanashc]

You know, argument about numbers is fairly stupid. Numbers don't mean squat, if they cannot be brought to action. I care not, if the enemy's army has 500,000 soldiers in the region, if I only have to fight against 50,000.
People seem to assume, that SU was always a powerful country with huge resources. They are very wrong.
SU tended to ignore army training back then - due to low national budget, and huge areas the army had to cover. Hence, it was what it was. If more resources were spent on the army - SU would not have had the industry it did, fewer resources in the future, and hence poorer army and nation. Basically the choice was - as a businessman, you hire low-level goons to intimidate the enemies, while you spend the money saved on this on expanding your business and then hiring a lot of professionals to do the dirty jobs, or get a professionals now and NOT expand your business, with end result being that you don't have enough resources AND enough professionals when the action starts.

 

[Pippo Franchino]

The training between the soldier of those times can differ but non that much. As i said Finland was going to Fall and then asked the peace

 

[Opanashc]

The training between the soldier of those times can differ but non that much. As i said Finland was going to Fall and then asked the peace

Oh how wrong you are. Take Chinese soldiers of 1945 and compare them to German paratroopers of 1940.

 

[Loke]

Numbers are everything, losses for Finland was 70000 and for Russia more than 4 times the Finnish.
So imagine Russia with a population the same as Finland, then Russia would have lost the Winter War with those losses.

Imagine Barbarossa losses reversed, say the Germans had the Russian losses of more than 4 millions in 1941 then WWII would have been over at the time of Pearl Harbour...

So my friend - numbers do matter.

 

[Pippo Franchino]

The training between the medium soviet soldier and the finnish one won't differ that much. The soviets were just in worst position and with bad chain of command.

 

[Opanashc]

Numbers are everything, losses for Finland was 70000 and for Russia more than 4 times the Finnish.
So imagine Russia with a population the same as Finland, then Russia would have lost the Winter War with those losses.

Imagine Barbarossa losses reversed, say the Germans had the Russian losses of more than 4 millions in 1941 then WWII would have been over at the time of Pearl Harbour...

So my friend - numbers do matter.

Nice way of twisting my words.
During Barbarossa, Germans lost huge numbers of men. How else would you explain the need to reorganize their infantry companies from 180 to 80 men? Without the increase in number of said companies... Not to mention, that Germans had over 1 million men in the "Reserve Army" or simply replacements for losses. Soviet losses were greater, due to number of POWs, but in terms of KIA and WIA, Germans suffered slightly higher casualties then the Soviets during that time.

 

[Opanashc]

The training between the medium soviet soldier and the finnish one won't differ that much. The soviets were just in worst position and with bad chain of command.

Oh, it most definitely differed. According to Timoshenko's report, after he took over from Voroshilov as Minister of Defense (Narkom Oborony), in many units soldiers had no clue how to shoot, because their officers couldn't teach them.

 

[Pippo Franchino]

It is really hard to believe to this report... I think this was may e one or teo soldier but it is hard to believe that soviet union soldiers don't know how to shoot. It os just again any logic and i can't believe such thing xD Don't think all the stuff said as hold.. You have to look also Who say What and in Wich situation and with wich scope

 

[Opanashc]

It is really hard to believe to this report... I think this was may e one or teo soldier but it is hard to believe that soviet union soldiers don't know how to shoot. It os just again any logic and i can't believe such thing xD Don't think all the stuff said as hold.. You have to look also Who say What and in Wich situation and with wich scope

But its true. "Акт о приеме Наркомата Обороны Союза СССР тов.Тимошенко С.К. от тов. Ворошилова К.Е." dated 7 May 1940. I don't have it translated into English, only in Russian. And I didn't say ALL units were that bad. Only that no small number were. If 100 rifle companies out of 2000 are like that - would you call it a small amount (numbers are arbitrary)?

 

[TiberiusfromSWG]

The whole finish winter war fascinates me. I always love the David and Goliath struggle. and i mean all of them that includes the Vietnamese beating the most technological advanced super power, well, ever.

But this conflict in particular has sparked my interest lately. the soviets come in with over whelming force, and got stopped. i think it was interesting that as long as the fins stuck to their hit and run tactics they win, but when they tried to go on a major offensive they lost. in they end they took an ok peace deal considering what they were up against, and the soviets willingness to bleed for victory. I always wondered (as i am sure most everyone has) what wold have happened if just one allied division had gone to aid the fins. I think the soviets wold have turned around and marched back to the USSR. It is one thing to be the aggressor in a regional conflict. it is another thing to be seen as an aggressor in conflict now becoming a world conflict. with a growing German hurricane on your western frontier.

HOI3 for all of its faults modeled this well. all it takes is limiting the infrastructure. for a fin player stopping the soviets with smart defensive choices is not hard.

We have yet to see how HOI4 will handle this in the release version of the game. but i believe they will get it right.

 

[Pippo Franchino]

It is Said by a man in a particolar moment with a particolar aim.. Look in wich time he Said it and ask yourself all what i've Said before: When, where, why, with wich scope. Don't take history as Math because history is made by human and moments and we are speaking about soviets in that time is much true.

 

[Opanashc]

But this conflict in particular has sparked my interest lately. the soviets come in with over whelming force, and got stopped.

When Soviets came in overwhelming force, they crushed the Finns. They got stopped, when they were cocky, just barely had numeric superiority and believed into "workers will raise up in the rear of the enemy" and such nonsense.

I always wondered (as i am sure most everyone has) what wold have happened if just one allied division had gone to aid the fins.

Soviets would have gone till the end and would have completely conquered Finland to prevent such stuff from happening again. 1 division with little possibility of supply would not have made a difference in the end. There is a reason it was called "Winter War".
After German invasion, UK would have supported the SU regardless - as Churchill said "I would have defended devil in the Parliament if Hitler invaded Hell". Allies accepted Poland and rest of Baltics, after all.

 

[xtfoster]

You are wrong. Here's why:
Trotter made his book without access to Soviet archives in 1991, later research have since reached a wide consensus about the Soviet strategic goals. Your reading of Edwards is also rather interesting. Could you care to provide the pages where he claims that Soviets only wanted territory and were not initially planning to annex Finland?

"On November 30, 1939, the Soviet Union's Red Army invaded the young nation-state of Finland, in the full expectation of routing the small, ill-equipped Finnish army and annexing the former Russian territory by the end of the year."

2 problems.
1) The Devs have decided to go the way they have gone in previous games.
2) Your quotes do NOT contradict the quotes by other posters.
2a) The other posters have pointed out that the INITIAL demands by the USSR were for territorial concessions.
2b) Your quotes say that once negotiations failed, the USSR invaded fully expecting to have to annex Finland, take their concessions, and then install a puppet government over the rest.

So it seems to me that the way PDS has gone is the HISTORICALLY ACCURATE way to go. Start by demanding territory, and if that fails...invade expecting to at least have to install a puppet government later.