Finnish Winter War 70 years

[Ape]

And in 1944 they kicked out the Nazis. What a fucking scary bunch.

It's even more scarier when you realize what equipment they fought with 

[derspiess]

It's even more scarier when you realize what equipment they fought with 

FWIW, their locally produced small arms (which usually incorporated some captured/purchased parts) were of extremely high quality.  They took the Mosin-Nagant rifle & perfected it, resulting in the M39.

But yeah, they were light on everything else, literally having to beg, borrow & steal larger weapons.

[Martim Silva]

Today 70 years ago the Russians attacked Finland.

And failed, thereby making possible the rise of the Emo Finnish Teenagers (TM).

Congrats, Finland, anyways.

Failed? The whole war was an unmitigated disater for Finland.

Let's recap the developments.

In early October, the Soviet Union asked Finland to negotiate boundary alterations. Moscow asked for some land near Leningrad, control of the isles in the Gulf of Finland, the use [not cession] of the port of Hanko and some small rearrangements near Murmansk.

In return, the USSR would give Finland far more land than was asked of it near the Suomussalmi area.

(The Union request was due to worries about the security of the Leningrad and Murmansk areas, as the Finnish border was very close to them, and that made those key areas vulnerable from attacks coming from those areas, especially if the USSR would be fighting a large land war elsewhere at another time).

Now, despite all the nationalistic bantering of the Finns, consider their position: at the time, they have no outside help, while the far larger Soviet Union had absolutely no other worries at the moment. Despite almost two months of negotiations, the Finnish army was woefully unprepared for war on November 30th (it only had nine divisions, with a tenth being formed), and virtually no tanks. The Air Force had only about 100 not very modern airplanes.

The whole situation was made worse because the Finnish government had decided to rely on their domestic arms production since 1938, in order to better show its neutrality. And note also that the Finnish military industry was very small, especially in munitions (up until the end of the war, it never managed more than 10 shells per artillery piece per day), and you have a recipe for disaster.

On the other side, each Soviet division was larger than its Finnish counterparts, had three times more artillery, and each was supported by more tanks than the whole Finnish Army had. The Red Air Force numbered over 8,000 planes, a good number of those decently modern for 1939.

Since day one, and no matter how many tactical victories the Finns might win (since the Soviet preparations were a bit rushed and there were coordination problems between the different arms), there could have been only one outcome to the conflict.

The whole process of negotiations was a recipe for disaster for Finland. It should have been obvious that the Soviet Union meant business and that the correct interpretation of Moscow's willingness to negotiate was a desire to avoid war and not a sign of weakness. Helsinki made far too many wrong choices.

And let is not delve into the 'War of Continuation', which is even more embarrassing - joining the German attack in 1941 but stopping just a but over its original borders and them sitting put not helping its allies at all until the Germans are pretty much defeated and then waiting for the USSR to give it a massive wallop which resulted in the cession of even more land than what was lost in 1940 is pretty damn retarded.

Come to think about it, most of Germany's allies acted moronically during the war. Finland, Japan, Italy are all prime examples of what not to do in a war. In a purely strategic sense, overall they fought worse than the AI in a Paradox game, and that's saying something.

[Imagines Hitler creating a thread on the Paradox fora under the title 'My allies stopped moving - WTF?']

[Malthus]

The problem here was that the Finns were looking at the example of how well giving in to that sort of 'sensible' appeasment worked out for the victims of Stalin's then-partner in crime, Hitler, and they did not like what they saw. 

What the Finns foresaw (rightly or wrongly) was that giving in to Stalin's demands without a fight would just lead to more and harsher demands in the future.

[Valmy]

I figured Martim would come on here and tell us how resistance to his Communist Masters is futile

WE WILL BURY YOU!

[The Brain]

Good old Martim.

[The Brain]

It's even more scarier when you realize what equipment they fought with 

FWIW, their locally produced small arms (which usually incorporated some captured/purchased parts) were of extremely high quality.  They took the Mosin-Nagant rifle & perfected it, resulting in the M39.

But yeah, they were light on everything else, literally having to beg, borrow & steal larger weapons.

My grandfather (Swedish army officer) went to Finland in 39 and trained Finns to use the Swedish AT guns that they were shipped. The guns were much appreciated.

[Martim Silva]

The problem here was that the Finns were looking at the example of how well giving in to that sort of 'sensible' appeasment worked out for the victims of Stalin's then-partner in crime, Hitler, and they did not like what they saw.

Note that, unlike Germany, the USSR actually offered Finland *more* land in exchange for the territories it wanted.

What the Finns foresaw (rightly or wrongly) was that giving in to Stalin's demands without a fight would just lead to more and harsher demands in the future.

Moral issues apart, when the difference in forces is so great, aren't you really just inviting a trashing and harsher terms? (which was what happened, the terms of the 1940 peace were rather harsher than the ones initially offered - the USSR got everything it wanted, Finland got nothing in return except dead, wounded and displaced people).

On a strictly practical point, I ask you - was it worth it? If it had accepted the terms and not allied with the Germans, modern Finland would still have the Petsamo area, and more land in the Karelia.

I figured Martim would come on here and tell us how resistance to his Communist Masters is futile 

It's late 1939. You're Finland. The USSR makes demands. How can resistance be of any use, pray tell?

[The Brain]

I find your abundance of faith in Communism disturbing.

[Malthus]

The problem here was that the Finns were looking at the example of how well giving in to that sort of 'sensible' appeasment worked out for the victims of Stalin's then-partner in crime, Hitler, and they did not like what they saw.

Note that, unlike Germany, the USSR actually offered Finland *more* land in exchange for the territories it wanted.

What the Finns foresaw (rightly or wrongly) was that giving in to Stalin's demands without a fight would just lead to more and harsher demands in the future.

Moral issues apart, when the difference in forces is so great, aren't you really just inviting a trashing and harsher terms? (which was what happened, the terms of the 1940 peace were rather harsher than the ones initially offered - the USSR got everything it wanted, Finland got nothing in return except more dead and wounded).

On a strictly practical point, I ask you - was it worth it? If it had accepted the terms and not allied with the Germans, modern Finland would still have the Petsamo area, and more land in the Karelia.

I figured Martim would come on here and tell us how resistance to his Communist Masters is futile 

It's late 1939. You're Finland. The USSR makes demands. How can resistance be of any use, pray tell?

You have no evidence that meekly giving in to Soviet demands would have had such an outcome.

As it was, most of Finland was Soviet-free after WW2. Presumably the Finns found the sacrifice worthwhile.

[DGuller]

The problem here was that the Finns were looking at the example of how well giving in to that sort of 'sensible' appeasment worked out for the victims of Stalin's then-partner in crime, Hitler, and they did not like what they saw. 

What the Finns foresaw (rightly or wrongly) was that giving in to Stalin's demands without a fight would just lead to more and harsher demands in the future.

Agreed.  Former parts of the Russian Empire were going back to Mother Russia one way or the other.  The Soviets ignored the non-aggression pacts when they started the Winter War, what was going to hold them back after Finland gave up some of its land and defenses?

[Brezel]

Note that, unlike Germany, the USSR actually offered Finland *more* land in exchange for the territories it wanted.

The Karelian Isthmus Soviets were demanding had practically the only effective fortifications and also served as the gateway to Helsinki thanks to favourable terrain. Had Finland turned it over as Stalin demanded, a highway to Helsinki would have been opened to Soviet tanks. But of course, Stalin was a such a trusthworthy and peace loving anti-imperialist, he would never have utilized the chance and Finns were stupid not to let down their only cover versus the Red Army. 

[Josquius]

The problem here was that the Finns were looking at the example of how well giving in to that sort of 'sensible' appeasment worked out for the victims of Stalin's then-partner in crime, Hitler, and they did not like what they saw. 

What the Finns foresaw (rightly or wrongly) was that giving in to Stalin's demands without a fight would just lead to more and harsher demands in the future.

Yep, they'd be giving up a good strategic position in the south without a fight too. If the Soviets are going to attack its good to have your guns in range of one of their major cities and some fortifications ready to meet their assault.

[Faeelin]

Agreed.  Former parts of the Russian Empire were going back to Mother Russia one way or the other.  The Soviets ignored the non-aggression pacts when they started the Winter War, what was going to hold them back after Finland gave up some of its land and defenses?

Of course, the best part of the argument is the Russians needed Finland to defend against aggressors. Once the Finns had managed to survive...

Nice job breaking it, Stalin.

[Martim Silva]

You have no evidence that meekly giving in to Soviet demands would have had such an outcome.

The USSR could have rolled over Finland completely in 1944-45. It did not. If all Moscow wanted was to annex the Finns, Finland would have ceased to exist then.

As it was, most of Finland was Soviet-free after WW2. Presumably the Finns found the sacrifice worthwhile.

Not really. Finns like to promote that myth, but what they don't say is that they agreed to many demands from Moscow and became deeply involved with the Eastern Bloc: apart from the territories cededm under the 1947 peace treaty, Finland had to imprison several prominent politicians, reduce its armed forces, paid heavy economic reparations and allow the Soviet naval base at Hanko.

In addition, the separate Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance concluded in 1948 obligated Finland to militarily ally with the USSR if she was attacked. Helsinki also signed the Finnish-Soviet Clearing Trade and Payment System, which opened the markets of both countries to each other. As long as the USSR existed, Finland was not 'Soviet-free'.

The Karelian Isthmus Soviets were demanding had practically the only effective fortifications and also served as the gateway to Helsinki thanks to favourable terrain. Had Finland turned it over as Stalin demanded, a highway to Helsinki would have been opened to Soviet tanks. But of course, Stalin was a such a trusthworthy and peace loving anti-imperialist, he would never have utilized the chance and Finns were stupid not to let down their only cover versus the Red Army. 

I'm going to be blunt: Finland had no 'effective fortifications' against the USSR. You could build all the bunkers you wanted, but still in the case of a war with the USSR, Finland could only be the loser, period. Having forts that allow the country to last 1-2 more months counts for absolutely zero in the grand scheme of things.

When the difference of forces is gigantic, you have two choices: you quit or you lose. There is no other way around it. And it does not make a damn difference weather you 'trust' Stalin or not - he could chew Finland whenever he wanted, no matter what Helsinki thought or did. So the Finns would have done better to take what was given to them.

And I recall - when she had the chance to annex the country, the USSR let Finland exist.