• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

WI Finland yields to Soviet demands rather than fight?

Hendryk

Taken back control yet?
Published by SLP
Location
France
In OTL, Finland was the exception among the USSR's Western neighbors which Stalin bullied into granting territorial concessions. But its intransigeance wasn't a foregone conclusion: even Mannerheim thought it best to yield to Soviet demands rather than risk all-out war. So what if the matter had been resolved via negotiation before November 1939? Would the USSR have henceforth left Finland alone, or would Stalin have moved the goalposts in order to forcibly reannex it the way he did with the Baltic states? Would a Finland that didn't fight the Winter War have remained neutral after the start of Operation Barbarossa?
 
And what happens in 41 without the lessons of the Winter War, especially considering Barbarossa was already an absolute disaster for the Soviets even with them starting to reconfigure in light of what they'd learned in the Winter War.
 
And what happens in 41 without the lessons of the Winter War, especially considering Barbarossa was already an absolute disaster for the Soviets even with them starting to reconfigure in light of what they'd learned in the Winter War.
Also a fair question. The military experience of the post-purge Red Army would be limited to the clashes against Japan and the invasion of Poland, both of which were lopsided victories. Does anyone know if there was a serious effort OTL to learn the lessons of the Winter War?
 
Then again, IIRC one of the factors outside of Nazi ideology towards Barbarossa for Hitler is the poor showing of the USSR in Finland. If that never happens then there would be a chance that Barbarossa in 1941 doesn't happen.
 
Also a fair question. The military experience of the post-purge Red Army would be limited to the clashes against Japan and the invasion of Poland, both of which were lopsided victories. Does anyone know if there was a serious effort OTL to learn the lessons of the Winter War?
After the Winter War the Red Army undertook a review of their problems, and used that review's recommendations in insituting reforms, although these reforms were not fully complete by the time the Germans invaded. On the command side these reforms gave officers increased power and control. One of the big reforms here was the demotion of political officers to a secondary position (prior to this political officers were essentially co-commanders with the regular officers, and had the power to veto orders). The Red Army also made an effort to remove incompetent officers (this extended to the high command, where people like Kliment Voroshilov were sidelined by more competent generals).

Second, there were major changes to equipment. One of the biggest problems the Red Army had was that it wasn't prepared for winter fighting. Soviet winter uniforms provided insufficient protection against the elements, and the cold weather caused mechanical problems with guns and artillery. To fix this new, better uniforms were issued and more weather-resistant lubricants were developed to keep the guns running. The Red Army also recognized that it's camouflaged was poor. The Finns had used camouflage extremely well, making it extremely difficult for the Soviets to hit their positions. Meanwhile most Soviet troops had not been issued camouflage uniforms, and Soviet airfields were not hidden very well. This was changed.

Finally tactics and strategies were also changed in the aftermath of The Winter War. One major change was renewed interest in mechanized warfare. The Winter War had shown the weakness of the Soviet strategy on this front, while the Germans' success proved the usefulness of mechanized units. Eight new mechanized corps were added, and a further twenty one were approved shortly before the German invasion. The Red Army also recognized that what tactics were used would depend on the terrain. The war also showed the usefulness of fixed defensive positions, which would most famously be used at the Battle of Kursk.
 
Last edited:
Then again, IIRC one of the factors outside of Nazi ideology towards Barbarossa for Hitler is the poor showing of the USSR in Finland. If that never happens then there would be a chance that Barbarossa in 1941 doesn't happen.

Hitler was always going to invade the Soviet Union, but I imagine in this scenario the invasion would look differently on both sides.
 
Hitler was always going to invade the Soviet Union, but I imagine in this scenario the invasion would look differently on both sides.

Yeah, what I meant to say is that there's a small unlikely chance that Barbarossa gets delayed a year, not that Barbarossa is off the table.
 
Back
Top