USSR gets absolute victory in the Winter War, effects on WW2.

[Kurd Gossemer]

The idea is simple: either through a lack of purges or them missing some good commanders, the Soviets are victorious in the Winter War and are able to not only defeat but also absorb Finland into the USSR.

My question here is the effect it would have on WW2, it has been commonly said that Hitler decided on doing Barbarossa upon seeing the poor performance of the Red Army, now while that is a simplification given he always intended to invade the USSR, would've a better performance made him invade earlier or later?

 

[Lalli]

Depends bit would Britain and France do something with Soviet Union. If decide this might push Hitler and Stalin closer of each others altough it wouldn't be comfortable for them. But common enemy can make odd bedfellows.

But more plausible is that Germany and Soviet Union just make very limited cooperation if any. Hitler probably thinks that Soviet Union is bit too strong so he waits longer before beginning Barbarossa and try to defeat Britain or get that to negotiations. But ironically Stalin doesn't too realise how bad his Red Army is and not any reforms.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

I mean, even with the purges, the Soviets could have done it if they had just taken the Finns seriously and prepared for an actual invasion rather than just assuming the Finnish proletariat wouldn't fight them. It still would have been bloody for the Soviets and taken around about two months, but they could've overrun Finland. Or even OTL, Stalin could have refused the Finnish peace feelers and kept going* - as the Finnish army was on the verge of collapse in March of 1940 - but that would require him not getting nervous that the Anglo-French were going to intervene (which they were not, but they showed enough of the signals that he thought there was a realistic chance they were). This latter PoD would also mean the 1940-41 reforms would still go through.

Regardless of which of these two PoDs go forward, things certainly would be tenser pre-Barbarossa between the USSR and the West. Once Barbarossa gets going though, the state of Finland would become more like what the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States were: an uncomfortable subject the Allies would try to just gloss over and pretend wasn't an issue until after the war.

Now in terms of material forces... well, the last time this showed up, it was established that garrisoning Finland against the subsequent guerrilla war the Finns had prepped for still would absorb considerable Soviet manpower. Plus there would also be the Arctic Front in the Finnmark area, with the German forces occupying Norway. Neither of these would require as much in the way of heavy artillery and armor however, so the Soviets could redirect what they had sent against the Finns to send against the Germans. Plus, without the Finns blockade Karelia, Leningrad can't be cut-off, so that's 1-2 million Soviet civilians who don't starve to death.

*Or just demanded total subjugation, if the Finns were prepared to accept that... maybe @DrakonFin could elaborate on how the Finnish negotiators would have reacted if Stalin had demanded the installation of what would be effectively a puppet government during the March negotiations?

 

[DankStalin]

The idea is simple: either through a lack of purges or them missing some good commanders, the Soviets are victorious in the Winter War and are able to not only defeat but also absorb Finland into the USSR.

My question here is the effect it would have on WW2, it has been commonly said that Hitler decided on doing Barbarossa upon seeing the poor performance of the Red Army, now while that is a simplification given he always intended to invade the USSR, would've a better performance made him invade earlier or later?

Dont forget that another reason for Hitler's Invasion is the horrible intelligence the Germans had for the Soviets, if I remembered correctly the Abwehr severely underestimated the military the USSR had. Even with a victorious Winter War the Abwehr would highly likely fail at this part again.

Also I remember watching some detailed youtube videos couple of years ago. Basically the videos stated that Germany was going through severe shortages of oil and manpower in the workforce (& other resources I forgot). Hitler was left with the choice to demobilize and cut down on the military and trade heavily with Stalin for the resources Germany lacks ( with Stalin asking from machinery to whole factory plants and a battleship design, aka Stalin robbing them blind), or Hitler sticks the largest invasion force in history, gets the resources he needs, and demobilize before the shortages in the workforce screws with the economy severely (after all the war should be over by Christmas right?).

So ya, Hitler would still invade, but maybe the Germans would be a tiny bit more careful?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Basically the videos stated that Germany was going through severe shortages of oil and manpower in the workforce (& other resources I forgot). Hitler was left with the choice to demobilize and cut down on the military and trade heavily with Stalin for the resources Germany lacks ( with Stalin asking from machinery to whole factory plants and a battleship design, aka Stalin robbing them blind),

Stalin was hardly robbing the Germans blind. In fact, the ratios on the trade deals were HIGHLY FAVORABLE to the Germans and much less expensive than the expenditure of material (never mind lives) that the Eastern Front ultimately cost them. It's just that the Nazis conception of economics was extremely crude and viewed any sort of trade as a weakness, especially when it would also (paradoxically, but then logical consistency was never the Nazis strongpoint) mean strengthening someone they planned to fight sooner or later.

 

[DankStalin]

Stalin was hardly robbing the Germans blind. In fact, the ratios on the trade deals were HIGHLY FAVORABLE to the Germans and much less expensive than the expenditure of material (never mind lives) that the Eastern Front ultimately cost them. It's just that the Nazis conception of economics was extremely crude and viewed any sort of trade as a weakness, especially when it would also (paradoxically, but then logical consistency was never the Nazis strongpoint) mean strengthening someone they planned to fight sooner or later.

Huh, I never knew, thanks! Great point, why trade with them when you can conquer them, logic be damned. Got a question for you though, I remember reading about how the logistical department was screaming about how supplying such a invasion makes suicide preferable, but was it Hitler who ignored them? Or the German General Staff? Or both Hitler and the General Staff?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Got a question for you though, I remember reading about how the logistical department was screaming about how supplying such a invasion makes suicide preferable, but was it Hitler who ignored them? Or the German General Staff? Or both Hitler and the General Staff?

A bit of both. Hitler didn't really ever let logistical realities bother him while the German General Staff tended to have a tradition of trying to force logistical realities to fit operational requirements rather than the other way around.

 

[DrakonFin]

*Or just demanded total subjugation, if the Finns were prepared to accept that... maybe @DrakonFin could elaborate on how the Finnish negotiators would have reacted if Stalin had demanded the installation of what would be effectively a puppet government during the March negotiations?

Well, what do you think? They said "no" to relatively small border changes in November. They would not have agreed to what would have amounted to Soviet occupation in March 1940, they would have rather kept fighting. The war would have likely ended in a Soviet occupation and annexation of Finland without a de jure surrender by the Finns, with a Finnish government in exile setting up shop in (maybe) London.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Well, what do you think? They said "no" to relatively small border changes.

I'm talking in March 1940, after the military told the government their options were to either make peace or start go into the woods for a guerrilla war.

 

[DrakonFin]

I'm talking in March 1940, after the military told the government their options were to either make peace or start go into the woods for a guerrilla war.

I realized that right after I answered, so I amended my post.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Oh, I see. Yes, gotcha. A quick glance at the Wikipedia article tells me that the Finnish President basically had to be badgered into accepting the historical terms, so your answer does track.

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

Plus, without the Finns blockade Karelia, Leningrad can't be cut-off, so that's 1-2 million Soviet civilians who don't starve to death.

Honestly, this is pretty big since a somewhat more "open" Leningrad and control of the region could allow for more material to be sent by the Brits as well as being a important point in future counterattacks when the Nazi War machine starts to falter.

I'm talking in March 1940, after the military told the government their options were to either make peace or start go into the woods for a guerrilla war.

I do wonder if a Finnish version of the Forest Brothers would happen, one that lasts longer given the size of Finland and leads to a large Finnish exodus to Europe (especially Sweden) and the USA

 

[DrakonFin]

I do wonder if a Finnish version of the Forest Brothers would happen, one that lasts longer given the size of Finland and leads to a large Finnish exodus to Europe (especially Sweden) and the USA

There would be pretty much necessarily a Finnish resistance movement against the occupiers, based on both military and Civil Guard structures going underground. There is a lot of forests and wilderness in Finland to hide in. And there would be a major exodus of Finns out of the country, mainly due Sweden. These things would happen in parallel, not really resulting from each other, but being both realistic follow-up effects of the Soviet conquest of Finland.

One thing not yet mentioned here would be the changed naval situation in the Baltic Sea. Comparative to the OTL, the Soviets being in control of the Finnish mainland and being able to base naval vessels on the Finnish coast could maintain a relevant naval presence in the northern Baltic for longer than IOTL. This would likely necessitate for the Germans to send more naval assets to the Gulf of Finland, especially if and when the German advance reaches prewar Estonia on land.

If the Germans commit enough naval forces in the northern Baltic Sea, they might beat the Red Banner Baltic Fleet badly enough to mostly confine its remaining main strength in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. At that point, being in control of the western part of the Gulf, the Germans might also consider landings on the Finnish coast to open a new front there. There is also the exotic option of making an invasion across sea ice in the winter of 1941-42, historically a cold winter with strong ice in the northern Baltic Sea. IOTL, the Finns conquered the island of Suursaari (Hogland) from the Soviets with an attack across sea ice during that winter. The Germans might consider something like that even on a bigger scale, especially if they have exiled Finnish troops volunteering for such operations to take the fight back to the Soviets.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Dont forget that another reason for Hitler's Invasion is the horrible intelligence the Germans had for the Soviets, if I remembered correctly the Abwehr severely underestimated the military the USSR had. Even with a victorious Winter War the Abwehr would highly likely fail at this part again.

Also I remember watching some detailed youtube videos couple of years ago. Basically the videos stated that Germany was going through severe shortages of oil and manpower in the workforce (& other resources I forgot). Hitler was left with the choice to demobilize and cut down on the military and trade heavily with Stalin for the resources Germany lacks ( with Stalin asking from machinery to whole factory plants and a battleship design, aka Stalin robbing them blind), or Hitler sticks the largest invasion force in history, gets the resources he needs, and demobilize before the shortages in the workforce screws with the economy severely (after all the war should be over by Christmas right?).

So ya, Hitler would still invade, but maybe the Germans would be a tiny bit more careful?

The invasion and subjugation of soviet Russia was driven by so many factors that the chances of Barbarossa being cancelled are effectively zero. Quite apart from Nazi bollocks like Lebensraum, Destiny, Willpower and Inherent Superiority and Hiltler's personal obsessions, there were legitimate strategic threats to Romanian oil, political threats from a communist neghbour, and a potential military opponent with a direct land border and proven territorial ambitions. A successful Winter War adds strategic threats to Swedish steel, but does nothing to counter nazi views of slavic inferiority - not only because these were based on fantasy rather than fact (so a changed situation makes no difference), but also because that mindset can simply decide that Finns aren't Aryan enough and anyway were massively outnumbered, thus denigrating the soviet achievement.
As for timing, it couldn't really be delayed because the soviet armies were only going to get stronger faster than the Germans could, and because the strategic threats to steel and oil couldn't be left unattended.
And as for caution, the only possible way for Germany to win was to win big and win quickly. They needed to make big encirclements early on, and keep doing so until the numerical superiority was eroded.

It would influence the planning and progress of Barbarossa, especially in the North, but that would change the balance of forces and targets in the centre and south. This should change the progress of the war in some potentially very interesting ways: what does Sweden do? what does this mean for intervention in Libya, or in the Balkans? If the Balkan flank can't be secured, does the southern arm of OTL Barbarossa have to be held back, or do they gamble on succeeding before any real threat emerges?

 

[TheKutKu]

Now in terms of material forces... well, the last time this showed up, it was established that garrisoning Finland against the subsequent guerrilla war the Finns had prepped for still would absorb considerable Soviet manpower.

Realistically, the USSR would deport (resettlement and labour camps) a hundred to a few hundred thousands finns, in line of the proportions that happened in the balitcs and poland.
If the insurgency becomes truly formidable, and if there are too much cooperation between finns and nazi, then they'd possibly attempt a Chechen/Korean/Tatar/Ingrian Finns scale deportation campaign.

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

One thing not yet mentioned here would be the changed naval situation in the Baltic Sea. Comparative to the OTL, the Soviets being in control of the Finnish mainland and being able to base naval vessels on the Finnish coast could maintain a relevant naval presence in the northern Baltic for longer than IOTL. This would likely necessitate for the Germans to send more naval assets to the Gulf of Finland, especially if and when the German advance reaches prewar Estonia on land.

If the Germans commit enough naval forces in the northern Baltic Sea, they might beat the Red Banner Baltic Fleet badly enough to mostly confine its remaining main strength in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. At that point, being in control of the western part of the Gulf, the Germans might also consider landings on the Finnish coast to open a new front there. There is also the exotic option of making an invasion across sea ice in the winter of 1941-42, historically a cold winter with strong ice in the northern Baltic Sea. IOTL, the Finns conquered the island of Suursaari (Hogland) from the Soviets with an attack across sea ice during that winter. The Germans might consider something like that even on a bigger scale, especially if they have exiled Finnish troops volunteering for such operations to take the fight back to the Soviets.

I do wonder if the Royal Navy couldn't help out since now they would be able to use Finnish lands for both supplying and docking ships as well as delivering material, I could definitely see them attempting some sort of gambit in order to decimate more of the Kriegsmarine if they can get the chance and cut off Swedish ore supply.

The invasion and subjugation of soviet Russia was driven by so many factors that the chances of Barbarossa being cancelled are effectively zero. Quite apart from Nazi bollocks like Lebensraum, Destiny, Willpower and Inherent Superiority and Hiltler's personal obsessions, there were legitimate strategic threats to Romanian oil, political threats from a communist neghbour, and a potential military opponent with a direct land border and proven territorial ambitions. A successful Winter War adds strategic threats to Swedish steel, but does nothing to counter nazi views of slavic inferiority - not only because these were based on fantasy rather than fact (so a changed situation makes no difference), but also because that mindset can simply decide that Finns aren't Aryan enough and anyway were massively outnumbered, thus denigrating the soviet achievement.
As for timing, it couldn't really be delayed because the soviet armies were only going to get stronger faster than the Germans could, and because the strategic threats to steel and oil couldn't be left unattended.
And as for caution, the only possible way for Germany to win was to win big and win quickly. They needed to make big encirclements early on, and keep doing so until the numerical superiority was eroded.

It would influence the planning and progress of Barbarossa, especially in the North, but that would change the balance of forces and targets in the centre and south. This should change the progress of the war in some potentially very interesting ways: what does Sweden do? what does this mean for intervention in Libya, or in the Balkans? If the Balkan flank can't be secured, does the southern arm of OTL Barbarossa have to be held back, or do they gamble on succeeding before any real threat emerges?

I do really agree that Barbarossa would still happen but like Drakonfin said, it's likely the Germans could focus on a "northern strategy" where they attempt to close off Leningrad and use the discontent Baltics and Finns as collaborators, of course this means that Army Groups Center and South are weaker, the former due to less troops and the latter due to it being staffed with more Hungarian and Romanian troops that simply aren't in the same level as the German ones and could impact on how the front advances in it, maybe the Soviets are able to better hold Ukraine if they're mainly fighting non German troops?

 

[RedSword12]

I do wonder if the Royal Navy couldn't help out since now they would be able to use Finnish lands for both supplying and docking ships as well as delivering material, I could definitely see them attempting some sort of gambit in order to decimate more of the Kriegsmarine if they can get the chance and cut off Swedish ore supply.


I do really agree that Barbarossa would still happen but like Drakonfin said, it's likely the Germans could focus on a "northern strategy" where they attempt to close off Leningrad and use the discontent Baltics and Finns as collaborators, of course this means that Army Groups Center and South are weaker, the former due to less troops and the latter due to it being staffed with more Hungarian and Romanian troops that simply aren't in the same level as the German ones and could impact on how the front advances in it, maybe the Soviets are able to better hold Ukraine if they're mainly fighting non German troops?

I think Hitler and the German General Staff will still prefer the Ukraine and Moscow axes.

 

[thaddeus]

what might the Soviets do in the aftermath of an absolute victory over Finland? would they be more adventurous than historical?

 

[pjmidd]

what might the Soviets do in the aftermath of an absolute victory over Finland? would they be more adventurous than historical?

No, Stalin hated to gamble, OTL he underestimated the Finns, he would not underestimate the Germans. Despite what a lot of books imply the Germans actually had the numbers when Barbarossa started ( a lot of figures given look to be for all the Soviets strength not just the Western Districts vs only the German Eastern strength ). Stalin also knew a lot of Soviet paper strength was due to the inclusion of old/obsolete/missing equipment and so overstated its fighting power.

So even with a successful Winter War, Stalin is still rebuilding rather than attacking. Also have to remember scale, Barbarossa is 10x as large at its start as the Finnish forces and the Eastern Front peaks at nearer 20x.

 

[Cryptic]

The idea is simple: either through a lack of purges or them missing some good commanders, the Soviets are victorious in the Winter War and are able to not only defeat but also absorb Finland into the USSR.

My question here is the effect it would have on WW2,

Sweden would see the Red Army on its borders as a direct threat to their existence. Then factor in the historic Swedish community in Finland (ala Mannerheim) and the Swedish speaking Aaland Islands, an autonomous part of what was Finland.

I am thinking that Sweden joins the Axis- well not fully. Rather, Sweden becomes a co-Beligerent Finnish style. As Barbarossa kicks off, the Swedish military coordinates with German war interests, but only in regards to restoring Finland as an independent nation. Restoration of an independent Finland will probably include the seizure of buffer zones of Soviet territory as well.

But, wait, there is more Nordic help coming to Germany.....

Norway already supplied a certain number of Waffen volunteers IOTL. With Finland absorbed and Sweden fighting, the Germans raise an entire plus sized division from Norwegian volunteers ala the Spanish Blue Division.

Ironically, the raising of the Norwegian Blue Division kicked off a civil war of sorts in the German High Command. Himmler, dreaming of a Division of fictionally Aryan ubber warriors of the type he never was, pulled hard for it to be formed as Waffen SS "A" Team division- not the auxiliary team Waffen.

But.... Heer commanders privately countered that a Waffen label would keep a good number of willing Norwegians from joining. In the end, pragmatism won and the Norwegian Division goes "Blue", not "Waffen".