Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#1

Post by durb » 20 Apr 2015, 17:57

Finland´s position in summer of 1940 was totally isolated when Germany was still tied in the West and Western powers (Britain) powerless to do anything for Finland. Why there was not a new Soviet invasion in summer of 1940 taking advantage of the situation?

When the peace of March 1940 has been considered as a "interim peace" for Finland, was it not the same also for Soviet Union - a necessary interim solution but a step making the possible future operations against Finland easier with more favourable starting points? (new western borderline + Hanko). Did the "interim peace" really satisfy Stalin for the time being so much that he was not hurry to finish the "unfinished" business with Finland in 1940?

As for Baltic countries we know that Soviets seized the opportunity to end their independence and annex them in Soviet Union during the summer of 1940. Why was not the same operation carried by Soviets in summer/early autumn of 1940 to do the same with Finland? Why not just keep enough troops mobilized and concentrated at the Finnish border during the spring of 1940 to use the first possible opportunity to make a new invasion?

Did Soviet armed forces need time to recuperate from their experiences of Winter War and reorganize more effectively before commencing a new invasion on Finland (with an expectation that there would still be determined resistance and serious fighting ahead if renewing an invasion)? Maybe it was considered too expensive or a waste of resources to keep up the full attacking potential committed at the Finnish border in 1940?

Was Finland left for "later arrangements" because Soviets were enough busy due to other interests in other directions like in Bessarabia, needed time for concluding the occupation of Baltic countries and thus wanted to avoid committal military operations when following big things what were happening in Europe? Stalin had just other things in his "first-to-do" list in 1940?

If Stalin had really wanted to invade Finland in summer or autumn of 1940, he could have done it that by some invented "legitimate" pretext and used the favourable situation when Finland was totally isolated. But he did not. Do we know his reasons or are they just to be speculated?

The "Finnish question" was raised up in the German-Soviet talks in November 1940 when Molotov visited Finland. What strikes strange is that Soviets would have been asking for "approval" of Hitler to deal with Finland like with Baltic countries when Finland was officially still recognized to be in Soviet sphere of influence by Germans. It is said that Hitler at that point "saved" Finland by expressing to Soviets that he did not want a Soviet-Finnish war to break out in immediate future as it would lead to "complications". To keep the German-Soviet alliance still existing (for the time being) and wanting to avoid confrontation with Germans Soviets decided to leave Finland independent (for the time being)? Why in the first place Stalin (through Molotov) would have asked the permission of Hitler to deal with Finland if it belonged to Soviets by the existing Soviet-German treaty?

Vaeltaja
Member
Posts: 886
Joined: 27 Jul 2010, 21:42

Re: Why there was not a Soviet invasion in 1940?

#2

Post by Vaeltaja » 20 Apr 2015, 20:02

durb wrote:As for Baltic countries we know that Soviets seized the opportunity to end their independence and annex them in Soviet Union during the summer of 1940. Why was not the same operation carried by Soviets in summer/early autumn of 1940 to do the same with Finland? Why not just keep enough troops mobilized and concentrated at the Finnish border during the spring of 1940 to use the first possible opportunity to make a new invasion?

Did Soviet armed forces need time to recuperate from their experiences of Winter War and reorganize more effectively before commencing a new invasion on Finland (with an expectation that there would still be determined resistance and serious fighting ahead if renewing an invasion)? Maybe it was considered too expensive or a waste of resources to keep up the full attacking potential committed at the Finnish border in 1940?
First you need to realize that the Winter War did not end due to martial prowess of the Finns or any other such reason but due to the potential western action against the Soviet Union that Stalin was not eager to face. This 'western protection' lasted until the Norwegian Campaign was concluded in June 1940. However already in August 1940 Finland had secured the presence of German troops on the Finnish soil due to the troop transfer rights deal.
Was Finland left for "later arrangements" because Soviets were enough busy due to other interests in other directions like in Bessarabia, needed time for concluding the occupation of Baltic countries and thus wanted to avoid committal military operations when following big things what were happening in Europe? Stalin had just other things in his "first-to-do" list in 1940?
One of the most important things on Stalin's plate was not get the Soviet Union involved into a conflict with any of the major powers.
If Stalin had really wanted to invade Finland in summer or autumn of 1940, he could have done it that by some invented "legitimate" pretext and used the favourable situation when Finland was totally isolated. But he did not. Do we know his reasons or are they just to be speculated?
The window for that was very, very narrow.
The "Finnish question" was raised up in the German-Soviet talks in November 1940 when Molotov visited Finland. What strikes strange is that Soviets would have been asking for "approval" of Hitler to deal with Finland like with Baltic countries when Finland was officially still recognized to be in Soviet sphere of influence by Germans. It is said that Hitler at that point "saved" Finland by expressing to Soviets that he did not want a Soviet-Finnish war to break out in immediate future as it would lead to "complications". To keep the German-Soviet alliance still existing (for the time being) and wanting to avoid confrontation with Germans Soviets decided to leave Finland independent (for the time being)? Why in the first place Stalin (through Molotov) would have asked the permission of Hitler to deal with Finland if it belonged to Soviets by the existing Soviet-German treaty?
Because there already were German military personnel and even small German units and depots in Finland. Which in turn meant that any action taken against Finland could have easily hit the Germans as well - which was something Stalin definitely wanted to avoid. Germans had their own interests in Finland, initially just the nickel deposits in the far north.


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#3

Post by ljadw » 20 Apr 2015, 20:34

A better question would be : why would there be a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

Vaeltaja
Member
Posts: 886
Joined: 27 Jul 2010, 21:42

Re: Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#4

Post by Vaeltaja » 20 Apr 2015, 21:24

ljadw wrote:A better question would be : why would there be a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?
Because, like Molotov's request in November 1940 shows, the Soviet Union still had unrealized territorial ambitions with regards of Finland.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#5

Post by durb » 20 Apr 2015, 21:57

The Finnish/Romanian issue seems to testify that Stalin was not seriously preparing for a "pre-emptive" strike against Germany to be made already in 1941 (although Soviet "defence doctrine" was offensive by nature and Soviet troops concentrations in west seem also to hint to that). It seems that he wanted to postpone the possible German-Soviet war as late as possible.

Otherwise it is strange to explain the fact that Soviets allowed (de facto) the presence of German troops and depots in Finland (and that Germany had interests in Finland including the nickel). Soviets must have taken a note that Germany had expanded its interests to Finland and Romania challenging the previous arrangements and weakening the Soviet pressure against those countries. Stalin did not like it and Molotov protested but they were not ready to go for war and challenge Germany in late 1940 and in 1941. Thus Soviets had to accept the fact that (for the time being) Finland and Romania were under German protection and Soviet position somewhat weakened. This transferred the "Finnish question" to be "solved" by some later yet unknown date...

User avatar
Karelia
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 28 May 2012, 15:55
Location: Pohojanmaa, Finland

Re: Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#6

Post by Karelia » 21 Apr 2015, 00:17

An additional reason could have been, that Hitler also might have told Stalin to make peace with Finland in March 1940 - as have been claimed but AFAIK so far not proven.

Hitler must have realized, that having British and French controlling the German iron ore flow from Northern Sweden via Narvik was not in his interests. That was one of the reasons why he occupied Norway and Denmark only a month later - only finding the British and French trying to do just that. Helping Finland against the soviets would have offered (and indeed did offer) the Anglo-French a perfect excuse to occupy Narvik and Swedish iron mines - and maybe even open a new front against Germany.

Hitler telling Stalin to call it a day in March 1940 would have made perfect sense - and given some additional explanation, why the soviets were not ready to attack Finland right away again in summer 1940 and why they felt the need to ask for German approval in November 1940.
durb wrote:The Finnish/Romanian issue seems to testify that Stalin was not seriously preparing for a "pre-emptive" strike against Germany to be made already in 1941 (although Soviet "defence doctrine" was offensive by nature and Soviet troops concentrations in west seem also to hint to that). It seems that he wanted to postpone the possible German-Soviet war as late as possible.
...
I see it differently and agree with the many Finnish politicians (then and now) and officers, who were/are convinced that a new soviet attack was imminent. Also the evidence and circumstantial evidence shown in many sources and threads clearly suggest, that the soviet attack against Germany in mid/late summer-autumn 1941 indeed was the soviet plan.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#7

Post by ljadw » 21 Apr 2015, 07:16

Vaeltaja wrote:
ljadw wrote:A better question would be : why would there be a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?
Because, like Molotov's request in November 1940 shows, the Soviet Union still had unrealized territorial ambitions with regards of Finland.
Molotov's request of NOVEMBER 1940 does not prove that the SU had unrealized territorial ambitions on Finland in the SUMMER of 1940,the request only proves that it had ambitions in november 1940.

If there were ambitions in the summer of 1940,why was there no request in the summer of 1940?

Vaeltaja
Member
Posts: 886
Joined: 27 Jul 2010, 21:42

Re: Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#8

Post by Vaeltaja » 21 Apr 2015, 07:36

ljadw wrote:
Vaeltaja wrote:
ljadw wrote:A better question would be : why would there be a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?
Because, like Molotov's request in November 1940 shows, the Soviet Union still had unrealized territorial ambitions with regards of Finland.
Molotov's request of NOVEMBER 1940 does not prove that the SU had unrealized territorial ambitions on Finland in the SUMMER of 1940,the request only proves that it had ambitions in november 1940.

If there were ambitions in the summer of 1940,why was there no request in the summer of 1940?
Because in all likelihood the Soviet Union simply was not ready for it before than that. You need to remember that the Soviets could ill afford similar campaign like what the Winter War (not in manpower sense but in prestige sense) had been so there had to be truly decisive force ready. Also according to for example Paasikivi's memoirs by that time the Soviets had realized that they could not overthrow or subvert the Finnish government from the inside (i.e. Finland–Soviet Union Peace and Friendship Society)

Vaeltaja
Member
Posts: 886
Joined: 27 Jul 2010, 21:42

Re: Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#9

Post by Vaeltaja » 21 Apr 2015, 07:43

Karelia wrote:An additional reason could have been, that Hitler also might have told Stalin to make peace with Finland in March 1940 - as have been claimed but AFAIK so far not proven.

Hitler telling Stalin to call it a day in March 1940 would have made perfect sense - and given some additional explanation, why the soviets were not ready to attack Finland right away again in summer 1940 and why they felt the need to ask for German approval in November 1940.
Without any actual evidence supporting that it is impossible to tell.
durb wrote:The Finnish/Romanian issue seems to testify that Stalin was not seriously preparing for a "pre-emptive" strike against Germany to be made already in 1941 (although Soviet "defence doctrine" was offensive by nature and Soviet troops concentrations in west seem also to hint to that). It seems that he wanted to postpone the possible German-Soviet war as late as possible.
There is quite a bit of difference in getting ready for a surprise war of your own - on your own terms - and getting entangled into a conflict you were not prepared for at that time. What i mean is that the lack of Soviet military action against Finland in early summer 1940 does not preclude the possibility of Soviet plans for 'pre-emptive' war against the Germany planned for some later date.

User avatar
Karelia
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 28 May 2012, 15:55
Location: Pohojanmaa, Finland

Re: Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#10

Post by Karelia » 21 Apr 2015, 11:26

Vaeltaja wrote: There is quite a bit of difference in getting ready for a surprise war of your own - on your own terms - and getting entangled into a conflict you were not prepared for at that time. What i mean is that the lack of Soviet military action against Finland in early summer 1940 does not preclude the possibility of Soviet plans for 'pre-emptive' war against the Germany planned for some later date.
Exactly!

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#11

Post by durb » 21 Apr 2015, 14:41

The Red Army in the summer of 1941 was far from fearful and effective attacking machine to be employed in large-scale offensive against Germany - its build-up was slow and logistics clumsy, training insufficient and equipment inferior to that of Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. This must have been recognized by the Soviets themselves - I guess that they were not ready to attack Germany during the summer 1941 but at earliest by the autumn 1941 or spring 1942 (when Soviet armed forces would have been built and trained sufficiently). Before that they did not want to open a war with Germany and thus "tolerated" the German "expansion" to Finland and Romania for the time being.

A more limited operation against Finland could have been tried during the spring of 1941 - but then there was already a question if the invading forces would end up with battling with Germans at Finnish soil in a time which was considered unsuitable by Soviets. Thus the possible invasion against Finland was postponed to take place at the same time when Soviet armed forces were fully prepared to take on Germany.

In the retrospect the best time for a Soviet invasion tailored specially for Finland would have been in summer of 1940 taking advantage of the situation when Germans were still effectively tied to west and western powers thrown out of Norway. But it seems that Soviets just were not ready. Stalin was so cautious that he did not want to take risks committing Soviets even with a limited operation against Finland in 1940. His army was not ready even for a limited campaign or he just wanted to save it for the moment? --- In Baltic states it was obvious that no effective resistance would take place and things would happen smoothly, but with Finland there was not a guarantee of the same situation. And as a cautious player who wanted to take as little risks as possible, Stalin did postpone the Finnish question to be solved permanently later - perhaps hoping that Finnish issue would be solved just by political pressure. But then also closed the best window for a limited Soviet invasion against Finland and things were later complicated with the connections to bigger issues. If in the spring winter 1940 and summer of 1944 Finland was saved by the combination of external factors and effective defense, in summer of 1940 the country was saved by the Stalin´s decision not to take or consider new military action at the time?

Vaeltaja
Member
Posts: 886
Joined: 27 Jul 2010, 21:42

Re: Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#12

Post by Vaeltaja » 21 Apr 2015, 15:37

You keep forgetting that quite a few people presume - correctly or otherwise - that the 'friendship society' which was still in the summer 1940 active in Finland would have been an attempt by the Soviets to essentially conquer Finland from the inside. For that you needed dissent. Something not encouraged by threatening external enemy.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#13

Post by durb » 21 Apr 2015, 17:32

If in 1939 Soviets had illusions of effective fifth column welcoming the Soviet army with flowers to Finland, it appears that they had learned to be more realistic by 1940. The Soviet reports regarding the activities of "friendship society" and Finnish communists came to a conclusion that they were amateurish and incompetent - not much help for Soviet invasion. Communists were a outlawed isolated group with little influence in Finnish society in 1940, and even the Finnish-Soviet friendship society was finally closed down by December 1940 - practically the society was broken down earlier (and Soviets could do nothing about it). Soviets financed radical leftist groups but saw at the same time that they were weak. Thus the only way to conquer and occupy whole Finland would have been by military action. I would not to be surprised if there were already operational maps and planning for that, but it appears that they were not seriously in the Soviet agenda during the summer and autumn 1940, although it was a "summer of danger" for Finns.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#14

Post by ljadw » 21 Apr 2015, 19:06

This is no answer on the why : why would the SU attack Finland in the summer of 1940?
And,what Molotov said in november was also no indication that the SU wanted to attack Finland .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why there was not a Soviet summer invasion in 1940?

#15

Post by ljadw » 21 Apr 2015, 19:09

Vaeltaja wrote:You keep forgetting that quite a few people presume - correctly or otherwise - that the 'friendship society' which was still in the summer 1940 active in Finland would have been an attempt by the Soviets to essentially conquer Finland from the inside. For that you needed dissent. Something not encouraged by threatening external enemy.
Why would the SU try to essentially conquer Finland from inside ? What would be the benefit for the SU?

If the SU wanted to conquer Finland,it would have done this during the Winterwar .

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”