Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Post Reply
ThomasG
Member
Posts: 812
Joined: 25 May 2007, 00:41
Location: Europe

Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#1

Post by ThomasG » 13 Oct 2007, 12:06

I have seen respected historians resort to some fantastic what-ifs to explain why the Continuation war was unavoidable. For example, some historians have claimed that if Finland had not allied itself with Germany Finland would have been occupied by Germany, been a battlefield and then occupied by the Soviet Union.

I wonder what is the basis of the scenario that Germany would have invaded Finland if Finland had chosen to be strictly neutral and rejected all German demands for military access etc.

Invasion to Finland was politically and strategically impossible for the Germans before June 22 1941 because Finland belonged to the Soviet sphere of influence according to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. An invasion would have wasted the lives of many German troops, ruined the element of surprise in Barbarossa and would in general only cause harm to Germany.

Germany could only hope that success in Barbarossa would lead the Finns to declare war against the Soviet Union to reclaim the lost territory. A more practical attitude for the Finnish leadership would have been to wait and see whether Germany will occupy Moscow and will win the war. In that case there would be an opportunity for Finnish offensive.

I doubt that the Soviet Union would start the Continuation war bombing Finnish targets if there were no German troops in Finland and Hitler could not boast that the Finns stood "together with the Germans".

The historical events show that as Germany failed to win the war there would be no opportunity for a Finnish declaration of war. I doubt that the Soviet Union would invade Finland during the "Great Patriotic War" either because it was busy with the Germans and did not need new enemies. After the war Finland would still enjoy the good will of the Western democratic powers which would prevent a new Soviet invasion to Finland.

The only real argument to defend the Finnish agreement of military passage with the Germans is perhaps the fact that the Germans had seized some Finnish war materials in Norway and Finland needed these materials to defend itself against a possible Soviet attack in August 1940. Then again, was this Soviet attack really coming?

Finland could have avoided the Continuation War and the optimistic view Finnish leaders had of the German military capabilities was mistaken.

Tero
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 24 Jul 2002, 08:06
Location: Finland

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#2

Post by Tero » 13 Oct 2007, 14:30

By ThomasG

I wonder what is the basis of the scenario that Germany would have invaded Finland if Finland had chosen to be strictly neutral and rejected all German demands for military access etc.

Invasion to Finland was politically and strategically impossible for the Germans before June 22 1941 because Finland belonged to the Soviet sphere of influence according to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. An invasion would have wasted the lives of many German troops, ruined the element of surprise in Barbarossa and would in general only cause harm to Germany.
Barbarossa timetable was originally not what it was historically. Your premise is hinged on the historical starting point of Operation Barbarossa. Had Finland not accomodated German plans Hitler could have spared the time to take care of Finland very much in the same manner they took care of the Balkans and the Swedes. Invading Soviets could have waited. The Finns were at the mercy of both the Germans and the Soviets. A stictly neutral approach was not possible because the Soviets were against it, not because the Germans opposed it.

The Germans could have starved the Finns into submission without actually invading the country. They could have staged a coup and establish the Nazi equivalent of O.W. Kuusinen government which would have invited the Germans in. Which would have been followed by an immediate response (attack) from the Soviets.
Germany could only hope that success in Barbarossa would lead the Finns to declare war against the Soviet Union to reclaim the lost territory. A more practical attitude for the Finnish leadership would have been to wait and see whether Germany will occupy Moscow and will win the war. In that case there would be an opportunity for Finnish offensive.
That was not a realistic option at any point. Soviets were pressured the Finns and bugged the Germans to let them finish the job which was left unfinished. Had Hitler given the go-ahead our goose would have been cooked. In pretty much every scenario apart from the historical cause of action would have resulted in the annihilation of the republic.
I doubt that the Soviet Union would start the Continuation war bombing Finnish targets if there were no German troops in Finland and Hitler could not boast that the Finns stood "together with the Germans".


That is a non-sequitur.
The historical events show that as Germany failed to win the war there would be no opportunity for a Finnish declaration of war. I doubt that the Soviet Union would invade Finland during the "Great Patriotic War" either because it was busy with the Germans and did not need new enemies. After the war Finland would still enjoy the good will of the Western democratic powers which would prevent a new Soviet invasion to Finland.
Meanwhile the Finnish population would have starved when there would have been no incoming grain and no sources for outside commerce.
The only real argument to defend the Finnish agreement of military passage with the Germans is perhaps the fact that the Germans had seized some Finnish war materials in Norway and Finland needed these materials to defend itself against a possible Soviet attack in August 1940. Then again, was this Soviet attack really coming?
That was in the hands of Hitler when he vetoed Molotovs pleas to finish of the Finns in 1940. Look it up.
Finland could have avoided the Continuation War and the optimistic view Finnish leaders had of the German military capabilities was mistaken.
That is clear in 20/20 hindsight. The options were limited and the real political considerations muddied the waters.


User avatar
Christian W.
Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
Location: Vantaa, Finland

#3

Post by Christian W. » 13 Oct 2007, 14:57

They could have staged a coup and establish the Nazi equivalent of O.W. Kuusinen government which would have invited the Germans in.
Strongly disagree. Finnish fascists tried that in the 1930s and it failed miserably. Finland was not pro-fascist. Although Finland was anti-communist (for obvious reasons) and there were some sympathies for "nationalistic policies" there is no way a fascist goverment would get into power.

ThomasG
Member
Posts: 812
Joined: 25 May 2007, 00:41
Location: Europe

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#4

Post by ThomasG » 13 Oct 2007, 15:05

Tero wrote:By ThomasG
Barbarossa timetable was originally not what it was historically. Your premise is hinged on the historical starting point of Operation Barbarossa. Had Finland not accomodated German plans Hitler could have spared the time to take care of Finland very much in the same manner they took care of the Balkans and the Swedes. Invading Soviets could have waited. The Finns were at the mercy of both the Germans and the Soviets. A stictly neutral approach was not possible because the Soviets were against it, not because the Germans opposed it.

The Germans could have starved the Finns into submission without actually invading the country. They could have staged a coup and establish the Nazi equivalent of O.W. Kuusinen government which would have invited the Germans in. Which would have been followed by an immediate response (attack) from the Soviets.
Please name the guys who would make the coup. The Finnish Nazi party was a joke and IKL gave its support to Mannerheim/Ryti and wasn't strong enough to make a coup anyway.
That was not a realistic option at any point. Soviets were pressured the Finns and bugged the Germans to let them finish the job which was left unfinished. Had Hitler given the go-ahead our goose would have been cooked. In pretty much every scenario apart from the historical cause of action would have resulted in the annihilation of the republic.
Untrue.

When Germans made the decision to invade the Soviet Union their aim was to acquire Finland as an ally to tie Soviet divisions in the North. Even if Finland did not join the Germans when Operation Barbarossa started they would hope that the Finns would do so in some moment during the campaign.
That is a non-sequitur.
Not.
Meanwhile the Finnish population would have starved when there would have been no incoming grain and no sources for outside commerce.
Germany and the Soviet Union. Finland could have taken its pick as the trade partner. Germany probably first and then the Soviet Union. Finland had nickel to sell.

Furthermore, because the Finnish army is not fully mobilized the farmers are home which increases the food production
That was in the hands of Hitler when he vetoed Molotovs pleas to finish of the Finns in 1940. Look it up.
He would veto them still if Finland was Germany's trading partner, similar to Sweden. Hitler would hope that the Finns would change their mind and eventually attack the Soviet Union.

Germany had nothing to gain if it had supported the Soviet invasion to Finland.
That is clear in 20/20 hindsight. The options were limited and the real political considerations muddied the waters.
The actions of the Finnish government were based on the assumption that Germany would win the world war. If Finns had correctly estimated that this would not be the case then the Continuation war would not happen.

User avatar
patrik.possi
Banned
Posts: 267
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 00:12
Location: Sweden

#5

Post by patrik.possi » 13 Oct 2007, 15:28

But why does all this discusions allways forget that the first open shots fired in this war was by THE SOVIETUNION?

User avatar
janner
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Sep 2006, 23:40
Location: London

#6

Post by janner » 13 Oct 2007, 15:40

Christian W. wrote: Finland was not pro-fascist. Although Finland was anti-communist (for obvious reasons) and there were some sympathies for "nationalistic policies" there is no way a fascist goverment would get into power.
Not sure if the "anti-communist" stance has legs - especially before 1939. Despite being prevented from participating in the 1930 election and until declared illegal, the Finnish Communist Party (in Finland not the Soviet based version) was much more envolved in the parliamentary process than the norm and was of increasing popularity (hence the drive from the right to destroy the party).

kari lumppio
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 29 Aug 2006, 01:47
Location: Espoo, Finland

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#7

Post by kari lumppio » 13 Oct 2007, 18:28

ThomasG wrote:I have seen respected historians resort to some fantastic what-ifs to explain why the Continuation war was unavoidable.
Name one country between German and Soviet Union which could avoid war.

Turkey was able to keep neutrality, but they did not have Germans around them. Political pressure from both sides towards Turkey was heavy.

Think Bulgaria. Was not in war with SU, but still occupied by them in 1944.

Think Yugoslavia 1941 and Hungary March 1944. Germany did not allow the countries their own way.

Think Romania August 1944. Best analogy for Finland in my opinion. Too friendly with Soviets and you hand the keys to power to communists.

Iran was occupied by Soviet Union and UK. This might have been Finland's destiny too if you want to find "best" "not-aligned with Germany" scenario after Winter War (and possible even if the Entente help would have been accepted in Winter War, IMO). With Germans in Norway - historical fact from mid-1940 - even that would have been difficult.

Keeping Finland not-communist country (= independency for us grass root level people) was the goal achieved. Even Kekkonen said Finland is not neutral ideologically.


Kari

Mangrove
Member
Posts: 2027
Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 02:33

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#8

Post by Mangrove » 13 Oct 2007, 20:58

ThomasG wrote: Germany and the Soviet Union. Finland could have taken its pick as the trade partner. Germany probably first and then the Soviet Union. Finland had nickel to sell.

Furthermore, because the Finnish army is not fully mobilized the farmers are home which increases the food production
Both Germany and Soviet Union would have demanded some kind of agreement to be made exchange for the food. The Soviet Union benefit, for example, would have been 80% of the nickel from Petsamo. This would have been a great loss for the Germany and they would had to make a decision how to deal this major problem.

Finland has never been self-sufficient in grain production. During the 19th Century Finland was concentrating to livestock.[1]. Over 60% of the grain was imported during 1910s and 20s. This situation has been the same since then. Still over half of the grain used in Finland is imported from elsewhere.[2]

Martti

[1] http://www.uta.fi/suomi80/teema9.htm
[2] http://www.mmmtike.fi/fi/index/tiedotte ... e0405.html

Tero
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 24 Jul 2002, 08:06
Location: Finland

#9

Post by Tero » 14 Oct 2007, 11:21

By Christian W.
Strongly disagree. Finnish fascists tried that in the 1930s and it failed miserably. Finland was not pro-fascist. Although Finland was anti-communist (for obvious reasons) and there were some sympathies for "nationalistic policies" there is no way a fascist goverment would get into power.
True. But the "coup in 1941" option I presented is based on a "what if" which entails total denial of the Finnish government to accomodate any foreign co-operation (co-operation with Sweden being blocked by the Soviets) and the fact that concerns for a military coup in the summer of 1944 were real.

The state of affairs after Winter War were so grave that a stuborn "no co-operation with anybody" policy would have simply been suicidal to the Finns.

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

#10

Post by John T » 14 Oct 2007, 12:10

patrik.possi wrote:But why does all this discusions allways forget that the first open shots fired in this war was by THE SOVIETUNION?
Probably because Germany fired the first shots at USSR and there happened to be German forces in Finland.
It is also fairly established that Finland wanted back lost territories in karelia

The thread on the start of continuation war and Germans in finland are numerous and some are loong:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=106002
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=70386
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=57383
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=91663

Cheers
/John T.

Tero
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 24 Jul 2002, 08:06
Location: Finland

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#11

Post by Tero » 14 Oct 2007, 12:13

By ThomasG
Please name the guys who would make the coup. The Finnish Nazi party was a joke and IKL gave its support to Mannerheim/Ryti and wasn't strong enough to make a coup anyway.
With no accomodation towards the Germans the population would have starved. In that kind of a situation Mannerheim would have been hard pressed to maintain popularity. Pro-German elements would have had it easy to outplay the isolationists with a few simple tricks.
When Germans made the decision to invade the Soviet Union their aim was to acquire Finland as an ally to tie Soviet divisions in the North. Even if Finland did not join the Germans when Operation Barbarossa started they would hope that the Finns would do so in some moment during the campaign.
There would not have been a plan which would not have entailed an attack on the Artic ports to deny that supply route.
Germany and the Soviet Union. Finland could have taken its pick as the trade partner. Germany probably first and then the Soviet Union. Finland had nickel to sell.
There would not be any trading if either of them took the mines.
Furthermore, because the Finnish army is not fully mobilized the farmers are home which increases the food production
What makes you think that even without any taking part in the attack would have left the army in peace time footing ? There would have been more ground to cover with the Northern borders to be guarded in addition to the Southern sectors.
That was in the hands of Hitler when he vetoed Molotovs pleas to finish of the Finns in 1940. Look it up.
He would veto them still if Finland was Germany's trading partner, similar to Sweden. Hitler would hope that the Finns would change their mind and eventually attack the Soviet Union.

Germany had nothing to gain if it had supported the Soviet invasion to Finland.
Nor did it have anything to lose for that matter. You have to remember that the Molotov-Ribbentrop plan was made to ensure the status-quo in 1939. The simple matter of fact is Hitler had made up his mind to attack USSR ahead of schedule and Finland was an integral part of the plan. That would not have happened if the Red Army had not performed poorly during Winter War. To that end Winter War saved Finland in more than one way but it also limited the options the Finns had open after Winter War.
The actions of the Finnish government were based on the assumption that Germany would win the world war. If Finns had correctly estimated that this would not be the case then the Continuation war would not happen.
That is BS. The Finns had to pick a side in the upcoming fight. The Soviets made it sure Finns could not pick their side. The Western Allies were not an option in any level. The only real options were neutral and siding wih the Germans. Since the Soviets made it clear being neutral was not an option and the Germans had integrated Finns in their plan the Finnish leaders were left with two options take part in the attack under their own terms or be forced to take part in the attack under total German control.

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#12

Post by John T » 14 Oct 2007, 12:23

ThomasG wrote:I have seen respected historians resort to some fantastic what-ifs to explain why the Continuation war was unavoidable. ´
My experience as a Swede to challenge what was unavoidable in Swedish policy during WW2 is that you must make it VERY clear that you want to discuss options and see how the actors percieved the situation rather than just applying todays morals on top of a historial event.

If you don't, people have a great inclination to defend the taken actions and fix themself to the actual events and not try to differ between what was
- physical facts
- the decision makers perceptions at the time
- How the actors later prefered to explain why and
- What political statements from the prosecutor.(in case of Finland)

In General I am fond of the idea that people can influence their situation so for pure philosofical reasons I can't accept the drift wood theory. :)


Cheers
/John T.

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#13

Post by John T » 14 Oct 2007, 12:31

Tero wrote: Barbarossa timetable was originally not what it was historically. Your premise is hinged on the historical starting point of Operation Barbarossa. Had Finland not accomodated German plans Hitler could have spared the time to take care of Finland very much in the same manner they took care of the Balkans and the Swedes. Invading Soviets could have waited. The Finns were at the mercy of both the Germans and the Soviets. A stictly neutral approach was not possible because the Soviets were against it, not because the Germans opposed it.
As I understands, A Finland who shared the destiny of Sweden would have been seen as the best possible outcome.
At least for those ~50k killed during contiunation war?
Or could you elaborate on how Germany took care of Sweden like the balkans?

And I have not seen anything that proves that Germany prefered Finland Neutral while Soviet union did not, do you have any sources especially regarding the timeperiod spring-summer 1941?

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#14

Post by John T » 14 Oct 2007, 13:02

Tero wrote: Barbarossa timetable was originally not what it was historically. Your premise is hinged on the historical starting point of Operation Barbarossa. Had Finland not accomodated German plans Hitler could have spared the time to take care of Finland very much in the same manner they took care of the Balkans and the Swedes. Invading Soviets could have waited. The Finns were at the mercy of both the Germans and the Soviets. A stictly neutral approach was not possible because the Soviets were against it, not because the Germans opposed it.
As I understands, A Finland who shared the destiny of Sweden would have been seen as the best possible outcome.
At least for those ~50k killed during contiunation war?
Or could you elaborate on how Germany took care of Sweden like the balkans?

And I have not seen anything that proves that Germany prefered Finland Neutral while Soviet union did not, do you have any sources especially regarding the timeperiod spring-summer 1941?

Cheers
/John T

User avatar
patrik.possi
Banned
Posts: 267
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 00:12
Location: Sweden

#15

Post by patrik.possi » 14 Oct 2007, 13:11

John T wrote:
patrik.possi wrote:But why does all this discusions allways forget that the first open shots fired in this war was by THE SOVIETUNION?
Probably because Germany fired the first shots at USSR and there happened to be German forces in Finland.
It is also fairly established that Finland wanted back lost territories in karelia

The thread on the start of continuation war and Germans in finland are numerous and some are loong:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=106002
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=70386
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=57383
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=91663

Cheers
/John T.
So there where Soviet forces in Finland to, at Hanko. But was Soviet really intersted in keeping Finland out of the war? Did Soviet act prior the out break of the war gauranted finnish neutrality, or offer any consensus to Finland being neutral during the war? A look at how the Soviet had used the Moscow peace treaty from 1940 to try to destablize Finland and Molotovs request in Berlin in the fall of 1940 really talks for it self. Soviet had no intrest in a Finland that eas neutral.

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”