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
Mek
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 13 Aug 2003, 00:07
Location: Finland

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#31

Post by Mek » 15 Oct 2007, 22:24

Hi,
ThomasG wrote:In fact, an invasion to Finland would be harmful to German interests very likely postponing Barbarossa, damaging relations with Sweden etc.
I'd like to add also that maybe one of the main reasons why it would've been harmful for German interests, too.. was that it might've caused Germans a diplomatic row with Soviet Union.

I say this because according to the secret protocol in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Finland was placed in Soviet sphear of influence and Molotov had inquired from the Germans about the unfinished case of Finland in Berlin 1940.

Doesn't seem plausible that just for the occupation of Finland, Germany would've done such a move. Unless simultanously launching Operation Barbarossa type of operation.

Regards,
-Pete

Anne G,
Member
Posts: 710
Joined: 02 Jan 2007, 16:02
Location: Espoo, Finland

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#32

Post by Anne G, » 15 Oct 2007, 22:51

John T wrote: The problem spells P E T S A M O
If Finland had had the border of today so Norway had direct border with USSR then I find the "Neutral Finland" option possible.
But as it was in 1941 with Finland as a buffer between German and Soviet forces in an area where the finns had very little population and really the Nickel mines where more useful for Finland as a bargain chips than they needed the metal itself.

So you have to find a way to persuade the Germans not to attack towards Murmansk and the Soviets not to push forward to deny Germany of the Nickel ore. and Thats the problem.
If Germany moves in, USSR would most probable expect Finland to join the allies and we goes directly to the Lapland war, but with a much more potent Germany.

If USSR moves first and invades only the Petsamo area, Germany could accept a "rentier" operation alone to safeguard the nickel mines but it would cause much pedagogical capacity to explain to the Finnish people why they should keep out of the fight and in the short perspective accept to first lost Karelia and then Petsamo area without a fight.

The only posible solution I have seen is totaly out of scope wiht Finnish mentality. If FInland gives the area to USSR early June 1941 then they could technically concider it a pure Soviet -German issue and stay out of the fray.
And still tell the Germans that "we did this only since we belive in your capacity to kick the russkies out of Petsamo faster than they came.."
Splendid analysis! Thank you, John T.!

I would like to add one point that differed the Finns and Swedes at that time. The Swedes had lived in peace over 130 years, Finland had gained her independence (which most people had until then thought an impossiblity) only 23 years ago because of the WW1 and the Russian Revolution. So many Finns didn't hold the Moscow peace 1940 permanent as they knew from their own (or their parents') experience that so long the World War lasted anything could happen. When the chance came, one had to take it - else another never come.


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

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#33

Post by John T » 15 Oct 2007, 23:47

Juha Tompuri wrote:Hi,
John T wrote:As I understands, A Finland who shared the destiny of Sweden would have been seen as the best possible outcome.
As a hindsight, maybe yes

But..as you earlier wrote:
John T wrote:- the decision makers perceptions at the time
The decision makers at that time didn't have all the info we now have.
Yes and this is important, do you discuss if it was possible to act diffrently or not?
The Finnish inner circle must have grappeled with the pro and cons of yet another war and it was in that context I expressed myself quite crude:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
John T wrote:At least for those ~50k killed during contiunation war?
...at least quite tactless written.
My Apology, my intention was to point to the risk and costs of taking part in another war. Not to insult the fallen and their relatives.
Juha Tompuri wrote:
John T wrote: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?
This then (as Patrik wrote) might be revealing reading:
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaste ... 12,%201940
Well, it is not new to me but I interpret the meaning in another way than Patrik.
So USSR chooses not to attack Finland for eight months (thats one way to accept status quo) and then asks Germany if they would mind if they had another go at Finland.
Germany answered the question with
Germany recognized that, politically, Finland was of primary interest to Russia and was in her zone of influence. However, Germany had to consider the following two points:

1. For the duration of the war she was very greatly interested in the deliveries of nickel and lumber from Finland, and

2. She did not desire any new conflict in the Baltic Sea which would further curtail her freedom of movement in one of the few merchant shipping regions which still remained to her.
Thats a German no.
And as Stalin feared a German attack I see further Soviet pressure on Finland as means to deny Germany favours from Finland.
USSR did not need the Nickel, they just did not wanted it to be used by the Germans.
And at this point in time there is a possibility that the Finns could have choosen to act like Sweden. Sell ore to Germany in exchange for being left alone.
Juha Tompuri wrote:
John T wrote: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
Juha earlier wrote:I personally don't see the "driftwood theory" as that bad.
1940-1941 a lot of things "just happened" around Finland, and we drifted from a situation to another.
With very little chances to affect to the events by ourselves.
Sometimes the choices were few, as Professor Huldt here (in Swedish) writes
http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/kultur/did_14211842.asp
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &highlight
Regards, Juha
I must say that I finds Professor Huldt's contrafactial description how Germany would invade south eastern Finland and cause a Finnish civil war as pretty close to what ThomasG calls "fantastic what-ifs"
Professor Meinander seems much more on the spot with a much simpler explanation, Finland wanted to restore her borders.

Karelia was lost due to unfavourable correlation of forces (RM-Pact) and now early 1941 the correlation of forces swung against USSR.
Would not Ryti consider it his moral duty to restore the old borders?

To me the cause of action that Finland took during the first six month of 1941 is easy understand but that is not the issue with this debate.
And I find a lot of the arguments why it was inevitable to be inconsistent and produced for the warcrime trials.
Actually my only problem to make a alternative history is the Petsamo area, all other arguments I have heard so far can be avoided.

Cheers
/John T

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

#34

Post by janner » 16 Oct 2007, 00:29

Whilst not making the war inevitable, it is clear that in losing the Karelian Isthmus, Finland was denied badly needed farm land, hydro-electric capacity and defensible land in the face of a proven aggressor.

If they did not seize the opportunity, the Soviet Army would still be poised for an offensive against Finland if they defeated Germany but the Finns would lack the best territory in which to cause sufficient damage to deter Soviet occupation. This conclusion is not based on hind sight but is, rather, a major lesson from the Winter War.

Further it was, rightly or wrongly considered to be Finnish land occupied by a foreign state and was unfinished business – that alone provided “causis belli.”

Regards,

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

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#35

Post by Tero » 16 Oct 2007, 06:10

ThomasG
The Red Army had a land border with Finland. Germany didn't except for the small area in the North which was not suitable for a large offensive.

The German troops would have to land to the Finnish coast which would be a logistical nightmare. There would be no guarantee that Germany would be victorious.
Are you deliberately forgetting the troop shipments across Sweden ? How loyal would the Swedes had been if the Germans applies real pressure. Coming across from Haparanda, Umeå and island hopping via Åland would have been far easier than sailing all the way across the Baltic Sea.
There simply wasn't any benefit to be had. Germany's strategic enemies were the Soviet Union and Britain and an invasion to Finland would do nothing to help Germany defeat them.
Gaining unlimited access to the Swedish and Finnish strategic resources would have been incentive enough, IMO.
In fact, an invasion to Finland would be harmful to German interests very likely postponing Barbarossa, damaging relations with Sweden etc.
You really think the Germans would have had any moral dilemmas about taking care Sweden ahead of schedule ? As to postponing Barbarossa: do you really think that it would have mattered to Hitler if he had attacked the Soviets a year or two later (as he had planned to originally anyway) if he would have gotten all those strategic resources ?

See, when you play a what if you can not assume that there are set points which will be immune to variation.
You think that Germans and Soviets planned to invade together in 1941??

There were troops already in Hanko. Do you really think they would have been incapable of massing the necessary troops for the invasion, especially if Molotov was already bugging Hitler to get permission for the invasion.

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

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#36

Post by Tero » 16 Oct 2007, 06:34

By Mek

I say this because according to the secret protocol in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Finland was placed in Soviet sphear of influence and Molotov had inquired from the Germans about the unfinished case of Finland in Berlin 1940.

Doesn't seem plausible that just for the occupation of Finland, Germany would've done such a move. Unless simultanously launching Operation Barbarossa type of operation.
In case the Finns insisted they will not buy the whole invasion of USSR thing Hitler could have bartered the Petsamo nickel mines in exchange for the Southern parts of Finland. That would have given the Germans the strategic resources they needed while the Soviets would have gotten the security guarantees for Leningrad they needed. The spirit of the MR-pact would have been enforced and the diplomatic incident avoided.

The base line is neutral Finland was in nobodys interests. The least of all in the interests of the Finns themselves. For the Finns the choice was simply between the fire and the frying pan.

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

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#37

Post by Tero » 16 Oct 2007, 06:49

By John T

Thats a German no.
And as Stalin feared a German attack I see further Soviet pressure on Finland as means to deny Germany favours from Finland.
USSR did not need the Nickel, they just did not wanted it to be used by the Germans.
And at this point in time there is a possibility that the Finns could have choosen to act like Sweden. Sell ore to Germany in exchange for being left alone.
The thing is the Germans only need to remind the Finns that the Soviet bear is still growling and itching for a rematch.

"Too bad we can not help you because we have this pact with them. Good luck. We hope you are in good health when we meet the next time. If there is a next time."

They are fully aware the Soviets have cathegorically denied any and all alliances and pacts with Sweden which would have ensured Finnish neutrality in some level. The Swedes, being the brave neighbours they are, have abstained from pushing the issue so as not to irritate the Germans.

That leaves Finland isolated and at the mercy of the Germans and the Soviets. The Finns have absolutely no room for manouver diplomatically. When you bow one way you moon the other way. Standing upright means you fall alone. Bowing towards the Soviets was fruitless, dangerous even. Mooning the Soviets was inconsequential so it was in the Finnish interests to bow towards the Germans. The only option is to carefully mind how far down you bow without kissing their boots.

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

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#38

Post by janner » 16 Oct 2007, 09:29

Tero wrote:When you bow one way you moon the other way. Standing upright means you fall alone. Bowing towards the Soviets was fruitless, dangerous even. Mooning the Soviets was inconsequential so it was in the Finnish interests to bow towards the Germans. The only option is to carefully mind how far down you bow without kissing their boots.
:D :D Great metaphor.

Mind you I don't think Sweden had many options either - it was, in my opinion, in neither Germany or USSR's interests for a strong Fenno-Scandinavian block to emerge.

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

#39

Post by patrik.possi » 16 Oct 2007, 10:52

1: First scenario, Finland declear it self neutral, and ask german troops to leave. With the Finnish geomilitary situation Finland would have to defend its neutrality from Petsamo in the north to Hanko AND southwest border. Quit franklly that neutrality watch with one of the longest border against SSSR would overstreatch the finnish defence. Finland was threatend from three diraction. If then, most likelly one side or maybe both would ignore the finnish neutrallity, ex. German advance into Lappland from Norway, German airunits flying over finnish territorium to Murmansk, Soviet accuse Finland of being pro-German, followed up by demands. Then with the feeling of the finnish pepole of the injust winterwar, would soon have deteriorated in to a situation that i doubt even Mannerheim could have mastered. With this not so unlikelly scenario the friendship with the german was not so strange or bad.

2: I would say it beyond any doubt that SSSR had no plans to respect finnish neutrallity. All ready in the Moscow talks leading to the winterwar in 1939 Molotov warned Paasikivi that Finland would not be allowed to be neutral in a war between Germany and Soviet.
In retrospect the best chans for Soviet to preserve the Moscow peace treaty was to allow the proposed defenceunion between Finland and Sweden. Sweden military weak, and unintrested in karelia, but extremlly focused in staying out of the war. The reason for Soviet not leting this union through was ofcurse as Soviet pravada said that the WInterwar peace was only a "temporary solution" and Soviet view Finland as its own backyard. This with the Soviet using the Moscow peacetreaty to actievlly trying to dectabilize Finland, and the Soviet Spy campagin that was aginst Finland that was absurd in its monumental scale. All this coming up to Molotovs Berlin visit where he ask for a solution to the Finnish problem. After this meating did we see any Soviet course change? No, the spying was as big as ever, no declaration of respecting finnis neutrallity was done, no security garanties where given. But intressting is that the soviet Military attache said in May 1941 to the so "called sixlings" (6 pro Soviet paralametarians) that Red army would come to Hesinki in August that year.

Its also intressting in examning the Soviet vokabulary about Finland. Until 22nd June 1941 Finland was a puppet state of the capitalist UK and america, after the 22nd it become facist. Finland was nevered refered to as a neutral state.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#40

Post by Juha Tompuri » 16 Oct 2007, 21:26

John T wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:Hi,
John T wrote:As I understands, A Finland who shared the destiny of Sweden would have been seen as the best possible outcome.
As a hindsight, maybe yes

But..as you earlier wrote:
John T wrote: -the decision makers perceptions at the time
The decision makers at that time didn't have all the info we now have.
Yes and this is important, do you discuss if it was possible to act diffrently or not?
Without having all the info we now have, it might have been at least difficult for them to sort out what would appear to be the best decisions from modern point of view.
I personally am more interested in how historical decisions were made, and on what basis.
JohnT wrote:The Finnish inner circle must have grappeled with the pro and cons of yet another war
Most probably so.
Sort of lucky for them, the Soviet side made the decision for them.

JohnT wrote:My Apology, my intention was to point to the risk and costs of taking part in another war. Not to insult the fallen and their relatives.
I believe that you are at honest mind, and I accept it.
Thank you.
John T wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
John T wrote: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?
This then (as Patrik wrote) might be revealing reading:
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaste ... 12,%201940
Well, it is not new to me but I interpret the meaning in another way than Patrik.
So USSR chooses not to attack Finland for eight months (thats one way to accept status quo) and then asks Germany if they would mind if they had another go at Finland.
Yes, seems so.
USSR had sort of respect towards German army, and as the campaign at west 1940 ended quite quickly and Germans couldn't launch the operation Seelöwe (in where the German army would/could have been strongly tied to), Molotov brought up the "Finnish case" at Berlin.

As we Finns should be grateful for the Anglo-French "pressure" towards USSR for helping to end the Winter War, we also should be grateful to the RAF, that, on it's part, prevented the Seelöwe.
John T wrote:
Germany recognized that, politically, Finland was of primary interest to Russia and was in her zone of influence. However, Germany had to consider the following two points:

1. For the duration of the war she was very greatly interested in the deliveries of nickel and lumber from Finland, and

2. She did not desire any new conflict in the Baltic Sea which would further curtail her freedom of movement in one of the few merchant shipping regions which still remained to her.
Thats a German no.
Yes.
Also intersting is that as USSR wanted to complete the MR-pact on the original terms, Germany presented an updated version of it:
Germany recognized that, politically, Finland was of primary interest to Russia and was in her zone of influence.
emphasis on mine.
The original protocols: http://www.lituanus.org/1989/89_1_03.htm


John T wrote: And as Stalin feared a German attack I see further Soviet pressure on Finland as means to deny Germany favours from Finland.
USSR did not need the Nickel, they just did not wanted it to be used by the Germans.
And at this point in time there is a possibility that the Finns could have choosen to act like Sweden. Sell ore to Germany in exchange for being left alone.
I believe that the difference at geographical positions, and that the other of the countries was at Soviet "zone of influence", and the other was not, would have denied that option.
Also, I'm a bit sceptical, that would Germany have accepted it.
John T wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
John T wrote: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
Juha earlier wrote:I personally don't see the "driftwood theory" as that bad.
1940-1941 a lot of things "just happened" around Finland, and we drifted from a situation to another.
With very little chances to affect to the events by ourselves.
Sometimes the choices were few, as Professor Huldt here (in Swedish) writes
http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/kultur/did_14211842.asp
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &highlight
Regards, Juha
I must say that I finds Professor Huldt's contrafactial description how Germany would invade south eastern Finland and cause a Finnish civil war as pretty close to what ThomasG calls "fantastic what-ifs"
Professor Meinander seems much more on the spot with a much simpler explanation, Finland wanted to restore her borders.

Karelia was lost due to unfavourable correlation of forces (RM-Pact) and now early 1941 the correlation of forces swung against USSR.
Would not Ryti consider it his moral duty to restore the old borders?
I think Ryti had the Finnish survival as an independent country as his top moral duty.


Regards, Juha

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#41

Post by Juha Tompuri » 16 Oct 2007, 22:05

janner wrote:Mind you I don't think Sweden had many options either - it was, in my opinion, in neither Germany or USSR's interests for a strong Fenno-Scandinavian block to emerge.
That's my opinion too.
When the WWII broke out, Finland tried to stay out of it.
We felt that alone we would be too weak for it, so we sought help from Skandinavia.
During the WWII we made several attempts to form sort of Nordic defence unions, but none materialized.

-Before Winter War it was turned down by our Skandinavian friends
-Just after Winter War USSR denied it
-Late 1940 both Germany and USSR denied it.

Regards, Juha

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

Re: Was the Continuation war unavoidable?

#42

Post by janner » 16 Oct 2007, 23:21

Juha Tompuri wrote:
janner wrote:Mind you I don't think Sweden had many options either - it was, in my opinion, in neither Germany or USSR's interests for a strong Fenno-Scandinavian block to emerge.
That's my opinion too.
When the WWII broke out, Finland tried to stay out of it.
We felt that alone we would be too weak for it, so we sought help from Skandinavia.
During the WWII we made several attempts to form sort of Nordic defence unions, but none materialized.

-Before Winter War it was turned down by our Skandinavian friends
-Just after Winter War USSR denied it
-Late 1940 both Germany and USSR denied it.

Regards, Juha
Maybe the shadows cast by Gustav II Adolf and Karl XII still loomed too dark over Europe. No intent to cast aspirations but Stalin knew his history – as did the Bohemian Corporal and a Fenno-Scandinavia block caused enough trouble in the early Medieval period never mind the Great Northern War – and let’s not even go into Eurovision.
8O

JariL
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 09:45
Location: Finland

#43

Post by JariL » 17 Oct 2007, 11:35

Maybe the shadows cast by Gustav II Adolf and Karl XII still loomed too dark over Europe
Hi Janner,

While Gustav II Adolf certainly secured the Swedish eastern border at the expense of Russia, Charles XII was not an agressor. Russia, Prussia, Poland and Denmark declared war on Sweden in order to end the almost 100 year Swedish dominace of the Baltic Sea. Timing looked suitable as Charles was still undergae when his father died. Charles XII had to do the best he could to defend his lands. His armies fought in many places and moved the war outside of Swedish territory but he did not start the war. I have always found it a bit strange that Russians bundle German knights, Charles XII, Napoleon and Hitler together as persons who tried to conquer Russia given that they themselves declared war on Charles XII.

Reagrds,

Jari

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

#44

Post by patrik.possi » 17 Oct 2007, 14:27

Sweden and its armedforces in 1940 was not a top-of-the line force.

The Airforce was outdate and sufferd the whole war from not geting modern fighters. 1940 they had J8 Gladiator and where able to buy some J11 Fiat CR-42 another outdated bi-figther truned down by the finnish airforce. Some 60 J9 Seversky P-35 where later in 1940 bought from USA.

The Swedish army had sent it best men and equipment to Finland as the swedish voluntary corps. If sweden would have sent additional forces this would have sufferd from great matrial shortage like shortage of tents, submachinguns, radios etc

The Swedish navy was quit big and had some powerfull armoredship, but lacked aircover and escortships.

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

#45

Post by janner » 17 Oct 2007, 21:45

JariL wrote:
Maybe the shadows cast by Gustav II Adolf and Karl XII still loomed too dark over Europe
Hi Janner,

While Gustav II Adolf certainly secured the Swedish eastern border at the expense of Russia, Charles XII was not an agressor. Russia, Prussia, Poland and Denmark declared war on Sweden in order to end the almost 100 year Swedish dominace of the Baltic Sea. Timing looked suitable as Charles was still undergae when his father died. Charles XII had to do the best he could to defend his lands. His armies fought in many places and moved the war outside of Swedish territory but he did not start the war. I have always found it a bit strange that Russians bundle German knights, Charles XII, Napoleon and Hitler together as persons who tried to conquer Russia given that they themselves declared war on Charles XII.

Reagrds,

Jari
Hi Jari,

You are of course correct in that Karl XII didn't start the war but it was the perceived threat from the Swedish Empire during those times I was alluding to rather than trying to take the thread off on a tangent with a discussion on the rights and wrongs of Swedish foreign policy in the sevententh and eighteenth centuries. I do have some reservations on certain parts of your post but this isn't the place to air them. :D

Regards,

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”