Why didn't USSR occupied Finland in 1944?
- Panzerfaust XxX
- Member
- Posts: 692
- Joined: 03 Nov 2004, 04:23
- Location: United States
I think the USSR could have occupied Finland if they had kept on it. I respect the Finnish soldiers of the era very much don't get me wrong, but if the USSR had just sent more and more into it they would have won completely. I think the Finnish front was tied up some much that it didn't seem worth it. occupying more space in Germany was far more importent to the Soviets than taking all of Finland. They wanted to free up units for the conquest of Germany.
There is no doubt about this, of course there is a limit on how long you can put up with overwhelming numerical superiority of the adversary. But the race for Berlin was much more important for Stalin, hence it was a more urgent goal than conquering Finland. However, also the Red Army and the USSR had shed a lot of blood during three years of Operation Barbarossa, and Stalin preferred peace as well for the sake of the Soviet Union. It seems like after the battle of Tali-Ihantala in June 1944 the Soviet goals towards Finland had become very different from the days of Molotov's belligerent rhetoric during the Interim peace 1940-41 after the Winter War.Panzerfaust XxX wrote: I respect the Finnish soldiers of the era very much don't get me wrong, but if the USSR had just sent more and more into it they would have won completely. I think the Finnish front was tied up some much that it didn't seem worth it. occupying more space in Germany was far more importent to the Soviets than taking all of Finland. They wanted to free up units for the conquest of Germany.
- fredleander
- Member
- Posts: 2175
- Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
- Location: Stockholm
- Contact:
Re: Why didn't USSR occupied Finland in 1944?
One could well ask the same question for Northern Norway. When the Germans were driven out of Eastern Finnmark (the Eastern-most Norwegian county) by the Russians Allied forces were invited to take over. During the Fall of '44 a Norwegian company was transferred from Scotland to Kirkenes. The Russians were rather surprised that larger forces were not sent. As a matter of fact the Allies prioritized shipping assets for the central ETO. As did the Russians! As it were I believe the Russians were much more interested in using all available assets in Germany - to conquer most possible land there. Scandinavia and Finland they could always get back to.cipiao wrote:Why didn't USSR occupied all Finland in 1944, but instead allowed a truelly free state to go on, have only reoccupied the territories it had taken in the Winter War? It was not the military power of Finland, even considering the brave armed forces Finland had and all its military capabilities, wich were very good, but the super-power, that USSR was by 1944, could have occupied the country...so why not?
In other hand
in other hand, if Finland didn't join to Operation Barbarossa, Russians would have more troops against Germans.Topspeed wrote:Of course...if USSR had only concentrated on Finland in 1944 they would have taken Finland.
-
- Member
- Posts: 81
- Joined: 14 Oct 2005, 01:09
- Location: US
Naturally, but the bigger operation started in autumn 1944 because there was a danger of occupation when Finnish Army was demobilized (between September and early December 1944).carolwmahs wrote:Did Finland make any preparations for the waging of a guerrilla war in the event of a conventional defeat?
But what "conventional defeat" you are talking about? In the summer 1944 Finns could eventually stop all Soviet attacks everywhere. By August 1944 all Finnish troops were replenished. When the truce agreement was signed in September 1944 (temporary peace agreement was signed later in the same month) Finnish Armed Forces were again in full shape, or even slightly stronger than they had been in June 1944. Finns signed a voluntary peace agreement. It was a political decision. Finnish Army was never defeated in combat and it never surrendered to anyone.
Harri, I believe Carol was speaking hypothetically here, "if Finland had suffered conventional defeat".But what "conventional defeat" you are talking about?
From my earlier posting in this thread:Did Finland make any preparations for the waging of a guerrilla war in the event of a conventional defeat?
See also:When the Continuation War ended in September 1944, a group of Finnish general staff officers (with Mannerheim's unspoken approval - that's plausible deniability 40 years before Iran-Contra!) began secretly to organise weapon caches around Finland. They were meant to be used to support large-scale guerilla warfare if USSR tried to occupy Finland. This so-called Weapon Caches Case became soon public and offical investigations began (conducted, of course, by the communist Security Police). For the Soviets it was yet another evidence that if they tried to occupy Finland, they had to pay dearly. Decades later, Molotov told to a party historian: "It was a very wise decision [not to occupy Finland]. It would have been a bleeding wound in our side! The people there, they are very stubborn, very stubborn."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_Cache_Case
-
- Member
- Posts: 81
- Joined: 14 Oct 2005, 01:09
- Location: US
Thanks Mikko, yes I was speaking hypothetically.
Harri, Your patriotism is admirable. But my goodness, let's be realistic. Do you really think that the Red Army couldn't roll its JS-II's down Arkadiankatu if they had really wanted to pay the price? Casualties would have been very high, but the Soviet army in 1945 was the best and the largest in the world, and had a ruthless political leadership that was willing to use it mercilessly.
Harri, Your patriotism is admirable. But my goodness, let's be realistic. Do you really think that the Red Army couldn't roll its JS-II's down Arkadiankatu if they had really wanted to pay the price? Casualties would have been very high, but the Soviet army in 1945 was the best and the largest in the world, and had a ruthless political leadership that was willing to use it mercilessly.
- finnjaeger
- Member
- Posts: 347
- Joined: 14 Jan 2003, 17:48
- Location: Finland
Besides the "Weapon Cache Case" that´s been mentioned, an other preparation for a guerilla/resistance movement was the so called "Operation Stella Polaris" in the autumn of 1944. During the operation lots of intelligence documents, some key intelligence personal and some equipment was secretly transfered to Sweden. Most of the personal then returned to Finland, whilst some then stayed in Swedish service and others, as a part of the documents, "found their ways" to France and USA.carolwmahs wrote:Did Finland make any preparations for the waging of a guerrilla war in the event of a conventional defeat?
Regards
Esa K
-
- Member
- Posts: 620
- Joined: 25 Aug 2005, 20:33
- Location: Suomi
Thanks Mikko, yes I was speaking hypothetically.
Harri, Your patriotism is admirable. But my goodness, let's be realistic. Do you really think that the Red Army couldn't roll its JS-II's down Arkadiankatu if they had really wanted to pay the price? Casualties would have been very high, but the Soviet army in 1945 was the best and the largest in the world, and had a ruthless political leadership that was willing to use it mercilessly.
Yes your right,but it would have cost russians at least million men at casualties and aside that total and final destruction of Finland.Maybe even 2 million russian dead.
Finns had something like 500 000 well armed soldiers and this would have been quite of a blow to russians when every finn would have fought til to a bitter end and finns were honestly speaking one of the bravest soldiers of ww2 and its army was great.
This again would have helped Germanys situation remarkably.