Why didn't USSR occupied Finland in 1944?

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002, 20:18
Location: Helsinki

#46

Post by Hanski » 17 Apr 2005, 18:31

Gentlemen, may I suggest we discuss Finlandization under a separate thread which I opened earlier:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=43264

Cheers,
Hanski

User avatar
Panzerfaust XxX
Member
Posts: 692
Joined: 03 Nov 2004, 04:23
Location: United States

#47

Post by Panzerfaust XxX » 28 Mar 2006, 04:17

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.


User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002, 20:18
Location: Helsinki

#48

Post by Hanski » 28 Mar 2006, 16:51

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.
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.

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

#49

Post by Topspeed » 29 Mar 2006, 10:43

Of course...if USSR had only concentrated on Finland in 1944 they would have taken Finland.

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re: Why didn't USSR occupied Finland in 1944?

#50

Post by fredleander » 29 Mar 2006, 11:10

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?
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.

Mika68
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 26 Aug 2004, 14:15
Location: Finland

In other hand

#51

Post by Mika68 » 29 Mar 2006, 11:12

Topspeed wrote:Of course...if USSR had only concentrated on Finland in 1944 they would have taken Finland.
in other hand, if Finland didn't join to Operation Barbarossa, Russians would have more troops against Germans.

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

#52

Post by Topspeed » 29 Mar 2006, 12:29

Finns did not join Barbarossa. Finns fought own separate war to gain back Karelia.

Had finns started a war against Germany in 1942 USSR would have occupied Finland in the process. USSR had only plans to invade Finland.
Barbarossa and Continuation War came as a surprise to them.

carolwmahs
Member
Posts: 81
Joined: 14 Oct 2005, 01:09
Location: US

#53

Post by carolwmahs » 30 Mar 2006, 18:19

Perhaps it was the spectre of occupying the territory of such a fiercely independent people that also made Stalin reconsider.

Did Finland make any preparations for the waging of a guerrilla war in the event of a conventional defeat?

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#54

Post by Harri » 30 Mar 2006, 19:12

carolwmahs wrote:Did Finland make any preparations for the waging of a guerrilla war in the event of a conventional defeat?
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).

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.

Mikko H.
Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: 07 May 2003, 11:19
Location: Turku, Finland

#55

Post by Mikko H. » 30 Mar 2006, 19:16

But what "conventional defeat" you are talking about?
Harri, I believe Carol was speaking hypothetically here, "if Finland had suffered conventional defeat".
Did Finland make any preparations for the waging of a guerrilla war in the event of a conventional defeat?
From my earlier posting in this thread:
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."
See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_Cache_Case

carolwmahs
Member
Posts: 81
Joined: 14 Oct 2005, 01:09
Location: US

#56

Post by carolwmahs » 30 Mar 2006, 20:46

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.

User avatar
finnjaeger
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 14 Jan 2003, 17:48
Location: Finland

#57

Post by finnjaeger » 30 Mar 2006, 21:03

Yep, your right carolwmahs, but what a glorious fight to the death it would have been :D .

best regards,TK

Esa K
Member
Posts: 1257
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 14:49
Location: Sweden

#58

Post by Esa K » 31 Mar 2006, 10:03

carolwmahs wrote:Did Finland make any preparations for the waging of a guerrilla war in the event of a conventional defeat?
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.


Regards

Esa K

Deine-Zukunft
Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 25 Aug 2005, 20:33
Location: Suomi

#59

Post by Deine-Zukunft » 31 Mar 2006, 10:31

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.

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

#60

Post by Topspeed » 31 Mar 2006, 10:56

Deine-Zukunft wrote:
This again would have helped Germanys situation remarkably.
It may have helped, but it would not have changed the result of the war !

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”