Why didn't USSR occupied Finland in 1944?
Finland was unique
There is one expection. Finland was one of the 4 countries which involved in World War 2 and was not occupied. Other countries were Britain, USA and Soviet Union.Tuco wrote:I wonder how true this is.... Do not read me wrong as I am sure Stalin said it but can not the same be said for most of Eastern Europe? There are a number of nations who fought hard and suffered much and this did not save them or grant their freedom from Stalin.
Other expection. Finland's enemy's population was about 60 times larger than Finland's and area was about 80 times larger.
In addition Finland's border against her enemy in east was over 1300 km long and Finland is quite narrow land in North-South direction.
I think that Finland's surviving from the war as independent land and unoccupied land is unique.
Re: Finland was unique
By Tuco
By Mika68
How many armies engaged in combat with the Red Army were demobilized (twice) without the government in power being overthrown/deposed accompanied with the inevitable change of system from the pre-war one into a Soviet run/sponsored Communistic system ?I wonder how true this is.... Do not read me wrong as I am sure Stalin said it but can not the same be said for most of Eastern Europe? There are a number of nations who fought hard and suffered much and this did not save them or grant their freedom from Stalin.
By Mika68
Better change the qualifiers to three European countries directly involved in combat actions just as not to give the nitpickers a chance to start bringing in countries like Argentina, Canada etc into the mix.There is one expection. Finland was one of the 4 countries which involved in World War 2 and was not occupied. Other countries were Britain, USA and Soviet Union.
Agreed. And Stalin having a special sentimental soft spot when it comes to Finlands independence is not the reason why Finland was not occupied.Other expection. Finland's enemy's population was about 60 times larger than Finland's and area was about 80 times larger.
In addition Finland's border against her enemy in east was over 1300 km long and Finland is quite narrow land in North-South direction.
I think that Finland's surviving from the war as independent land and unoccupied land is unique.
-
- Member
- Posts: 620
- Joined: 25 Aug 2005, 20:33
- Location: Suomi
With all due respect to Finns and their heroic struggle...
Please keep in mind that for USSR Germany was much more important axis of advance. If you look at the Baltic states and Poland, they were just between USSR and Germany. So what happened to them?
Finland was sort of a sideshow. The most important for USSR was to bases on the northern shore of Gulf of Finland, not more. Cost for the USSR to occupy WHOLE Finland with regards to partisan warfare, civilian resistance and all other complications would be much less than the benefits that the USSR would have received from it.
So it was much more profitable for USSR to take Porkalla, borders of 1940 and make a peace treaty with Finland at the terms that were offered.
Again, this is not to make Finnish achievements look smaller, but to explain the situation from the Soviet point of visa.
with best regards,
Bair
Please keep in mind that for USSR Germany was much more important axis of advance. If you look at the Baltic states and Poland, they were just between USSR and Germany. So what happened to them?
Finland was sort of a sideshow. The most important for USSR was to bases on the northern shore of Gulf of Finland, not more. Cost for the USSR to occupy WHOLE Finland with regards to partisan warfare, civilian resistance and all other complications would be much less than the benefits that the USSR would have received from it.
So it was much more profitable for USSR to take Porkalla, borders of 1940 and make a peace treaty with Finland at the terms that were offered.
Again, this is not to make Finnish achievements look smaller, but to explain the situation from the Soviet point of visa.
with best regards,
Bair
This is in keeping with the common view held by most Finnish historians. To be slightly more precise, in addition to the borders of 1940, the Petsamo (Petshenga) region by the Arctic Ocean with its nickel mine and iceless harbour was also annexed to the USSR in 1944. Furthermore, the FCMA (Friendship, Co-operation, and Mutual Assistance) Treaty of 1948 served to satisfy the remaining Soviet security interests regarding Finland, although President Paasikivi saw to it that it was different from the respective treaties with the Soviet-occupied Eastern European states, which later formed the Warsaw Pact, in the Finnish-Soviet treaty having no automatic mechanism of mutual action but requiring a possible threat to be acknowledged jointly before any practical measures.Bair wrote:So it was much more profitable for USSR to take Porkalla, borders of 1940 and make a peace treaty with Finland at the terms that were offered.
Would this kind of a development have been possible right after the Winter War in 1940, thus avoiding the Continuation War altogether? Hardly so (even though this is more of a "What if"-scenario). The impression that the Finns got of Soviet foreign policy during the interim peace 1940-41 was above all of a hostile intention to bring to completion what was left unfinished in the Winter War, hence the Finnish leaders were desperate to seek support from any party who could offer protection -- and like we know, the III Reich finally did. Of course, there was bitterness in Finland about the lost territories in 1940-41, but above all, there was worry about an inevitable second round from a worse outset for Finland, and no trust whatsoever on peaceful co-existence with the USSR with the fresh traumatic memories of Winter War and the scares of Molotov's rhetoric, the Kaleva incident, the course of events in the Baltic States etc.
The final outcome above (the acceptable peace terms of 1944) apparently was impossible without all the preceding bloodshed and destruction of Operation Barbarossa and the Continuation War, with their taxing effects on Soviet strength. I wonder if any archive material exists in Russia about how the Soviet leaders perceived these issues, and what made them finally re-define their goals about Finland? It would be logical to assume there should be plenty of such material, but obviously it has not so far been accessible for historical research.
- Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11562
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Hi Bair,
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &highlight
Regards, Juha
Bair wrote: The most important for USSR was to bases on the northern shore of Gulf of Finland, not more.
Cost for the USSR to occupy WHOLE Finland with regards to partisan warfare, civilian resistance and all other complications would be much less than the benefits that the USSR would have received from it.
AFAIK the Soviet goals at the "Stalin's 4th strategic blow" well exeeded the ones they actually gained.So it was much more profitable for USSR to take Porkalla, borders of 1940 and make a peace treaty with Finland at the terms that were offered.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &highlight
Regards, Juha
I think some of you are reading me wrong. I agree with what is being stated in regards to Finland and how well the Finns fought the Soviets. What I am saying is that I do not think Stalin cared in the least about the Finnish efforts or felt they deserved independence because of their brave deeds. I just do not think Stalin cared in the least about the Finns and their efforts as all he cared about was (at least after the battles in the summer of 1944) getting Finland out of the War. Stalin did not need to fight the Finns and the massive losses the Finns put on the Red Army in the summer of 1944 showed just how tough this fight would be. It was was not worth it. This is why here in the USA I try and tell people that while many in the West remember the Winter War they should recall the summer of 1944 was when Finland was saved.
When I mentioned the nations of Eastern Europe my point is that many struggled there as well, in many cases having to fight the Soviets and the Germans. Their brave deeds for freedom did not alter Stalin's stance on their future. That is the point that I am making. I have nothing but respect for Finland and their actions so do not take what I stating out of context.
When I mentioned the nations of Eastern Europe my point is that many struggled there as well, in many cases having to fight the Soviets and the Germans. Their brave deeds for freedom did not alter Stalin's stance on their future. That is the point that I am making. I have nothing but respect for Finland and their actions so do not take what I stating out of context.
By Bair
The operative goal being Kymijoki and not just Viipuri. Getting as far as Kymijoki would have meant breaking through the Finnish defences in the Western Isthmus and after hooking up with the Petrozadvodsk operation troops thus landing the bulk of the Finnish army in a pocket in the Eastern Isthmus or routed towards Kotka (and eventually Helsinki) and Savonlinna-Joensuu.In the article on the Soviet operational plans for 4th strategic blow the military goals are limited with Kymijoki and wait and see approach, at least Ohto Manninen writes so...
By Bair
That does not mean Meretskov et al could not try hard to go for the initial Winter War plan outcome.So it was much more profitable for USSR to take Porkalla, borders of 1940 and make a peace treaty with Finland at the terms that were offered.
Agreed. But the terms acceptable to Stalin were the minimum. And subsequent post war events did show that the ultimate Soviet goal (at least initially) was to overthrow the existing Finnish form of government.Again, this is not to make Finnish achievements look smaller, but to explain the situation from the Soviet point of visa.
By Tuco
Stalin could not afford to leave Finland standing after Germany was beaten. It would have meant Finland would have gotten too much attention and he could not risk having the Western Allies taking too keen an interest on the Finnish situation and grievances without Germany riding shotgun and hogging most of the attention.I just do not think Stalin cared in the least about the Finns and their efforts as all he cared about was (at least after the battles in the summer of 1944) getting Finland out of the War. Stalin did not need to fight the Finns and the massive losses the Finns put on the Red Army in the summer of 1944 showed just how tough this fight would be. It was was not worth it.
Indeed. But the geopolitical situation and location is what made all the difference. Poland for example was overrun and falling into communism was a foregone outcome with no other outcome possible.When I mentioned the nations of Eastern Europe my point is that many struggled there as well, in many cases having to fight the Soviets and the Germans. Their brave deeds for freedom did not alter Stalin's stance on their future. That is the point that I am making.