Personally as a Canadian I don't care much if Stalin was planning to invade Europe before Barbarossa or not.

I can see that more Russians or communists would most likely be found amongst Suvorov's critics just like Americans to Benedict Arnold. That doesn't mean I believe everything Suvorov wrote is false anymore than Arnold's.

I can also see that more Poles and Baltic State people would be found amongst the supporters of the suggestion.

Personally reading all this, I'm more likely to go along with Miller, Macksey, Wilson and others wondering if Stalin had postponed plans to take advantage of an Axis-Allied wear-down war till 1942 even 43 instead of this guys' 1941 claim. But it's obvious he has more support than you implied too, and from some critical quarters who are known to be critical of all sides fairly equally. So that makes an impression on me and hopefully readers here compared to your apparent pre-disposed views on things. IMHO, I won't infer insults on you, I pretty much assume I don't know everything and others know more about their own nation than I do.

Hell, I disbelieve Miller's claim that Stalin had a spy in Bletchley Park.

As I said, I've never read that Russian's work at work myself.
I found this link trying to explain both sides with obvious more neutrality than you.

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

My apologies to Miller though. I've found the entire paper and see that by quoting just one line it's mis-representing the over-all message. But even he says 'you can't throw out the baby with the bath-water'.

P47 "Military Intelligence Blunders and Cover-ups"...Colonel John Hughes-Wilson
'According to Churchill, the Soviet leader later claimed ruefully, "I thought I could gain another six months or so", and there is plenty to suggest that Stalin's aim was to delay war until the Soviet Union was prepared for one, perhaps in 1942.'

P49 "Military Errors of World War Two" Kenneth Macksey indicates evidence since 1985 that there may in fact be more merit than first thought to the Suvorov's claims "and that one reason hwy the forces on Russia's western frontier in June were caught unprepared was because they were poised for attack, not defence."

Now those 2 are whom I would call fair to criticising both sides, while you seem obviously one-sided on issues from what I can read of your posts on the forums here.

You can call all these other authors and sources quacks like Suvorov(sorry if spelling name wrong), but I agree with the following concerns.

Stalin's production plan and type of weapons, including the largest offensive bombing fleet in the world.
The largest build up of submarines in the world(even after it was clear both Germany and Japan were merchant strangled).

Now I'm not sure about this, but did Stalin order the dismantling of a line of defensive fortifications running all the way from the Black Sea through the Ukraine up to the Baltic? and weren't those weapons moved forward towards the Western Front, not eastward as would be an appeasing move? IIRC.

So if it comes to my believing authors I know are published as being fairly equally critical of all sides,
as compared to believing you who I see predictably come down posting a particular line of thinking,
I'll take the more impartial group thanks,
regardless of your air of superiority and claims of only your authors are reliable.

For those interested in both critical sides of the issue, that link tries to show both, unlike the critics here who obviously show you only one side.

Back to the question.
"In other words, would it have been better for Finland in the long run to have agreed to the exchange of territory or was there definitely no alternative to fighting?"

My answer remains no.
No matter how you try to sugar-coat it, when one nation demands territory from another it is showing an aggressive nature.

It's like whipping your neighbours to make them like you better than your enemy.
Isn't that what drove people against Hitler?
Isn't that what drove those 'buffers' into the Reich?
Doesn't it only put more of your units in direct contact with the enemy units than ever before?

I'd see it if the Germans were doing it first, bullying the Finns into Luftwaffe and Uboat bases closer to Soviet strategic targets.
I'd even see it if the Allies were making similar inroads threatening the Soviet Union around her borders...after all, they did invade Russia on behalf of the White Russian? anti-bolsheviks? into the 1920s IIRC.

But at this point? no, I don't see it as anything but initiative of Soviet aggression over anyone else's.
As far as I know, Finland had no favourable predisposition to the Nazis or even Germany at this point?

btw
whenever someone dictates absolutes in forums supposedly welcoming different perspectives...
"Completely discredited in this forum and elsewhere." Za Rodinu
to most democratically minded readers, that smacks of someone claiming to speak for all others
which helps those not willing to just let you tell them what they must think
form opinions on your opinions as well I'd think?