Finnish Winter War

Bessarabia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Eastern Poland, puppet state in Mongolia, 2 border skirmishes with Manchurians and Japanese.

There was an article I saw by a L Miller of Miller Systems WW2 Campaign article 'Stalin's Secret' where he mentioned a Russian author as well indicating that Stalin's military build-up, including an offensive navy of super-battleships and the world's largest submarine fleet and offensive, not defensive, deployment of forces along Eastern European borders even before they were German allies. I don't remember the Russian historian's name, there may be 2 even. Maybe just rumor of a Russian author using quotes from Russian generals estimating a timetable of 'action' planned later the same summer of Operation Barbarossa. That article points out that the Russian deployment was totally wrong for the Soviet defense in depth philosophy and that's why the German attack did so much better than even the Germans thought it should, surprise included.

Ok, I didn't think I was allowed to paste his entire article here?
but I found the Russian historian he mentions and agrees with.

I am finally backed up by Russian historian Viktor Suvorov making the same claim and providing evidence that Stalin was planning to invade July 10th, 1941.

I believe Miller's sources include Macksey and a Hughes-Wilson? though not sure. Seems to make alot of parallel arguments with some interesting notable differences. Miller's is on general strategic and production decisions while the real book published historians use actual Soviet evidence it seems.
I've never bothered to buy their books though, sorry. Still agree with their reasoning.

Anytime you are willing to war on a neighbour just because they refuse to give up territory and bases to you shows expansionist mind. The Japanese and Germans and Italians used the same 'reasoning'.

I believe there was also communist manifesto? or something regarding the duty to spread the People's Revolution around the world, by force if need be?
Were there also not Soviet claims that the Czar had no right to give up 'Russian territory' which at one time also included Finland?

If Stalin were sincerely defensive minded, then I'd expect him to have accepted rather than rejected the Allies mutual defense pact and Polish guarantee offers rather than instead sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact which literally abolished all such 'buffer zones' you cite. I wish the Miller Stalin article were up on their website.

Let Hitler go to war with the Allies himself rather than risk them declaring war on you for doing no less to Poland than Germany was.

No, I don't buy Stalin's 'defense mind' at all.

As far as I can tell, Finland was pushed into allying with Germany only after Russian aggression, not before. And might have allied with the Allies instead if they'd given Finland the attention and support it deserved.
But you'd have to ask the Finns about that maybe..

You might as well say that American invasion of Canada was only to create a greater buffer from British threat or later Russian threat.
We wouldn't buy it.
I have a Polish friend who doesn't buy that Stalin invaded Poland as a buffer from Hitler either. In fact he's always blaming us for not declaring war on Russia for the same thing Germany did in Poland.

 

After and during Winter War Finland tried to make contact with the Nordic countries, but as Stalin/USSR considered this more or less an act of war this was put aside. Finland had been in good relations with Germany for long ( since WW1 ), but as the Finns did not react towards nazism the way Hitler wanted we were not so "hot in Hitler´s list ". And especially after Aug 1939 deal in which Finland was given to Stalin as to do what he pleases with it, the contact with Germany was broken totally. Only as Hitler had decided to go for Barbarossa, Hitler started very close negotiations with Finland, and also in Dec 1940 forbid the uSSR from attacking Finland which Molotov was asking to do.

Our president was towards the west just like Mannerheim, and there was a great deal of messages sent between Churchill and Mannerheim ( very friendly often ) until 6th Dec 1941 when Churchill saw no other option than to declare war on Finland. So an option lost by the west in Finland but I consider that it was necessary to sacrifice Finland in order to get the USSR help against nazi Germany. If that was not the reason, then I´d call that very foolish policy but little countries often mean nothing in the "big games".

 

Suvorov? If you weren't talking seriously I'd say you were joking! He is not a historian, he was a Red Army captain (real name Vladimir Rezun) who defected to the West in the Cold War and spilled the beans to the CIA and later got himself rich writing a few books stating how bad the Russians were. Completely discredited in this forum and elsewhere. More here
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=208&Itemid=108
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)
http://www.consimworld.com/newsroom/archives/morenews/glantz.19981001.gen.html

If Suvorov / Rezun is the basis for the rest of your post I'll decline responding.

 

Balderdasher,

I must agree with Za here. Vladimir Rezun, was a traitor to his country, surely this individual cant be your only source can it?

 

David Glantz shreds him to little bits in "Stumbling Colossus", should be an interesting read. http://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700608796

If he's a traitor or not is no argument. What matters is whether his work is any good or not. By the way, my first link above points to the Russian version of the text, here is the English version of this long and interesting critique http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=208&Itemid=108

 

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?

 

This thread became a waste of time. Thank you.

 

Interesting...

"....had the Nazis not successfully invaded France in May 1940, the Allies might well have launched their own offensive against the Soviet Union."

Oops!

Osborn, Patrick R. Operation Pike: Britain versus the Soviet Union, 1939-1941. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000.

http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/archives/000902.shtml

From the site:

"He discusses in considerable depth Winston Churchill's seriously hare-brained scheme, Operation Catherine, for providing Royal Navy battleships with water-filled "galoshes" to reduce their draft, "mine bumpers," and an additional "umbrella" of deck armor-- all so they could sail into the Baltic and isolate Germany from Scandinavian iron ore, consequently winning the war in record time."

Churchill, still First Lord of the Admiralty, also forecast that Germany would promptly move into the Balkans before attacking France; this led to his much-cherished dream for a Balkan bloc to offer a unified front against Germany. Similarly, General Weygand in the Levant wanted desperately to introduce Allied troops into the Balkans. Meanwhile, General Wavell in Egypt communicated fears of a Russo-German thrust through Turkey or Iran into the Near East to capture the oilfields in Iran and Iraq and the Suez Canal and proposed strategies for dealing with the threat.

Various other far-fetched schemes were mooted by assorted diplomats and soldiers: convincing Tokyo to join in an Anglo-Japanese declaration of war against Russia; infiltrating agents and saboteurs into the country; sailing a Royal Navy squadron into the Black Sea to "hold it" in case of war with Moscow; slipping submarines into the Black Sea to attack Soviet oil tankers; "encouraging" Free Polish submarines to sink Soviet shipping in the Baltic Sea. In short, many Western leaders were in favor of going to war against Stalin, and indeed many in a position of power in the British government still found Bolshevism more of a threat than Nazism. This attitude was mirrored in Paris, and soon reached new levels.

The Soviet invasion of Finland set off another frenzy of brainstorming that hatched more hopeless schemes of anti-Bolshevik intervention, now including, at least in theory, Mussolini's Italy. Among those seriously considered was "intervention by proxy" with Free Polish troops landed at Petsamo, since Poland was already considered to be at war with Russia.

By the end of Marc 1940 Churchill was advocating that three British submarines move into the Black Sea to intercept Russian oil traffic there.

 

Yes, Otto you are right......

I guess I just dont have sympathy for people like that. ( no matter what country he or she may be from )

As we have gone have gone of topic here, you will not here from me on this matter any more

Thanks

 

First, I'm glad to see that that fellow doesn't actually speak for everyone in this forum as he claims.

But yes, I've always been curious when I read Liddel Hart or Total War authors mention actual Grand Alliance plans drawn up and studied for war with Russia over Finland. I'd be curious to take a look at them.

I guess this explains the unexpected? Yugoslav coup against the pro-Axis gov't that seemed too late to help France though did surprise the Axis leaders I guess.

In Liddel Hart there was a comment about helping Finland even if it mean going through Sweden, I can't find the old book but I recall I was left with the impression the Allies might do it with or without Swedish or Denmark alliance. That would be tough.

I think you are right, and of course those other 2 have their own national prejudices, while I find your exploration of the issue far more impartial and source quoted despite your own apparent nationality.

But I recall? reading in Total War I think, that Mussolini was trying to temper Hitler, even convinced the Pope to intervene with the Poles and that at this point it was still possible to avoid war with the Allies and hope for the pro-Nazi anti-communist extremists still significant in Britain and France to look at communism as as great a threat to them at the time as Fascism.

Given that even Hitler's Lebensraum didn't include France or England but Europe to the Urals, I don't think many people realize how easily the politics of the war could have been so very different.

I still wonder how it would have been possible for the Allies to help the Finns get the Soviets to back off for good?

That's a logistical and geographical nightmare I'd think,
especially having to keep 'your other 3 eyes?' on Germany, Italy and Japan at the same time.

 

Who us?

 

May I ask for the source of such a fantastic information?
The whole Red Army was less than 2 million in 1939, although it had increased to the beginning of 1940. The whole number of soldiers who took part in the war was about 1 million: the full list of 916.000 plus reinforcements. The loss was 126.875 dead and 264.908 wounded. All of them had been listed by names.

 

As a matter of fact, it's a sort of a myth -- about incalculable Soviet hordes unsuccessfully attacking small groups of brave Finns. Finns were brave, I wouldn't argue, but the rest is rubbish
In the first period of war (December 1939) the 7th Soviet army fought in the Karelian Isthmus. It included 9 infantry divisions (157 000 soldiers), 6 tank brigades, 10 independent tank battalions -- 1569 tanks and 1202 artillery guns.
As far, as I know Finnish Estermann army numbered 135 000 soldiers.
It wasn't an overpowering superiority.

 

Hi Artema, thanks for mentionning these figures, I'm surprised the Red Army did not involve more men in the carelia offensive . Was this because the offensive proved more difficult than expected?

 

It did -- in February 1940.

I would say it was a real failure of Soviet reconnaissance. Their knowledge of Finnish fortifications was scarce. Soviet invasion plans were made as though the headquarters knew nothing about the Mannerheim Line.
Also tactical skills of the 7th army commander Yakovlev were rather poor.
And surely nobody thought the Finns would fight so bravely and stubbornly.

 

Don't exaggerate. A little more than 300.

 

I've got more exact information on Soviet and Finnish forces in the first period of the war in all areas of the front.
Finland: 9 infantry divisions, 4 infantry brigades, 1 cavalry brigade, 35 independent battalions and 38 reserve battalions. 170 nominal battalions in all.
USSR: 20 infantry divisions and 1 machine gun brigade. 185 nominal battalions.

 

If your losses were so low why did you not break through at Tali-Ihantala?