Hmm... Well, some Russian officer answered when an American asked that why didn't SU take Finland: What would we do in a hornet's nest!
It is a saying. If you disturb a hornets nest you are going to be attacked by them and it will be nasty.
The Finns. After all, if the Soviet Union had wanted to, they could have taken Finland in 1944/45. So why didn't they?
It probably wouldn´t look nice, especially ´cause people remembered the infamous war in 1939 and Stalin didn´t want to remind them. After all, USSR has enough of their own woods and POW-lumberjack - cheaper than Finns. Maybe he wanted the Americans out of Europe quick and deal the last blow later? How can I know? They talked in Yalta, Potsdam. Stalin seemed uninterested. I think he wanted to show largesse. Finland had no significant heavy industry, like Poland (Upper Silesia) and was sort of - at the perifery if one wants to go west quick - why bother? Couldn´t he have taken Finland? Of course he could. I suddenly think that Churchill might frown upon the idea. Many possible explanations.
Dunno if you believe me: Americans were good friends with Finland; Finnish ambassador Procopé was Roosevelt favourite ambassador. And when Amis send lend-lease to SU, they gave a condition: the material must not be used against Finland. This came true quite well, material used against Finland was 95% Soviet. Roosevelt had a deal with Stalin: Finland has to be punished being with the Germans, but not to be conquered. Where I got this info? From a Finnish military magazine. The topic was written by an ex-ambassador. It's a while I read it, maybe I can it back to get some more specific info.
alex buenger the germans hade a small chance of taking the britsh on in the navy the britsh are predomitly the sea going folks they rellied on the sea for almost every besides the britsh hade only enough food for 40% of there people so they knew it was a weekness so they built up the navey it got a huge bust when it defeated the spanish armada -luke downey