Why did Stalin give up on Finland?

Hello rouges,Just came across this post; "Which country's Soldier was most efficient?"
And most posters seem to vote for Finland.

Yes the Finns put up a hell of a resistance indeed, but did Stalin really push to occupy the whole of Finland? Also the Red Army, had been crippled by the Stalins Great Purge of 1937, reducing the army's morale and efficiency shortly before the outbreak of the fighting.

Did Stalin rather then defeating Finland accept a small token of Finish territory (10%?) and 30% of its economic assets - then risking Britain's and France's involvement against him?

I am sure Kai Petri will know a lot and I am looking forward to postings that might shed light onto the Russo/Finland war and its "preliminary result" which made Stalin to give up or call off the attack.

Regards
Kruska

 

Just my view:

In March 1940 Stalin made the peace because of the world wide attention of the Winter War. He could have taken Finland if he wanted to but for the time being decided to call it a day. In Nov 1940 Molotov visited Hitler and required possibility to attack Finland. Hitler´s view had changed by then and he forbade any offensive to Finland.

In 1944 after Tali-Ihantala Stalin´s main objective became Berlin and mostly we Finns consider this the reason why Stalin did not attack again with brutal force to Finland.There was an offensive in middle Finland August 1944 where the Red Army troops were beaten back before the peace in Sept 1944.

 

Just one note.
It is probable that Stalin wouldn't object to conquer Finland, but before the Winter war only, not after.
You might have heard of Soviet internal propaganda and of how informative it was sometimes? So, in propaganda, one of the goals of the war was "to liberate Finnish workers of their exploiters". As the war went on, this topic died out. Why? I suppose, Stalin saw that the Finns were desperate to defend their country (unlike, say, Estonians and Latvians), so if taking Finland, Stalin would have got a source of permanent hatred and resistance. He didn't need it, granted. He wasn't a fool.

 

Hello Kai, ..hello Artema,

Yes I too agree that Stalin could have taken Finland. As of March 1940 Finnish resistance was naturally crumbling due to all sorts of reasons.

Now I do not believe that Stalin was afraid or even considered the possibility of a British/French expedition force comming to Finlands aid.

The initial forwarding of the war from Stalins side, was Finish agression, and thus he insisted on a wider "free zone" towards Leningrad, including the dissmantelling of the Finish defense lines.

Around March 1940 Stalin was about to succeed militarily towards his demands - he had payed a huge tribute to gain that goal - and suddenly he signs of a treaty and retreats??

Why? he couldn't be bothered about Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia wanting to be free, nor Poland which was a treaty partner to Britain and France, even though Hitler had agreed for Stalin to pocket them in. With Stalin occupying Finland he would have had his hands on minerals and additionally he would have secured a northern position towards Hitler, plus naval ports the Russians had always been dreaming of.

Hitler would certainly not have attacked him since France and Britain were still in need to be taken care off.

The US probably didn't even realize that there was a war going on anyway.

So why did Stalin suddenly refrain from adding some land and ports to his Soviet Reich?

Regards
Kruska

 

I think that Stalin might have been able to take all of Finland, if he had devoted his entire remaining forces to the project. But he couldn't afford to do that with the Japanese in the Far East also creating a couple of problems for he and the State. And Sweden casting a jaundiced eye his way.

Kruska, America most certainly did know about the Soviet aggression against the Finns as demonstrated by articles in the Time magazines of late 1939, early 1940. However our Neutrality Acts and still vocal (if not numerically strong) isolationists would keep America from doing much more than selling them a few fighter aircraft from Brewster. Which the Finns used to great success against the Soviets in spite of the later disparaging of the fighter named the "Buffalo", the Finns racked up one of the most kill to loss ratios of the entire war with the 239 model, even though that happened during the "continuation war" when the Finns were allied with the Germans.

For a story on the Brewster.

Goto:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/saga.htm

And for the developing Soviet aggression against the Finns, see:

NORTHERN THEATRE: Such Nastiness - TIME

then:

NORTHERN THEATRE: Soldiers, Arise! - TIME

and:

SCANDINAVIA: Help Wanted - TIME

Even while Time magazine made Stalin Man of the Year, they posted this on Jan. 1st:

NORTHERN THEATRE: Happy Birthday to Joe - TIME

then the following week:

NORTHERN THEATRE: Sisu - TIME

and a week later:

NORTHERN THEATRE: Winter War Is Ours - TIME

and:

NORTHERN THEATRE: Bull After Cape - TIME

Here is a link to the Swedes who volunteered and fought for the Finns against the invading Soviets:

SWEDEN: Make Up Your Mind - TIME

next:

NORTHERN THEATRE: Hit Them in the Belly - TIME

 

I for one do not believe that Stalin's intention was the occupation of all of Finland (me and Kai have discussed this before ).

Before war broke out Stalin told Finland what he wanted. Leningrad (second largest city)was too close the the Finnish border (less than 40 miles) and vulnerable to attack. Stalin proposed a land swap, he wanted the Karelian Isthmus which would push the border back some 400 miles. Finland refused and the war broke out. While losing more men Stalin accomplished his goal and got the very territory which he wanted.

When WW2 broke out the Finns broke the treaty and advanced into their former territory. Had Stalin (IMO) trully wanted all of Finland he would have conquered it during WW2, instead, he just reclaimed the territories which he gained from the Winter War: the Finnish Karelia.

My opinion at least.

 

Hello Slon - old Soviet rascal

That Stalin wanted a "protection zone" for Leningrad already sounds totally weird and unrealistic to me.
Who would the Finns be to attack or threaten the giant Soviet Russia? Stalin used that argument to rid the Finns of their defensive line - so as to have an easier go at them - when the time should come.

Stalin had set during the campaign about 1/5 of his forces, about 1/10 at the beginning towards the Finns - just to push back an enemy for 40miles whom he grossly understimated?
He lost about 3000 tanks and about 200,000 men, just to pull back when Finland was at his mercy?

No, sounds too simple for me - he must have had a reason to abandon his initial plan - which IMHO was not just to drive the Finns back a 40 miles.

Could it be that sly Stalin already anticipated a war with Hitler in the near future and as such wanted to keep a good reputation towards the allies as a future partner to them?

Did the Brits or French indicate or offer anything to him besides flexing muscles about sending an expeditionary force? - which couldn't even get there anyway.

Hello brindirt1,
thanks for the times articles - an interesting read up!

Regards
Kruska

 

In 1939 just after the Winter War started Stalin had created a new governement for Finland which he named the only government he would discuss the peace deal with, not the one in Helsinki Finland. This was the Otto Wille Kuusinen government. For Finns this meant Stalin wanted to take the whole country under power.

And as mentioned, Molotov visited Hitler in late 1940 demanding Hitler´s agreement on an offensive to take Finland. So that should cover it.

Anyway, as Finland was part of the secret pact in the Ribbentrop-Molotov deal I have no delusions about what was going to happen. Just check what happened to the other nations that were mentioned in the pact and were given to the other nation´s area of influence.

 

I figure that since the Finns handed Stalin his ass so to speak in the Winter War, he could expect more of the same in partisan warfare if he occupied the entire county. Partisan warfare is always dreadful business. I really don't think that Stalin batted a red eye when considering Swedish intervention, or really anyones intervention. If the British and the French's "Western Betrayal Part Deux" (less than the half-hearted honoring of their commitment to defend Poland) was an indicator of the Allies intervening in Finland, Stalin had no real worries beyond saber rattling and browbeating in the world press. As for the Japanese menace in the Far East, after thumping them royally earlier in 1939 meant that the Soviet troops already there was more than enough to keep the Kwantung Army in check (mate). I don't think that the Japanese wanted anymore of that business and began looking south anyway.

Just my opinion guys, feel free to tear into it.

 

I do believe that Soviet Union's primary reason for invading Finland was conquest.

Has anyone ever noticed that when Stalin and his cronies spoke of Leningrad's security they only mentioned artillery and FORGOT about aircraft totally??? I don't know about you but to me...that strikes as odd.

There are lots of proof about the conquest:
- the founding of the Terijoki government which was to rule Finland as communist country once the conquest was done
- the Mainila shots which the Soviets staged...as a casus belli. Hmm...they needed a legal reason for war?
- the marching orders of the Soviet units...captured from those destroyed units. In these marching orders one unit was supposed to capture Oulu in the western coast/middle section of Finland. One unit was to occupy Tornio in Swedish border and of course the victory parade in Helsinki.
- one of the best Soviet mistakes in Winter War...during the 2nd day of the conflict the Soviets publicly announced to the world that they have received a "radio message from somewhere in Finland requesting military aid from the Red Army"...this made the SU laughing stock in the West.
- Soviet prisoners of war and survived veterans in the 90s have said that they were told they were going to "liberate" Finland.

Then why did Stalin gave up the conquest? There are several reason for that. One should keep in mind that the Soviet Strategic Intelligence gathering was a disaster.

- at first they thought Finland could offer no or just token resistance. When the reality hit Stalin and the generals it must have been quite a shock.
- Finland was running out of reserves and most importantly...ammunition. The Soviets didn't have a clue...they rather announced that the West was supplying Finland during the conflict.
- the spring thaw was coming making Soviet units more cumbersome and unwieldy
- and finally the British-French expedition which was a noisy affair but nothing more but again Stalin didn't know the expedition true target (the poor job from Soviet spies again)

So Uncle Joe decided to cut his losses and try again later...which the Finns anticipated.