WI: Winter War overwhelming Soviet victory?

[Sian]

How would the northern theater pan out if Soviet managed to blitz Finland doing the Winter war, forcing a de-facto occupation, similar to the occupation of the Baltic states? ... This would open a arctic front between Axis and Soviets, and it could easily become extremely uncomfortable for Sweden forcing them to align themselves to one of the sides (the Allies wouldn't have enough of a foothold to be much more than distant empty promises) ...

What would a front somewhere in the northern Scandinavia do for the war? which party would gain most from the distant and long but sparse front, which arguably guards the possibility for a rapid attack right into eithers (Axis/Soviet) heartland, circumventing the primary army forces, with either a Soviet force running through Sweden (if need be, to hell with neutrality) and helped by a concentrated naval push, suddenly have a Red army in Denmark, or the other way around with an Axis force looping around and targeting Murmansk and/or an even tighter pincer on Leningard

 

[Deleted member 1487]

It might actually put Hitler off of invading the USSR. IOTL it was the poor performance in the Winter War that made Hitler think he could roll over the Soviets in 1941. If they crush it quickly and subordinate Finland and cut off Germany's nickel, except via Soviet trade deal, then Hitler probably is unable/unwilling to risk a two front war against a seemingly competent USSR. Add in what they do to the Japanese and the Soviets seem like a serious military that cannot be taken out in one border campaign. WW2 is then dramatically altered by no Barbarossa.

 

[Creidiki]

Finland follows the Baltic republics into Soviet Union. Assuming Norwegian campaign goes as IOTL then Sweden will be surrounded by Germans and Russians, so they will have to abandon neutrality and choose a side, they will go with Germany.

I doubt that victory over Finland changes Hitlers plans, remember that everyone expected Finland to lose in few weeks. If Swedes ally with Germans, then Artic theatre attack will start from Haparanda and stall when Germans and Swedes (and Finns) run out of road and room to manoeuvre, which is pretty much along the lines of IOTL.

There may or may not be attach on Leningrad through Karelian isthmus.

 

[altamiro]

It might actually put Hitler off of invading the USSR. IOTL it was the poor performance in the Winter War that made Hitler think he could roll over the Soviets in 1941. If they crush it quickly and subordinate Finland and cut off Germany's nickel, except via Soviet trade deal, then Hitler probably is unable/unwilling to risk a two front war against a seemingly competent USSR. Add in what they do to the Japanese and the Soviets seem like a serious military that cannot be taken out in one border campaign. WW2 is then dramatically altered by no Barbarossa.

The whole fucking point of all the fighting in the West was for Germany to ensure a free hand in the East. Humiliating the WW1 victors and reversing the losses from 1918 was an expected positive side effect, not a war aim in itself. Barbarossa is only going to be cancelled if Hitler and the mystic cabal around Himmler are gone from power. This is something that both Wehraboos and fans of British fleet action (fleetaboos?) love to forget; all the fighting in the West and North Africa was exclusively initiated to prepare the ground for the successful invasion of the Soviet Union. Nothing more.

 

[Genghis]

The whole fucking point of all the fighting in the West was for Germany to ensure a free hand in the East. Humiliating the WW1 victors and reversing the losses from 1918 was an expected positive side effect, not a war aim in itself. Barbarossa is only going to be cancelled if Hitler and the mystic cabal around Himmler are gone from power. This is something that both Wehraboos and fans of British fleet action (fleetaboos?) love to forget; all the fighting in the West and North Africa was exclusively initiated to prepare the ground for the successful invasion of the Soviet Union. Nothing more.

All we are saying is that If USSR seems competent Hitler WAITS TILL HE IS DONE WITH BRITAIN. We dont dispute that he will want to conquer USSR just that he waits.

 

[altamiro]

All we are saying is that If USSR seems competent Hitler WAITS TILL HE IS DONE WITH BRITAIN. We dont dispute that he will want to conquer USSR just that he waits.

Which means waiting forever, since an attempted invasion is likely to fail and since UK is very unlikely to conclude an amicable peace settlement with a Nazi Germany occupying the entire continent.
At the same time, while the assertions of Suvorov etc are probably bullshit, it seems that Hitler genuinely believed that Stalin would attack soon. The lack of reliable intelligence (after all USSR was very good in counterespionage - if you arrest everyone suspected to be a spy and ship them to Gulag or shoot them, the real spys are likely to be among them) has surely contributed to this conviction as much as his own prejudice. So he would believe in a pressing need to attack USSR.
Basically, as soon as the Sealion fails or is aborted, the whole war plan is doomed unless USA show somehow very clearly that they want to stay out of the European theatre - e.g by having an isolationist as president rather than FDR

 

[Genghis]

Which means waiting forever, since an attempted invasion is likely to fail and since UK is very unlikely to conclude an amicable peace settlement with a Nazi Germany occupying the entire continent.
At the same time, while the assertions of Suvorov etc are probably bullshit, it seems that Hitler genuinely believed that Stalin would attack soon. The lack of reliable intelligence (after all USSR was very good in counterespionage - if you arrest everyone suspected to be a spy and ship them to Gulag or shoot them, the real spys are likely to be among them) has surely contributed to this conviction as much as his own prejudice. So he would believe in a pressing need to attack USSR.
Basically, as soon as the Sealion fails or is aborted, the whole war plan is doomed unless USA show somehow very clearly that they want to stay out of the European theatre - e.g by having an isolationist as president rather than FDR

Hitler doesnt know that.

Are you seriously stating that there is no way that hitler wont attack USSR in 1941 ? no matter circumstances ? isnt that historical determinism ? I mean this is alternate history.com not history the way it happened.com.

i mean i find it ironic how hitler believed in destiny and posters here believe that There is only one course of action hitler could také and he couldnt do anything differently.

 

[altamiro]

As long as Churchill is prime minister, amicable settlement is not possible and Hitler knows that perfectly well. In such a case Germany may attempt Sealion which would fail horrendously and cost Germany another year - or result in a coup against Hitler.
If not, he may end up attacking USSR in 1942, but even that long wait is unlikely. He knows that waiting will increase the force disparity between Germany and USSR, with the latter being temporarily hobbled by purges and army reform but getting over it. He knows that Stalin is lulled into inactivity towards Germany right now but it may not last, he knows that the longer the war plans are not implemented, the higher the probability that Stalin will find out. He believes (probably wrongly) that Stalin will attack West sooner or later, and assumes that this attack will come as soon as Stalin learns about real German plans.
Even if Hitler and his generals do not know the details such as T-34 production, they know that this puts Germany at rapidly increased disadvantage with every passing year. In OTL 1941 was already the "now or never" point.
Edit: What I am saying is, for Hitler to not attack in 1941 but still be the Führer, the POD must be much further back than the Winter War. On the other hand, a competent USSR in the Winter War may disrupt the entire narrative so much that there is no Barbarossa and no Hitler around in 1941.

 

[Creidiki]

I don't have a source, but I remember that Hitler originally envisioned showdown with Soviet Union earliest 1945, apparently combination of economic and foreign policy blunders forced him to jump the gun.

Edit: Hossbach memorandum projected Germany ready to fight 1943-45

 

[altamiro]

I don't have a source, but I remember that Hitler originally envisioned showdown with Soviet Union earliest 1945, apparently combination of economic and foreign policy blunders forced him to jump the gun.

Yes, the famous quote from Hjalmar Schacht 1940 to Hitler "We have already lost this war" may have to do with it.

The Nazi conquest in the West had also another driver besides securing the flank - loot, mainly the gold from the conquered states' central banks as well as of course industrial capacities. Germany was broke in 1939.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The whole fucking point of all the fighting in the West was for Germany to ensure a free hand in the East. Humiliating the WW1 victors and reversing the losses from 1918 was an expected positive side effect, not a war aim in itself. Barbarossa is only going to be cancelled if Hitler and the mystic cabal around Himmler are gone from power. This is something that both Wehraboos and fans of British fleet action (fleetaboos?) love to forget; all the fighting in the West and North Africa was exclusively initiated to prepare the ground for the successful invasion of the Soviet Union. Nothing more.

Hitler hadn't decided to invade the USSR before the defeat of Britain or really at all, earlier writing and rantings not withstanding, until sometime in early 1941. He was very much unsure about it, but his decision to invade them while still at war with Britain was motivated by his belief that the USSR was so militarily incompetent that they could be defeated in a single campaign and then Germany would have of Soviet resources to fight a long war with Britain; if the USSR is thought to be militarily competent then the entire basis for Hitler's decision to fight the USSR earlier than intended goes out the window.

i mean i find it ironic how hitler believed in destiny and posters here believe that There is only one course of action hitler could také and he couldnt do anything differently.

Finally evidence that posters that are deterministic are literally Hitler.

 

[thaddeus]

all this is on German-Soviet relations (very important) but how would it look to Allies? IRL Finland survived invasion so DOW issue was avoided?

does Norway Campaign even happen? cannot envision GB and France wanting to be in shooting war with Soviets (if they arrive on Norway-Finland border.)

IIRC Germany had ideas towards that exclusive of Allied action, would they go ahead and occupy Denmark and Norway basically uncontested?

 

[Dunning Kruger]

There's a number of interesting potential butterflies here if we keep going. If the Soviets perform well in Finland its possible Hitler postpones plans. Assuming 1940 goes as OTL, which his reasonable since Hitler is at war with Fracne already, it gives him more forces to devote to the Med in 1941, which makes life more difficult for the Brits. If the Germans arent advancing on Moscow in 1941, can the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor and SE Asia? Probably not since Stalin will be able to move on Manchuria since he doesnt face an existential threat in the West. So what do the Japanese do? The US loses its Casus Belli to enter the European War now although they will be arming up which will make their initial war efforts much more effective if/when war does come. Regardless of Suvorov's opinions, its reasonable to believe eventually Stalin would attack Germany - perhaps 42 or 43. Does he attack prematurely and replicate Tannenberg? Or are his forces now at maximum peacetime effectiveness with a rebuilt officer corp and built up defense industry? Good fodder for a TL here.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

There's a number of interesting potential butterflies here if we keep going. If the Soviets perform well in Finland its possible Hitler postpones plans. Assuming 1940 goes as OTL, which his reasonable since Hitler is at war with Fracne already, it gives him more forces to devote to the Med in 1941, which makes life more difficult for the Brits. If the Germans arent advancing on Moscow in 1941, can the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor and SE Asia? Probably not since Stalin will be able to move on Manchuria since he doesnt face an existential threat in the West. So what do the Japanese do? The US loses its Casus Belli to enter the European War now although they will be arming up which will make their initial war efforts much more effective if/when war does come. Regardless of Suvorov's opinions, its reasonable to believe eventually Stalin would attack Germany - perhaps 42 or 43. Does he attack prematurely and replicate Tannenberg? Or are his forces now at maximum peacetime effectiveness with a rebuilt officer corp and built up defense industry? Good fodder for a TL here.

Arguably the Brits stayed in the war because they knew Barbarossa was coming in 1940:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#German_invasion_plans

As early as August 1940, British intelligence had received hints of German plans to attack the Soviets only a week after Hitler informally approved the plans for Barbarossa and warned the Soviet Union accordingly.[92] But Stalin's distrust of the British led him to ignore their warnings in the belief that they were a trick designed to bring the Soviet Union into the war on their side.[92]

The Brits knew it was coming, which influenced their plans vis-a-vis Germany. Without Barbarossa Germany can follow up hard on the Mediterranean. As it was the shift of air units out of the Central Mediterranean saved Malta in April 1940; the Brits were ready to leave it to it's fate and not risk anymore naval units to resupply it, but the shift of X. Fliegerkorps to Greece starting in April as they started winding down their operations and had to support Rommel's offensive meant Malta had pressure greatly eased on it and it was able to start getting supply convoys again and go on the offensive starting in July against Axis supply lines. With the full Luftwaffe at the disposal of the Mediterranean plan there is no need to shift units to Greece and Crete can be turned into an offensive bombing base against Egypt (it was used intermittently for that role in 1941-42). That may not knock Britain out of the war, but it is going to hurt them badly. Britain might exit the war before Stalin is prepared to fight Germany or the US enters, which means then Stalin won't attack. Beyond that there is the Soviet talks with Hitler to enter the Axis which might actually go ahead here if Hitler is too concerned about a two front war and wants to secure his Eastern flank until after Britain is out of the war.

 

[matzeskatze]

There are some questions open for me on this.
First, would Hitler go after the USA in 41 without the seeming success against the USSR? Because he could or not, I am not sure. But would he risk getting the USA into the european part when he is still having a powerfull USSR at his back.
Second, how did the success for the USSR materialize? Where they better then OTL, had simpl more luck and or forces or were the Fins unlucky? Not realy important for the imediate talk, but interesting for the future.
Third, how would the British react to the probable continued string of losses without the USSR in? And maybe even without the USA if they are still out?

In the end, I could see the British hanging on to the end of 41 if the Med is more or less closed for them and the USA is out. After that the chance of then bowing out, Imo, rises with every month. How long they keep up is a open question then. Much depends on the actual attitudes of the British, Soviet and American leaders towards each other. But Imo also on how the Empire itself sees its chances. And lets not forget the Japanese may get opportunistic or not...

 

[ObssesedNuker]

It's most likely Hitler still goes ahead with Barbarossa as the Soviets rolling over the militarily-anemic Finns was really what everyone was expecting not because people thought the Soviets were that competent, but because they figured the Finns were that weak. It would be easy for Hitler and the Germans to rationalize it away. I don't completely discount the possibility that a smashing Winter War for the Sovs gives Hitler enough second thoughts, but it's on the "less likely" side of the table. So a discussion of how Barbarossa unfolds in the event of the Soviets rolling over the Finns is still worthwhile, as is the alternative.

If the Germans arent advancing on Moscow in 1941, can the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor and SE Asia?

Yes, they will. The escalating US sanctions, culminating in the embargo, effectively leaves them in a position that they feel have no choice. Stalin won't attack them since he would want the Pacific War to play out as long as possible for the same reason he wants the European War to play out as long as possible and the Japanese, while always leery of fighting the Soviets after Khalkin Ghol, did feel that the Kwangtung Army was strong enough to make the Soviets hitting Manchuria more trouble then it was worth up until 1944.

 

[DrakonFin]

How would the northern theater pan out if Soviet managed to blitz Finland doing the Winter war, forcing a de-facto occupation, similar to the occupation of the Baltic states?

Perhaps you could start with telling us why this happened. Was the Finnish army for some reason a lot weaker, or was the Red Army a lot more stronger or more competent? There were many reasons the Winter War panned out the way it did, and changing that needs more than just minor changes to the timeline. What you suggest needs pre-Winter War POD, or several, and what that is would already introduce other knock-on effects and butterflies than just the Soviet victory in the war.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Perhaps you could start with telling us why this happened. Was the Finnish army for some reason a lot weaker, or was the Red Army a lot more stronger or more competent? ....
.

One significant change would be to commit a half dozen or so of the better trained corps to leading the initial attack. As it was the bulk of the formations in the leading attacks were hastily mobilized reservists.
Many mobilized so recent they had no time for any training.

 

[DrakonFin]

One significant change would be to commit a half dozen or so of the better trained corps to leading the initial attack. As it was the bulk of the formations in the leading attacks were hastily mobilized reservists.
Many mobilized so recent they had no time for any training.

This would be good for the Red Army. How would it happen, though, when Stalin thought that the Finns were a pushover? All the competent officers who would have been smart enough to call for more and better-trained troops, as well as for better plans, were either dead, in the gulag, or scared enough to keep their mouths shut and not go second-guessing Stalin's views.

Left to its own devices, without the purges and maybe with a bit of luck, the Red Army could have conquered Finland in under two months. One of the core problems of the USSR in the Winter War was that Stalin did not see it as a real war against a real enemy and thus sent in an inadequate force with inadequate leaders and plans. This is why I ask for a POD for the Red Army winning it soundly ITTL. What turned Stalin's head, or what made the Finns so much weaker?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

All the competent officers who would have been smart enough to call for more and better-trained troops, as well as for better plans, were either dead, in the gulag, or scared enough to keep their mouths shut and not go second-guessing Stalin's views.

Not quite all of them. Boris Shaposhnikov, who was a reasonably competent enough officer, did advocate for better troops and more thorough preparations during the planning phase but he was laughed out by all the other senior Soviet military leaders who thought Finland would basically undergo a instant communist revolution and collapse the moment the Red Army crossed the border.