What if the USSR had annexed Finland after WW2 outright? How would this change the power dynamic in Northern Europe? Would Sweden join NATO?
Finnish SSR
- Thread starter Hobelhouse
- Start date
Sweden probably would. I think Sweden might actually continue that nuclear program instead of going for that Saab fighter. It won't be big but if the USSR invades they can say goodbye to Leningrad and Moscow. I also think Stalin and whoever succeeds him will have a mighty big guerrilla war on his hands for at least a decade after WW2.
I wonder if the west will allow Stalin to annex Finland though. Britain wanted to go to war over it in '39 (which they fortunately didn't). Patton and Churchill won't be happy and might push for Operation Unthinkable. I doubt that the west would have gone further than voicing a protest but who knows.
I wonder if the west will allow Stalin to annex Finland though. Britain wanted to go to war over it in '39 (which they fortunately didn't). Patton and Churchill won't be happy and might push for Operation Unthinkable. I doubt that the west would have gone further than voicing a protest but who knows.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Relations between the West and the USSR would deteriorate even before the end of WW2. When Hitler and Japan are defeated the Cold War would start immidiately.
Finland would still be the happiest barrack in the gulag, likely with a VERY special statute among the federal states (e.g. people can move more freely with the West, at least those with no connections to the military and security, partly duty-free commerce, actual national autonomy and respect of culture etc.). Leningrad would be a major tech center with the Finnish researchers to bolster the Russians.
Hobelhouse said:
I think it most likely that Finland would not be annexed outright, just puppetized. This way Stalin would get the great majority of the benefits of actual annexation without some of the most obvious drawbacks (like foreign outrage). Sources show that IOTL he was too wary of the US opinion on Finland to really push for "regime change" during 1944-1950: I guess something similar would be afoot ITTL. Thus, a seemingly legitimate, gradual and smooth transition to a "popular democracy" would be staged in Finland.
The process would likely happen pretty much along the lines of the OTL development in Hungary. First a formation of a "National Government" ostensibly representing all parties and then the gradual takeover of the state by the Communist Party or, after the East German model, a Socialist Unity Party that would in theory absorb both the Communists and the Social Democrats in itself while the bourgeois parties would be banned, either implicitly or explicitly.
The government by 1949 would be a combination of some old (1918) Communist leaders who would have survived the purges across the border and younger locals who would literally be released from prison (war-time "protective custody") and given ministerial posts. It is hard to say if O.W. Kuusinen would still have a prominent position in government or rather a background role.
War Guilt Trials for those wartime leaders not able to escape in time, with deadly consequenses to many instead of the lenient OTL treatment.
Barring a miracle, Sweden joining NATO would be pretty certain. They were at least one foot in already IOTL, having the Red Navy and Air Force at Åland would surely push them right over to the Western camp.
basileus said:
I agree. Russia/USSR has a long and successful history of treating Finland as a both a test environment and a showcase for the west. In this case, I believe Stalin and his successor would be likely to make Finland an example of "Socialism with a human face" to show that even formerly "western" nations can thrive under a Communist system, keeping a functional "democratic" government going.
Last edited:
Could, er, Red Finland keep Åland's de-militarized status in an attempt to avoid that? I suspect it would end relatively quickly, but it might come as a response to Sweden joining NATO, rather than the other way around.
At the end of the war the islands, remilitarized as they were by the Finnish army in 1941, were be a military target for the USSR. ITTL, this would be all the more so after the fall of the Finnish lines because of their possible use as a conduit for evacuating people and materiel to Sweden and points west. Thus, it is likely that the islands are taken in 1944-45 by the Red Navy as a part of the general occupation plan. Plans for this move had, IOTL, been in place at least since 1940.
I think this would send chills down the collective spine of Sweden, even if the Soviet troops would leave the islands as per the long-standing tradition of peace time demilitarization by 1946. Like you say, it would be possible the demilitarization of the islands is reaffirmed in the peace treaty. On the other hand, Soviet war plans focusing on the security of Leningrad would give the islands an important position for closing down the approaches to the Gulf of Finland: thus it is likely that Stalin would aim to secure the islands by either attaching them directly to the Soviet Union or alternately keeping them occupied by Red Finnish troops to act as a proxy force denying them to Sweden or her (possible) Western allies.
Even if the islands remain Finnish and demilitarized in peace time, I believe it would be seen as a commonplace in Sweden that would hostilities break out between Sweden and the USSR, Soviet troops stationed in bases in the Turku area and at Hanko would quickly move to secure the islands and use them as a springboard to strike Stockholm. I'd say this is a good reason to make Sweden to apply for NATO, even if the Red Navy would not be overtly present, patrolling the waters 100 km east of the national capital.
CanadianGoose
Banned
I'm sorry for off-topic, but I could not let it pass. Soviet fears of Finnish border being 25 miles from Leningrad at a wake of big European war is universally called "Stalin's paranoia" at this board. Swedish fears of Red Navy 100 km from Stockholm are considered very normal and valid (even though Nukes irreparably changed the rules of the game by 1946).
The main difference would be that Sweden respond to the Soviet treat by joining a defence organisation, Soviet respond to it by invading another country.
Anyway, I'm not sure Sweden would join NATO. History develops as it did until 1945. Thus, we see Poland and a few other countries who allied themself with others getting screwd, we see a few neutral countries staying out of the war and most importantly, we see Finland showing that a small country can defend it self, as the Winter war shows. So the case for neutrality is still there.
Anyway, does the PoD make sence? Finland was still strong enough to fight Germany so the army wheren't all beaten up at the time so Soviet would have to fight the Finnish army. And then occupy the country. Both might have been possible but neither is easy. And doing that at the beginning of the cold war is asking for trouble, it would scare the west even more then taking over eastern Europe.
Anyway, I'm not sure Sweden would join NATO. History develops as it did until 1945. Thus, we see Poland and a few other countries who allied themself with others getting screwd, we see a few neutral countries staying out of the war and most importantly, we see Finland showing that a small country can defend it self, as the Winter war shows. So the case for neutrality is still there.
Anyway, does the PoD make sence? Finland was still strong enough to fight Germany so the army wheren't all beaten up at the time so Soviet would have to fight the Finnish army. And then occupy the country. Both might have been possible but neither is easy. And doing that at the beginning of the cold war is asking for trouble, it would scare the west even more then taking over eastern Europe.
CanadianGoose
Banned
"Defensive" vs. "aggressive" is pure semantic, as far as Cold War is concerned. Neither side was particularly saintly, to put it unbelievably diplomatic.
Is it? In 1945, Germany was beaten and the Soviet Union was, for the while, geopolitically in the most secure position it had ever been even if the nation itself was in sorry condition. The troops and resources for the occupation of Finland were readily available and not necessarily needed in other theatres.
In 1940, the main event with the Germans was still to come. Assuming the Winter War goes as OTL, until near the end the Finnish front collapses and the Red Army pours in to occupy the country. Not only a lot of troops have been lost in the war itself, now Finland eats up more units to hold on to it and quell possible uprisings. Now, Germany takes Norway and the Red Army rushes troops across Lapland to stand on the defensive in the Arctic by the Kemi River.
Is the USSR in a better defensive position against Germany she was IOTL? It is conceivable the occupation of Finland and the defense against German troops in Lapland ties down at least as many troops that were arrayed at the Finnish border in 1941. In case of a serious resistance activity it takes much more troops: there is only so much Finnish collaborators Stalin will trust. Thus, as Barbarossa starts in 1941, the main Soviet front is weaker than OTL. Not much, but somewhat. The Germans will be sure to foment unrest in Finland and making a landfall supported by paradrops is not altogether out of the question. Even without a full scale insurrection, Finland might indeed become the infamous bleeding sore on the Soviets' side.
IOTL, the Finnish troops in Karelia stopped after reaching their targets and settled down on the defensive. The troops securing Finland ITTL would have to be much stronger than the comparatively small screening force the Red Army had in Karelia IOTL.
In the worst case scenario, the occupation of Finland in 1940 might make the winning of the Great Patriotic War much harder for the Soviet Union by swallowing resources that were better used on the southern front IOTL. This scenario migh not have the Siege of Leningrad, though, so it might offset some of these problems. Then again, maybe the Finnish "partisans" supported by Germany retake southern Finland and make the siege possible. It is pretty sure that these troops would not have the qualms of attacking the city the OTL Finnish government had...
And this doesn't even address the possibilities of Sweden getting spooked enough to side with Germany or the Western Allies, especially the US, growing more hostile towards the USSR because of the occupation, etc.
Last edited:
NATO didn't launch the full scale European offensive. The Cold war was a Cold war.