WI: Finland stays out of the Continuation War?

[Uff Da the optimist]

As the title suggests, what do you think would be the consequences of Finland staying out of the rest of WW2 after the Winter War?

What would be the differences during WW2 and how would Finlands political landscape look post V.E -day and during the Cold War?

 

[Color-Copycat]

Well, the Finns would keep Karelia for one thing. Maybe without those territorial losses and a military unravaged by years of war, they'd feel more confident standing alongside the rest of Western Europe against Soviet aggression?

 

[General Tirpitz]

Well, the Finns would keep Karelia for one thing. Maybe without those territorial losses and a military unravaged by years of war, they'd feel more confident standing alongside the rest of Western Europe against Soviet aggression?

Finland already lost Karelia after the Winter War. Petsamo (arctic sea port) in Lapland went after the continuation war.

 

[Jukra]

What would be the differences during WW2 and how would Finlands political landscape look post V.E -day and during the Cold War?

Soviet position is somewhat stronger due to no siege of Leningrad (with continuing industrial production in this industrial center), much better access of Baltic Fleet to Baltic (even if Hanko base is evacuated or neutered via truce or some other arrangement), better access of Northern Route Lend Lease and finally, due to no casualties and demand of forces due to Finnish front. One factor which could also help Soviets might be access to Swedish and Finnish industrial production through trade deals.

As the VE day would arrive (maybe sooner, maybe later, maybe close to historical period, perhaps Soviets would waste their increased capacities in some futile offensive) Finland would definitely and immediately join the Western block at quite early stage, very possibly together with Sweden.

Finnish post-war political, cultural and economic scene would be vastly different. First, due to no significant economic and human damage due to Continuation War (including the reparation payments to Soviet Union), Finnish economy would get a jumpstart incomparable to OTL. More economically healthy Finland I think Finland would be receiver of immigration from Southern Europe rather than a point of emigration to Sweden. Finnish population at 2010 might be somewhere between 6 - 6,5 million.

Also I don't see the powerful SKDL (Communist) party materializing in it's historic force due to no lost Continuation War. Most probably post-war political scene would be more dominated by SDP than OTL.

Culturally, with just one war which would be seen universally righteous, I think post-war Finland would be more militarized than OTL, possibly even more than cold-war Sweden. A joint nuclear weapons program with Sweden might be a realistic possibility. With more affluent and militarized Finland more rooted to pre-war values and culture I think the backlash of 1968 generation would be stronger. This would also pre-empt the romantization of war -phenomena which has been pretty strong in Finland during last 20 years.

And how about art? Väinö Linna would definitely not write Unknown Soldier, although Under the North Star might be even possible hit. Due to no cultural exchange with Soviet Union during 1950's to 1980's many Russian influences to Finnish movies, art, literature, music and design might well not materialize which would be a shame.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

For that to happen we need Stalin not to consider Finland a threat, so he won't attack Finland as soon as Germany starts Barbarossa. You probably need to butterfly away Finland falling into the German sphere of interest after the Winter War.

 

[Uff Da the optimist]

Could Finland perhaps drift towards a more neutral "no more war" stance alongside Sweden?

Why did Stalin attack Finland when Barbarossa started?

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Could Finland perhaps drift towards a more neutral "no more war" stance alongside Sweden?

Why did Stalin attack Finland when Barbarossa started?

Because Finland had moved close to Nazi Germany and were allowing German soldiers to use Finland as transit land when moving from and to Northern Norway. Also Hitler falsely claimed Finland had joined Barbarossa. In other words Finland had become a threat to the USSR.

 

[von Adler]

Sweden and Finland were discussing a possible union in Spring and Summer 1940.

The discussions fell on several subjects.

Sweden wanted the union to be neutral, Finland was not so sure.
Sweden wanted to make sure both the Soviets and the Germans approved of the union, to make sure it had no enemies. The Soviets opposed it and the Germans were lukewarm at best in their enthusiasm.
Finland wanted to regain Karelia and Viborg, Sweden did not want to fight for that land.
The Soviets behaved very aggresively against Finland during the time (even asking the Germans for permission to 'finish' the Finnish question, which the German said no to), and Finland felt that the Germans would help protect them better than Sweden, and perhaps even help them regain Karelia, so they threw in their lot with the Germans and invited German troops in Autumn 1940.

If you can make Stalin approve of the Swedo-Finnish union (perhaps to secure his northern border), Finland may very well stay out of the rest of ww2.

 

[stjernkjempe]

As I understand it, and it could be wrong, Fredrik Vilhelm Thorsson would have been elected chairman of Swedish SDP after Hjalmar Branting if his illness didn't force him to the operation table. Thorsson were viewed as the more competent and better leader of him and Per Albin Hansson as I gather. Thorsson were a bit of a hawk or strong military proponent against soviet in the SDP of the time.

So a POD to get Finland out of the continuation war is to have a different SDP leader in Sweden that support Finland in the Winter War more effectively (or join in) or is more credible in forging a union after the Winter War. The butterflies of more military spending in Sweden is probably not enough to change the German and Soviet history away from Nazi party, Stalin purges and WW2...

The question is if Staling would let Finland sit the war out and then join the western camp. He did fear that Sweden would join NATO and send bombers to persuade Sweden out of these thoughts so I imagine that Finland would get some reminders that their neighbor wanted them to behave.

 

[Uff Da the optimist]

Butterflies!

I think if the union was established the wAllies would give offer of military aid etc. Could be worth alot for Churchill having a moderatly strong Sweden/Finland leaning towards the wAllies.

If either Stalin or Hitler had tried conquering them in 1940-41(Germany) or 1944-45(Soviet Union) it would've become messy fast.
A third bloc on the European mainland would have been very valuable to sway to their side, especially with all that delicious ore Sweden had.

Say if Thorsson had become leader and managed to not being intimitated out of their union, would it have led to war against SU/Germany?

 

[stjernkjempe]

Out of the memoirs of Otto Fredrik Strom "Skomakaren, som blev kungens skattmästare" i gather that Fredrik Vilhelm Thorsson got his sickness from giving speeches in the rain. So I guess it's a easy POD to fix whit some younger person accompanying him and holding a umbrella over him when he orates to the people.



He were described as one of the most left wing radical in the SDP camp coming whit SDP in the SDP-communist split of the socialist movement in the beginning of the Great war. He were also (strangely) an war hawk all through the great war (remember that Per Albin Hansson that got to be the leader of SDP IOTL were a pacifist). So a pro military Rosa Luxemburg admiring (maybe syndicalism leaning) man that were loyal to the SDP and Sweden. He is an interesting character that could create a good TL all in his own. He being from Malmo in the most southern Sweden and having close ties to both Danish and Norwegian SDP is also interesting for the interwar period (the failed Nordic defense alliance talk in Oslo 1930 could be radical different whit him). So I might be wrong about him not butterflying much.



Sweden's neutrality position during WW2 were the most optional choice. Even the most war mongering among the Swedish political elite recognized this. A union whit Finland is not going to change this. There is some sentiment that a participation in the Winter War were a moral obligation that Sweden failed but it were a good strategic choice for Sweden IOTL.



There is two criteria's to get a Union between Sweden and Finland after the winter war (if Sweden don't participate that is).



1) No more wars whit Soviet union (no one's started by Finland to regain lost territory).



2) Swedish leadership in the Union.



Both points I see as hard sells to Finland after the Winter War.

 

[Karelian]

There is two criteria's to get a Union between Sweden and Finland after the winter war (if Sweden don't participate that is).

1) No more wars whit Soviet union (no one's started by Finland to regain lost territory).

2) Swedish leadership in the Union.

Both points I see as hard sells to Finland after the Winter War.

OTL Wasasterna Plan (named after Finnish Ambassador Jarl Axel Wasastjerna) fell when both Berlin and Moscow stated that they opposed such plans in the political situation of 1940. This scared the Swedish government off. Finnish leadership correctly felt that their country was doomed without outside help, since the interim peace signed with Stalin (who wanted to avoid escalation and war with Western Allies) was not a pact the Soviet dictator was willing to keep in the future.

So it was either Sweden and neutrality or Hitler and a chance for revanche, and even then Nazis were the second choise that was accepted when no other viable alternatives existed.

I really should write a TL about these what-ifs someday.

 

[Snake Featherston]

The Soviets break the Siege of Leningrad much earlier, probably earlier in 1943. Avoiding the entire scale of their 1941 defeat by not having them have troops tied down with the Finns is rather implausible, but without having to use those troops there Popov will be breaking through German lines earlier. How much impact this would have on the entire war is an interesting question, as Army Group North remained extremely strong IOTL very late in the war, though this would in the long term shorten the entire war as the Germans will have to move *some* troops north, providing a sequence of butterflies in the south, creating an overall break to the logjam that characterized most of the Eastern Front for most of the war.

 

[Uff Da the optimist]

Do it!

My good sir, I would very much like to read such a TL.
Consider me subscribed in advance on this hypothetical TL!

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

As has been already mentioned, it was the USSR that first attacked Finland in the Continuation War. The only way to avoid this is for the Finns to maintain strict neutrality and not allow German forces in their country, but if they'd done that they would have been either gobbled up by Stalin before Barbarossa, with Hitler's blessing, or been reduced to starvation once the Germans took Denmark and Norway. The only way to keep Finland out of the Eastern Front is for Germany to invade the Soviet Union without having first taken the Baltic Straits and northern Norway, after which it had Finland by the balls. The Baltic Straits will fall inevitably; northern Norway may be doable for the Allies, but I don't know if it would be sufficient.