They might have been better off waiting for someone to invent teleportation.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
They might have been better off waiting for someone to invent teleportation.
I know by replying to this I'm partaking in an online measuring contest of some kind, but I couldn't help myself.
From what I was able to dig up, regarding Finland:
Winter War (30.11.1939 - 13.3.1940)
Russian strength, circa:
-1,500,000 men
-3,886 aircraft
-6,541 tanks
Finnish strength, circa:
-330,000 men
-160 aircraft
-32 tanks
Russian combat losses, circa:
-200,000 - 300,000 KIA
-600,000 WIA
-5,000 POW
-3,500 tanks
-600 aircraft
Finnish combat losses, circa:
-25,904 KIA
-43 557 WIA
-1000 POW
-6 tanks
-47 aircraft
Continuation War (25.6.1941 - 19.9.1944)
Russians strength, circa:
-1,500,000 men
-5,000 tanks
-5,000 aircraft
Finnish strength, circa:
-530,000 men
-500-550 aircraft
-A few dozen tanks and assault guns
German strength, circa:
-220,000 men
-Some dozen of tanks or assault guns
-Two-three squadrons of aircraft, primarily operating from Northern Norway or Lapland
Russian combat losses, circa:
-305,000 KIA
-550,000 WIA
-64,000 POW
-2,700 aircraft
-Thousands of tanks
Finnish combat losses, circa:
-63,204 KIA
-158,000 WIA
-2,377 - 3,500 POW
-193 - 215 aircraft
-A few tanks
Once the Russians got involved, it took longer than 3,5 years of war for them to realise Finland was too tough a nut to crack for what she was worth to them, despite the fact the Russians had already thrown several small countries' worth of capital and manpower at Finland in their attempts at occupying her. Russia got involved 30th of November, 1939, Finland was still not taken as of 19th of September, 1944. The point from which Russia got involved, to where the Finns remained undefeated on the battlefield, is more than 5.8 times the days the Battle of Greece took.
From what I was able to dig up, regarding Finland:
Winter War (30.11.1939 - 13.3.1940)
Russian strength, circa:
-1,500,000 men
-3,886 aircraft
-6,541 tanks
Finnish strength, circa:
-330,000 men
-160 aircraft
-32 tanks
Russian combat losses, circa:
-200,000 - 300,000 KIA
-600,000 WIA
-5,000 POW
-3,500 tanks
-600 aircraft
Finnish combat losses, circa:
-25,904 KIA
-43 557 WIA
-1000 POW
-6 tanks
-47 aircraft
Continuation War (25.6.1941 - 19.9.1944)
Russians strength, circa:
-1,500,000 men
-5,000 tanks
-5,000 aircraft
Finnish strength, circa:
-530,000 men
-500-550 aircraft
-A few dozen tanks and assault guns
German strength, circa:
-220,000 men
-Some dozen of tanks or assault guns
-Two-three squadrons of aircraft, primarily operating from Northern Norway or Lapland
Russian combat losses, circa:
-305,000 KIA
-550,000 WIA
-64,000 POW
-2,700 aircraft
-Thousands of tanks
Finnish combat losses, circa:
-63,204 KIA
-158,000 WIA
-2,377 - 3,500 POW
-193 - 215 aircraft
-A few tanks
Once the Russians got involved, it took longer than 3,5 years of war for them to realise Finland was too tough a nut to crack for what she was worth to them, despite the fact the Russians had already thrown several small countries' worth of capital and manpower at Finland in their attempts at occupying her. Russia got involved 30th of November, 1939, Finland was still not taken as of 19th of September, 1944. The point from which Russia got involved, to where the Finns remained undefeated on the battlefield, is more than 5.8 times the days the Battle of Greece took.
Last edited:
Actually I found it useful to do a bit of digging and catalogue the most likely closest to accurate figures, since a lot of figures you'll find on Russian strength and casualty numbers in those wars on Wikipedia are woefully inaccurate or incomplete. For instance, for some reason the English Wiki article for the Continuation War only lists the Russian strength on two dates three years apart, not their total strength of the entire 3+ years of the war! Gross incompetence from the people who quoted that figure in the article, if you ask me.
Anyway, I tried to rely on books and more recent information known from Russian archives, but browsing through books takes time, so a list like this is something I know I personally will find useful. Still not happy with the lack of specific figures on some items on the list, will have to go digging deeper for those.
Fair, of course during the winter war the Finn's wer close to collapse, which is why they surrendered and gave up Karelia, a economically important place to Finland as well as cultural. And we all know the Finn's wouldn't last a month without the Germans in the continuation war.
First off, Finland did not surrender. The military was intact and the Russian offensives had been stopped, quite literally destroyed. Surrendering would have meant submitting to occupation.
Second, no idea where you got that assumption about Finland not lasting a month without the Germans in the Continuation War, but the Germans had comparatively very little to do with the actual fighting in the Continuation War. Even in the autumn of 1940, when it looked apparent that another Russian invasion to finish the job Stalin could not complete in the Winter War was imminent, prompting Finland to accept the transit treaty with Germany, it was expected that Finland could hold out for several months alone, even with the new 1940 borders that completely exposed Finnish infrastructure into the interior of the country (hence why Finland built the Salpa Line).
Here is a map of the frontlines and units in the Continuation War, depicting late-1941. Finnish units are in blue, German ones in grey:
Here is one from September 1944, after the Russian Karelian Offensive had already been stopped.
Not a whole lot of Germans there. It's also good to mention here that the Germans in Lapland did not see much fighting, nor was that front very important to the outcome of the war.
My statement was more focusing on the fact that the German invasion diverted 20 million Russian soldiers away from Finland over the course of the war. And yes Finland did capitulate, they signed away Karelia and petsamo for peace, petsamo having large nickel mines and Karelia having nearly half of finlands hydroelectric plants as well as a comparable number of it's industries.First off, Finland did not surrender. The military was intact and the Russian offensives had been stopped, quite literally destroyed. Surrendering would have meant submitting to occupation.
Second, no idea where you got that assumption about Finland not lasting a month without the Germans in the Continuation War, but the Germans had comparatively very little to do with the actual fighting in the Continuation War. Even in the autumn of 1940, when it looked apparent that another Russian invasion to finish the job Stalin could not complete in the Winter War was imminent, prompting Finland to accept the transit treaty with Germany, it was expected that Finland could hold out for several months alone, even with the new 1940 borders that completely exposed Finnish infrastructure into the interior of the country (hence why Finland built the Salpa Line).
Here is a map of the frontlines and units in the Continuation War, depicting late-1941. Finnish units are in blue, German ones in grey:
Here is one from September 1944, after the Russian Karelian Offensive had already been stopped.
Not a whole lot of Germans there. It's also good to mention here that the Germans in Lapland did not see much fighting, nor was that front very important to the outcome of the war.
It would take a Goebbels level propagandist to claim Finland won. The official Soviet reason for war was to secure the area immediately around Leningrad. They did that and then some.
Casualty numbers are meaningless without context. The terrain heavily favored the defenders, not to mention the Soviets had almost no decent officers in this war. Change either and Finland loses in a couple of weeks.
In the autumn of 1940 there would not have been a German front, but Finland would still have been able to hold on for a few months, not under a month like you claimed. Yes, Finland would have eventually lost and been occupied in such a scenario, provided Germany did not interfere. It was ultimately not just the Finnish victories on the battlefield that stopped the Russians at Viipuri-Tali-Vuoksi, Kollaa, Suomussalmi, etc. in the Winter War, but also the threat of Entente, as England and France were still commonly referred to at the time, intervention. Stalin did not want to get entangled in a conflict against the West.
There's a big difference between surrendering and agreeing to concessions while keeping your independence. The Russian aim was always the total occupation of Finland, this is not something that's up for debate, it's already known from the orders the Russian armies invading Finland had. The Russians were defeated on the battlefield, repeatedly, and gave up on this, agreeing instead to getting what they could at the time, i.e. Finnish concessions. There's also evidence that Stalin still wanted Finland to become communist even after the end of the Continuation War, but the threat of extensive Finnish guerrilla war coupled with the bad experiences against the Finnish military in 1939-44 put a stop to that.
No-one here is saying that, though arguably, Finland did win a defensive victory in both wars. Furthermore unlike the Greeks, Finland also won every decisive battle. If Poland for instance beat back both the Germans and Russians in 1939, only conceding some territory instead of being totally occupied, I'd call that a defensive victory for Poland.
Meaningless is a strong word to use here, I'd say they are indicative, as are strength numbers. In the Winter War for instance the Finns possessed practically no anti-tank guns, despite the very high amount of Russian tanks that were taken out. Similarly, while the Finnish Air Force during the war had a total of about 160 aircraft, the great majority were liaison and other non-combat types hopelessly obsolete and ill-equipped for frontline operations. 30.11.1939 the country only possessed 36 at least somewhat "modern" fighters. Indeed, numbers aren't everything. That of course applies to both sides: not all of the 3,9k aircraft the Russians put against the country were fighters or bombers, though in general what the Russians had was more modern than the Finnish inventory.
The terrain favoured the defenders, yes, but saying the Soviets had no decent officers even in 1944 is simply wrong. The Red Army was a whole different ball game in 1944 than it was in 1939, yet they were stopped all the same, actually near the same spots they were stopped in the Winter War. It was the same combat-hardened Guards divisions that tried to crack Finland open in 1944, that were crossing the Oder and storming Berlin in 1945. Also, regarding the terrain argument, let's not forget that during the Finnish counter-offensive phase of 1941, it was the Russians who had the advantage of terrain, not the Finns. It's just that in 1941 they didn't have the numerical advantage on the Finnish Front that they had had in the Winter War and would again have later in the Continuation War.
Actually in August-September 1944, after the Russian offensive was stopped at the VKT- and U-lines, the Finnish army was in better shape than it had been in June 1944, prior to the Russian offensive. At that point the Finnish military had enough materiel for at least 6-8 more months of combat, enough to stop another large offensive of a similar magnitude that the Russian 1944 summer offensive had been. At this point, it would technically have been entirely possible to retake the positions lost in June and continue the war. This of course would likely have meant the Russians would have resumed demanding unconditional surrender, as they had until the failure of their Karelian Offensive, launched another great offensive in 1945 and possibly succeeded in occupying the country. The wisest choice was to get out when it was possible without surrendering. But the point here is, that it just goes to showing that Finland was not defeated on the battlefield, rather her situation was due to the political state of affairs in Eastern Europe, i.e. Russia's victory over Germany.