winter war

[Spricar]

I think that the end of winter war event should be changed somehow. After taking Vipuri, SU is presented with two options - peace settlement or continuation of the war to try and annex the whole Finland. But so far there is nothing that prevents SU to continue the war and take all Finland which is highly unrealistic. So the first option (peace) should raise a dissident slightly + give some blueprints (mountain units, doctrines) and maybe even move a hawk lobby slider (to represent military reforms). If Su choosed to continue the war, dissidinet would stay the same or even drop a little, but SU would risk and allied intervention (at least relations should drop and trade agreements should be canceled). Again, some blueprints should be given to represent refomrs the societ army went thorugh after the war.

 

[Asudulayev]

If the allies did not give a damn about Poland in '39, when the Soviets invaded, why would they care about Finland? The Allies had Germany to worry about and the USA would not DOW the USSR to defend Finland (it took Pearl Harbor to get the USA involved in war, in general).

What happens if the Soviets do not annex the country, but puppet it?

 

[Zerovoltz]

The allies were SERIOUSLY considering intervening on Finlands behalf. One of the main reasons they did NOT is because SWEDEN would not allow any allied military units to move accross it's frontiers. There is a reasonable chance...50/50 that IF the Swedes would have allowed the movement of allied troops that the allies would have gone to war with Russia to save the Finns. This would have made for quite an interesting situation to say the least.

 

[Spricar]

Poland was another case. It wasn't really reachable by sea and it fell too quickly...

As for Finnland, in February 1940 the Allies offered to help: The Allied plan consisted of 100,000 British and 35,000 French troops that were to disembark at the Norwegian port of Narvik and support Finland via Sweden while securing the supply routes along the way. The plan was agreed to be launched on March 20 under the condition that the Finns plead for help. It was hoped this would eventually bring the two still neutral Nordic countries, Norway and Sweden to the Allied side — by strengthening their positions against Germany, although Hitler in December had already declared to the Swedish government that Western troops on Swedish soil would immediately provoke a German invasion.

However, only a small fraction of the troops were intended for Finland. Proposals to enter Finland directly, via the ice-free harbour of Petsamo, were dismissed. There were suspicions that the objective of the operation was to capture and occupy the Norwegian shipping harbour of Narvik and the vast mountainous areas of the North-Swedish iron ore fields, from where the Third Reich received a large share of iron ore, critical to war production. If the troops moved to halt export to Germany, the area could become a battleground for the armies of the Allied and the Third Reich.
The Swedish government, headed by Prime Minister Per Albin Hansson, declined to allow transit of armed troops through Swedish territory. Although Sweden had not declared itself neutral in the Winter War, it was neutral in the war between France and Britain on one side and the Third Reich and the Soviet Union on the other. Granting transit rights to a Franco-British corps were at that time considered too great a diversion from international laws on neutrality.
Diplomatically, Finland was squeezed between Allied hopes for a prolonged war and Scandinavian fears of a continued war spreading to neighbouring countries (or of the surge of refugees that might result from a Finnish defeat). Also from Wilhelmstrasse distinct advice for peace and concessions arrived — the concessions "could always later be mended."

By the end of February, Finland's Commander-in-Chief, Field Marshal Mannerheim, was pessimistic about the military situation, which is why the government on February 29 decided to start peace negotiations. That same day, the Soviets commenced an attack against Viipuri.

When France and Britain realized that Finland was seriously considering a peace treaty, they gave a new offer for help: 50,000 men were to be sent, if Finland asked for help before March 12. But actually, only 6,000 of these would have been destined for Finland. The rest was intended to secure harbours, roads and iron ore fields on the way.

Despite the feeble forces that would have reached Finland, intelligence about the plans reached the Soviet Union and contributed heavily to their decision to sign the armistice ending the war. It is argued that without the threat of Allied intervention, nothing would have stopped the Soviets from conquering all of Finland.

By the end of the winter it became clear that the Russians had had enough, and German representatives suggested that Finland should negotiate with the Soviet Union. Russian casualties had been high and the situation was a source of political embarrassment for the Soviet regime. With the spring thaw approaching, the Russian forces risked becoming bogged down in the forests, and a draft of peace terms was presented to Finland on February 12.

By the end of February, the Finns had depleted their ammunition supplies. Also, the Soviet Union had finally succeeded in breaking through the previously impenetrable Mannerheim Line. Finally on February 29 the Finnish government agreed to start negotiations. By March 5, the Soviet army had advanced 10–15 kilometres past the Mannerheim Line and had entered the suburbs of Viipuri. The Finnish government proposed an armistice on the same day, but the Soviet side wanted to keep pressure on and declined the offer next day, and the fighting continued up to the day the peace treaty was signed.

However, the Soviet Union's leadership was being informed by its intelligence of the Allied plans to intervene in the war, but not of their details or the actual unpreparedness of the Allies. Therefore the Soviets were forced to seek an end to the war before the Allies intervened and declared war on the Soviet Union.

 

[unmerged(51143)]

I think that USSR conquering whole Finland is highly unlikely historiccaly, instead of what often happens in the game.
Stalin needed small territorial gains, like Petsamo for its ice-free harbor in the Arctic Sea, Hango as forward Baltic naval base, and Vijpuri/Vyborg as a sure border north of Leningrad. Moreover, Stalin was well aware of the hate Finnish people had for Russia and Communism, and he did not want to make Allied Powers become too much unfriendly toward USSR, or worst at all give Hitler a pretext to attack USSR.
I think that continuing or not the war should not have effects on dissent nor on research development, but only on things like interventionism/isolationism and standing/drafted army. Perhaps, if Finland and USSR choose "peace", USSR could have also military access to Finland (to simulate the bases like Hango on the Gulf of Finland), and improve its relationships with Allies (which should have dropped much after Soviet invasion). At the contrary, if they choose "war", relationships between USSR and Allies (USA too) and Axis (Italy too, but not Japan) would deteriorate, while Sweden could choose to help Finland by declaring war, and both two Nordic countries could choose to join the Axis or the Allies.

 

[quaz]

Perhaps, if Finland and USSR choose "peace", USSR could have also military access to Finland (to simulate the bases like Hango on the Gulf of Finland),

That's totally overkill. Simulating a small area in the most southern Finland by giving a military access to the whole country, no deal.

 

[zobo]

The lessons learned in winter war might be representible by some Winterization doctrines SU gets blueprints for. Is there any such technology in CORE?

 

[ozman2]

That's totally overkill. Simulating a small area in the most southern Finland by giving a military access to the whole country, no deal.

What the game really needs to do is refine military access. This is probably best done by adding "Ask for naval access" and "Ask for airbase access" to the diplomatic menu. The peace treaty would be to give naval access. This would grant basing rights for fleets or air squadrons to repair and refuel. Another could be to add a small coastal province to Southwest Finland and cede this to the Soviet Union, deduct the supplies from the SOV stockpile and create the base. This would be revoked if war broke out again, as it did for Barbarossa.

On the other hand, the game (I think incorrectly and ahistorically) gives military access to Germany through Sweden. So balancing this by military access to Finland by the Soviet Union (but with a relations hit to the Soviet Union) would probably be appropriate as gameplay. One of the catches for gameplay is you can't go to war with a country if you have military access, so this peace deal would result in the historical anomaly that Finland would be disabled from being involved in Barbarossa.

I think the best compromise with the current game would be to give the Soviet Union all the blueprints Finland has or at least one of them, plus the 3 povinces that it normally gets.

For the alternative of not accepting the Winter War's end, this might mean a possible declaration of war on the Soviets by the British. This could be done by moving the UK slider all the way towards interventionism (or at least 1-2 steps towards interventionism), and the US one step. With the interventionism slider all the way to the left, even a democracy is entitled to declare war on the basis of a single belligerency point, without dissent. This would make a UK declaration of war on the Soviet Union a possibility even though I think it would be unwise for them without USA backing.

 

[unmerged(28876)]

However, as Spricar says, this information may very well make up for some very interesting events, many don't know about the pretext that made up for the war or as in the Finland crisis, what could have been, a possible allied intervention against the Soviet Union may have led to a more friendly relantionship with the Allies or the Axis.

 

[Asudulayev]

Diplomatically aiding Finland would have been the same as shooting oneself in the foot.

If the Allies needed Sweden, Petsamo was not good enough a port. If the Allies needed access to Sweden, as it seems they did, there should be an event that has Sweden allow military access. If Sweden refuses, another event fires that lets the intervention happen (Finland joins the allies). The AI Chances for both event should be between 0 and 5 % (for Sweden and Britain [Allies] respectively).

But seriously, there is a difference between "it has been argued that" and "therefore". It has also been argued that Stalin only wanted Karelia; it has been argued that the Soviets stopped gifhting because of poor weather conditions (spring thaw = mud) - as reasons for stopping with Karelia. If the former is a propganda-inspired rationalization for being unwilling to fight on, it is quite possible that the Allies used Sweden's refusal (which the Swedes were more than likely to give) as a rationalization for not intervening. I would even argue that Sweden's permission was asked in the first place so that there could be a quick refusal to end the matter.

Think about it: were the allies going to fight the USSR, while fighting Germany. I can imgaine an invasion of the USSR by the Allies, supplies coming from Petsamo, supplying there dangerously small armies while they pushed for Moscow, past Leningrad, makes the German logistical nightmare look like a wet-dream: supplying troops via sea (soon-to-be U-Boat infested) and then trecking through Finland (full of lakes and swamps), in the Spring, with mud, and trees... mooses--who knows? And then? The best that the Allies can hope for is a stalemate and then being pushed back (135,000 soldiers is what? -between 10 and 13 divisions, against the entire Red Army, soon to be transported to Leningrad). And then the Red Army would attack with its full force, in the late Spring and Summer (let's remember that in the Finnish Theatre a tiny percentage of Spvoet troops was involved, what if a much larger part appeared?) when the road conditions got better. And Petsamo would be lost around August '40. All the while, the Germans would be planning on invading Western Europe. With Allied soldiers bogged down in the forests of Finland, who would defend the mother countries?

There, already, weren't enough French Soldiers to effectively defend France. Where would the British get there troops? Pull them out of North Africa or India? Might that give Italy or Japan (respectively) the figurative balls to invade those areas? Maybe... And what if troops were sent from the Home Isles and Hitler found out that the Home Isles were undefended? He might invade... !

And what if this war pushed the Axis and Soviets closer together, in an anti-liberal-democracy crusade? The Anti-agression pact was signed... and the chance of the Allies and Axis (already at war) mending fences to invade the USSR was 0 (Britain had just gathered the courage to DOW Germany over Poland and now they would forget about that and go after the USSR?). What if Germany and the USSR, not at war yet, cooperated to take down the West?

I would posit that it was considerations like these that kept the Allies out of Finland, even more than the lack of access through Sweden.

But, since the impossibility of an event never stopped it from appearing in HOI, I have nothing against this event appearing in the game... as though anyone needs my permission .

 

[Ghost_dk]

The events are not transferred and reviewed yet but there were events for an allied intervention in Finland for CORE1 and there will be for CORE2 as well.

The allies were very far along with the preparations and in canada troops were already being assembled and a request to the UK asking for permission to transfer troops sent when Sweden decided against direct involvement and denied allied troop transfers through sweden.

 

[unmerged(52434)]

Do you think USSR wanted allies as their enemies while they knewd that germany would attack them sometime. USSR did Ribbentrop pact only because it wanted buy time before german invasion. If Allies would come to scene the USSR could had some trouble for having worlds major powers aginst it.
Just remeber that allies supplied USSR during war. There would have been any idea to do that and everybody knewd that.

And as a Finn i know here is no such weather that could give any major trouble to army advancing. USSR did not want any trouble with allies because they knewd they could be helpful in strugle that were coming with Germany.

 

[Sekenr]

The proposed events seem terribly one-sided. M-R pact did include Finland in the Soviet sphere of influence. War with the SU would weaken both the Allies and SU. It'd be just a great gift to Hitler, such as if weakened SU couldn't hold german advance and Germany would get hold of oil deposits in Caucasus etc. That would directly hurt the allies, and hurt them badly. It just doesn't make sence strategically.

IMO if such event did happen, the allies woiuld just secure the Sweden's iron deposits as mentioned previously, and stick with that.

 

[unmerged(52434)]

War with the SU would weaken both the Allies and SU. It'd be just a great gift to Hitler, such as if weakened SU couldn't hold german advance.

True, but was it even cleaver to go aid Finns in their war even thought Allies had other things to matter. And war with Soviet Union wouldn't matter much because Allies won't counter Soviets much in anywhere because there was Germany between them. And because Soviets knew the Germanys plans to invade Soviet Union they didin't want anymore enemies.

 

[Archangel85]

Churchill claimed in his memoires that the allies wanted to send troops to Finland, these troops where, however, reassigned to norway when the germans pulled weseruebung. This, however, should be a player decision rather then an event. Or perhaps a "gurantee finnish independance" event...

 

[unmerged(12858)]

Would like to add to Spricars good answer that the French saw the "Scandinavian campaing" as a way to make the WWII been fought somewhere else then i France..