Barbarossa without Finland?

heiks · Post by **heiks** » Mon Aug 13, 2001 1:05 pm

How would the german plans for barbarossa be changed, if finland stayed out of the war?
(An unlikely scenario, I know, but interesting nonetheless)

How could this happen? Here is my view

Fall 1939 The negotiations between Soviet Union and Finland concerning the security
of the Leningrad area lead to some minor land concessions in the isthmus area,
which are compensated in northern karelia. After getting these concessions Stalin
prepares to invade. Having seen what has happened in the Baltic states
Britain, France and the US inform the Soviet Union that any more aggression in the region
will not be tolerated. Stalin does not see this as a threat, but decides to postpone the invasion
until the imminent battle between Soviet Union and Germany is in an appropriate situation.

Spring/Summer 1940: Germany requests Finland to german troops to be transported across
Finland from/to Norway. Finland refuses pleading neutrality.

June 1941. Germans launch the attack on Soviet Union. Finland delcares itself neutral but starts
to mobilise its field army.

Now:

1) Would the Soviet army invade Finland regardless of her declaration on neutrality inorder to
to protect Leningrad?

2) How would this situation change the German AG North plans to take Leningrad?

3) How about the troops in Norway? What would their role be in this situation?

Some thoughts:

1) Possibly, but then again they might see the need for those troops elsewhere.

2) The planners might see no reason to change the plans as the troops would take Leningrad
without a long siege. But they might see a need to violate Finnish neutrality and invade the
isthmus to encircle Leningrad. The invasion could be done from Estonia, but this would require
a lot of ships and also the Soviet fleet in Kronstadt would try to interfere.

So? Any thoughts?

screamer · Post by **screamer** » Mon Aug 13, 2001 1:44 pm

germany would have invaded finland first <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

heiks · Post by **heiks** » Mon Aug 13, 2001 2:25 pm

Originally posted by french fries:
germany would have invaded finland first <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

hmmm.. If you mean before they invade Soviet union, I find this unlikely because of:

1) According to Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty Finland was in the Soviet sphere of influence, and a german attack to Finland would certainly alert the Soviet leaders and possibly cause the war to start before the germans want.

2) Where and how would the german troops attack Finland? (Before they control estonia)

Certainly not by boat, as the Baltic states are controlled by the SU making it easy for them to disrupt supply convoys, and possibly even seize the opportunity and destroy or damage a large part of the invasion force. Besides the supply issue is difficult even without soviet navy causing trouble.

Attacking from Norway is quite difficult too. The road network in lapland was poor, and there were no railroads. The terrain is quite open, but spampy and there are lots of hills. Not very suitable for blitzkrieg. And also the germans would have to fight their way through 1000 km of defended, hostile terrain to get within a striking distance of Leningrad, their obvious objective.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Aug 13, 2001 4:24 pm

Originally posted by heiks:
How would the german plans for barbarossa be changed, if finland stayed out of the war?
(An unlikely scenario, I know, but interesting nonetheless)

Its not as unlikely as you think. Finland allowed German troops in Finland and did attack the Soviets when the Soviet Air Force bombed Finland on 25/6/41 (the Finns didn't attack first). However, they only reoccupied the land taken from them in the Winter War. Most importantly they did not declare war on the USSR and did not participate in attacks on Leningrad and Murmansk.

Given they didn't assist in the fighting for Leningrad or Murmansk, this makes the Finns essentially useless from a German point of view if you follow the historical line.

In other words, for all intents and purposes, Finland *did* stay out of the war.

heiks · Post by **heiks** » Mon Aug 13, 2001 4:52 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Its not as unlikely as you think. Finland allowed German troops in Finland and did attack the Soviets when the Soviet Air Force bombed Finland on 25/6/41 (the Finns didn't attack first).

Yes, but considering that the field army was already mobilized and in attack formations at the border ready to attack, this boils down to q question of who is the quicker one...

(BTW I never thought I would be taking this side in one of these discussions, but... <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> )

However, they only reoccupied the land taken from them in the Winter War. Most importantly they did

Not entirely true. The attack actually headed not only to the isthmus, but also into northern karelia, which had never been a part of Finland.
the aim was to take back the land lost in the winter war, but the "old border" was crossed at several points. (some troops actually refused to cross and were put to trial).

not declare war on the USSR and did not participate in attacks on Leningrad and Murmansk.

Given they didn't assist in the fighting for Leningrad or Murmansk, this makes the Finns essentially useless from a German point of view if you follow the historical line.

In other words, for all intents and purposes, Finland *did* stay out of the war.

Yes, this is true. However, The german leaders didn't know this when they were putting the final touches on the barbarossa plan (by which time it was clear that the Finland would support them), and (IMO) thought that the Finns would indeed help them. They did try to persuade Mannerheim to allow the isthmus army to support the Leningrad siege, but he refused every time.

heiks · Post by **heiks** » Mon Aug 13, 2001 4:55 pm

BTW, is there a way to get my reply in between the quote so that the reply is not in bold? (Look my post above to see what I mean, quite difficult to read...)

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:31 pm

Originally posted by heiks:
BTW, is there a way to get my reply in between the quote so that the reply is not in bold? (Look my post above to see what I mean, quite difficult to read...)

Yes, a QB in square brackets [] starts a bold quote and a /QB in brackets ends a quote, so just put these in. When you choose to quote a message these should already be in at the beginning and end, so just copy the end one to end a qouted section, and copy the start part to begin the next qouted section.

Regarding the question asked, I don't see the Soviet Union attacking Finland in this case as the Soviets were stretched already. In reality, as they had seized Finnish territory and the Finns were ready for battle, it made more sense to try a pre-emptive attack, although even then I am surprised they did so. I also doubt the Germans would have attacked as it would have been really difficult, but then Norway should have been a tougher country than it was, so maybe they would have. However, once they reached the area of Leningrad, the temptation to attack to the north would have been stronger and could have led to some kind of action.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: RickyB ]</p>

Don Shafer · Post by **Don Shafer** » Mon Aug 13, 2001 10:35 pm

Soviet preemptive attack on Finland was the Winter War of 40. They got their asses handed to them by the Finns. Germany invading Finland from Norway? Hitler was obssessed with England invading Norway, that's why he didn't transfer troops from there to Sweden in the attempt to cut the Murmansk railroad or take Archangel. Even when the Soviet Union reached the border of Poland, he refused to transfer units from Norway because he wanted to keep nickel coming in from there.
Regardless of Sweden's role in the war, I don't think Hitler would have changed his plans from taking Leningrad.

Originally posted by RickyB:

Yes, a QB in square brackets [] starts a bold quote and a /QB in brackets ends a quote, so just put these in. When you choose to quote a message these should already be in at the beginning and end, so just copy the end one to end a qouted section, and copy the start part to begin the next qouted section.

Regarding the question asked, I don't see the Soviet Union attacking Finland in this case as the Soviets were stretched already. In reality, as they had seized Finnish territory and the Finns were ready for battle, it made more sense to try a pre-emptive attack, although even then I am surprised they did so. I also doubt the Germans would have attacked as it would have been really difficult, but then Norway should have been a tougher country than it was, so maybe they would have. However, once they reached the area of Leningrad, the temptation to attack to the north would have been stronger and could have led to some kind of action.

[ August 13, 2001: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Don Shafer · Post by **Don Shafer** » Mon Aug 13, 2001 10:38 pm

Will this be modelled in the upcoming Ed Cogburn's War in Russia? <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Given they didn't assist in the fighting for Leningrad or Murmansk, this makes the Finns essentially useless from a German point of view if you follow the historical line.

In other words, for all intents and purposes, Finland *did* stay out of the war.

Don Shafer · Post by **Don Shafer** » Mon Aug 13, 2001 10:42 pm

Will this be modelled in the upcoming Ed Cogburn's War in Russia? <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Given they didn't assist in the fighting for Leningrad or Murmansk, this makes the Finns essentially useless from a German point of view if you follow the historical line.

In other words, for all intents and purposes, Finland *did* stay out of the war.

kisslove · Post by **kisslove** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 1:45 am

Originally posted by heiks:
How would the german plans for barbarossa be changed, if finland stayed out of the war?
(An unlikely scenario, I know, but interesting nonetheless)

How could this happen? Here is my view

Fall 1939 The negotiations between Soviet Union and Finland concerning the security
of the Leningrad area lead to some minor land concessions in the isthmus area,
which are compensated in northern karelia. After getting these concessions Stalin
prepares to invade. Having seen what has happened in the Baltic states
Britain, France and the US inform the Soviet Union that any more aggression in the region
will not be tolerated. Stalin does not see this as a threat, but decides to postpone the invasion
until the imminent battle between Soviet Union and Germany is in an appropriate situation.

Spring/Summer 1940: Germany requests Finland to german troops to be transported across
Finland from/to Norway. Finland refuses pleading neutrality.

June 1941. Germans launch the attack on Soviet Union. Finland delcares itself neutral but starts
to mobilise its field army.

Now:

1) Would the Soviet army invade Finland regardless of her declaration on neutrality inorder to
to protect Leningrad?

Depends on political situation: if Finland would ensure SU that will not attack an just want to protect it self - SU probably would not attack, but knowing Stalin's paranoid suspiciousness I believe that SU still would attack.

2) How would this situation change the German AG North plans to take Leningrad?

If Finland not in war... then Hitler probably would try attack and capture the city.

3) How about the troops in Norway? What would their role be in this situation?

Defensive IMHO, but they could attack and soon come to defense.

Some thoughts:

1) Possibly, but then again they might see the need for those troops elsewhere.

Troops from Norway? They would be fully used for defense because SU military doctrine said "...we shall transfer war to the enemy territory..."

2) The planners might see no reason to change the plans as the troops would take Leningrad
without a long siege. But they might see a need to violate Finnish neutrality and invade the
isthmus to encircle Leningrad. The invasion could be done from Estonia, but this would require
a lot of ships and also the Soviet fleet in Kronstadt would try to interfere.

Then german forces in Finland would be in the same situation as well as Soviet union in war with Finland, but in winter all german troops would be probably eliminated.

So? Any thoughts?

[/qb]

I'm out!
<img src="smile.gif" border="0">

heiks · Post by **heiks** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 9:39 am

Originally posted by Don Shafer:
Soviet preemptive attack on Finland was the Winter War of 40. They got their asses handed to them by the Finns. Germany invading Finland from Norway? Hitler was obssessed with England invading Norway, that's why he didn't transfer troops from there to Sweden in the attempt to cut the Murmansk railroad or take Archangel. Even when the Soviet Union reached the border of Poland, he refused to transfer units from Norway because he wanted to keep nickel coming in from there.
Regardless of Sweden's role in the war, I don't think Hitler would have changed his plans from taking Leningrad.

I don't see how moving troops to Sweden would help in cutting the Murmansk railroad. A quick peek at a map reveals, that the germans are already closer to the murmansk area in northern Norway than they would ever be in Sweden. And besides I think that swedes would be quite irritated if the german troops in sweden (they were transported through sweden to/from Norway) started behaving like an invasion force <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

heiks · Post by **heiks** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 9:58 am

Originally posted by RickyB:

Yes, a QB in square brackets [] starts a bold quote and a /QB in brackets ends a quote, so just put these in. When you choose to quote a message these should already be in at the beginning and end, so just copy the end one to end a qouted section, and copy the start part to begin the next qouted section.

I just must test this. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> Thanks.

Regarding the question asked, I don't see the Soviet Union attacking Finland in this case as the Soviets were stretched already. In reality, as they had seized Finnish territory and the Finns were ready for battle, it made more sense to try a pre-emptive attack, although even then I am surprised they did so. I also doubt the Germans would have attacked as it would have been really difficult, but then Norway should have been a tougher country than it was, so maybe they would have. However, once they reached the area of Leningrad, the temptation to attack to the north would have been stronger and could have led to some kind of action.

Assuming the Germans decide to attack Finland in an attempt to threaten Leningrad from the north (lets assume that Leningrad doesn't fall to the first attacks). Then what forces would you send to this attack, and where would you strike?

I think the forces would probably be built from German reserves (did they really have that many reserve divisions in germany as there are in the WiR -41 scenario? Seems surprising to me as they were attacking such a large country), and tghe attack would be directed against Helsinki and the smaller towns on the coast (Porvoo, Kotka, Hamina). All these give access to good harbor facilities and invading Helsinki puts the Finnish government into chaos for at least a little while.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 11:12 am

Originally posted by Don Shafer:
Will this be modelled in the upcoming Ed Cogburn's War in Russia? <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Yep, just as soon as Arnaud sends me the source code. WiR is a simulation of a campaign, not a grand strategy game about the whole war (the politics as well as the combat), it should handle the Finns historically, but only as an option that defaults to being on. The restrictions could be turned off for those who really think Finland would have whole-heartedly embraced the Nazis.

Micha · Post by **Micha** » Wed Aug 15, 2001 4:53 pm

A question: if Finland stayed out of the war and Germany decided to only cut Leningrad off from the south, do you think this would have made a significant difference concerning the city's supply situation compared with what really happened? I don't know much about it, but I could imagine it might not be so easy to supply Leningrad from the north alone.

Don Shafer · Post by **Don Shafer** » Wed Aug 15, 2001 5:54 pm

I guess that's why (if I remember correctly) it states in the manual "strategic simulation". And under that supposition, I would imagine that you will also be removing the West/Italian Fronts since they were under OKW and not OKH? Probably should get rid of the USAAF "strategic" bombing also. All of those could be hard coded into the game since any events in those areas (in order to be historically correct) could just take place on the corresponding dates. With this stuff being removed, it should free up enough slots in the database, that you would be able to create shells for individual infantry divisions that when travelling with armor could automatically get dropped off on the second plot.
Then you could probably free up some more space by completely removing production. You could also hard code in the start and end dates for production of weapon types, plus you could also regulate the numbers to be produced also.
Let me know when you are going to release it, I think I'll re-read books on the German-Russo War instead.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Yep, just as soon as Arnaud sends me the source code. WiR is a simulation of a campaign, not a grand strategy game about the whole war (the politics as well as the combat), it should handle the Finns historically, but only as an option that defaults to being on. The restrictions could be turned off for those who really think Finland would have whole-heartedly embraced the Nazis.

Olli_Juntunen · Post by **Olli_Juntunen** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 12:22 am

Hi, Ed Gogburn mentioned that Finland was "outside" of the war because they didn't attack to Leningrad or Murmansk. Well, Germans made with Finns a deal that they would meet each other on Syväri (river east from Laatokka/Ladoga). Finns were able to achieve this, but not Germans. I know that Germans also wanted that Finns would have attacked to Leningrad, but when attack started, it wasn't in plans. Later in war Germans continuously demanded Finland to attack agaist Leningrad, but they didn't which was a mistake, because that could have been the end of Leningrad. And of course Finns didn't attack to Murmansk because it was also planned to be job of Germans.

BTW, is there coming any more patches to this game?

Don Shafer · Post by **Don Shafer** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 3:20 am

My apologies, I meant to say move troops through Sweden to Finland. While Hitler did appreciate the raw materials that he received from Sweden, he really didn't care about their neutrality.

Originally posted by heiks:

I don't see how moving troops to Sweden would help in cutting the Murmansk railroad. A quick peek at a map reveals, that the germans are already closer to the murmansk area in northern Norway than they would ever be in Sweden. And besides I think that swedes would be quite irritated if the german troops in sweden (they were transported through sweden to/from Norway) started behaving like an invasion force <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Don Shafer · Post by **Don Shafer** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 3:34 am

And while I'm thinking about it, make sure that you put something in the game that insures that the German player cannot place Hungarian and Rumanian units in the same shell since they hated each other and that would probably affect the unit's readiness as the two could be fighting each other instead of the Russians. In fact, I would make it so no Hungarian or Rumanian units could be placed in to German shells as Hitler was quite adimant about the fact that he would not allow foreign troops to fight for German honor (until he grossly overextended himselt at Stalingrad), then after that the Hungarian and Rumanian governments informed Hitler that all units would be controlled through their prospective governments. Then once the Soviet crossed into Rumania, you could have them automatically change their allegiance and fight on the side of the Soviets, which should be easy to do, since all Rumanian units would have to be in Rumanian Army shells. Sounds like a really boring game, but it would be historically correct.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Yep, just as soon as Arnaud sends me the source code. WiR is a simulation of a campaign, not a grand strategy game about the whole war (the politics as well as the combat), it should handle the Finns historically, but only as an option that defaults to being on. The restrictions could be turned off for those who really think Finland would have whole-heartedly embraced the Nazis.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 1:50 pm

Originally posted by Micha:
A question: if Finland stayed out of the war and Germany decided to only cut Leningrad off from the south, do you think this would have made a significant difference concerning the city's supply situation compared with what really happened? I don't know much about it, but I could imagine it might not be so easy to supply Leningrad from the north alone.

The only difference is that with the Finns the German player gets an extra square to attack that swamp square or Leningrad itself from. This is crucial, given the skill of the Finnish infantry.