Winter War

[Exel]

How will Winter War be simulated? In SC1 it was completely ignored and Finland started Continuation War with its pre-war borders (makes absolutely no sense). Clearly the war has to be included in SC2 one way or the other, but before giving any further critique or suggestions I'd like to know how you have planned to do it.

[vveedd]

Interesting question. The most simple solution will be pop up event like someone already mentioned on this forum.

[Sergei]

What would the options be, then? Historically Finland was most likely to ally itself either with Sweden (who declined) or then with the Allies (who were willing but Norway and Sweden were unwilling to allow passage).

[Exel]

Still waiting for comments from Hubert or Bill, so I wont suggest (yet) how the event should work. But I want to stress the reasons why Winter War has to be simulated.

1) Had Finland given in to the Soviet demands or had the Soviets backed down for whatever reason, the Red Army would not have gained the valuable experience it did in the war. The Red Army doctrines and tactics improved dramatically towards the end of the war. Without those improvements it is more than likely that the year 1941 would have been even more catastrophal for them than it was.

2) Without Winter War, Finland would not have had any reason to align with the Germans, let alone to start an offensive war against Soviet Union. This, in turn, might have led into a situation with Finland becoming a battleground between the Germans (who wanted to attack Murmansk and the Murmansk rail and Leningrad with or without Finland's permission) and the Soviets. Or alternatively Finland would have allied with Soviet Union (unlikely) and/or the Allies. In any case, Finland would not have joined the Axis side in 1941.

3) If Finland would have capitulated in the war, the Soviets would have got a border with Sweden, possibly making the Swedes aligning with Germany in the fear of Soviet invasion.

4) Had the Soviets succeeded better than they historically did in Finland, Hitler might have been much less keen to invade Soviet Union as early as he did. He might have put more effort to force Britain out of the war before turning his attention east.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

For all of the 'old posters' on this board:

*i hereby make my token appearance in this thread*

Go forth Winter Warriors, fight for what is right.

You're not the first

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Exel:

3) If Finland would have capitulated in the war, the Soviets would have got a border with Sweden, possibly making the Swedes aligning with Germany in the fear of Soviet invasion.

There are no evidence that this historically ever would be the case.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Exel:

4) Had the Soviets succeeded better than they historically did in Finland, Hitler might have been much less keen to invade Soviet Union as early as he did. He might have put more effort to force Britain out of the war before turning his attention east.

What does this mean in game terms, though? Should actual Soviet strength be random from game to game? Because otherwise the German player always knows just how difficult an enemy the Red Army is. Just like with USA. Hitler thought the Yanks were degenerate and so he didn't worry about declaring a war, now how would you simulate that?

[vveedd]

Originally posted by Exel:

2) Without Winter War, Finland would not have had any reason to align with the Germans, let alone to start an offensive war against Soviet Union. This, in turn, might have led into a situation with Finland becoming a battleground between the Germans (who wanted to attack Murmansk and the Murmansk rail and Leningrad with or without Finland's permission) and the Soviets. Or alternatively Finland would have allied with Soviet Union (unlikely) and/or the Allies. In any case, Finland would not have joined the Axis side in 1941. [/QB]

That is true. There is one funny historical fact relating to this war. When started, Hitler has wanted to send troops to help Finland against Russian. On the other hand Churchill has wanted to do the same. They never have but if they have, in Finland enemy on the west will be allies on the east.

Now back to the game - my suggestion is that SC2 must have winter war as option for Russian. Russian player should have liberty to decide does he want to go in winter war or not. His decisions should have strong effect on diplomatic options for Finland as Exel mentioned before.

[ August 11, 2004, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by vveedd:

When started, Hitler has wanted to send troops to help Finland against Russian.

What's the basis of this 'fact'? I have absolutely never heard of Hitler wanting to send troops to help Finland in 1939-40. The only thing I'm aware of is that once the war dragged on, Germans got worried of the possibility of Allied intervention, which would endanger iron shipments from Scandinavia. This made them encourage the both belligerents to sign a peace treaty.

Giving Soviets the option not to invade Finland is bound to have unrealistic results. In November 1939, nobody thought Finland would stand a chance. In 2004 we know better. When Stalin made his decision, he made it on the basis of false assumptions concerning both his and the enemy's strength.

Historically there was the possibility that Finns conceded to the Soviet demands in 1939 and the war was averted, at least temporarily. Shouldn't this possibility be taken into account just as well?

[vveedd]

Originally posted by Sergei:

What's the basis of this 'fact'? I have absolutely never heard of Hitler wanting to send troops to help Finland in 1939-40. The only thing I'm aware of is that once the war dragged on, Germans got worried of the possibility of Allied intervention, which would endanger iron shipments from Scandinavia. This made them encourage the both belligerents to sign a peace treaty.

[/QB]

Based on Third Reich documentations confiscated by Allied troops after the war and written by William F. Shirer in book “The Rise And Fall Of Third Reich” number 2 (or 3). Very good books actually. They include lots of less know historical facts. I recommended to you as “must read” literature if you like World War 2.

[ August 11, 2004, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[Liam]

The Winter War could easily be simulated with the Baltic Annexations a duo annextion of Territory giving the Russians a hex or two of Land and costing them some Men and equipment? Perhaps the Allies could be given the option increasing the Possibility the Fins stay Neutral and Russia getting a couple bonus Units? Would be neat but an add on?

This isn't far off the Balkans I guess it was a rather small scale in comparison with the Rest of the World. Even the Japanese venture in the Far East few years earlier?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by vveedd:

Based on Third Reich documentations confiscated by Allied troops after the war and written by William F. Shirer in book “The Rise And Fall Of Third Reich” number 2 (or 3). Very good books actually. They include lots of less know historical facts. I recommended to you as “must read” literature if you like World War 2.

I am aware of Shirer, and one can hardly call his books as "little known" as they were published already in 60's and have been translated to several languages. But I still don't know at which point of the Rise and Fall he says something like that. If you have any recollection of the context (is it in the section about German relations with Italy and USSR during the Winter War or somewhere later?), I could check it up.

Nor do I know of such plans or intentions from any other books or articles about Winter War. For example, there is no mention of this in Risto Peltovuori's "Saksa ja Suomen talvisota" ("Germany and Finland's Winter War") which goes into detail about both the official policy of Germany as well as the unofficial stances of leading Nazi politicians. On the contrary, Peltovuori describes Hitler's stance as unenthusiastic while noting that this conflicted with his anti-communist ideology. In March Hitler commended Finns for their bravery but thought that their policy was unwise. Meanwhile Shirer says that Germany was dependant on Soviet trade because of the embargo and so couldn't provoke Stalin or else Germany couldn't fight the Allies.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Giving Soviets the option not to invade Finland is bound to have unrealistic results.

Ahistorical? Most certainly. Unrealistic? Why's that?

Of course the decision could lead to ahistorical scenarios, but isn't that the whole point of the game? The event can be created in such manner that it wont lead to anything completely unrealistic.

Historically there was the possibility that Finns conceded to the Soviet demands in 1939 and the war was averted, at least temporarily. Shouldn't this possibility be taken into account just as well?

Of course. I did mention that eventuality in my last post, read again. There's a whole score of different possibilities that can arise from the Winter War event; Finns giving in to the ultimatums, Soviet Union annexing Finland as planned, Allies rushing for Finland's aid...

The Sweden part was just a what-if. There's no proof that it would have happened, but neither is there proof of the contrary. You just can't know coz it never happened. But my logic was this: the sole reason why Sweden did not help Finland nor allow Allied passage was that they wanted to stay out of the war. Had they had Soviet Union as their new neighbour, however, they might have seen the war as inevitable, and thus been hard-pressed to align with one side or another - and at that point the most likely ally would have been Germany, just like it was for Finland in 1941.

[Sergei]

Why unrealistic? Because I don't think that SC2 could ever realistically portray the effects of Red Army not being humiliated in Karelia, unless for example the true strength of Red Army was random every time and only revealed once it was tried by fire.

And while a game of the type of SC obviously doesn't have to do everything super-duper realistically and accurately, I think it is pointless to divert so much energy into thinking about something that was never likely to happen and for which the political effects would be nigh to impossible to estimate. For instance, suppose there was an event whereby the Allies declare a war on Soviets. What next? What are the goals and alliances in this situation? You just get into an endless net of speculation, none of which really improves the game.

[Exel]

Still no word from the officials I see... and wonder why.

[Edwin P.]

Excellent points Excel, perhaps a simple way of creating this is a series of events suing diplomatic chits for the Russians :

Option 1: No action, Finland Remain Neutral during ensuing war with Germany.

Option 2: Diplomatic Chit = Winter War and if countered by Germany with their own Diplomatic Chit then history recreates itself. Soviets gain 1 Tech chit and Finland survives.

Option 3: Soviet Diplomatic Chit Not countered by Germany = Finland Capitulates = Sweden Aligns with Germany, Finish Army Units Removed From Map (ie Germany Gains Swedish 5 Swedish Units + Swedish Production, Soviets secure Northern Flank). Soviets gain 1 tech chit.

or

Option 3: Soviet Diplomatic Chit Not countered by Germany = Finland Capitulates = USSR Annexes Finland = Finish Partisans Activated AND Sweden 10% More Axis Friendly. Now the Russians have to garrison Finland with 5 units to prevent Partisan units from appearing.

Key: There were reasons why the USSR did not conquer Finland and these should be reflected in the game.

[ August 25, 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Exel:

The Sweden part was just a what-if. There's no proof that it would have happened, but neither is there proof of the contrary. You just can't know coz it never happened. But my logic was this: the sole reason why Sweden did not help Finland nor allow Allied passage was that they wanted to stay out of the war. Had they had Soviet Union as their new neighbour, however, they might have seen the war as inevitable, and thus been hard-pressed to align with one side or another - and at that point the most likely ally would have been Germany, just like it was for Finland in 1941.

The swedish coalition-government was strongly anti-fascist with fierce resistance against Germany within the leading socialdemocrats. Sweden would most likely continue the policy of strict neutrality to the bitter end. All swedish diplomacy during the war had this as a goal.

THis is the most likely outcome, not joining Germany. We did not join Russia nor Germany or allies when Norway fell, why would we give up neutrality if Finland was captured?

[Edwin P.]

RE: Sweden

1. Coolheaded neutrality

That the democratic kingdom of Sweden escaped invasion during World War II was the result of timely alertness, unstinting defense measures and resolute will. As early as 1936, when the Germans were conspicuously rearming, the Swedes took a first step toward preparing themselves by extending mandatory military training from 125 days to 175. They were just as coolheaded about neutrality-although that policy required walking a tenuous tightrope of diplomacy and logic.

2. Between Germany and Russia

In 1940, one seventh of the nation's export income came from iron ore, and Sweden continued to sell ore to Germany despite the fact that the iron became the steel of the German war machine. When Finland called for troops to help expel the Russian invasion, the Swedish government refused to oblige; those Swedes who answered the call (and more than 8,000 of them did) went as volunteers and fought under the Finnish flag, not their own.

3. An "indigestible morsel"

Swedish defense measures began in earnest in 1939, as soon as Germany capped a series of expansive moves by invading Poland-thus planting Wehrmacht armor on the opposite shore of the narrow Baltic Sea, scarcely 300 miles from Stockholm. The Swedish government immediately called up 70,000 reserves. And as the War proceeded, Sweden increased its defense budget so that by 1942 the level of military spending was 10 times higher than it had been five years earlier. Every diplomatic effort was made to emphasize that the purpose of this beefing up was not to go on the attack, but only, as Foreign Minister Christian Gunther declared in 1940, "to make ourselves as indigestible as possible." And as the War raged around it, Sweden remained the most indigestible morsel in Scandinavia.

Courtesy of:

Based on Time-Life Books Inc.

Sweden and SC2

Perhaps, an event in SC2 where a neutral Sweden receives an extra Corps in 1941, 1942 and 1943.

This would reflect the continual buildup of Swedish defense forces during WWII and may deter an Allied, Russian, or Axis invasion of Sweden.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

[The swedish coalition-government was strongly anti-fascist with fierce resistance against Germany within the leading socialdemocrats. Sweden would most likely continue the policy of strict neutrality to the bitter end. All swedish diplomacy during the war had this as a goal.[/QB]

That's is maybe true but I have a few questions:

1.Why Swedish government hasn’t allowed Allied troop transport thru Sweden?

2.Why Swedish government allowed Axis troop transport thru Sweden?

3.Why Swedish government was trading Iron with Germany even after Allies demanded not to do that?

THis is the most likely outcome, not joining Germany. We did not join Russia nor Germany or allies when Norway fell, why would we give up neutrality if Finland was captured? [/QB]

For same reason why Finland did join Germany. Before WW2 and even in first years of war all capitalistic countries was afraid of communism much more then Nazism. France, Great Britain and US thought that Hitler will stop spreading communism in Europe and considered USSR bigger enemy then Germany. They was wrong, of course.

[ August 27, 2004, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by vveedd:

1.Why Swedish government hasn’t allowed Allied troop transport thru Sweden?

2.Why Swedish government allowed Axis troop transport thru Sweden?

3.Why Swedish government was trading Iron with Germany even after Allies demanded not to do that?

1. Consider what happened to Norway. The threat of Germany was very real.

2. It could be used as a bargaining tool.

3. Why not? Allied demands were not binding.

[vveedd]

I can accept all your answer but they didn't show that Swedish government was anti-fascist.

1.Why Norway decided to fight against Germany and Sweden do not?

2.Bargaing tool? What Sweden got in that bargain?

3.If government was anti-fascist and pro-allied oriented Allied demands were very significant.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

The swedish coalition-government was strongly anti-fascist with fierce resistance against Germany within the leading socialdemocrats. -- All swedish diplomacy during the war had this as a goal.

The exact same applied to Finland - until Winter War. And even then Finland first seeked help from Sweden and then the Allies, but receiving little true help from either one, turned to Germany as last resort.

We did not join Russia nor Germany or allies when Norway fell, why would we give up neutrality if Finland was captured?

For the same reason we did before Continuation War. We realized we were between two great powers destined to clash with each other. Any attempt to stay neutral would probably have led to Finland becoming a battleground between the Germans and Soviets, effectively leading to a hopeless two-front war. Sweden was able to continue its policy of neutrality throughout the war largely due to Finland being a buffer between it an USSR. German presense in Norway was critical but not crucial, since the Soviets weren't next door putting pressure on the Swedes. Without immediate Soviet threat Sweden could do what they historically did; silent cooperation with Germany - something which would not have been possible with Red Army in Finland.

[ August 27, 2004, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]