Finnish armistice

[Aryaman]

I wonder, why Finnish units don´t change sides the same as Hungarians and Romanians? Is there any in game reason?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

It's because Finland changed to neutrality after the armistice with Russia was signed. They helped the Russians driving the Germans out of Finland and over to Norway, but didn't pursue once their country was freed of German presence. In GS this is simulated by Finland turning neutral and Axis units removed from Finland to the force pool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_h ... _armistice

Romania and Bulgaria actually fought for the Russians late in the war. Hungary surrendered so late in the war so they never changed side and joined the Allies.

[rkr1958]

I wonder, why Finnish units don´t change sides the same as Hungarians and Romanians? Is there any in game reason?

Finland was the only axis minor that the US and UK didn't declare war on in WW2. Finland's alliance with Germany was more out of necessity than desire. They had just gone through a brutal war with the Russians in the winter of 1939. An interesting movie that I saw (with sub titles) was about a Norwegian resistance fighter, Max Manus, would fought against the Russians in Finland in 1939. The movie was, "Max Manus: Man of War" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1029235/ He went on to be a major factor in the Norwegian resistance against Germany in WW-2.

Though I'm digressing. Churchill actually wanted to send British troops to support Finland against Russia via an invasion of Norway. Germany saved the UK the title of aggressor by beating them to the invasion of Norway. And, Norway's surrender there after saved Britain from being at war with German and Russia at the same time.

The Finnish-Russian winter war was a brutal affair. Russian had way more men and equipment than Finland; but because of the Red Army purges of the 30's, the Red Army was poorly led and Finland was able to fight them almost to a draw. Finland did have to cede significant territory for peace and regaining that lost territory was their main goal for joining the axis.

My understanding of the tipping point that forced Finland to seek an armistice with the Soviet Union in 1944 was the threat by the US of declaring war on them. To get back to your question, there's no way that I see that Finland would have allied with their bitter enemy, the Soviet Union in 1944.

[BuddyGrant]

...there's no way that I see that Finland would have allied with their bitter enemy, the Soviet Union in 1944.

Agreed - the game handles this correctly IMO.

[Rasputitsa]

I wonder, why Finnish units don´t change sides the same as Hungarians and Romanians? Is there any in game reason?

Though I'm digressing. Churchill actually wanted to send British troops to support Finland against Russia via an invasion of Norway. Germany saved the UK the title of aggressor by beating them to the invasion of Norway. And, Norway's surrender there after saved Britain from being at war with German and Russia at the same time.

The plan for assisting Finland against the Soviet Union and blocking German access to Swedish iron ore originated before Churchill came to power, by 10th May 1940 when Churchill replaced Chamberlain, it had been overtaken by the German invasions of Norway and France. Otherwise agree on the status of Finland.

[rkr1958]

I wonder, why Finnish units don´t change sides the same as Hungarians and Romanians? Is there any in game reason?

Though I'm digressing. Churchill actually wanted to send British troops to support Finland against Russia via an invasion of Norway. Germany saved the UK the title of aggressor by beating them to the invasion of Norway. And, Norway's surrender there after saved Britain from being at war with German and Russia at the same time.

The plan for assisting Finland against the Soviet Union and blocking German access to Swedish iron ore originated before Churchill came to power, by 10th May 1940 when Churchill replaced Chamberlain, it had been overtaken by the German invasions of Norway and France. Otherwise agree on the status of Finland.

Ironically, Churchill was the primary force behind the British intervention in Norway. He was also pushing for the Brits to intervene in Finland against the Russians. The planned British invasion of Norway was his plan. Ironically, his poorly thought out and executed plan (i.e., the British & French disaster in Norway) resulted in the fall of Chamberlain and led to Churchill becoming Prime Minister. Talk about a weird twist of fate. It was the utter failure of Chruchill's plan for Norway that resulted in him becoming Prime Minister.

[Rasputitsa]

Ironically, Churchill was the primary force behind the British intervention in Norway. He was also pushing for the Brits to intervene in Finland against the Russians. The planned British invasion of Norway was his plan. Ironically, his poorly thought out and executed plan (i.e., the British & French disaster in Norway) resulted in the fall of Chamberlain and led to Churchill becoming Prime Minister. Talk about a weird twist of fate. It was the utter failure of Chruchill's plan for Norway that resulted in him becoming Prime Minister.

Digression continues, Churchill proposals were to block the shipments of Swedish iron ore, via Norway, to Germany, however, the attack on Finland resulted, on 14th Dec 1939, in the expulsion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations and an appeal from the League for all member nations to give Finland material and humanitarian assistance. The French government seized the opportunity to answer unrest at home, over the inactivity on the Western Front and the shame of Munich, which was creating great pressure on Daladier. Hence the French government promoted the proposal for an allied operation to help Finland, Churchill saw this as a way to promote his own project and 'jumped on the band wagon' to get his pet project.

The failure of the subsequent Norway operation was partially caused because the ships were loaded for the expected peaceful landing, with Norwegian and Swedish co-operation, or at least acquiescent. The German invasion of Norway, meant that the landings then became assault operations, for which the landing force had not been prepared, nor planned for.

Either way, the possibility of the Western Allies being at war with Germany and the Soviet Union in 1940 now seems incredible, but possible, if the Scandinavian countries had not refused to co-operate.

[rkr1958]

Ironically, Churchill was the primary force behind the British intervention in Norway. He was also pushing for the Brits to intervene in Finland against the Russians. The planned British invasion of Norway was his plan. Ironically, his poorly thought out and executed plan (i.e., the British & French disaster in Norway) resulted in the fall of Chamberlain and led to Churchill becoming Prime Minister. Talk about a weird twist of fate. It was the utter failure of Chruchill's plan for Norway that resulted in him becoming Prime Minister.

Digression continues, Churchill proposals were to block the shipments of Swedish iron ore, via Norway, to Germany, however, the attack on Finland resulted, on 14th Dec 1939, in the expulsion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations and an appeal from the League for all member nations to give Finland material and humanitarian assistance. The French government seized the opportunity to answer unrest at home, over the inactivity on the Western Front and the shame of Munich, which was creating great pressure on Daladier. Hence the French government promoted the proposal for an allied operation to help Finland, Churchill saw this as a way to promote his own project and 'jumped on the band wagon' to get his pet project.

The failure of the subsequent Norway operation was partially caused because the ships were loaded for the expected peaceful landing, with Norwegian and Swedish co-operation, or at least acquiescent. The German invasion of Norway, meant that the landings then became assault operations, for which the landing force had not been prepared, nor planned for.

Either way, the possibility of the Western Allies being at war with Germany and the Soviet Union in 1940 now seems incredible, but possible, if the Scandinavian countries had not refused to co-operate.

The BBC series, "World at War" has interviews with several of the British and French people involved. The most striking to me was the one with Chamberlain's Private Secretary. The allied through process at the time that the Norwegian operation and intervention into Finland was conceived was that this second war with Germany could be fought on distance battlefields (e.g., Norway) and not on those that they fought them 20+ years earlier. Britain actually have troops and material loaded and on its way to Finland via Norway when Norway surrendered. Norway's surrender prevented the British from being at war with Germany and Russia at the same time. By the way, the British were so ill prepared for Norway that they had snow shoes but could use them because they forgot to pack the lashings for them.

This World at War episode containing this and other British and French interviews really help me understand the allied thinking (and hopes) during the phoney war.

According to Chamberlain's private sectary the job of Prime Minister after Chamberlain's resignation was between Churchill and another chap (whom I can't remember and need to rewatch the interview). Of course, we all know who won out. I still find it ironic that Churchill who was the prime driving force between Britain's intervention in Norway and intended intervention in Finland became Prime Minister because of the utter failure and embarrassment of that intervention.

[Rasputitsa]

Ironically, Churchill was the primary force behind the British intervention in Norway. He was also pushing for the Brits to intervene in Finland against the Russians. The planned British invasion of Norway was his plan. Ironically, his poorly thought out and executed plan (i.e., the British & French disaster in Norway) resulted in the fall of Chamberlain and led to Churchill becoming Prime Minister. Talk about a weird twist of fate. It was the utter failure of Chruchill's plan for Norway that resulted in him becoming Prime Minister.

Digression continues, Churchill proposals were to block the shipments of Swedish iron ore, via Norway, to Germany, however, the attack on Finland resulted, on 14th Dec 1939, in the expulsion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations and an appeal from the League for all member nations to give Finland material and humanitarian assistance. The French government seized the opportunity to answer unrest at home, over the inactivity on the Western Front and the shame of Munich, which was creating great pressure on Daladier. Hence the French government promoted the proposal for an allied operation to help Finland, Churchill saw this as a way to promote his own project and 'jumped on the band wagon' to get his pet project.

The failure of the subsequent Norway operation was partially caused because the ships were loaded for the expected peaceful landing, with Norwegian and Swedish co-operation, or at least acquiescent. The German invasion of Norway, meant that the landings then became assault operations, for which the landing force had not been prepared, nor planned for.

Either way, the possibility of the Western Allies being at war with Germany and the Soviet Union in 1940 now seems incredible, but possible, if the Scandinavian countries had not refused to co-operate.

The BBC series, "World at War" has interviews with several of the British and French people involved. The most striking to me was the one with Chamberlain's Private Secretary. The allied through process at the time that the Norwegian operation and intervention into Finland was conceived was that this second war with Germany could be fought on distance battlefields (e.g., Norway) and not on those that they fought them 20+ years earlier. Britain actually have troops and material loaded and on its way to Finland via Norway when Norway surrendered. Norway's surrender prevented the British from being at war with Germany and Russia at the same time. By the way, the British were so ill prepared for Norway that they had snow shoes but could use them because they forgot to pack the lashings for them.

This World at War episode containing this and other British and French interviews really help me understand the allied thinking (and hopes) during the phoney war.

According to Chamberlain's private sectary the job of Prime Minister after Chamberlain's resignation was between Churchill and another chap (whom I can't remember and need to rewatch the interview). Of course, we all know who won out. I still find it ironic that Churchill who was the prime driving force between Britain's intervention in Norway and intended intervention in Finland became Prime Minister because of the utter failure and embarrassment of that intervention.

The preferred candidate to take over from Chamberlain was Lord Halifax, Chamberlain had called in the two candidates and, in an attempt to outmanoeuvre Churchill, asked him if he would be able to work under Halifax, hoping to bounce the decision towards selecting Halifax. Churchill avoided the question and remained silent, looking out of the window, Halifax broke the silence first by saying that, as a member of the House of Lords, it might be difficult to be accepted as Prime Minister. Churchill had won by silence, unusual for him.

There were two distinct aims, one was to stop iron ore shipments through Norwegian territory, the other was to give aid to Finland and get forces into action on a front that would not devastate the homeland and cover the embarrassment of the 'sitzkreig'. The initial plan foundered on the unwillingness of Norway and Sweden to allow allied access, the Swedes in particular where concerned that the Allies would take over the iron ore mines, but not do much else in moving on to Finland, which was probably quite possible .

I find the 1938-1940 period fascinating, as there were events that could have changed the war and our history, after that time the eventual result of the war was effectively fixed and no longer in doubt.

[rkr1958]

Ironically, Churchill was the primary force behind the British intervention in Norway. He was also pushing for the Brits to intervene in Finland against the Russians. The planned British invasion of Norway was his plan. Ironically, his poorly thought out and executed plan (i.e., the British & French disaster in Norway) resulted in the fall of Chamberlain and led to Churchill becoming Prime Minister. Talk about a weird twist of fate. It was the utter failure of Chruchill's plan for Norway that resulted in him becoming Prime Minister.

Digression continues, Churchill proposals were to block the shipments of Swedish iron ore, via Norway, to Germany, however, the attack on Finland resulted, on 14th Dec 1939, in the expulsion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations and an appeal from the League for all member nations to give Finland material and humanitarian assistance. The French government seized the opportunity to answer unrest at home, over the inactivity on the Western Front and the shame of Munich, which was creating great pressure on Daladier. Hence the French government promoted the proposal for an allied operation to help Finland, Churchill saw this as a way to promote his own project and 'jumped on the band wagon' to get his pet project.

The failure of the subsequent Norway operation was partially caused because the ships were loaded for the expected peaceful landing, with Norwegian and Swedish co-operation, or at least acquiescent. The German invasion of Norway, meant that the landings then became assault operations, for which the landing force had not been prepared, nor planned for.

Either way, the possibility of the Western Allies being at war with Germany and the Soviet Union in 1940 now seems incredible, but possible, if the Scandinavian countries had not refused to co-operate.

The BBC series, "World at War" has interviews with several of the British and French people involved. The most striking to me was the one with Chamberlain's Private Secretary. The allied through process at the time that the Norwegian operation and intervention into Finland was conceived was that this second war with Germany could be fought on distance battlefields (e.g., Norway) and not on those that they fought them 20+ years earlier. Britain actually have troops and material loaded and on its way to Finland via Norway when Norway surrendered. Norway's surrender prevented the British from being at war with Germany and Russia at the same time. By the way, the British were so ill prepared for Norway that they had snow shoes but could use them because they forgot to pack the lashings for them.

This World at War episode containing this and other British and French interviews really help me understand the allied thinking (and hopes) during the phoney war.

According to Chamberlain's private sectary the job of Prime Minister after Chamberlain's resignation was between Churchill and another chap (whom I can't remember and need to rewatch the interview). Of course, we all know who won out. I still find it ironic that Churchill who was the prime driving force between Britain's intervention in Norway and intended intervention in Finland became Prime Minister because of the utter failure and embarrassment of that intervention.

The preferred candidate to take over from Chamberlain was Lord Halifax, Chamberlain had called in the two candidates and, in an attempt to outmanoeuvre Churchill, asked him if he would be able to work under Halifax, hoping to bounce the decision towards selecting Halifax. Churchill avoided the question and remained silent, looking out of the window, Halifax broke the silence first by saying that, as a member of the House of Lords, it might be difficult to be accepted as Prime Minister. Churchill had won by silence, unusual for him.

There were two distinct aims, one was to stop iron ore shipments through Norwegian territory, the other was to give aid to Finland and get forces into action on a front that would not devastate the homeland and cover the embarrassment of the 'sitzkreig'. The initial plan foundered on the unwillingness of Norway and Sweden to allow allied access, the Swedes in particular where concerned that the Allies would take over the iron ore mines, but not do much else in moving on to Finland, which was probably quite possible .

I find the 1938-1940 period fascinating, as there were events that could have changed the war and our history, after that time the eventual result of the war was effectively fixed and no longer in doubt.

Thanks for the info. This whole discussion has motivated me to dig out my World at War DVDs, find and re-watch that episode. I love that series! It contains interviews with a number of actual and high ranking participants of the war. Like, General O'Conner, Albert Speer, Hitler's secretary (Traudl Junge) and many, many others including high ranking government and military officials. That series contains a goldmine of history!