PDA

View Full Version : What if Great Britain and France have helped Finland in 1939



jugent
12-13-2005, 04:45 AM
As early as the 3:rd of september Churchill wanted to lay mines in Norway.
At the 29:th the same month, the war-cabinet started to plan for an attack on Scandinavia, one main goal was the swedish iron-ore mines.
When Soviet union started their "liberation" of Finland in November 1939 gave this a moment of oportunity for England to take control over the Kiruna iron-ore mines in Sweden.

The pre UN asked all countries to help Finland.
UK and France stated that they would help by sending troops. The plan was to land at Narvik and go to Finland through Sweden, and help Finland, and take control over the iron-ore trade at the same time.
On february the 5.th France started their plan for an expiditionary force to Norway.

France and England made a common plan (Operation Avonmouth) to land troops, 4 divisions in Narvik and transit them to Finland via Sweden.

To protect theier southern flank from German counterattacks five brigades should land at Trondheim and Bergen (operation Stratford).

Northern Scandinavia was supposed to be the remote battleground, as Churchill wanted according to his thoughts about the indirect aproach.
He advocated the same thoughts about the Balkans and Italy.

On the 1th of March the Finnish ambassador hade a meating with with Lord Halifax and told that if the Brittish/French didnt give help fast (50000 men and 100 aircrafts), before the end of March, Finaland would start peacetalk with the Soviet Union.

England/France didnt give precise answers but Operation Avonmoutht was given green light.
The next day the ceasefire between Finland and Soviet Union was decleared.
The plan couldnt be executed.
France/England used theese planes later when Germany invaded Norway on the 9:th of April.
What if the peace-talks between Finland/USSR would have taken more time, or if England/France would have reacted faster?
Then would English/French troops encountered the troops of the red army, RAF vs VVS.
Sweden and England/France would have a conflict about the Iron-ore mines in Kiruna.
Norway may have opposed against landing of troops in Narvik.
Would Soviet Union and Germany became allies against France and England in Scandinavia?

HotelBushranger
12-13-2005, 05:27 AM
Interesting concept. If Russia and Germany becames Allies, then I think we'd all be speaking a mixture of Russian and German - for those in Europe anyway. But I doubt it, Stalin was another Hitler and they would not have got along.

Xiolablu3
12-13-2005, 06:12 AM
Hitler and Russia were allies at this time remember, they spilt up Poland. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Interesting thought, I dont think Britain and France could have risked a war with both Germany and Russia at teh same time and thats what stalled things.

They were worried enough about Germany to risk a war with Russia too, they had to see how things would pan out.

Shame cos the Finns sure gave Russia a run for its money and would have made great allies. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JuniorUK
12-13-2005, 06:15 AM
The GB and France did plan bombing of SU€s main and practically the only ones large that time petroleum refineries in Baku, which is in Azerbaidgan. The plan was abandoned eventually, as I remember right due to a lack of resources needed elsewhere, but preparation for the assault reached a stage when British recon planes started flying over Baku violating obviously SU€s airspace. I don€t remember all details at the moment and I think it was later, some mid 1940, but you can probably add this variant to the scenario. Had it been done, USSR would have been left without fuel supply for a while.

fighter_966
12-13-2005, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by jugent:
As early as the 3:rd of september Churchill wanted to lay mines in Norway.
At the 29:th the same month, the war-cabinet started to plan for an attack on Scandinavia, one main goal was the swedish iron-ore mines.
When Soviet union started their "liberation" of Finland in November 1939 gave this a moment of oportunity for England to take control over the Kiruna iron-ore mines in Sweden.

The pre UN asked all countries to help Finland.
UK and France stated that they would help by sending troops. The plan was to land at Narvik and go to Finland through Sweden, and help Finland, and take control over the iron-ore trade at the same time.
On february the 5.th France started their plan for an expiditionary force to Norway.

France and England made a common plan (Operation Avonmouth) to land troops, 4 divisions in Narvik and transit them to Finland via Sweden.

To protect theier southern flank from German counterattacks five brigades should land at Trondheim and Bergen (operation Stratford).

Northern Scandinavia was supposed to be the remote battleground, as Churchill wanted according to his thoughts about the indirect aproach.
He advocated the same thoughts about the Balkans and Italy.

On the 1th of March the Finnish ambassador hade a meating with with Lord Halifax and told that if the Brittish/French didnt give help fast (50000 men and 100 aircrafts), before the end of March, Finaland would start peacetalk with the Soviet Union.

England/France didnt give precise answers but Operation Avonmoutht was given green light.
The next day the ceasefire between Finland and Soviet Union was decleared.
The plan couldnt be executed.
France/England used theese planes later when Germany invaded Norway on the 9:th of April.
What if the peace-talks between Finland/USSR would have taken more time, or if England/France would have reacted faster?
Then would English/French troops encountered the troops of the red army, RAF vs VVS.
Sweden and England/France would have a conflict about the Iron-ore mines in Kiruna.
Norway may have opposed against landing of troops in Narvik.
Would Soviet Union and Germany became allies against France and England in Scandinavia?
Germans were symphatetic towards Finns although they couldnt not show it officially as Hitler
said to Mannerheim when he visited here in Finland
That really would have been interesting in which
side German would have gone.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Xiolablu3
12-13-2005, 06:28 AM
I thought the Germans went as far as supllying the Finns with weapons?

You see many Finnish 109's etc, was this later? Or am I imagining things http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Hoarmurath
12-13-2005, 06:37 AM
you are making a confusion between winter war, and continuation war.

fighter_966
12-13-2005, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I thought the Germans went as far as supllying the Finns with weapons?

You see many Finnish 109's etc, was this later? Or am I imagining things http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
We got bf 109 later and Brewesters just before
the winter war ended (it lasted 109 days)

fighter_966
12-13-2005, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I thought the Germans went as far as supllying the Finns with weapons?

You see many Finnish 109's etc, was this later? Or am I imagining things http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
We got bf 109 later and Brewesters just before
the winter war ended (it lasted 109 days) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually ,Germans prevented Italy to supply us
which made Mussolini bit pissed of and Swedes
did that same thing (they were afraid of germans)So may be Adolf was just soothing things?

jugent
12-13-2005, 06:49 AM
The major objectives for France/England in this operation was to capture the iron-ore mines, because they thought that it was strategical for Germany wich it wasnt at that time.

Germany didnt supply Finland during the winter-war. Sweden sended a fighterwing of Gladiators and some guns but Finland was much of its own at this time.
Germany had not enough weapons for their own forces.
Three division that attacked Norway in april 1940 was equipped by polish guns and rifles. They belonged to the 7:th welle and where manned by soldiers who fought WWI and was 35-40 years old. They where not sufficient trucks to move them, so they stole every vehicle they could to make themself mobile. They also took skies and sledges to fight beside the roads. They wasnt trained as ski-troops but managed quite well anyway. T

his was far from the armoured divisions and elite forces shown in the films.

The invading forces in Norway got 4 tanks. Two Pz I and two Pz 4.

I dont think that the Heer woult have fought side by side with Red Army, but Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe would have done as good as they could against supply-convoys from England to Norway.


Germany imported iron ore from USSR and from mines in the central part of Sweden wich wasnt inflicted by the occupation of Kiruna. The iron ore from from central sweden was very suited for weapon production, and the ore from northern sweden was more suited for construction purpose.

But if Finland have endured for a longer time English and French would have fought russian forces.

Perhaps this would have ended in better conditions for Finland in the ceasefire-theathy, but if Uncle Joe put prestige into this, the conflict may have been prolonged for a long time, eaven became a major theatre of operations. This would have suited Hitler very much.

The sitation for England/France must have been very difficult, to supply their forces and avoid german and russian attacks.

The whole idea with the remote front for an indirect approach was not good.

It divided the troops in north africa because the best of them was sent to Greece also with a logistic chaos. This thinned out the troops in north africa and made it not so hard for Rommel.
Churchill also wanted to put focus on the fightings in Italy instead of the invasion of Normandy.

It would have taken a long time to bypass the Alps and into Germany from south. It might have made it possible for USSR to occupy most of Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.

This misjudgements show how bad Churchill was in strategic thoughts but I think that at this time, this scenario would put focus on the nave and he was the minister of the navy at this time which would have set focus on him.
This wont take away the honour of his stiff resistance against Hitler in 1940.

The German occupation of France, Netherlands and Belgium would have ended by the time a ceasefire threaty was signed by England. All of this Churchill stood up against, but it was close. If Germany had surrounded the BEF at Dunquerqe they would have became a hostage for a peace-threaty.
England was close to start negotiations from their ambassy of Switzerland.

USA:s strategic thoughts was much better IMO.

tom1502_158
12-13-2005, 06:52 AM
Logistically impossible, it would have been a massive failure. Going through Norway was invalidating it's neutrality, and then going through Sweden would have been doing the same. There was no way for us to help the Finns, and opposing the Russians, would not have been a great threat to us initially, unless Russia then won the war with Germany on it's own later on, then we'd be screwed, even if we had held out in the Battle of Britain...we'd have a Battle of Britain 2 against the USSR! What if...we'd have lost, may have been able to hold out against the Russian in finland for a while because of the state of the Red Army but war with Germany and Russia would have been crazy, especially once they started fighting each other as well! Three way battles!

AndyHigh
12-13-2005, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I thought the Germans went as far as supllying the Finns with weapons?


There was no help from Germany during 1939-40 war. They had a non agression pact with USSR and Germany stopped weapon transports going through them to Finland. The non agression pact included secrect addition in which they declared which countries they were free to attack (at that time) without stepping each others toes.

Here's a copy, but don't know how correct it is:
http://members.fortunecity.com/stalinmao/Soviet/Molotov/Pact.html

AndyHigh
12-13-2005, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
Actually ,Germans prevented Italy to supply us
which made Mussolini bit pissed of and Swedes
did that same thing (they were afraid of germans)So may be Adolf was just soothing things?

Well, there was a Swedish voluntary brigade of about 8000 men and a J8A (gladiator) squadron that fought in northern Finland. Also many aircraft purchased during that time were assembled in Sweden at Saab factories.

Not too much help from other countries besides old weaponary (like french cannons from 19th century http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) and some volunteers of which most were finnish emigrants from North America. Worth noting are the danish volunteer pilots flying gladiators with Finns. Many of them were shot down and were KIA. They gave their lives for a foreign country after all.

fighter_966
12-13-2005, 08:20 AM
I dont Deny Swedish volunteers help http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif .They were brave men http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif .Situation wasnt so easy to Sweden
either not mention Norway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TFulmen
12-13-2006, 06:07 AM
A lot of you people are missing facts here.

Let me correct some of your erronous claims:

The Winter War lasted for 105 days.

The British & French Expeditioary Force(s) did not arrive in Finland because Sweden and Norway did not allow travel through their country. Landing in southern-Finland would have been suicide because the waters were far too dangerous, and landing into Finland through Finland's right arm, Petsamo, would have taken too long and was also being occupied by Russians at the time, so the Expeditionary Force would have been forced to fight itself a path through into inner Finland, risking heavy casualties.

There were also thousands of volunteers wanting to help Finland, most notably about 25 000 Hungarians and 8000 Swedish. Also there were volunteers all the way from even South-Africa. However, most of them never reached their destination.

Reasons were: Volunteers from i.e South-Africa were not fit to combat in the extreme environments of Finnish winter (the 20-40 minus degrees (depends on location) we get here at times aren't that nice for all of you), Hungarians and many other volunteers from southern Europe or below, were not able to travel to Finland because Germany stopped them.

And the few others that did reach Finland were not enough to help considerably (although defence of the whole Lappland region air space fell entirely to the Swedish volunteer force flying the J8As at one point, and stayed so till the war's end, if I recall correctly) or reached Finland after the war had ended.

In, 1943 during the Continuation War (1941-44), Finland bought 162 Bf109 aircraft, from which 159 arrived as the others were destroyed during transport etc. Note that the arrival of all 159 planes to Finland might have stretched into 1944. Maybe I should check instead of saying 'maybe', heh.

From these aircraft 48 were type G-2, 109 were type G-6 and 2 were type G-8.

I myself know that at least one Finnish Bf109 G-14 was also in service. I could check more on this if anyone wishes me to do so.

The Bf109 served as the FAF's (Finnish Air Force) main fighter for several years after WWII, while other countries in the area moved to jet planes.

WOLFMondo
12-13-2006, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by jugent:

Would Soviet Union and Germany became allies against France and England in Scandinavia?

I very much doubt it. Theres a million and one reasons why, other than being ideologically opposed.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Capt Eric Brown says: "I found in general the default joystick settings tended to be oversensitive. With my recommended settings it will give people a real feeling of how they actually flew."

SheerLuckHolmes
12-13-2006, 06:24 AM
Just want to add something that is not officially accepted!

I was serving in AA-troops and we had Bofors 40mm aa-guns. They were made in Germany in 1938 and according to weaponrecords they were shipped from Germany direct to Finland in december 1939 !! So according to this Germany did help Finland during winter-war but it was all unofficial. Our battery had 6 guns and all had same shipment-texts in their weapon records. (eli suomeksi.. tykkien mukana oli aseen kanta-kortit ja niiss?? luki ett?? aseet saatu suomeen joulukuun lopulla.. olisko ollu 22.12.1939, lastatty Lyypekiss?? ja saapuneet turkuun)

SheerLuck Holmes

Aaron_GT
12-13-2006, 06:35 AM
Apparently Christopher Lee (who was in the British Special Forces at the time) fought on the side of Finland in the Winter War. So there might have been some British involvement in very small numbers.

Wurkeri
12-13-2006, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I thought the Germans went as far as supllying the Finns with weapons?


During winter war the Germans actually stopped deliveries from Italy (material like Fiat G-50s) and sent the shipments back to Italy.

Stalin and Hitler did the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. And that basicly started the full scale war in Europe (including the Winter war).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

Kurfurst__
12-13-2006, 08:41 AM
I doubt Britain or France would have been ever too serious about helping out Finnland, but it came

Just look at the timeline, Churchill proposed already on 3rd September to the War Cabinet, the very day hostilities started between the UK+France and Germany, to mine Norwegian waters and that it would be a great idea to invade Scandinavia and forcefully take over Swedish iron ore and prevent Germany from getting it. The Soviet-Union did not attack Finnland until November, two months later. Helping out Finnland was cleary an afterthought for a viable excuse.

He basically kept repeating his idea from WW1, to attack on various remote areas instead on the main front, and given his background I guess this idea came from his history classes on previous British strategies in Napoleonic war etc. rather than any practical strategical or military consideration. As so many times before, an aristocrat of the upper class pointed on a spot on the map and said 'Let's attack there'.. And it immidiately seemed a brilliant idea, coming from a sooo respectable member of society.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif The 'soft underbellies' was a fixation of Churchill, he tried it in WW1 already (Gallipoli), and re-tried it in WW2, both ending in a disaster, and hurt Churchill politcally quite a bit both times. The plan was flawed in it's roots, and quite naive as it waay overestimated German reliance on Swedish ore, as in 1944 the Swedish export ceased but it did not hurt that much in steel production).

So how seriously the idea of helping out Finnland is rather questionable. Most of the available forces, even though after helping out the Finns was added as an afterthought and a good political excuse, would be still concentrated for occupying the Swedish iron ore and it's way to Germany, and not for aiding Finnland. Perhaps the plans may have been even executed, given Churchill's anti-communism, but let's not forget he was quite luckily not steering the ship until May 1940, for if it would pressed forward, it would probably result in little more than a huge geo-political isolation for occupying (or at least, trying to) neutral Scandinavian countries, the Russo-Alied relationships would be probably damaged beyond any hope, not to mention the chances of a tiny 50 000 men Allied expedition force fighting the Red Army in artic conditions...

Fighting the USSR could have also meant that the USSR would rather decide expand towards British holdings in the middle-east rather than confronting Hitler for an Eastern-European/Balkans expansion, as it did historically choosed in August/November 1940, directly leading to the Russo-German war - see Molotov talks in Berlin),

In brief I tend to believe it would be a disaster on an unprecedented scale for the Allied side with far reaching political consequences.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

JG14_Josf
12-13-2006, 09:50 AM
The assumption, I guess, is such that ???Great Britain??? has one mind like one glorious super power steered around by one glorious and all powerful ???Fuhrer??? whereby the one leader leads the whole enchilada ???do or die???.

Great Britain and France helps Finland (or Poland, or Austria, or Belgium, etc.).

I think not.

I think the business of war is like any other business. There is a market and the competitors in that market fight for dominance. Sinking (investing) in Finland in 1939 may have been similar to a choice between a few stock trades.

Example:

Pre-911 stock choices:

American Airlines
Halliburton
Iraq Oil Inc.

Insiders know a good investment when they see one.

Uncle Joe, Sam, Adolph, or the Queen herself knows who butters the bread too.

Follow the money.

Power up the little Mustache (http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-hitler.html)

Power up the Big Mustache (http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.html)

I???m not trying to derail this thread or get it locked. There are simply a few angles of view that may not be entertained fashionably. Look here: that one is really, really stupid. That way of looking at things is too far gone, way out there, and worthy of ridicule.

So be it.

If Great Britain and France helped Finland in 1939, then, history would be rewritten by people ??? not Nations.

Thanks for the first hand account concerning aa-guns. Primary source information tends to be more accurate than the ???official??? history.

Thanatos833
12-13-2006, 10:27 AM
Actually had France acted against Germany in 1936 during the German occupation of the Rhineland, France would have easily crushed Germany single handed. Or If Britain and France had joined up against Germany in 1938 and not allowed Hitler to rape Czechoslovakia.


we'd have a Battle of Britain 2 against the USSR Yes, I can image the terror of having TB-3s over British airspace. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9285/do17in9.jpg

The Dornier Do-17, another brilliant example of German engineering, a ???Schnellbomber" which could just outrun all fighters, this plane led to the German victory in the Battle of Britain and indeed, the Second World War.

Wurkeri
12-13-2006, 11:03 AM
Hm... Britain and France did help Finland with some material and in practice the threat of more help forced Soviets to start negotiations with Finland (with real goverment, not with the puppet goverment formed by the Soviets).

WOLFMondo
12-13-2006, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:


Great Britain and France helps Finland (or Poland, or Austria, or Belgium, etc.).

I think not.


Your totally wrong. Britain in 1939, despite being at war was a nation of pacifists and had been since the end of WW1. No one wanted to have a war here. It was the problem Churchill had when warning those in Parliament about what Germany was up to...i.e. preparing for war and mass annexing of Europe.

On the other hand the whole reason Britain went to war was because of Poland.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Capt Eric Brown says: "I found in general the default joystick settings tended to be oversensitive. With my recommended settings it will give people a real feeling of how they actually flew."

ImpStarDuece
12-13-2006, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I doubt Britain or France would have been ever too serious about helping out Finnland, but it came

Just look at the timeline, Churchill proposed already on 3rd September to the War Cabinet, the very day hostilities started between the UK+France and Germany, to mine Norwegian waters and that it would be a great idea to invade Scandinavia and forcefully take over Swedish iron ore and prevent Germany from getting it. The Soviet-Union did not attack Finnland until November, two months later. Helping out Finnland was cleary an afterthought for a viable excuse.

He basically kept repeating his idea from WW1, to attack on various remote areas instead on the main front, and given his background I guess this idea came from his history classes on previous British strategies in Napoleonic war etc. rather than any practical strategical or military consideration. As so many times before, an aristocrat of the upper class pointed on a spot on the map and said 'Let's attack there'.. And it immidiately seemed a brilliant idea, coming from a sooo respectable member of society.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif The 'soft underbellies' was a fixation of Churchill, he tried it in WW1 already (Gallipoli), and re-tried it in WW2, both ending in a disaster, and hurt Churchill politcally quite a bit both times. The plan was flawed in it's roots, and quite naive as it waay overestimated German reliance on Swedish ore, as in 1944 the Swedish export ceased but it did not hurt that much in steel production).

So how seriously the idea of helping out Finnland is rather questionable. Most of the available forces, even though after helping out the Finns was added as an afterthought and a good political excuse, would be still concentrated for occupying the Swedish iron ore and it's way to Germany, and not for aiding Finnland. Perhaps the plans may have been even executed, given Churchill's anti-communism, but let's not forget he was quite luckily not steering the ship until May 1940, for if it would pressed forward, it would probably result in little more than a huge geo-political isolation for occupying (or at least, trying to) neutral Scandinavian countries, the Russo-Alied relationships would be probably damaged beyond any hope, not to mention the chances of a tiny 50 000 men Allied expedition force fighting the Red Army in artic conditions...

Fighting the USSR could have also meant that the USSR would rather decide expand towards British holdings in the middle-east rather than confronting Hitler for an Eastern-European/Balkans expansion, as it did historically choosed in August/November 1940, directly leading to the Russo-German war - see Molotov talks in Berlin),

In brief I tend to believe it would be a disaster on an unprecedented scale for the Allied side with far reaching political consequences.

The 'soft underbelly' strategy in WW2 was hardly a disaster.

The British and US pushed Germany and Italy out of Africa, the Mediterranean and the Balkans. It forced Italy out of the war, tied up German resources that could of been diverted away to other sectors (such as the Eastern Front) and gave airpower dircet access to German industrial and POL sites in Southern Europe.

If this is a 'disaster' for the UK, I'd love to see what you qualify as a sucess.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

ImpStarDuece,

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

"Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine or idealism."
-Carl Jung

JG14_Josf
12-13-2006, 01:33 PM
I've been called totally wrong enough times to recognize miscommunication; intentional or otherwise.

If I am ???totally??? wrong, then, why not quote me ???totally??? in context rather than misquote me?

That is a question.

Here is the ???totally??? wrong hypothesis:


The assumption, I guess, is such that ???Great Britain??? has one mind like one glorious super power steered around by one glorious and all powerful ???Fuhrer??? whereby the one leader leads the whole enchilada ???do or die???.

Great Britain and France helps Finland (or Poland, or Austria, or Belgium, etc.).

I think not.

If the assumption is not as suggested, then, the shoe doesn???t fit.

Is that true or is that false?


Britain in 1939, despite being at war was a nation of pacifists and had been since the end of WW1. No one wanted to have a war here.

I???m inclined to think that the above is literally false. Where did Churchill live? Was Churchill a pacifist? Did Churchill want a war? Was Churchill someone?

How about any investor looking for a good investment who happens to live in England? Perhaps someone with money tied up in Finnish shipping?

When a person groups everyone into one as if everyone were one Nation under god, indivisible, like one group mind where all, everyone, without exception, were, in fact, pacifist, then, I???m going to point out that such a thought is rather absurd.

You can see things however you wish.

Rewrite history. Everyone does it.

Did you even check the links?


On the other hand the whole reason Britain went to war was because of Poland.

Ahh???the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me god.

I???m just about ready to believe that the whole reason the U.S. went to war was because of oil; like one giant collective brain thinking in unison.

It makes good fiction.

How about a good argument?

You say something absurd and I???ll respond with some facts.

Then you can claim some more absurdities.

Soon enough the peanut gallery can join in.

Then what?

What IF Great Britain and France helped Finland in 1939?

Someone somewhere might remember such an event no?

Great Britain grows arms and legs I suppose, France too, and both waddle on over to Finland with a big group hug ??? arm and arm they brace as the German and Russian grow their own legs, arms, and mustaches.

OHHHHH moderator I think you may have some work to do.

Clean up on isle 5!

DIRTY-MAC
12-13-2006, 02:19 PM
Try these books if you want some info about what happened in the North
they explain alot of what happened and why.
these are very good books,
dont know if there are any english translations though?

****et Om Nordkalotten
http://web.telia.com/~u97017830/bild/maj06/3308_****et-om-nordkalotten.jpg


Den Nionde April: Nazitysklands Invasion Av Norge 1940
http://covers.books.img.compricer.com/9/1/8/9185057282.png <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Otto may have been a weirdo, but he was a dam good fighterpilot.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/HOOTCHIE-MAMA/ohhbabyfinal.jpg
aka HOOTCHIE MAMA online

zugfuhrer
12-13-2006, 02:59 PM
The importance of Swedish iron ore is a statement used by Mr Churchill that is swallowed to easy by people that don???t think another step.

Germany imported much iron ore from Soviet Union and had strategic reserve for 6 months.

They prefeared to take it from Sweden because the port of Rotterdam was so close to the industrial centre of Ruhr.
No big burdon on the Bundesbahn.
Iron ore was not a big problem for Germany. Oil petrol and diesel was, and was imported from Soviet Union as well.

After 1940 the French Lorraine iron ore was sufficient for the Germans but the Swedish iron ore was better. It didn???t demand so much coal to be transferred into steel.

The iron ore from middle Sweden was very suitable for making high-class steel and the ore from the northern part was more suitable for construction steel so a blockade of Kiruna iron mine wouldnt have stopped the high quality iron ore from reaching Germany, if the swedish gouverment wanted it to be that way.
As mentioned before,
Churchill advocated much for attacking Germany from other directions than over the channel, Italy Balkans and Norway was examples for his "indirect approach " strategy. Luckily US didn???t think this way so Italy was a secondary theatre of war compared to Normandy.
I don???t think that either France or UK was serious of helping Finland as long as they where at war against Germany. If Finland was attacked and no war was declared against Nazi-Germany the situation would have been much different. Churchill hated communism.

leitmotiv
12-13-2006, 03:01 PM
What would have happened? Madness. The plan was to Land in Norway and march across Swedish territory---violating the neutrality of two peaceful countries to aid another neutral! Certainly one of the oddest plans in military history. Oh, and, by the way, occupy the Swedish iron mines!!!! Phony War-era pipe dream which was, incredibly enough, taken very seriously. A truly uneasy mix of high moral purpose and complete cynicism.

Wurkeri
12-14-2006, 12:02 AM
From Finnish viewpoint the British and French offer to send help was really important because since from the beginning of the Winter war, the Soviets had stopped all contacts with real Finnish goverment and dealed just with the Puppet goverment (Terijoen hallitus) set up by the soviets. The possibility that conflict would expand forced Soviets to reject the Puppet goverment and start negotitions with real Finnish goverment.

It's would have been whole another history if the Britain and France had really sent the forces but we can only speculate on that issue.

After all Finland survived despite heavy losses and it can be said that in a way the help offer from Britain and France "saved" Finland; without it the Soviets had no reason to look for peace with Finland (with an option to finish the business later, autumn 1940, but that is another story).

Kurfurst__
12-14-2006, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

He basically kept repeating his idea from WW1, to attack on various remote areas instead on the main front, and given his background I guess this idea came from his history classes on previous British strategies in Napoleonic war etc. rather than any practical strategical or military consideration. As so many times before, an aristocrat of the upper class pointed on a spot on the map and said 'Let's attack there'.. And it immidiately seemed a brilliant idea, coming from a sooo respectable member of society.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif The 'soft underbellies' was a fixation of Churchill, he tried it in WW1 already (Gallipoli), and re-tried it in WW2, both ending in a disaster, and hurt Churchill politcally quite a bit both times. The plan was flawed in it's roots, and quite naive as it waay overestimated German reliance on Swedish ore, as in 1944 the Swedish export ceased but it did not hurt that much in steel production).

The 'soft underbelly' strategy in WW2 was hardly a disaster. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I meant Gallipoli and Norway. It should be quite clear from the context. Hardly a disaster you say...? Well, compared to the way the war went for Britain between 1939-1942...


The British and US pushed Germany and Italy out of Africa, the Mediterranean and the Balkans.

Balkans...? Mate, fetch a map quickly and rehearse your studies a little bit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
The only period Winnie tried something on the Balkans was in 1941 when he managed to get Greece under German occupation just as he did with Norway and run off with a bloody nose from Crete, despite his later excuses he made up on the subject.


It forced Italy out of the war, tied up German resources that could of been diverted away to other sectors (such as the Eastern Front) and gave airpower dircet access to German industrial and POL sites in Southern Europe.

The question is, how much German resources were tied up in Italy, where they fought an extremely successfull defensive warfare on very very advantagous terrain (lots of hill, narrow frontline) for them. It was by any standards, the most efficient way for the Germans to tie down lots of Allied resources that could be used elsewere with much greater effect. Instead, they were used used in a two-year "Snail Campaign" fighting their way slowly on the Italian peninsula, and when they managed to break through somewhere, the Germans simply fell back to the next defense line which they held for another 6 months. Monte Cassino comes to the mind.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

ImpStarDuece
12-14-2006, 04:52 AM
Perhaps you should look up the role of the RN and RAF played operations in the Mediterranean and Adriatic throughout the war. Pay particular attention to the destroyer and small boat operations carried out with great sucess against German and Italian warships and convoys around the Yugoslav coast, Dubrovnik, Veniece and Triest and the Commando operations supporting partisans and resistance fighters in the area.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

ImpStarDuece,

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

"Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine or idealism."
-Carl Jung

Kurfurst__
12-14-2006, 05:06 AM
I am sure these are all extremely important and unfairly overlooked operations of great importance that few of us heard. Perhaps the British saw them as of great importance, but from the German strategic POV, the whole Mediterranean theatre was a tertiary theatre of operations, with only minimum goals set and correspondingly minimal resources deployed. I am afraid it will be difficult to see this is a revolutionary way. I am afraid I'll stick to common knowladge that the only noteworthy event on the Balkans did not occur until the Red Army arrived in late 1944. In the trails of Tito's brave partisans of course, who by coincidance, maneged to suddenly liberate themselves at the exact same time, instead of playing that old game did so far with Croats of mutually messacring each other's civvies but carefully avoiding any direct clash. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Anyway, any good read on a more vivid version of the events would be...?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

WOLFMondo
12-14-2006, 08:40 AM
It wasn't very minimum when they were doing OK and winning the NA campaign. Not winning NA meant later on the Romanian oil fields could be demolished later on by planes based in NA and there was no way to block middle eastern oil being shipped to the UK.

Had the Germans bothered to put a bit of effort into North Africa...well they did, they just got there asses handed to them...they would had some real fuel rather than synthetic **** no better than frying oilhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Then theres Malta and the waste of man power and materials lost trying to take it. Not to mention the enourmous moral boost to the British public when the axis couldn't take an Island the size of a postage stamp.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Capt Eric Brown says: "I found in general the default joystick settings tended to be oversensitive. With my recommended settings it will give people a real feeling of how they actually flew."

stathem
12-14-2006, 08:59 AM
I'd always thought like that, that the Germans could just have put a bit of effort into North Africa and swept their way to the Middle Eastern Oilfieds...

But then I read a wee book about the Strike wings in the Med, and in there was the revelation; there simply was not enough axis shipping to support any larger forces...especially after the RN and the Beauforts got after them.

To create that shipping would have taken a lot of that steel that was busily getting rusty on the Eastern Front.

For the Germans to compund that error by pouring men into NA so that they could sit the rest of the war out in Allied POW camps is frankly, erm...naive?

Seapower wins again, just like in 1815 and 1918.

British strategic policy since 1798, eh, cor, where did that ever get us?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

Kurfurst__
12-14-2006, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
It wasn't very minimum when they were doing OK and winning the NA campaign.

Well, what the Germans were having in North Africa when they were doing OK and winning was... a single armored Corps, ca. 30 000 men with an armored division, plus correspondingly small air support (which was only beefed up periodically during the Russian winter season). And that's it.


Not winning NA meant later on the Romanian oil fields could be demolished later on by planes based in NA and there was no way to block middle eastern oil being shipped to the UK.

As for rumanian oil fields, they could be just as well attacked from airfields in Egypt etc. Capturing North Africa was not required to bomb them (Crete would have been a requirement earlier on though, that's why it was taken). Actually Rommel's base of operations are further away then the airfields the British already possessed.. In any case, they never managed to demolish the Rumanian oil fields for good, those were lost to the Germans with the Red Army's advance in August 1944.

For the British, North Africa was important, the primary battlefield. For the Germans, it was just a neccesary evil thanks to the Duce.


Had the Germans bothered to put a bit of effort into North Africa...well they did, they just got there asses handed to them...they would had some real fuel rather than synthetic **** no better than frying oilhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Yup, they would only need to march a few thousend kilometers accross North Africa, Egypt and Iran to do that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

All that about what-if etc. were developed post war, in close connection with the mythicizing of Rommel, just to make it look less bad that the tiny Afrika Korps with no experience or equipment at all for in desert warfare kept beating 2-3 times bigger, native-to-the-terrain Commonwealth forces battle after battle..

In reality, the North Africa was only about one thing for them, saving the lame Italian *** who scr*wed up so badly in 1941 aginst a much smaller British force and were on the edge of total annihilation. That the DAK did. Blocking middle eastern oil, and even more so attack the Caucasus through the Middle East is just poor fantasies with no element of reality.


Then theres Malta and the waste of man power and materials lost trying to take it.

In reality all that was happening is that the Luftwaffe periodically neutralised the island as a threat by bombing.
There was never an attempt to actually take it, altough it was considered but declined, given the fact that the Italians were again, lacking for the task.


Not to mention the enourmous moral boost to the British public when the axis couldn't take an Island the size of a postage stamp.

Imagine the running of the war for Britain when the news that the Luftwaffe is bombing the sh*t out of an island and wrecking the Royal Navy around it actually makes a huge morale boost... under conditions where the only news from the front are news of defeat, any news that wasn't about an Axis victory was relatively good.

Not that wartime propaganda improved the situation for anyone at anytime of the war.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

TFulmen
12-14-2006, 08:27 PM
Germany in no official way sent help to Finland and strictly followed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The small aid received from the British and other countries was also volunteerary. Christopher Lee volunteered into the Winter War, if I recall correctly, but didn't arrive until the war was already over.

Actually there were plans and preparations for a full expeditionary force to be sent into Finland, and the Finnish only needed to give the word and the operation was a go. However because of the difficulties like Sweden and Norway not letting the expeditionary force travel through their territory into Finland, led the Finns to believe that the expeditionary force would come in so late that it would be too risky to continue the war, so they agreed for peace with heavy terms.

Stalin did not want Great Britain and France his enemies, so he also agreed to peace. Along other reasons were the tremendous losses on the Russian side and world-wide bad reputation and embarassment.

The Winter War played a crucial role in WWII. Because of the huge failures by the Russians in the Winter War, Stalin was forced to re-think and redesign the whole politruk system and this was just in time for the German invasion of the USSR to fail. Several key updating of equipment, chain of command etc. were also made due to the failures of the Red Army in the Winter War.

Because of the inefficiency of the Red Army seen in the Winter War, Hitler in turn believed that the USSR was a giant with clay feet and greatly underestimated the USSR's fighting power.

Had Finland not been designated as a Soviet sphere of attack in the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, the course of world history might have been very different and Germany might have conquered the USSR.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
12-14-2006, 08:46 PM
Might be of interest:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/41/a3873341.shtml

http://www.aviationarchive.org.uk/stories/storycontents.php?enum=GE132<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/1822.jpg

Xiolablu3
12-14-2006, 09:14 PM
Britain was the only country left in 1940-42 trying to help out those who were in trouble, and basically trying to do the 'right thing' agaisnt the awful horrors and atrocities of the Nazis in Poland/Russia/Czech etc.

Dropping weapons to the resistance in all different countries, fightng the Japanese, Germans AND Italians alone, Malta, Africa, Burma, Britain, France, Norway and on and on.

Do you not think she had juat a little bit too much on her plate already with the whole of Europe/Burma/Afria being annexed by a bunch of Murderous thugs who were intent on wiping out whole races and nationalities? Britain was already swamped trying to help everyone on the West side of Germany in 1940-42, without trying to fly over and cover the East side too! She went to war for Poland, but really could not do much to help her once Germany had walked in and taken over.


Churchill and the UK did their best to help everyone they could in a very bad situation, and they had failures at first, they were totally overwhelemed. Britain was going bankrupt trying to stay in the war, yet still tyring to do what she could for the resistance in all the occupied countries. As soon as she go the tools and weapons, the Germans, Italians and Japs go their asses kicked.

Look at the size of the UK, and the size of Germany,Italy and Japan, plus all the other little 'hangers-on' like Rumania, Austria, Hungary, Croatia who basically threw in the towel at the first sign of it going pear shaped for Hitler and co...

The campaign in Italy was tough but a success, and it prepared the Allies for the bigger DDay, and blooded the Yanks.

Thank God for Churchill (and Roosevelt), who knows what the world would be like today if England had not had a great leader like him (them) to preserve freedom and equality for all. These 2 guys are responsible for Europe being free today.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

WOLFMondo
12-14-2006, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

All that about what-if etc. were developed post war, in close connection with the mythicizing of Rommel,

I'd agree about the way people built up Rommel to be some kind of god. He wasn't as good as people make out.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Capt Eric Brown says: "I found in general the default joystick settings tended to be oversensitive. With my recommended settings it will give people a real feeling of how they actually flew."