Could Finland have won the Winter War if it had, say, ten

>>32363140
Wait, Finland lost?

>>32363180
They were close to full collapse when the peace treaty was signed.

>>32363180
They lost territory like Karelia and didn't get it back.

>>32363140
They lost but they made Russia bleed for every metre of land they took.

I don't think howitzers would have made a difference.

File: ))))))))))))))).png (236KB, 595x528px)

236KB, 595x528px

>>32363180
>lose twice as many soldiers as the enemy to capture a nothing plot of land
ABSOLUTE VICTORY COMRADE

File: 66385-283x360.jpg (35KB, 283x360px)

35KB, 283x360px

>>32363295
>Thank you great purge

>>32363295
It is. See this video from 4:50: https://vimeo.com/128373915

>>32363140
Finland did have a small and largely outdated artillery, but the biggest issue wasn't the number nor quality of the equipment, but a severe shortage of ammunition (we are talking about a "less than five shells per gun per day" -level shortage)

>>32363140
They won, though.

Friendly reminder that Soviets wanted to turn Finland into a socialist shithole a la the Baltic states.

>>32363295
>twice
Soviet/Russian figures range from "far less than Finnish losses" (during and after the war) to "one million" (Krushchev's claim in the height of his "Stalin was a bad person" -campaign), other countries' estimates vary greatly as well

>>32364585
>Friendly reminder that Soviets wanted to turn Finland into a socialist shithole a la the Baltic states.
I am actually amazed that at the same time he was installing his puppets all over Eastern Europe, Stalin made an exception when the Finnish communists started urging Stalin to send Soviet tanks into Finland to support the coup they (the Finnish communists) were planning at the time, they might have succeeded too had Stalin agreed (communists had already infiltrated Valpo, Finland's secret police, and were in the middle of arranging the transfer of the most Soviet-friendly officers of the Finnish military into positions where they could hinder FDF's ability to put up a fight)

>>32363236
...so they did not? So they did not lose?

>>32363269
AFAIK, the alternative would´ve been a complete occupation, conversion to communism, and everything going to hell for over half a century. Just look at / ask any Baltic citizen.

>>32365232
Not sure, Stalin was actually negotiating with the Finns, instead of putting a gun to their heads as with the Baltics.

There are a lot of misconceptions about the winter war. While it is true that it was a hard fought victory for the Soviets, they did in fact win and obviously so. Let's examine the cause of the war and the outcome.

1) Stalin asks for pieces of Finnish land, primarily to create a territorial buffer around Leningrad.

2) Finland refuses, the Soviet Union attacks.

3) A hard war is fought but Finland is on the edge of collapse and the Soviets are breaking through.

4) A peace treaty is signed in which the Soviet Union got every piece of land they demanded.

How is this not a complete victory? They wanted something and they took it. It's that simple.

>>32365699
>2) Finland refuses, the Soviet Union attacks.
only the unreasonable demands for the islands on Gulf of Finland plus a military base on Finnish soil plus part of the demanded land on Karelian isthmus (plus the refusal to dismantle the defenses on the Isthmus), most of the demanded land Finland was ready to exchange for the land Soviets offered north of Ladoga.

>>32365398
>Stalin was actually negotiating with the Finns
Yeah, after framing them of being responsible of bombing their troops, just to get a "permission" to start an all out war, then getting BTFO by farmers and hunters with minimal training and gear, partly because he himself executed most of his experienced military leaders out of pure paranoia + ordered to start an assault in the middle of winter.

tl;dr: Finns put up way more fight than ruskies anticipated. Baltics didn´t have the manpower or time to do jack shit really.

>>32365699
>They wanted something and they took it.
yeah, let´s just pretend there wasn´t hundreds of troops boarding trains leaving for Helsinki, the capital city of Finland, wearing mostly parade gear so they could start up the part when Finns would just flee out of their way.

Buffer zones my ass; Stalin wanted to restore the once autonomous area of Finland back to Russia altogether. Not to mention what Ruskies wanted was pretty much the same as them demanding USA to give up states of Washington, Oregon and California : fucking ridiculous.

>>32365699

Winter War was not total Soviet victory simply because the Soviet plan was to occupy whole Finland and turn it into a Soviet republic. Even grand majority of Russian historians have come to that conclusion. For example see Kuusinen's Terijoki government, which was puppet government that the Soviets created for Finland.

The war proved much more difficult for the Soviets than they had originally anticipated. Ultimately military assistance (troops and weapons) promised by France and UK to Finland made Stalin scared of being mixed into French/British - German war as German ally in year 1940. Hence he decided to accept negotiated peace with Finland.

When it came to reasons that the Soviets officially claimed to have started Winter War for, the later history ridiculed their choices. They claimed that they wanted security barrier for Leningrad that was with-in artillery range from Finnish border and were questioning if Finnish military was capable fighting against larger adversary. Red Army took a beating from small and poorly equipped Finnish Army in Winter War, year 1941 Finnish offensive took the frontline back to pre-1939 border and kept it there until 1944 - but Finnish artillery never shelled Leningrad. Before Winter War the Soviets were scared of the Finns allowing the Germans to attack through their territory, but at that time Finnish - German political relations were so poor that there was basically zero chance of that happening. Winter War and constant Soviet bullying after it pushed Finland right into German lap and resulted German - Finnish military co-operation with both countries attacking to Soviet Union in summer 1941.

>>32363180

Yes

Try reading a book sometime

>>32366399
Nice arguments and evidence.
This thread alone is pretty good proof that a "loss" would´ve meant a complete annihilation of Finland as a country.

>>32366798

Other anons have already presented arguments with evidence.

The notion that only the total destruction of Finland as a sovereign nation can be construed as a Finnish defeat flies in the face of the actual historical evidence, hence the lengthy whining about body counts, or "moral victory".

>>32366841
>historical evidence
Historical evidence of what? An american lardass shitposting on an anonymous imageboard, or a paid russian trollfactory worker shitpositng on same site?

Hell, ask any of the ex-commie countries how "nice" it was under the Soviet control, or how "willing" they really were to take the red army into their country. That same faith was exactly what Stalin had in mind for Finland as well.

>>32363180
>finnboo education

>>32364552
What if they had 10 modern howitzers and infinite ammo?

File: hiihto sa-int.jpg (128KB, 637x475px)

128KB, 637x475px

>>32363140
Could Finland have won the Winter War if it had, say, hundred thousand modern skis?

>>32367030
>Historical evidence of what

Things like the Soviet demands in diplomatic meetings both before and during the conflict, the actual resolution of the conflict, and the dictionary definition of a military victory.

I do give you credit for using quotes to indicate the irrelevance of your own post.

>>32368035
different anon, it's quite clear that Soviets never had any intention of getting what they wanted through mere negotiations, otherwise they would have made their demands more reasonable, and the things they demanded weren't really worth the trouble of going to war & the hate and distrust it would bring with it, then there's the fact they tried to cut Lapland off from the rest of the country, the only imaginable reason they would bother to do that would be preparing a staging area for invasion of Sweden in order to capture the Swedish iron mines.

>>32368304
>it's quite clear that Soviets never had any intention of getting what they wanted through mere negotiations

How so? Some other Baltic states allowed to be annexed entirely without a shot being fired, how does the mere concession of 10% of Finnish territory be construed as unreasonable?

Why did the Soviets and Finns negotiate for months if there was no intention of achieving their demands without war?

Given the Soviet affinity for buffer zones, how is their territorial demand not worth the trouble?

>>32368354
>How so? Some other Baltic states allowed to be annexed entirely without a shot being fired, how does the mere concession of 10% of Finnish territory be construed as unreasonable?
I have listed the unreasonable demands above (exchanging Karelian isthmus for a larger area north of Ladoga wasn't the unreasonable part, in fact it was the most reasonable demand), you have had plenty of time to read them a thousand times, I am not going to repeat them.

>>32368463

So leasing land for a base and some islands is actually the most unreasonable demand? OK then.

What is "reasonable" is subjective and if you are going to make the allegation that the Soviets always intended to invade regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, one must provide proof.

What scholars have dug up thus far with declassified Soviets communications does not side with your claims.

>>32368532
>So leasing land for a base and some islands is actually the most unreasonable demand? OK then.
leasing a base to a foreign power is a breach of neutrality, handing over the islands to Soviets would have given them near complete control of Gulf of Finland any time they felt like taking it, something they wouldn't need for purely defensive purposes, not when they were planning on annexing Estonia with her quite extensive coastal defenses (courtesy of Czar Nicholas II) anyway, I mean those coastal batteries could reach the Finnish shore, making any hostile ships passing through the Gulf easy pickings.

>>32368657

Then it seems completely reasonable from the Soviet point of view. What was the strategic value of those islands for the Finns?

>>32368727
>Then it seems completely reasonable from the Soviet point of view. What was the strategic value of those islands for the Finns?
which part of "Soviets could take near complete control of the Gulf of Finland any time they wanted to" is too hard for you to understand? Handing over those islands would have been a naval blockade waiting to happen, the sea lanes on the Gulf were and still are essential for Finland's trade & with the islands in Soviet hands there would have been little Finland could do to protect those sea lanes if Soviets wanted to start a blockade. This is the Finnish POV.

The Soviet POV is like this: they were going to seize the Estonian coastal defenses anyway & as such didn't need the islands to deny passage of hostile ships through the Gulf, even though at the time Finns didn't know of the Soviet plans for Estonia, Soviets sure as Hell knew they didn't need the islands, yet they were equally adamant about getting them as Finland was about not handing them over.

File: K9 Thunder.jpg (144KB, 625x469px)

144KB, 625x469px

>>32363140
Timoshenko's later strategy to push through the Finnish defense greatly involved actually using his artillery effectively on the Mannerheim Line, along with spotters in the air. If the Finns had modern howitzers, they may have provided a counter to that on the front. Modern howitzers would be a lot better at counter-battery fire than the 1940 counterparts due to the radar and much better fire control. If we're going to speak specifically about the K9 Thunders in OP's pic, even their basic HE max range is about 18 miles, which is higher than the range of the heaviest Soviet guns on the field, which were the massive 203mm howitzers. The K9 guns also have a firing rate of about 6 rounds per minute, and are rated to be able to survive up to 14.5mm AP rounds and 152mm shell fragments. They are also very mobile and could no doubt stand up to Finland's forest terrain. So no doubt Finland would have a great boost to their artillery power.

However, I'm not sure if even 10 K9's will be enough of a support to actually push off the invasion force and end the Winter War without Finland surrendering. Even if foreign support made sure they wouldn't run out of ammo and fuel, there were just so many Soviet tanks and guns on the field. In the later stages of the war, there were 77 Soviet guns per kilometer on the front lines, and 36 tanks per kilometer. They also had total air superiority, and even though Finnish anti-air was doing their best, Timoshenko's pilots were elite and were doing a mighty fine job of softening the line's defenses. It's really a question of whether the 10 K9s we hypothetically give the Finns can survive long enough to significantly reduce this advantage enough to give the Finns a fighting chance.

File: ,.png (126KB, 500x562px)

126KB, 500x562px

>>32364605
>Soviet/Russian figures

How is the k9? Is it a good howitzer?

>>32368907

So now the Soviets go from intending to occupy Finland entirely, down to controlling a sea lane which didn't actually get blockaded ever when the Soviets took control of the islands after they won the war. Which is it?

Now looking at a map you claim Estonian batteries could reach Finland, a distance of approximately 40 miles. Seems a bit far-fetched, and the actual stated reason during negotiations for the Soviets to demand a lease on the islands is to protect the seaward approach to (at the time) Leningrad, so your claim that they don't "need" the islands contradicts the historical record. The onus is on you to prove some other motive.

>>32370334
>So now the Soviets go from intending to occupy Finland entirely, down to controlling a sea lane which didn't actually get blockaded ever when the Soviets took control of the islands after they won the war. Which is it?
I never said they were definitely going to blockade the Finnish coast, I only said that with the islands (as well as the Red Banner Baltic fleet-) Soviets could do it at will, which Finland couldn't risk, on the other hand Finland couldn't really use the islands to threaten Leningrad, Finland could have (and in fact did, with Germany's help, in 1941-) blockaded the Red banner Baltic fleet into the Eastern end of the Gulf, but that's it, Leningrad wasn't dependent on open sea lanes for survival, the Finnish economy however *was* dependent on the sea lanes on the Gulf remaining open, in other words Soviets could well afford to not have the islands, Finland could not.

>and the actual stated reason during negotiations for the Soviets to demand a lease on the islands is to protect the seaward approach to (at the time) Leningrad, so your claim that they don't "need" the islands contradicts the historical record.
they weren't going to lease the fucking islands, they were going to keep them permanently (as they have to this day) and no they wouldn't have needed the islands just to protect the seaward approach to Leningrad when they were planning on annexing Estonia with the coastal batteries intact, and at the narrowest point the guns with the longest range (43km) could in fact reach the other shore, this was the whole idea of building those batteries on both shores.