I have thought a long time for now, what does other people around the globe think of Finland's role in world war2. As there are those, who think Finland was an axis country, full breed ally of Nazis and those that realize that it was totally something else and more than as it seems to be in the first glance.

So tell me here, what do you know about Finland war history, regarding the WW2, no matter if it is about Winter War or Continuation war, but preferably I would like to hear opinions or your knowledge about both, as they are connected to each other, in the end. I will join the conversation as much as I can, offering my knowledge in exchange about the issue and hopefully shed some light to some common misunderstandings that some might have.

I think I will announce the updates here and only edit the one message to keep the historical oversight cleaner, than if i were to correct and clarify mistakes made previously, if one is noticed. I will comment different aspects that people throw here though.

Also, if you like to help with the peacefull returning of Finnish Karelia and all those lost territorias as thei were in Peace of Tartu, please sign this plea (http://www.adressit.com/karjala_takaisin) for raising the question as part of Totalitarian communist crimes research process.

I believe that Finland's role early on in the war was due to the USSR's (Mostly Stalin's though) Aggression. At this point it was defending itself.

However, with the coming of the Nazi's, when the Finlands decided to side with them and attack the USSR then they became the aggressors. Even if it was just to retake their lost land, they still attacked and thus incurred the wrath of Russia.

Overall, I would say that Finland's role in WW2 was major in that it incouraged Germany to attack the USSR (Notdirectly, but by inflicting such heavy casualties and completly embarrasing the Russians, it showed a weaknes) the Finns made a mistake and missed the oppurtunity to strike a heavy moral blow against the USSR by falling Leningrad.

This is only my opinion though.

Finland was only defending the country and trying to regain the lost land robbed by Stalin is IMO nothing more than self defense.

Adler

Finland was only defending the country and trying to regain the lost land robbed by Stalin is IMO nothing more than self defense.

Adler

Then we have diffrent ideas of what self-defence is...

I believe that when a Peace Treaty is signed, then the war is over. The land that is taken is taken and is now the property of the new owner so long as he can control it.

Thus, Finland became the aggressor when it turned its back on that Peace Treaty and attacked.

I will never support Stalin. I am merely going by how I define, "Peace Treaty", "Self-Defence", "Aggressor" and ect.

Hell, if Mexico, following the war, invaded the US (Tough chance) to regain its lost land, who you consider that Self-Defence? I think not...

To my mind Finland was neither a Nazi country nor a complete ally of Germany in the sense that they could be bullied and co-erced by Hitler. It did however present the Western Allies with a considerable headache due to our later alliance with the USSR. Prior to this I believe the British and French were not unsympathetic to the Finish cause (especially since the non agression pact between the Nazis and Soviets meant that the USSR wasn't viewed very favourably in the west prior to Barbarossa) albeit for their own reasons. Overall I think the British would have preferred to not have to fight Finland, but found it necessary as a price for the USSR's survival.

Heh, same kind of arguments as here in Finland from opposing parties that do agree with the Soviet's view of how things were and those who disagree with that. As on commonly known and very often occurring problem is, that during the Soviet Union, documents of how things were done, or happened, were very often changed to favor the Soviet Union, the same way that China operates today. That have made historians work very hard in time to time, as they can't be so certain, which data is unaltered and which isn't. That is why they are uncertain in many things, like how many victims Soviet Union really had (in cleansing, genocide etc.). It has been said that it could be ranged even at 50 million or higher, as there are some data that refers that it is possible, though not proving it to be truth.

What comes to this braking the peace treaty, Russia held Finland responsible of braking it when Finland was trying to forge the Scandinavian Defense Pact with Sweden before the Continuation War, as the Moscow peace treaty denied Finland to make any such alliances that could be a threat to Soviet Union. They saw it as a threat to them, thus making the treaty rendered obsolete on their point of view. So in that light, they used the opportunity to break the peace and finish off the job they have started, as the first try had terribly gone wrong.

What comes to the British, Churchill even said "now we have to shave before going in to battle, as we are fighting gentlemen". Heh, but to the other facts; Britain never made any major war operations in Finland and that fact backs up the claim Privatehudson said, about having some sympathy towards Finland and its position. I can't, however, verify that, but I do know one reason why England did announce war against Finland in the end. They couldn't afford to loosing Russia as they ally, by not giving any sign of co-operation or sympathy towards Russia and as Finland did similarly with Nazis, England did with Russians; formally declared war, but never took it so far as to attack by full force available.

What comes to Finland's declaration of war towards Russia, it has been widely confirmed, that was not the case. Almost all Finnish Historians agree with this, many foreign Historians agree with this ans numbers are growing, as foreign historians research the material before, during and post war.

Briefly the start of the war went like this; When Nazis ordered their attack against SU, Mannerheim ordered Finnish and German forces in Finland's territory to not attack before SU's first aggression. Two days after Nazis declaration of war, SU bombed 13 Finnish towns with around 500 bombers, thus starting the Finland's advance towards the battle, that many feared to happen from since the day Moscow Peace treaty was signed. As it was widely known in Finland and almost any other country, that Stalin cannot be trusted. What happened to the Balkans, were a great example of it, as Russia declared those lands as theirs in 1940. Thus, what began as a military co-protection, become a warless conquest. Same kind of treaty was offered to Finland, but knowing it's risks, Finland refused. It appeared to be a wise decision.

I will explain further in to detail about these claims in the future, but some of it you can read at Wikipedia's article Continuation War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_war), and there the Talk Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Continuation_War). As you can see, the Neutrality of that document is disputed.

And sorry for the quality of this text, I'm kind of tired, as it is 6.00 am and haven't got any sleep yet :D So please bare with me.

Oh, and one more thing. What comes to Peace Treaties and their demands, they are usually valid, but Moscow Peace treaty's demands for territory and all other demands towards Finland, were not recognized as valid by majority of nations in the world. Allies said to Finland, that Finland will get it's lands back, but in the end, it wasn't going to be. As things didn't go as smoothly as some were hoping and there came another threat to Finland, Nazis that had started occupation of Norway, thus cutting Finland effectively off from the Allies. Therefore, help never came from the allies, even though Britain tried to cut off Nazis from the iron ore mines in Norway. But at that time, not much could be achieved, as Britain had to defend it's own lands with raw majority of its forces against Nazis and there were not enough resources to defend Norway too, as America was not in war against the Nazis with rest of the allies yet. So what was Finland to do, when another super power comes from the west and another sits on the east.. Russians could not be trusted and Nazis were bad guys also, but more controllable, as Russians were thick headed with what they wanted and would not back down as easily. This proved to be right, as Hitler demanded official alliance many ears later, 1944. After that, it was merely a mutual aid process in the northern frontier. Finland didn't even agree to many of Hitlers request, as two of them as important as conquest of Leningrad, that would have been a serious blow to Russia and cutting off Murmansk railway, that would effectively cutting of the lend-lease help from the close proximity of Finland, thus making Northern operations easier for Finland and Nazis. Finland didn't agree to do neither of them. There were complaints about those, but Finland had to prove its loyalty in other ways and Finland had it's own say to what it could do. That was something that Finland would not have been able to do with Russians.

I've always admired the Finns. Instead of rolling over for the agrressors like most of the smaller countries did in the lead up to WWII, they fought. They fought well enought to actually preserve independence and they bloodied Stalin's nose.

If I remember correctly, the Finns advanced only to the pre-Winter War borders, refused to attack or allow attacks beyond those lines and frustrated German attempts to fully encircle Leningrad.

Whether the Continuation War was a just war or not, revanchism in a nation which was unjustly invaded and had peace terms dictated at the point of a gun is understandable. Were I a Finn in 1940 I would support jumping on the bandwagon and marching back into Petsamo.

Finland was only defending the country and trying to regain the lost land robbed by Stalin is IMO nothing more than self defense.

Adler

Agreed.

ten char

If I remember correctly, the Finns advanced only to the pre-Winter War borders,

You don't remember correctly. Crossing the old borders makes it bit more difficult say that Finland was just defending itself. I don't know how realistic option making peace would have been, perhaps not very.

^Well they don't call it the 'Continuation War' for no reason. The USSR was already 100% at fault for commencing the hostilities, and things were far from 'settled' with the armistice ending the Winter War. Some of the terms of the agreement were pure extortion IMO.

In the longview, it was all probably inevitable after declaring indepence from the Russki Empire in the chaos of 1917-18. The Russians don't like to let anyone go, without maximum hassle. Look at Chechnya for example.

So, they fought. They fought some more. And... it got them where they are today. Not bad.

Anyway as far as being 'cold blooded Axis partners to the evil Nazis'... not quite. IMO Finland technically functioned as an Axis member, but it was under unique circumstances. This was indeed recognized at the time, as for example Finland was the only Axis nation (or nation that fought with the Axis... whatever you want to call 'em) that the USA never declared war upon.

Britain did though -earlier on- mainly just to try to kiss up (improve relations) with the Soviets a bit.

Technically the Finns were "only" allies to Germany in the way the US was in ww1 to the Entente. They never were "real" allies, more cobelligerent parties.

Adler

Did the Finns take any actions against Jews? Specifically deportations like the Italians?

Yes, Finns did advance further than their original borders, but they only declared the previously lost lands as theirs, not all the lands they had captured, as they functioned as buffer zone. As said before, Finns could have advanced further, but didn't, even though Hitler was demanding Finns to do so, but not hard enough, it seems. At Karelian isthmus, Finns did stop advancing on the old borders and refused to aid Germans to take Leningrad (todays St. Petersburg). And as said before, both acts, advancing further than they did, would have helped a lot in winning the war agains russia, but also would have helped Germany more than Finnish government would have wanted, as they were trying to make the war harder for Germany, so Germans would not occupy Finland after victory. By doing as they did, prolonged the war, as Finns were fighting with Germany against Russia, but it had to be done in order to maintain independent. I would like to point out also, that it is no means a crime, if defender breaches its own original boarders and gains extra foothold from the aggressor and search for optimal defense positions. Finland even tried to make peace in 1943 with the borders of peace of tartu, but Soviet Union declined to that suggestion. Germany did see this and were not happy and ordered again, that there will be no peace negotiations unless Great-Germany agrees with it.

Also, Finland was the whole time a democratic country, there were never Fascist rule, as some have thought. There was a little Fascist party, formed as a sign of mutual trust because Finland didn't agree to sign an alliance with Germany, only aid contract. In order to do that, there had to be done something to gain their trust, if not agreeing to sign the alliance. Hence the little offerings of these signs of mutual trust that Finland had to make. I would also press that Finland's leaders, nor Finnish people's morality was never the same as Germany's rulers and in no way tied to German war policy of the time, except that we had a common enemy. Finland allied officially with Germany in 1944, before the war was ending, in order to maintain the aid that Finland got from Germany. The treaty was signed only by Risto Ryti and the Alliance treaty was never passed the approval of the congress, nor it was shown to them. It was a strategy to not bind Finland entirely to Germany in any other way than with one man's sacrifice, as our President, Risto Ryti and military leaders knew, that even if Finland's survival is guaranteed by signing the alliance, it would condemn the country.

Again, Finland had to be tricky and sign it the way that would save Finland's reputation and not bind Finland to Germans fate. That is why Risto Ryti is seen widely as a martyr, at least in Finland. Practically the whole nation knew it back then and that is why today, his or any others name has not been cleared (that were condemned without doing any sort of criminal during the war), as the people think that they never lost their dignity, as even if they are still condemned officially, people know that they were trialled and condemned wrongfully.

Finland never saw jews as disposable scum, nor as a lower race or such as Germans did, so Finland never joined with racial purification activities like that. Neither when fighting Russia, Finland didn't allow shooting war prisoners at will. If done so, there had to be a very good reason for it, just like in any army that follows international laws. If there was such a miss conduct, the person responsible were court marshaled.

Commonly those, who think that Finland was a full blooded ally of Nazi Germany and fascist country, mix up the goals of Germany with the Goals of Finland in Continuation War. Even one Russian historian, back in 1981 announced publicly that the continuation war entirely Stalins fault. hence, he was exiled from the Soviet Union and after the collapse, in 1991, he repeated that statement. What he meant, was that Finland had no other choice than to try to seek help from Germany, because of Soviet Unions constant aggressions and demands toward Finland, effectively backing Finland to a corner. At that corner, the only straw was Nazi Germany an so fort, was the necessary choice, if Finland wanted to remain independent. This also confirms, that Finland was thrown in the situation and robbed of over 12% of it's lands and ordered to pay 300 000 000 gold dollars for SU. The committee consisted of 200 Soviet Union members and 15 Britain members, so it is clear that the committee drove a very strong Pro-Soviet side of things. it is said, though that Britain managed to bargain the amount of war payments (don't remember what it was called in english) from 1 500 000 000 gold dollars to 300 000 000.

Right. BTW: Two Finnish officers of Mosaic belief were credited with the Iron Cross! Both refused that order!

Adler

Germany and USSR signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, imperialistically dividing eastern Europe. Finland refused a treaty which could have led to annexing, just like in other countries, leading to a war. The Soviet Union started the war by blaming finns for their own fake border incident.

Finland refused proposals of help from Britain and France fearing that the capture of Kiruna mines in northern Sweden might cause Germany to attack and overrun Finland.

After the war some officers wanted to get the lost areas back, others didn't.
Finland had rights of passage with both superpowers, in civ terms -4 "you have traded with our worst enemies" and the same back towards Germany. Hitler claimed that Finland would join in the Operation Barbarossa, thus making the USSR bomb Finland, resulting in a war.

When Axis side was losing Finland tried to end the war as soon as possible and expelled the geman soldiers from Lapland by force.

Simple realpolitik.

Finland was an ally of the Axis, but it wasn't a fascist state. I would like that option.

Ally against their will, that is

^ Ally by default, more accurately... since the League of Nations hung them out to dry when the 'Sov-Jets' attacked & invaded (after which time, a lot of members started withdrawing from the League).

What they should have done is protect Finland in the same way they did Poland. But then, more than likely the Unholy Alliance between the USSR and Nazi Germany would have forged, and that would have been a 'highly interesting' WWII to say the least.

Did the Finns take any actions against Jews? Specifically deportations like the Italians?

I've read somewhere that Finnish leader Mannerheim (sp?) refused to take actions against Finnish Jews (althrough there weren't many of them in Finland).

As to how I would characterize Finland.. well, they did fight on the same side as Hitler, but in the other side, Finland's decision to ally with Germany was the resulf of Winter War, which was began by Stalin, so I am pretty neutral towards its role in the war.

Did the Finns take any actions against Jews? Specifically deportations like the Italians?

I think the overall policy of the government was to protect minorities in Finland such as Jews and the Roma people.

In the Winter War Finland was purely for self-defence. Unlike the Baltic States it didn't sign the pact with the Soviet Union which enabled the Soviets to build military bases in the Baltic States, and later allowed them to annex the Baltic States. Finland during the war wasn't expecting any help from Germany. But France and the United Kingdom had offered Finland military aid in the way of forces. However, the German invasion of Norway prevented that from being realized. Also, Sweden refused to allow the Allied forces passage through Northern Sweden to Finnish Lapland. Finally when the Allied presented Finland with the estimation that Allied forces would be able reach Finland in April/May 1940 at the earliest, this was one of the reasons why Finland simply had to seek peace.

After the Winter War Finland allowed German forces to enter the country through northern Norway and take charge of the defence of Lapland. However, doing so was the only sensible thing to do at the time. As France had fallen and the Allies couldn't help Finland in any way anymore. Being wedged between Germany and the Soviet Union, Finland's best bet was to side with Germany.

After operation Barbarossa began in the 22th of June 1941, Finland didn't join the fight immediately. However, the forces of Finland were already grouped on the border along with German forces, so the attack commencing from Finland was only a matter of time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Continuation-War-1941.png/284px-Continuation-War-1941.png

And after soviet planes bombed targets in Finland the attack commenced from Finland as well. Finland's goal along with the recapture of all lost territories (official) was to annex ethnically Karelian areas from Olonets Karelia to Finland long with other areas such as the Kola penisula. It's quite hard to claim self-defence in that. During operation Bagration in 1944, Finland was pushed back to nearly the borders of the peace of Moscow which had ended the Winter War. After that it became a battle for survival for Finland and the last portion of the Continuation War is mostly self-defence for Finland. For if the Finnish forces (with German supply and weaponry support) hadn't stopped the Soviets at Tali/Ihantala, Finland would have been annexed. This is atleast how the end of the Continuation War is seen in Finland.

As for Finland being an Axis contry or not. During the time of the war in Finland it was mostly emphasized that the Continuation War was separate from Barbarossa. and that Finland and Germany were "Brothers in Arms" rather than exact allies. Personally, I'd count it as an Axis country.

Just few minor arguments about Finland's role as an axis country; Finland president Risto Ryti signed the alliance only after several years after the war had began, in 1944, without passing the agreement through congress first, thus holding personal responsibility of the pact made. And as there have been several people referring correctly, the facts behind these events shows more of a siding unwillingly with Germans, where there was not any other options than play along with Nazis, thus not making it a real Axis country, but more of a co-belligerence country, as they had the same enemy, not same goals.

It is also true, that in Nazi Germany's plans, Finland had a key role in Barbarossa, but Finland had nothing to say to those plans, nor influence them. Finland was a pawn of Nazis and it has come to surface that Hitler had plans to occupy Finland after the war and Finland took notice to this, as in Finland they knew that they were not safe from either party, not from Stalin, nor Hitler. It was well known in Finland, that we could not trust the Germans too much but needed their help to defend Finland. In other words, play between two warring superpowers or fall like Norway, if not even more violently.

Finland did capture more land and officially Finland had plans to conquer the lands of Karelia, as the independence attempts of eastern Karelia were broken in 1922 completely, thus the "liberation" of eastern Karelia failed. And with Liberation is meant that most of the eastern Karelian people were considered Finnish. In 1941 Mannerheim renewed his sword scabbard declaration to free eastern Karelia officially, but also, Finland only declared the Peace of Tartu borders as her own, not the entirety of the lands Finland occupied. It is also totally legal for defender to gain as strong foothold as it possibly can against an aggressor, just like Finland did. Also I have read that Finland tried to make peace with Russia in 1943 with peace conditions that borders of peace of Tartu would be returned, but Russia rejected this. It also says that Hitler did get clue on this and reminded strongly that Finland was not allowed to make peace offerings with Russia if not agreed by Germany, otherwise Finland could be held as a traitor and treated as such.

So basically, Finland didn't brake any international laws by doing what it did and only thing Finland was convicted as a war criminal, was that 1. Finland was against peace, when not accepting allied offer for peace with Russia after the beginning of Continuation war and 2. because Finland allied with Germany in the end, no matter that it was Ryti him self that took responsibility entirely for him self with signing it without passing it to the congress first, thus making it his personal alliance. In other words, he had to sacrifice him self, in order not to tie Finland too tightly to the Nazis.

1. If Finland would have done as Allied requested and had made peace after Soviet Union attacked, Finland would have been thrown against the Germans and thus Finland would have been effectively between two fires, as like before, Soviet Union could have demanded the same thing as earlier, free passage through Finland's territory, thus making Finland go the way of the Balcan. Finland could have been easily occupied by Soviets and driving Finland in war with Germany that had its troops deep inside Finland, thus destroying some major northern and middle Finland's cities to ruins if not damaging southern cities also. Finland would have become the battlefield instead of the border regions, which gives full understanding to their choice not to agree to make peace when it could possibly destroy the whole country, much more likely than defending it with German aid.

2. Same with the alliance with Nazis, Ryti did it, because he knew how badly Finland would suffer, if at that critical stage Germany would pull out the material support, Finland would possibly lose even more land than with Moscow peace treaty if not even her independence, thus making it essential to sign the agreement that Hitler demanded to be signed in 1944. Is it criminal to sign a treaty with gun pointed at your head from both directions?

In this light, Finland's conviction was only a political act, not a legal issue. It is well known also, that only reason some of the allies declared war to Finland after joining the Continuation war declared by Russia, was a political pressure from Russia and fear of loosing Russia as one of their ally, as Russia was a in a key position in the success of defeating Nazi Germany. Without Russia, war would have not been won as quickly as it was, possibly it would've been even lost.

By that argument it is only justice that Finland would get it's old borders back. Finland were basically held as a political hostage by Russia that had an interest to occupy Finland entirely, failing in it and thus giving Stalin even better reason to smear Finland's reputation after war and try to take over via Finnish communists, as Soviet Union did try in the coming ears after the war, far in (or almost, at least) to the ending days of Soviet reign.

Some Russians do know this and would want to return all wrongly taken areas to their rightful owner, but there are a very different kind of people in power and very much of the nation is subdued to the sweet dream of Greater Russia, including those who want to see Communism back and those who would wanna see Russia as an Imperialistic Country, ruled by Tzar again. Most of the history regarding war times has been altered to give more positive belligerence to Soviet achievements, even to Soviet partisan activity, partisans are held in a great value and as heroes, even when they did all those atrocities to civilians behind the lines. As said before, many Finns also lost their whole families because of partisan strikes. I'm not certain though, but I think Finland was not only country who's families suffered from Soviet partisans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDzIpg3bEEM

Theres some "interesting" counter view of how things went.

Maasu: "yawn".

Anyway, I think the Finns got off lightly after WW2. Compared to the eastern European countries.

Maasu: "yawn".

Anyway, I think the Finns got off lightly after WW2. Compared to the eastern European countries.
Do you mean to say "Got out of it more or less allright"?

Otherwise, aren't you somehow implying that Soviet occupation and satellitisation were somehow a more or less deserved punishment for these eastern European countries?

Obivously the Finns gout out of WWII in decent shape by comparison, considering the stakes involved.

The fact that Finland broke the pre-existing treaty and attacked the USSR at a time when the USSR was not looking for war doesn't necesarily go against the argument that Finland acted in self-defense.
Does anyone seriously believe that 1939 was the end of Stalin's ambitions in Finland? The peace there meant about as much to Stalin as the Treaty of Riga with Poland did. Finland was not exactly in a shape to just brush off a future soviet invasion- Barbarossa gave the Finns a rare opportunity to fight a divided and distracted Soviet force.
As for the moral implications of siding with Hitler against Stalin, in 1941 there was no real decision to be made. Stalin made Hitler look like the Adorable Puppykins by comparison and in any case Finland could not have exerted any real influence on the amount of damage Germany was able to do either way, except possibly at Leningrad.

Soviet goal in the Winter war was to push border away from Leningrad. Stalin started war not because he wanted just to collect more land, this territory had strategical importance. And the fact that border was farther from Leningrad in 1941 probably saved the country in WW2.

In this terms, in Winter war USSR was aggressor, and Finland was defending itself.
After 22 of June, 1941, USSR was defending, Finland was Nazi's ally and aggressor.

Soviet goal in the Winter war was to push border away from Leningrad. Stalin started war not because he wanted just to collect more land, this territory had strategical importance. And the fact that border was farther from Leningrad in 1941 probably saved the country in WW2.
Only on the assumption Finland would have waged an aggressive war alongside Germany, on the Soviet Union, even without first getting jumped by the USSR in the Winter War.

Which is a bloody unlikely scenario.

Only on the assumption Finland would have waged an aggressive war alongside Germany, on the Soviet Union, even without first getting jumped by the USSR in the Winter War.

Which is a bloody unlikely scenario.

Or they would allow German troops to attack from their territory. Or they would be invaded by Hitler. Who knows?

Or they would allow German troops to attack from their territory. Or they would be invaded by Hitler. Who knows?
In which case the Soviet Union would just have looked on with equanimity you mean?

I mean there was danger that Germans attacked Leningrad right from Finland's territory. Either with Finland agreement or without. The second largest city in the USSR close to the border was very vulnerable, and losing it would be disastrous. That was the reason of Stalin's offer of exchanging this territory to bigger but less important one.

The Hanko peninsula (another goal of Winter war) also had no value to USSR except as military base. Stalin offered to rent it before war as well.

I'd say Finland was just defending itself.

Stalin's "offers" were not much else than blackmail and attempts to annex Finland. It was impossible for Finland to agree to it!

Adler

Stalin's "offers" were not much else than blackmail and attempts to annex Finland. It was impossible for Finland to agree to it!

Adler
Yes, well, after the annihilation of the Soviet 44th Motorised Infantry Division Finnish intelligence officers found documents detailing the Soviet occupation and annexation of all of Finland. As indicated by these documents it also transpired that Stalin's pre-hostility offers were simply the first steps towards the forcible annexation of Finland, had the Finns accepted.

It was the same kind of deals the Baltic states were compelled to make. They were annexed. Good on the Finns for turning these offers down. The only way to try to secure national independance in 1939 was to fight the Soviet Union.

Btw, this turned into a loong post.:)

Stalin might have been genuinely worried about the Leningrad flank. But the only resolution to that he would offer was the forcible annexation of these smaller states, in toto, whatever proposals were made along the way towards that final goal.

And the way to do it was to cut a deal with Hitler and the use of force. These smaller states never had any chance to do anything much but a) fold and give up independance, or b) potentially end up fighting Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union simultaneously. The Poles ended up exactly like that. The Finns might have.
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rzieger/Pact.jpg
And you know what, that was exactly how Stalin and Hitler liked it.

Russians retrospectively complaining about a surviving minor, Finland being just about the only survivor from the Soviet-German divying up of things, treating the Soviet Union as a mortal threat to national independance don't exactly have much credibility. Sorry, but that's the situation.

As was observed by the Finnish Prime Minister Paasikivi, commenting the Finnish participation in Barbarossa, the Finns knew they were making a deal with the devil.

But if the Germans lose that war, Finland is logically toast sooner or later anyway. What's to stop a victorious Soviet Union from finishing the job they started in 1939, except Finland's own efforts, which were estimated as entirely insufficient? Any prospect of help from the Allies? France is gone, Britain is contained on its island, the US is still very far away, while the Soviet Union is damn close... If the Germans win, they have a shot. A bad choice, but the best of a set of exclusively bad choices.

Especially if one takes the Soviet fear of Finland submitting to German preassure in account. This one is interesting. IF the Finns accept the Soviet pre-war demands, assimilation would be the next item on the agenda. If otoh they would have accpeted German demands to stage offensive operations from Finnish territory, there's very little to indicate Nazi-Germany would have had any more claim on the them. Finland was never in what the Germans percieved as their "sphere of influence", but it was, and apparently still is, within the Soviet/Russian perception of such a thing.

So, on balance, Stalin overreached, forced the issue, and logically got landed with war with the Finns alongside everyone else intent on the destruction of the Soviet Union as seemingly the surest way to national security.

Add to that how Finland in 41, due to the Winter War, was already a) put on a wartime footing, not least psychologically already at war, after losing 35 000 KIA, approx 2% of the male population, and having been subjected to terror bombings of civilian urban centres, Helsinki foremost, and b) recently amputated of one third of its territory, including the nation's second largest city, Viipuri/Vyborg, and it become pretty much apparent why joining the war on the Soviet Union was considered a no-brainer, the devil for an ally or not.

But of course, à la bonheur, Finland DID survive WWII as an independant nation, whatever deals were forced upon it by the Soviet Union in the peace treaty. This despite Germany losing.

Which gives certain basic potential scenarios for Finland giving Barbarossa a miss. Either Finland helped the German war effort sufficiently to ensure that the Soviet Union wasn't stronger than that the Finns could repel the offensive designed to occupy Finland in 1944 (battle of Tali-Ihantala), possibly by getting a large enough territorial buffer from the Soviets in the run up (inversion of the argument for the necessity of Stalin amputating Finland).
But considering the scale of the eastern front, the Finns were a detail, and apart from the Finnish battlefield success when the Soviets did come knocking, they weren't consequential enough.

But the fact that this aggressive and militarily relatively successful Finland bloodied the Soviet troops often enough through WWII (better record than the Germans in defensive battles), made even Stalin decide the cost wouldn't be worth the trouble. And that requires the Finns to re-join in the war in 1941, in order to have that battle-hardened army, and a certain grudging respect from Soviet commanders. Without it, there's not much in the way of Finnish military means to make Stalin pause.

But then there's the dimensoin of international politics; maybe the Soviets would have had their hands full enough of the Germans by the late stages of WWII, to give Finland a miss? That one IS probably the most likely alternative.

In the face of any Soviet preassure, the neutral Finnish democracy would have been free to appeal to the US and the UK, and for being a peaceful democracy would have been given a hearing; at least Roosevelt and Churchill wouldn't have thrown it to Stalin with equanimity. On the other hand, they weren't in a position to offer tangible help, if the USSR would still move on Finland. But provided Stalin postpones this for the post-war settlement, Finland would be inside NATO like a shot.

And a neutral Finland not at war with the Soviet Union could have managed to secure a defensive alliance with Sweden, which wouldn't be sufficient to stop a dedicated attack from either Germany or the USSR, but would have upped the ante, making it less likely.

Some form of that last alternative would be the overall best for Finland. But hindsight is 20/20, and in 1941 nothing of this for Finland beneficial post-war situation was even a glint in anybody's eye. In 1941, it was all about war. War was the only credible alternative for making a nation safe. There was a choice between taking a side and sitting on the fence, but in 1941 there was nothing making continued fence-sitting a safer bet. Already by 1942 there was, but that's kind of indicative of the fluid situation. And by that time the Finns had gone all in.

Finlands role in ww2 was trying to keep its soveirgnity.

Doing whatever it takes to survive

Realpolitik

Finland was only defending itself and was perfectly justified in doing so. To think that the United States and/or Britain would defend Finland from Soviet aggression after WWII is laughable. Just like we defended Eastern Europe after WWII right? Or before the War for that matter.

Finland was only defending itself and was perfectly justified in doing so. To think that the United States and/or Britain would defend Finland from Soviet aggression after WWII is laughable. Just like we defended Eastern Europe after WWII right? Or before the War for that matter.
I have heard that people in 50s thought that Americans will attack with gas which narcotize all people and one day they will awake liberated. Nice naivity or excuse:)

That can't possibly compete with the new gas the United States military is developing to TURN THE ENEMY HOMOSEXUAL. I swear I'm not making that up. Fall asleep straight, wake up gay.

The enemy of an enemy is a friend (or more accurately, ally). Of course Finland had to use every chance they got, as the very existence of the country was threatened, and it was quite evident that becoming a part of USSR wouldn't have made things better in Finland.

That can't possibly compete with the new gas the United States military is developing to TURN THE ENEMY HOMOSEXUAL. I swear I'm not making that up. Fall asleep straight, wake up gay.
I heard that they had made that already... well, I have always been ahead of my time.

They probably think they've made it, but I sincerely doubt there's a gas that can turn you gay.