What is thought of Quisling and the purges in Norway today?

[ArneHD]

Actually, Finnmark (the northern most area of Norway) was briefly occupied by the soviet union after the war. They left peacefully, however.

 

[Sharwood]

Actually, Finnmark (the northern most area of Norway) was briefly occupied by the soviet union after the war. They left peacefully, however.

You mean; realised they couldn't hold onto it, so left peacefully.

 

[Verbose]

Norway worrying Soviet occupation in 1944 is absurd--how could Soviet travel all the way on the frozen coast via land is beyond my imagination.

Well, they did. As Finland sought and got terms with the Soviet Union, in 1944 they found themselves at war with Nazi Germany, which had 200.000 men in northern Finland, on the Murmansk Front. With their Finnish allies gone these troops retreated into Norway, into the "Finnmark". And the Red Army went after them, eventually occupaying a large part of the Finnmark, the Varanger Peninsula, and the major town in the region, Kirkenes. It's definately one of the less publicised campaigns of WWII.

 

[Volum]

Kirkenes, was actually only beaten by Malta when it came to the joy of being bombed.

 

[Leifmk]

You mean; realised they couldn't hold onto it, so left peacefully.

They would have had absolutely no problem holding on to it if they had wanted to, in terms of raw power and logistics. The western Allies would have had to go to full-blown war to dislodge them, and partisans would have been a non-issue since almost the entire population was evacuated already.

However, this would have immediately and badly soured their relationship with the western Allies, a price they were obviously not ready to pay. Especially since holding on to Finnmark would have gained them basically nothing which they did not already have. Arctic or sub-arctic real estate with little or no population, little (or badly damaged) infrastructure, and little or no industry? Not a shortage of that in the USSR. Strategic position? Nah, they already had the Kola peninsula next door. The only thing they could have gained would be to deny NATO (which did not yet exist) a moderately useful strategic position in the future. Obviously not a priority.

 

[Verbose]

They would have had absolutely no problem holding on to it if they had wanted to, in terms of raw power and logistics. The western Allies would have had to go to full-blown war to dislodge them, and partisans would have been a non-issue since almost the entire population was evacuated already.

However, this would have immediately and badly soured their relationship with the western Allies, a price they were obviously not ready to pay. Especially since holding on to Finnmark would have gained them basically nothing which they did not already have. Arctic or sub-arctic real estate with little or no population, little (or badly damaged) infrastructure, and little or no industry? Not a shortage of that in the USSR. Strategic position? Nah, they already had the Kola peninsula next door. The only thing they could have gained would be to deny NATO (which did not yet exist) a moderately useful strategic position in the future. Obviously not a priority.

The Soviets also voluntarily departed the Danish island of Borgholm waaay down in the south of the Baltic. Certainly they could have held it as an advanced base right up under the nose of the NATO-to-come, had they decided to.

 

[Sharwood]

The USSR evacuated quite a few places actually, but they did so to avoid conflicts they couldn't win - the USSR was much weaker at the end of WWII than most people realise - rather than risk calling the West's bluffs. Iran is the most notable, an area that was most definitely of major strategic importance to Russia.

Russia wanted to defend itself, it was not seeking power for power's sake. Finnmark was relatively useless and would have provoked Norway and Sweden, so they left it. Iran was extremely important, but they couldn't hold it against Britain and America, which most certainly would get involved to keep the Soviets out of it, so they withdrew. It's amazing how threatening most people seemed to find the USSR at the time, when all of its moves were actually signs of weakness and fear.

 

[luiz]

It's amazing how threatening most people seemed to find the USSR at the time, when all of its moves were actually signs of weakness and fear.

I have argued many times that the USSR at the end of WW2 was not the unstoppable colossus of communist propaganda, but rather a nation streched to absurd levels. It could not even dream of engaging the USA in a fight.

 

[Sharwood]

I have argued many times that the USSR at the end of WW2 was not the unstoppable colossus of communist propaganda, but rather a nation streched to absurd levels. It could not even dream of engaging the USA in a fight.

The USSR was probably incapable of fighting Britain at the end of WWII, let alone the US, which Churchill almost realised. There's a reason it took several months to organise an invasion of Manchuria, and it had very little to do with transport. Stalin had to find a way to raise a tonne more troops, and his invasion of Manchuria was a defensive move to keep the US or Kuomintang from gaining access to that industrial might.

 

[plarq]

However, invading Soviet Union would make the Western anti-war dissent skyrocket, thus satisfying Lenin's world revolution scenario.

 

[luiz]

However, invading Soviet Union would make the Western anti-war dissent skyrocket, thus satisfying Lenin's world revolution scenario.

I would never suggest that actually invading the USSR would be a good idea. However, knowing how weak they were, one can't help but wonder why they were allowed to keep so much of Europe under their despotic rule.

 

[plarq]

I would never suggest that actually invading the USSR would be a good idea. However, knowing how weak they were, one can't help but wonder why they were allowed to keep so much of Europe under their despotic rule.

Attacking Soviet possession in Eastern Europe IS war with Soviet Union, thus making the Western dissents skyrocket.

 

[Sharwood]

I would never suggest that actually invading the USSR would be a good idea. However, knowing how weak they were, one can't help but wonder why they were allowed to keep so much of Europe under their despotic rule.

The USSR would have fought to keep Eastern Europe. Kicking them out of Korea was possible, but a war over Germany, Poland, or elsewhere would have resulted in an all-out war, and the USSR could potentially have held on and bled them dry. Especially considering the pro-Soviet sentiment then taking effect, especially in Britain.

The West could prevent Soviet expansion, they really couldn't roll them back from places they already occupied in force. The Soviets did have one major advantage after all, and that was troops on the ground.

 

[plarq]

The USSR would have fought to keep Eastern Europe. Kicking them out of Korea was possible, but a war over Germany, Poland, or elsewhere would have resulted in an all-out war, and the USSR could potentially have held on and bled them dry. Especially considering the pro-Soviet sentiment then taking effect, especially in Britain.

The West could prevent Soviet expansion, they really couldn't roll them back from places they already occupied in force. The Soviets did have one major advantage after all, and that was troops on the ground.

Well, many area was under Soviet occupation yet they retreated. From Manchuria, Northern Iran, Eastern Austria, etc.

 

[luiz]

The USSR would have fought to keep Eastern Europe. Kicking them out of Korea was possible, but a war over Germany, Poland, or elsewhere would have resulted in an all-out war, and the USSR could potentially have held on and bled them dry. Especially considering the pro-Soviet sentiment then taking effect, especially in Britain.

The West could prevent Soviet expansion, they really couldn't roll them back from places they already occupied in force. The Soviets did have one major advantage after all, and that was troops on the ground.

I don't know. Natuarally they would not give up all of Eastern Europe without a fight; countries like Ukraine and some others were doomed anyway. But I always felt that the Western Powers (read the USA) could have taken a firmer stand wrt to countries such as Czechslovakia, which had a democratic regime destroyed by the USSR and the czech fifth column. Would Stalin put up a fight (and commit literal suicide) over that? I doubt it.

 

[luiz]

Attacking Soviet possession in Eastern Europe IS war with Soviet Union, thus making the Western dissents skyrocket.

Ideally there would be no need to fight, just establish firm limits for Soviet imperialism. They would fight over those limits if they were too restrictive, but fact is they got an area of "influence" (complete dominance) much bigger than their actual power would otherwise guarantee.

 

[Sharwood]

I don't know. Natuarally they would not give up all of Eastern Europe without a fight; countries like Ukraine and some others were doomed anyway. But I always felt that the Western Powers (read the USA) could have taken a firmer stand wrt to countries such as Czechslovakia, which had a democratic regime destroyed by the USSR and the czech fifth column. Would Stalin put up a fight (and commit literal suicide) over that? I doubt it.

There was no way the Soviets were evacuating Germany, they were too frightened it would turn around and bite them on the arse. Poland was likewise gone. Czechoslavakia is a borderline case, but I don't see Stalin giving it up due to its potential use as a base for attacks on his other territories. Albania could have been saved for the West.