In November of 1939, under the guise of securing Leningrad, Russian forces invaded neutral
Finland, sparking off a 3 month war versus their much smaller neighbors.
Despite overwhelming advantages in numbers, weapons, and logistics, the Russian offensive
was badly mauled and Russia only managed meager gains for their disastrous efforts- most of
which were promptly retaken years later.
What would happen though if Russia decided it wants another crack at Finland?
Hello and welcome to another episode of The Infographics Show- today we're taking a look
at what would happen if Russia invaded Finland.
The Winter War of 1939 was a disastrous affair that humiliated the Soviet military.
Emboldened by a non-aggression pact with Germany and thus free from worrying about a German
invasion, Russia sought to force neutral Finland into major territorial and economic concessions.
Chief amongst these was a demand for substantial border territory between the two nations under
the guise of helping ensure the security of Leningrad which was only 20 miles (32 km)
from the Finnish border.
Widely denounced by the rest of the world order for the sheer preposterousness of needing
to secure Leningrad from neutral Finland, Russia went through with its demands and when
Finland refused, launched a military invasion.
However, having purged the ranks of its military for fear of capitalist or imperial sympathizers
and other 'undesirables' to the new Soviet order, Russia went to war with crippling deficiencies
in its senior and junior military leadership.
The Russian invasion force consisted of between 425,000 to 760,000 soldiers with 2,514 to
6,514 tanks and 3,880 aircraft.
The Finnish defenders on the other hand numbered at 300,000 to 340,000, with 32 tanks and 114
aircraft.
Completely outnumbering Finland's forces and up against a nation with no real tank or air
forces to speak of, Stalin expected a swift defeat of Finland- but ended up achieving
nothing more than a pyrrhic victory.
Making the same blunder as the Germans would years later against himself, Stalin launched
his offensive just as winter was taking hold, a mistake which would cost him upwards of
61,000 casualties to the cold alone.
His political purges of military leadership compounded the inexperienced Soviet military's
problems, and weak leadership led to massive defeats or extremely costly gains against
the much better organized and led Finnish defenders.
For their part, The Finns mounted a surprisingly stiff resistance, and fought both a conventional
and asymmetric war, often allowing Soviet troops to penetrate deep into their territory
before retaliating with militias and paramilitary forces on the Soviet rear and their supply
lines.
These tactics proved devastatingly successful, exacting a toll from the invaders of up to
168,000 dead, 207,000 wounded, and the loss of up to 3,543 tanks and 515 aircraft.
Finland on the other hand suffered only up to 26,000 dead, 44,000 wounded, and lost up
to 30 tanks and 62 aircraft.
Inevitably though superior soviet numbers overwhelmed the Finnish defenders, and Finland
was forced to sign a peace treaty which saw the cessation of approximately 11% of its
territory to the Soviet Union.
While technically a victory, the war of aggression cost Stalin dearly by swaying international
support towards Finland and later in World War II, limiting the amount of aid the Allies
were willing to provide to the Soviets- costing them thousands of lives lost.
The war also signaled to Hitler that the Soviet Union was a paper tiger, its armed forces
inexperienced and poorly led, and thus encouraged him to years later go ahead with his plans
to invade.
Had Stalin not invaded Finland, the weaknesses of his military may have never been exposed
and Hitler may have never decided to invade, or if he had, international public opinion
wouldn't have been so firmly against the Soviet Union and greater military aid could have
been given by the Allies.
In the end, Stalin won territorial concessions from Finland, but at the price of hundreds
of thousands of casualties in his Finnish war, and many more later in his conflict against
Germany.
So what would happen if modern Russia decided to try their hand at a new Winter War?
First, it's highly unlikely that this would happen.
After suffering numerous invasions throughout their history, the Russian people take a very
dim view of nations invading other nations.
Even the Russian invasion of Chechnya met with serious public resistance- whatever political
will might exist to launch an aggressive war would be quickly met with stiff domestic resistance.
However, Putin has made it clear that Russia's democracy is only so in name, and with a firm
grip on the reins of power, he could order an invasion if he so wished, though the motives
would be less than clear.
Finland holds no major strategic value for Russia, and its reserves of coal, gas and
oil are dwarfed by Russia's own.
An invasion would only serve to further isolate Russia from the world and stir up international
anger and resolve against it.
But one reason to invade may be Finland's continued flirtation with joining NATO.
Though not a member, Finland is a NATO-partner, and has taken part in NATO's efforts in Afghanistan
and in its fight against the Islamic state.
While only 22 percent of the Finnish population supports joining NATO, over 50% support close
cooperation, and Finnish President Sauli Niinisto recently proposed a possible NATO membership-
with his political clout a major portion of the population could swing to support NATO
ascension.
Russia would take an extremely dim view of this- to say the least.
Finland's ascension to NATO would place NATO forces along an 833 mile (1,341 km) border
with Russia, and increase the scope of any potential conflict zone in a NATO-Russia war.
Outnumbered and outgunned, Russia's strength in a NATO-Russia conflict has always been
its ability to mass forces in a relatively small geographic area- striking north through
Estonia to Poland and forcing a confrontation in Germany.
The small geographic scope of such a conflict would favor a heavy Russian buildup- specially
with US forces making up the bulk of the alliance's firepower and taking weeks to get to Europe.
Yet if Finland joined the alliance it would give NATO a much larger geographic area to
operate in, and suddenly massing its forces in just one battlefield would leave Russia
critically vulnerable to incursions from the north.
It is, and always has been, in Russia's best interest to keep NATO at arms length, and
to ensure that the majority of fighting could only happen on German battlefields.
Russia simply can't afford to fight a war with broad fronts- let alone one where NATO
armor could penetrate deep into the heart of Russia from the Finnish border.
Yet Russia's continued aggression against the democratic systems of European and American
elections, and its hostilities in South Ossetia and Ukraine, may signal that its time for
Europe to stand united and ensure that the 21st century remains a peaceful one.
As a current NATO-partner, Finland cooperates with NATO forces, but does not enjoy Article
5 protection- an attack on one is considered an attack on all.
This leaves Finland critically vulnerable to future Russian aggression should it come,
and to deter that aggression it may be prudent for Finland to seriously consider joining
the alliance.
With Russia fielding a military that is over 1 million strong versus Finland's mere 29,000,
if Russia decided it did want to invade Finland it would face very little resistance.
And this would not be the clunky, poorly led army of the early Soviet Union.
Though still having serious deficiencies to include training, large amounts of outdated
equipment, and the majority of its forces being conscripts with poor morale, Russia
fields a far more capable military than it did during the Winter War.
Its ground force of 20,000 battle tanks is supported by an air force made up of 818 fighters,
1,216 attack aircraft, and 511 attack helicopters.
By comparison Finland could respond with a meager force of only 160 tanks, 55 multi-purpose
fighters, and no attack helicopters whatsoever.
Though Finland did manage to mount an effective defense of its territory during the Winter
War, the nature of modern war is far evolved from the pre-WWII era, and the Finnish military
simply lacks the technological sophistication to mount an effective resistance against superior
Russian assets.
NATO would likely respond to a Russia invasion of a neutral country, but even if it did manage
to vote for full war against Russia, the alliance could not mobilize enough forces in time to
prevent a complete Russian takeover of Finland.
In all likelihood, a blitzkrieg attack by Russian forces would see the nation fall in
a matter of days, followed by the installation of a puppet government which would sue NATO
for peace.
Holding Finland hostage, public opinion would turn against NATO if it forced a costly and
devastating counter-invasion which would decimate the Finnish economy and countryside both.
Standing alone as it currently does leaves Finland vulnerable, yet suing for membership
within NATO could provoke exactly the aggression Finland is seeking to prevent.
Yet Russia hasn't shown much willingness to mount full-scale invasions of major European
powers, and has to date limited is aggression to political tampering and small annexations
of territory from unaligned minor nations.
It's highly likely that if Russia invaded Finland, not only would it face international
opposition, but internal one as well as the Russian people rose up in anger against a
war-mongering government.
As one Russian put it, “We should invade Finland only with our tourists, it is a beautiful
country.”
What do you think would happen if Russia invaded Finland?
Should Finland join NATO and stand together with Europe against Russian political aggression,
or should they not risk angering Russia?
Let us know in the comments.
Also, be sure to check out our other show Can Russia Invade Europe?
Thanks for watching, and as always, please don’t forget to like share and subscribe.
See you next time.