vid

I've read several times in communist literature that in 1939, when Soviet Union wanted land around Leningrad for its defense, it first gave Finland quite generous offer (double the area requested, all lost infrastructure paid in Finnish currency), and that Soviets did indeed do this after peace treaty was signed. How much of this is true?

PS: I am not interested in discussing morality or outcomes of these actions in general, I am only interested in price "paid back" for areas around Leningrad.

srb7677

Yes, for several weeks before the Soviet attack on Finland, the Soviets did indeed enter into serious negotiations with the Finns. In return for the cession of Finnish territory near Leningrad, a long term lease on a Finnish port in southwest Finland,and the cession of some territory in the far north to guard the approaches to Murmansk, the Soviets offered to cede a much larger area of territory to the Finns in the centre of the country. The Soviets also offered significant financial compensation. However, the territory that the Russians offered the Finns was largely empty forest: the territory they requested in return was much more valuable, at least in the south.

Some Finnish leaders wanted to accept the Soviet terms, believing that Finland had no chance of winning a war with the USSR in the long run. But the majority came to believe that the Soviets were bluffing, and feared that any concessions offered now would only invite larger Soviet demands later. Unfortunately for the Finns, the Soviets were not bluffing, and on November 30th 1939, following the breakdown of negotiations, the Soviets attacked.

When the Soviets finally defeated the Finns, they gained all their original demands plus a little more, including what had been Finland`s second city, Viipuri, which became the Russian town of Vyborg. But the Soviets did not any longer feel the need to offer any land in return, so ceded nothing.

Aspartam

Soviet territorial demands and offers (autumn of 1939)

1. The USSR gets the territory on Karelian neck of land (about 2700 km2)
2. Finland gets the territory in Karelia (about 5500 km2). (After the revolution in Russia this region declared its independency and then tried to join Finland, but according Tartu treaty (1920) it remained a part of RSFSR and then of the USSR. A dwarfish separatist movement exists in this region even now.)
3. Soviet Union gets 4 islands in Gulf of Finland : Gogland (21 km2) and others.
4. Soviet Union gets Hanko peninsula on 30-year lease as a naval base.

During the negotiations Soviet Union slightly reduced its demands according Finnish territory on Karelian neck.

meikäläinen

Those really were demands but they weren't anything else that soviet hoax. They wanted to have better positions for red army. Like Yuri Kilin wrote on his book. This is not direct quete. "Stalin wanted land around Koivisto, where was finnish main defence line. This would have given chance for Stalin to go around finnish defence. Also from Hanko, Soviet Union could have encircle Finland. Help from Sweden or other countries would have been impossible."
We should also remember those Baltic countries who gave up for Soviet demands. What happened to them?

Aspartam

Let’s consider the situation from another point of view and remember about the Russian nightmare of grip (outflanking). When someone was attacking Russia from Europe there were 3 possible ways of war:
A) The direct strike towards Moscow: the inefficiency of this strategy was demonstrated as early as in beginning of XIX c. by Napoleon.
B) The attack with "a trident", Germans had done this way, but before the war the use of this strategy was considered as an unlikely situation: it demands too many resources.
C) The outflanking from Northwest and Southeast and a two-campaign-war: the attack towards Moscow in the second year of the war from the springboards that was created during the first year. This strategy was considered by Soviet leaders as the most probable strategy of a future war.

And Soviet Union acted accordingly: it had special interest in Baltic states and Finland (Northwest), as well in Bessarabia (Southeast), the territory which Soviet Union just snatched from hands of Romania and Germany.

As of Hanko… The WWI demonstrated that the effective defense of St. Petersburg from side of the sea is possible if and only if a defending part has coast batteries on the Finnish part of Gulf of Finland. In a different way Gulf of Finland is open for every fleet.

We cannot be absolutely sure that Stalin wanted to join Finland to the USSR. The decorative government of Otto Kuusinen was created only after the beginning of the war and in many aspects was not the government intended for work in occupied country, but the tool of pressure on legitimate Finnish government.

Strictly speaking, during WWII Finland could not to be neutral, as a key to Russian Northwest it had 3 alternatives: to be under the threat of Soviet occupation, to be occupied by Germany, or to be at war with Soviet Union.

meikäläinen

Yes you explained very well. Thanks for that. According for soviet sources, Soviet Union expected possible allied invasion through middle Europe.

Soviet Union wanted to prevent the military union between Poland, Finland and Baltic countries. This is what Stalin didn't want to happen because it would have made soviet "goals" much harder. Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was what Soviet Union was waiting. It gave free hands for "finishing those countries".

I can speak about the situation of Finland. Soviet Unions actions towards Finland turned cold at -30. After -35 they were becaming hostile. Like the situation of East Karelia shows it very well. There was red finns in East Karelia, they were in high ranks and basically were in charge in East Karelia. After -35 this changed. There wasn't many of the finns who didn't loose their lifes or weren't drove away.
Official statement about Finland turned from neutral to possible enemy because of finnish "white" government.

About the Hanko. You are right that it was important for naval base but it was also a dagger directly to heart of Finland. Like Risto Ryti said by himself.

I can't understand how people can really think that Stalin didn't want to annex Finland to USSR. Do you seriously think that Finland would have been in different position that those other countries which were named on Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? What would have happened if Finland would have surrendered? Finland wouldn't have shared the destiny of Baltic states? According to pact, Finland was a part of Baltic states.

The goverment of Kuusinen was found at 1.12.1939. When Finland tried to have meeting with Stalin, Stalin said very coldly. That he is only talking with goverment that Soviet Union recognise.It was the goverment of Kuusinen. The other thing is the national army which goal was to take control of Finland when it was defeated. Stalin said himself that finnish national army can't used in battle. This sure changed when things didn't went as Stalin wanted.

Actually the thinking of occupation was very low in Soviet Union. They surely thought it but it wasn't Germany who was the country. It was France and England. Sometimes even with the help of USA.

vid

Good point, England and France did indeed have plans to send their troops to Finland to fight USSR, and USSR knew it very well. Soviets started a quite successful campaign among low-ranking soldiers, at least in France, to stop this. I mostly know about this from exiled Czechoslovak troops in France, where Soviet campaign was total success, but IMO it was similar in regular French army (anyone who actually knows would be welcomed to comment).

I wonder, did annexation of (other) Baltic countries start with similar demands like those given to Finland? I don't recall reading about such demands there, nor is there a similar good enough rationalization for such demand, as in case of Finland.

irishcrusader95

both countries were just looking out for their best interests, russia needed that land to be in a better position to defend themselves from an invasion, finland knew that giving it away would then put them in a militarily weak position and diplomatic weak by giving into soviet demands that would probably have lead to more demands and even the total annexation of their country by russia

Labienus

I have done a university paper on this issue and from my researches, this is quite true.

From the Soviet point of view, strengthening Leningrad was a clear necessity as it was probably the easiest target for the Germans and it was more than likely that they would attack, sooner or later.

meikäläinen

I would want to see this paper.
Actually there is a lot of historians who are against your theories. I could say many of them. I can list few for now, just for curious, Ohto Manninen, Yuri Kilin, Martti Julkunen etc. I can continue the list if you want.

The secure of Leningrad was just a perfect excuse to have actions against Finland. Same kind of demands Soviet Union had against other countries. Soviet Union didn't really wait actions through Finland, no more than from anywhere else. They really kept Finland as an possible enemy during the war. Same was with Sweden.