> That is why I stress that the Norway situation was so critical. With Norway in Allied hands Sweden would have acted very differently.
Even more so, it was all decided in September 1939. If the French went out and attacked Germans like they promised they would, Stalin would never join the war (he waited for full 17 days before moving into Poland, to make sure the Allies will be the cowards he and Hitler predicted they were), and Germans would be tied with fighting on two fronts. Hitler was actually super-nervous about the attack on Poland - he bet it all on has a hunch the French and British won't do anything about it, which was a massive risk for him.
The French did attack within a week of the attack on Poland, using dozens of divisions and tanks and artillery, and came up with about 2000 casualties against 600 on the German side. But the French had not even fully mobilised by the time in mid-September when the Soviets joined in the attack against Poland.
Well, yes but the issue is that the French never wanted to fight that offensive war. They had not planned for it very well, the British were not gone be there in any numbers. Not even the Royal Airforce.
And if you are gone put up a fight for Eastern Europe, then why do it for Poland, it would have been 100x smarter to it over Czechoslovakia. Germany was in a terrible supply situation at that point.
The Allies had no way to help Poland other then an attack the other side. Unlike Norway where the Allies were perfectly positioned to provide help.
So my opinion is that you either fight over Czechoslovakia or you leave Eastern Europe and focus on keeping Germany out of the North and try to keep Italy from joining them.
The 'alliance' between Germany and the Soviets wouldn't hold very long. In that time you can build up your forces. Eventually Germany would probably force the situation with the Soviets and then the Allies are in control of the global supply routes and can basically decide who wins.
Basically its 3 groups, France/Britain, Germany, Soviet. The one best positioned is the one that stays out of the war when the other two go to the war. The one that stays out can build up its army and industry while the others destroy each other. You end up the winner by default.
The Soviets were that in 1940, but surprisingly for them France collapsed quickly and the German could turn around and attack them. Soviet strategy since 2022 was basically to keep Germany out of the 'capitalist' alliance, only for them to supply Germany with the vary resources they used to build an army to attack them.
Perhaps to make WW2 less strange, think of alliances as British/Russian group vs. French/German group with US participating at the end on the British/Russian side.
The Finns were German allies throughout. The pre-war Germans were supplied by Nordic steel while during the war they were supplied by French wheat.
The British/Russians were supplied by US tech, food, and arms
No they were not as Germany had very much agree not to get involved as the Soviets beat up the Finns. Despite popular opinion on Germany very much wanting to do so.
> Perhaps to make WW2 less strange, think of alliances as British/Russian group
Yeah but the Brits were about to launch an attack on Russia in late 1939. In total all the events between 1936 and 1947 are quite the diplomatic clusterfuck.
It took until 2018 for the swastika to be removed from the Finnish air force logo.
As for the British invading USSR, this could not be a serious consideration since the British military strength is mostly navy and air force but no ground troops.
The British planned on bombing Baku, the principle oil fields that was vital for Soviet economy. And the planned on sending troupes to Finland.
Finland has to take friends where they could find them. They used Germany to get back their land but only supported them as far as they needed to. The Fins could have done way more, and Germany was constantly pissed that they couldn't convince them to do more.
Mannerheim dealt with Hitler as a statement mostly. The recording doesn't prove they were friends. Its a discussion about military that does not sound that different from many other such meeting between Stalin and Allied officials.
There were German-minded Finns, also in government (eg interior minister 1941-1943 Horelli) but president from 1940, Ryti, was an Anglophile, and Mannerheim was cosmopolitan, a veteran officer of the Tsar's army, and had long considered St. Petersburg his home city. He had a hard time not showing how he disliked Hitler. Diplomacy with co-belligerents - and opponents - is then another matter.
And the swastika was, of course, the Finnish Air Force logo already in 1918 when Hitler was still in trenches on the Western front and no one knew anything of Nazis.
"Very close" is still rubbish. As that article of the recording says, "Mannerheim did not wish to greet Hitler at his headquarters, as it would have appeared like a state visit." But they of course did have a discussion about the war with a common enemy.
Finns and Germans definitely were not allies in 1939-1940: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was in force, and when Soviets attacked Finland, Germany acted on its part and blockaded the Baltic Sea so that any aid from Western allies to Finland would have had to come through Sweden and/or Norway. That was a no-go.
I am not trolling. But I agree with you that I was wrong in saying that the Finns were German allies throughout. They were not allies from 1939-1940 and started to be German allies in 1941.
Even more so, it was all decided in September 1939. If the French went out and attacked Germans like they promised they would, Stalin would never join the war (he waited for full 17 days before moving into Poland, to make sure the Allies will be the cowards he and Hitler predicted they were), and Germans would be tied with fighting on two fronts. Hitler was actually super-nervous about the attack on Poland - he bet it all on has a hunch the French and British won't do anything about it, which was a massive risk for him.