Home Finland's Wars 1939-1944  KevOs4 Unit History Wartime Photos Upcoming Events Past Events Member Info
Collectors Guide Our Links Page Gear For Sale Special Features   Site Map    Modern Finland Today

Part 3. The Rescue Plan

Finland’s Two Wars with the Soviet Union in the 1940s
Why did they start, why did they end in the way they did?
Could they have been avoided?

These extensive articles were written by Jan-Christian Lupander and represent his views on the background and politics of the Winter War and the Continuation War. Mr. Lupander is a frequent contributor to the Nordic Boards Forum and has graciously allowed us to reprint his articles here.  Each section is extensive and very well written and we want to thank Mr. Lupander for allowing us to use them on this website. - mkregel (webmaster)

Sub Menu:

Part 1. Winter War, the background    

Part 2. Negotiations and War starts

Part 3, The Rescue Plan     (you are here)

Part 4, International military aid

Part 5. End of the Winter War

Part 6. Could it have been avoided?

Part 7. The road to war again...

Part 8. Enter the Germans...

Part 9. Conquest, Re-conquest or both?

Part 10. Peace Feelers and the Big Battle

Part 11. Remarkable results for the Finnish Army

Part 12. End of Hostilities

Part 13. Was the Continuation War Unavoidable?

 

The Rescue plan


Here I will not delve into the war itself or into the political developments during it, but with one exception, the controversial plan by Britain and France to assist Finland by sending troops there.
Already in December 1939 those two powers had asked the Finnish government if it was willing to accept direct military aid in the form of troops. These would be transported by ship to Narvik in Norway and then by train though Sweden to Finland. The size of this “rescue expedition” was initially vaguely set to “two or three brigades” (10 000-15 000 men) but later it shrank to a number of reinforced battalions (say 3000 men). The Finnish leadership had grave doubts about the viability of whole plan. Of course all help was in principle welcome but this plan posed great dangers too. By accepting help from Britain one would concede that Stalin’s suspicions about an attack from that country through Finland on Russia were after all well founded. If then the aid was not large enough to decisively affect the outcome of the war Finland’s position at the peace negotiations that anyway had to follow sooner or later would be much degraded. And there was no indication that the allied expeditionary force would be large enough, nor was there any guarantee that they would support it well enough.
The allied powers had early on contacted the governments of Norway and Sweden to get their acceptance of the planned transition of troops through these neutral countries. These countries viewed the plan with horror. Not only did they see the plan as providing too little and too late for Finland but, rightly, suspected that the real intention with the plan was to occupy ports on the Norwegian coastline, Narvik in particular, and of getting control of the mines at Kiruna and so deny Germany access to high-grade Swedish iron-ore. They categorically denied transit. For this the Swedish war-time government has been heavily criticized, in particular of course by people that have never heard about, or chosen to ignore, the true intentions of the allies. In Finland too, one can now and then hear or read opinions like “Sweden betrayed us by not allowing the allies to come to our help”.
But this whole plan was hopelessly faulty from birth and would have caused nothing but trouble for those involved if ever implemented. It was a military plan visualized by politicians with total disregard to military realities. As a military operation the plan was a first class monstrosity without any true chance of success. The initial troops could probably have been successfully transported to Narvik, unloaded there and then taken by train through Sweden to the Finnish border at Haparanda/Tornio and then further south to where the fighting was going on. But did the politicians dreaming up the plan realize the logistic problems involved? The troops needed different ammunition than available in Finland, were used to different food, had different vehicles and different radios, in short needed to get 100% of their supplies and replacements/reinforcements supplied from their own countries.
Not only the initial deployment but all subsequent logistic support had to be done through ONE harbour and then on mostly ONE single railroad through areas with multiple river crossings. On the Swedish/Finnish border everything had to be unloaded and then reloaded onto another train as the Swedish and Finnish railroad systems had different gauge tracks. And all this under potential Russian air superiority! (Make no mistake here, the performance of the Russian Air Force during the Winter War was rather mediocre but there were a lot more and better equipped resources available that would certainly have been thrown into the fight if Britain and France had become involved.)

And then think about how happy Norway and Sweden would have been to have Russian aircraft attacking their trains and bridges on their territories because they were carrying British and French troops. Furthermore there was a high risk that Germany would intervene in order to protect its interests in Scandinavia. And Sweden and Norway were countries that did their best to stay out of the war!
And finally: If the Soviet Union on one hand and Britain and France on the other hand had found themselves at war the big winner would have been Hitler! What better could he wish for than to have his to main enemies start fighting each one other?
So this plan should be stowed away somewhere in a dark corner of the large cupboard containing history’s all misconceived, politician inspired proposals for military actions that had minimal chances of success but instead major potential for catastrophic consequences for those involved.
But as a final ironic twist of history we will see that maybe this witless plan nevertheless had a major and positive influence on Finland’s fate. “There is never anything bad that doesn’t bring something good with it” seems to apply here too!

Final note.
Even after the rejection by Norway and Sweden the plan continued, with a life of its own. At one stage it reached the size of a 150 000 man expeditionary force with aircraft carriers providing air cover and the whole initial transfer of troops planned to take 11 weeks with 36 destroyers providing close cover! At least the French plans included an additional southern arm, attacking Russia through the Black Sea. The plan now clearly had grown to something quite different than an expedition to support Finland and so no longer belongs in this story

Additional Note: How did the Swedish Voluntary Corps manage their logistics? Didn't they face the same problems?

They had two big advantages over the planned allied force:
-Their logistics home-base was Sweden so they could altogether avoid the Narvik-Kiruna-Boden railroad which was the most vulnerable link in the whole foreseen transportation chain.
-Their logistics chain was much shorter and didn't involve any sea transportation.
Furthermore they enjoyed the advantage of not facing any large-scale Russian counter-moves, like bombing of the Swedish rail network. A benefit the allied force would hardly have got!
On the Finnish side the Swedes were used in the Salla sector in the north which meant that their main logistics artery was the SW-NE Tornio-Rovaniemi-Kemijärvi railroad which could get air protection from the Swedish Voluntary Air Unit.

Click here to go to page 4

track visitorsWebsite designed and owned by Marshall Kregel webmaster@kevos4.com
Copyright © 2003 - 2005 Marshall Kregel. No parts of the website may be reproduced without prior authorization.  All rights reserved.
Revised: December 14, 2005 .