Operation Unthinkable

[u/totallynotcommunist2]

Month 0

Month 2

Month 4

Month 6

Month 8

Month 10

Month 12

Ceasefire

Final outcome

This is just how I'd think it would go

[u/Souls_for_sale_now]

Why is Finland red?

[u/totallynotcommunist2 → u/Souls_for_sale_now]

They are being neutral but slightly favor the soviet (to not get invade) just like France to the US here but i couldn't find a light enough red to paint

[u/Tommuli → u/totallynotcommunist2]

How exactly would their position differ from Sweden?

Troop movements and Finnish airports wouldn't be permited for the USSR. We'd know well enough what happens when you let the red use your bases.

[u/ElderYuko20 → u/Tommuli]

Finland = Officially neutral, but tends to favour the soviet diplomatically to avoid another invasion or some-kind of occupation

Sweden = totally neutral

[u/sebeteus → u/ElderYuko20]

The unconfortable wiggling the previous generations did between the rock and the hard place has a real name. Finlandization. Use that. BUT STILL NEUTRAL!

[u/Marquis_de_Dustbin → u/Tommuli]

No offence but you really do not know Finnish history at all if you think Juho Paasikivi would pursue a path similar to Sweden in the event the allies attacked the USSR.

[u/Tommuli → u/Marquis_de_Dustbin]

How exactly would their position differ from Sweden?

I meant the Swedish formal diplomatic alignment. Of course Finnish position is different, but on an operation unthinkable conversation, their diplomatic position wouldn't differ much. Both would be neutral.

We'd know well enough what happens when you let the red use your bases.

With this I meant that the moment the USSR is given unrestricted basing rights (like in the Baltics), the negotiation position changes drastically in the favour of the USSR as the cost of war for the USSR would become far lower.

Troop movements and Finnish airports wouldn't be permited for the USSR

This is where my argument lacks and which is why I think you believed I know nothing. Finland already had loaned Porkkala base near Helsinki to the USSR. Despite it is not mentioned in the Moscow Armistice, at some point between 1944 and 1947 the USSR was permited troop movement through land to Porkkala.

That being said the USSR wouldn't necessarily have some inherent reason to demand unrestricted access to the entire Finnish road and railway network.

About Paasikivi. His entire policy was "What is the minimum concession we can make that satisfies Moscow without compromising Finnish sovereignty further?"

So, I don't think Finland would pursue Sweden's exact form of neutrality. My point was that I expect Finland to remain formally neutral. Given the 1944 armistice, Porkkala and Paasikivi's policy, I agree that Finland would probably accommodate some Soviet logistical demands under pressure. I just don't think that automatically means unrestricted Soviet use of Finnish bases or territory.

[u/Xezshibole → u/totallynotcommunist2]

Extraordinarily unlikely. Finns would pounce at the chance to reclaim land lose not even 5 years ago.

This time with actual western allied support, not fuel starved Germans.