What Really Happened When Soviets Invaded Finland (The Winter War)

Alphabets Sounds Video

share us on:

The Winter War, fought between Finland and the Soviet Union from November 30, 1939, to March 13, 1940, showcased Finland’s remarkable resilience and innovative tactics against a much larger adversary. Despite harsh winter conditions and being outnumbered, Finnish forces, led by Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim and exemplified by legendary sniper Simo Häyhä, effectively utilized their knowledge of the terrain and unconventional strategies to resist the Soviet invasion. The conflict concluded with Finland retaining its independence, albeit at the cost of some territory, and highlighted the significance of preparation and adaptability in warfare.

What Really Happened When the Soviets Invaded Finland: The Winter War

The Winter War, a lesser-known conflict during the early days of World War II, was a dramatic and intense struggle between the Soviet Union and Finland. This war, which lasted from November 30, 1939, to March 13, 1940, showcased the resilience and ingenuity of the Finnish forces against a much larger Soviet army.

The Setting: A Frozen Battlefield

The war took place in the harsh, snowy landscapes of Finland, where temperatures plummeted to below -30 degrees Celsius. Finnish soldiers, dressed in white to blend with the snow, used the terrain to their advantage. In contrast, Soviet troops, in their dark uniforms, were more visible and struggled with the severe cold and challenging conditions.

The Finnish Resistance

Despite being vastly outnumbered, the Finnish forces were well-prepared. Under the leadership of Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, a seasoned military commander, Finland had bolstered its defenses and trained its soldiers extensively. The Finnish army, although small, was supplemented by a large reserve force and the Women’s Auxiliary Army, known as the Lotta Svard.

Innovative Tactics

The Finns employed creative tactics to counter the Soviet invasion. They used skis for swift movement across the snow and bicycles for rapid deployment behind enemy lines. Finnish soldiers also ingeniously disabled Soviet tanks by jamming logs into their tracks and using Molotov cocktails to destroy them.

The Role of Simo Häyhä

One of the most legendary figures of the Winter War was Simo Häyhä, a Finnish sniper known as the “White Death.” Häyhä, using only iron sights on his rifle, became one of the deadliest snipers in history, with over 500 confirmed kills. His ability to remain hidden and his accuracy made him a formidable opponent for the Soviet forces.

The Soviet Missteps

The Soviet Union, led by Joseph Stalin, underestimated the Finnish resistance. The Red Army’s strategy relied on overwhelming numbers and a swift victory, but they faced logistical challenges and fierce Finnish defense. The harsh winter conditions further hampered their efforts, and many Soviet soldiers were inexperienced and poorly led due to Stalin’s purges of military leadership.

The Outcome

After months of intense fighting, the Winter War ended with the Moscow Peace Treaty. Finland retained its independence but ceded 11% of its territory to the Soviet Union. Despite the territorial loss, Finland’s ability to hold off the Soviet invasion was seen as a moral victory and a testament to their determination and strategic prowess.

Legacy of the Winter War

The Winter War had significant implications for both Finland and the Soviet Union. It highlighted the importance of preparation, adaptability, and the will to defend one’s homeland. The conflict also exposed weaknesses in the Soviet military, leading to reforms and changes in strategy that would impact their future engagements in World War II.

The story of the Winter War serves as a powerful reminder of the resilience of a small nation against a formidable adversary and the enduring spirit of those who fight for their country’s freedom.

  1. How did the harsh winter conditions influence the strategies and outcomes of the Winter War for both the Finnish and Soviet forces?
  2. In what ways did the Finnish forces demonstrate resilience and ingenuity during the conflict, and how might these qualities be applied in other challenging situations?
  3. What role did leadership play in the Finnish resistance, and how did Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim’s strategies contribute to Finland’s defense?
  4. How did the innovative tactics used by the Finnish forces, such as the use of skis and bicycles, impact the dynamics of the war?
  5. What can be learned from Simo Häyhä’s story about the impact of individual contributions in larger conflicts?
  6. How did the Soviet Union’s underestimation of Finnish resistance and logistical challenges affect their military strategy and outcomes?
  7. What are the broader implications of the Winter War for understanding the importance of preparation and adaptability in military conflicts?
  8. How does the legacy of the Winter War continue to influence Finland’s national identity and its approach to defense and international relations today?
  1. Interactive Map Analysis

    Explore an interactive map of the Winter War’s key locations. Analyze the strategic advantages and challenges presented by the Finnish terrain. Consider how the geography influenced the tactics used by both the Finnish and Soviet forces. Reflect on how these factors contributed to the outcome of the conflict.

  2. Role-Playing Debate

    Engage in a role-playing debate where you assume the roles of Finnish and Soviet military leaders. Discuss and defend your strategies and decisions during the Winter War. This activity will help you understand the complexities and pressures faced by both sides in the conflict.

  3. Case Study: Simo Häyhä

    Conduct a case study on Simo Häyhä, the legendary Finnish sniper. Research his tactics, skills, and impact on the war. Present your findings in a group discussion, focusing on how individual contributions can influence larger military outcomes.

  4. Weather and Warfare Workshop

    Participate in a workshop that examines the role of weather in warfare, using the Winter War as a case study. Analyze how extreme cold and snow affected military operations and logistics. Discuss modern parallels and how armies today prepare for similar conditions.

  5. Documentary Screening and Discussion

    Watch a documentary about the Winter War and participate in a guided discussion. Reflect on the human stories and strategic insights presented. Consider how the lessons learned from this conflict apply to current global military strategies and geopolitical tensions.

Sure! Here’s a sanitized version of the provided transcript, removing any explicit language and sensitive content while maintaining the overall narrative:

The white forest was filled with soldiers. The men moved through the trees silently, wading through nearly waist-deep snow. Each breath froze on their faces, leaving their eyelashes tipped with white. It was easily below -30 degrees Celsius, the coldest conditions many of these men had ever experienced. Their commanding officer, walking in the middle of the squadron, fell into the snow face-first. A moment later, a bang echoed through the trees. “SNIPER!” The cry went up but was quickly silenced by another shot. The men scattered in all directions, diving behind trees and rocks, trying to spot where the enemy soldier was hiding. There were 25 of them in this squad, more than enough to take down one enemy gunman. But despite their efforts, no one could see where the shots were coming from. There was no smoke, no glint of a scope, not even a puff of air from the shooter. It was as if they were fighting a ghost. The bullets continued to whiz through the forest, each followed by a loud crack. The men lay flat, totally behind cover. There was no way a sniper in front of them could pick them off, yet one by one, the men kept falling into the snow. Cries of panic echoed around the group. Where was their attacker hiding? Some soldiers lost their composure and tried to flee through the snow, only to collapse after a few steps. Bullet after bullet flew through the trees until there was just one soldier left, cowering behind a rock. How could this sniper be shooting them all from up ahead? Unless… The bullet finished him off before he could piece it together.

A few minutes later, a patch of snow rustled, and a short man stood up, alone in the woods. He was 150 feet behind the soldiers. They had all walked right past him without noticing. There was no scope on his rifle, just the iron sights. He spat out the last bits of snow from his mouth and watched as his breath curled into steam again. Very calmly, Simo Häyhä, known as the White Death, packed away his equipment and walked back to camp.

It is difficult to say who won the Winter War. Three months into the chaos of the Second World War, amidst conflicts erupting all across Europe, the Soviet Union launched an invasion of Finland. Three months, one week, and six days later, the war was over. Finland had lost 25,904 soldiers as well as 11% of its land. The Soviets, victorious, had lost between 126,875 and 167,976 soldiers. On average, every Finnish person who died took down about six Soviets with them.

On paper, the Soviets should have easily overwhelmed this small country. Their military strength dwarfed that of their Nordic neighbors, yet they struggled to make any meaningful progress all winter. The Soviets walked away from this war embarrassed on the world stage. But how?

For starters, the history of the two countries has always been closely tied. The Northern Crusades in the late 13th century saw Finland absorbed into the Swedish Empire, where it remained for centuries. That was until 1809 when the Russian Empire grew uncomfortable with the Swedes having such close access to St. Petersburg. Russia captured and annexed Finland, releasing it from one Empire directly into the control of another as it became the Grand Duchy of Finland, an autonomous state ruled by the Russian Empire. Yet Finland wasn’t just a patch of Swedish land or Russian land. It had a people with a unique language, culture, mythology, and history. Finland had culture.

What the Russians failed to anticipate was the explosion of Finnish culture and national identity that would take place under their rule. Freed from the Swedes and given some level of autonomy, the Finnish people began to ask whether they wanted to be a country in their own right. Russia, realizing what was happening, attempted to assimilate Finland into its empire in the 19th century but failed, which only fueled the desire for Finnish independence. Then, in 1917, the Russian Empire collapsed entirely, giving Finland a sudden opportunity to secede. Finland capitalized and gained their independence in a matter of months, but their future as a nation was still uncertain. The conservative Finns, known as the Whites, who were pushing for independence, faced fierce opposition from the pro-Russian Reds. A bloody civil war threatened to divide the new country before it had even begun.

In the midst of the chaos, a former Russian Lieutenant General named Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim took leadership of the Whites’ military. Thanks in large part to his leadership, four months later, the Finns achieved peace, with the Whites victorious and standing at the dawn of their independence. Mannerheim became a hero.

Another important detail from this period was how the Whites won the Civil War. Finland didn’t have much of an established army of their own. They needed equipment, structure, and training fast. One country, a close ally for many years, stepped in to help them: Imperial Germany. Jägers, the German word for ‘hunter’ and the term they used for infantry, became Jääkäri in Finnish. The Whites modeled their military closely on the German structure and acquired weapons and vehicles to aid them in their victory over the Reds.

In many ways, this conflict established certain international relations that would become crucial to Finland’s decisions in the Second World War. Germany was seen as an ally, while Russia was the enemy. Over the next couple of decades, Finland and Russia settled into a discontented peace, neither side particularly happy about sharing a border. Mannerheim rose through the ranks within Finland, eventually becoming Chairman of the Finnish Defence Council. When given the role in 1931, it came with a warning: it was only a matter of time before war would erupt with the Soviets. Tensions were rising steadily year on year, particularly over the border region of Karelia.

This piece of land was historically Finnish until the Swedes had given it to the Russian Empire. After gaining independence, both countries felt they had a claim to Karelia but only owned half of it. For Finland, it was a point of heritage and identity. There were Finnish people living in East Karelia on the Russian side of the border who should have been unified with the rest of their people. Many Finns in Russian East Karelia agreed with this. For the Soviets, it was a matter of national security. The city of Leningrad was only 20 miles from the Finnish border, and in that stretch of land, there was a growing number of nationalistic Finns. Given Finland’s close ties with Germany, the impending outbreak of World War II intensified these threats. Stalin was worried. What if Nazi Germany convinced Finland to join the war and allow them to launch an invasion through Karelia?

Stalin knew he had to act fast. War in Europe was about to break out, and he couldn’t be caught unprepared. What followed in the late 1930s was a period of intense negotiations. Representatives of both countries regularly met in the months leading up to the Second World War. The Soviets came in with their most minimal request, bolstered by the attendance of Joseph Stalin himself to underline the importance of the deal. Stalin was friendly and lit up with smiles and goodwill towards the Finnish delegates. He suggested that the Finns give them Karelia in exchange for some land further north, allowing him to create more space between Leningrad and potential enemies, as well as take ownership of several islands and establish a naval base in the Gulf of Finland.

Mannerheim, knowing the Finnish military better than anyone, pushed for them to accept the deal. In his eyes, they had no choice. The Soviets negotiating peacefully was Stalin offering an olive branch. If the Finns said no, they wouldn’t stand a chance against the invading Red Army. But the Finnish government, assuming the Soviets had come in with their most audacious request to negotiate down, refused to budge. They were nervous but rebutted Stalin’s offers, waiting for him to back off. They knew they didn’t have the military power to fight off the Soviets, but public distrust of Russia and a strong reluctance to give up any of the land they’d fought so hard to gain meant the talks reached a stalemate.

The Finnish parliament eventually voted no to the Russian demands, much to Stalin’s surprise, who jokingly asked if his votes could be included too. But from that point on, the Soviets stopped attending talks. Stalin had stopped joking around.

On November 26, 1939, in a small village called Mainila on the Soviet side of the border, a small group of Soviet soldiers exploded. Stationed in a guard post, the Soviets were shelled from the Finnish side of the border, totally unprovoked. That gave the Red Army all the reason they needed to ramp up their military presence at the border and prepare for war. Since the end of the war, historians on both sides have concluded that this event never actually happened. Neither country had any artillery stationed anywhere in range of the village at the time. Stalin had lied, using a ‘false flag’ event as an excuse to invade Finland and take the land he believed was rightfully his.

At 8 AM on November 30, 1939, the Red Army launched their attack. Half a million Soviet soldiers stormed into Finland, a country with only 3.6 million people in total. To make matters worse, another half million Soviets were getting ready in reserves. They attacked along almost the entire length of the border, looking to exploit under-defended areas and overwhelm Finland immediately, perhaps inspired by the German invasion of Poland just a couple of months earlier.

Attack swiftly and from as many directions as possible, stretching the defensive line thin and relying on superior numbers to gain early momentum. And superior numbers they had. Stalin sent in over 450,000 soldiers to face the 33,000 men of the Finnish National Army—21 divisions of soldiers against just three. The Red Army had thousands of aircraft and tanks at its disposal, while Finland had less than 70 aircraft and a dozen WWI-era French Renault tanks. The Soviets had spent months building rail links all the way up the length of the border to supply their troops with food, ammunition, and reinforcements.

Stalin had a plan. Their attack would focus on three areas in particular. The Karelian Isthmus, which they knew would be the most heavily fortified part of the front, was also the most open, with several lakes that would freeze over in December, allowing the Soviets to move tanks and heavy artillery closer to the fortifications. They would fight the Finnish forces here while attempting to flank them where they could, waiting for the rest of the country to fold.

And fold it would, because at the top of the border, the Finnish landscape was wild and rural. They didn’t anticipate heavy resistance that far out, as the land wasn’t well supplied or particularly defensible, so they sent the smaller, less experienced 14th Army to attack the north. The army was tasked with targeting the Lapland port of Petsamo and taking the town of Oulu on the Gulf of Bothnia. With those taken, Russia could cut off all foreign aid from reaching Finland from Sweden.

In the center was the key to their strategy. Their battle-hardened 9th Army would attack as a tight unit, slicing Finland in half and severing communications and infrastructure along the way. With that accomplished, they would push south, pinching the last of the Finnish defense in Karelia. After defeating those forces, they would push through, taking Viipuri, and then roll towards Helsinki, leaving Finland defenseless. They expected to destroy the Finnish resistance in no time—twelve days, to be exact. Lt. Gen. Kirill Meretskov estimated the whole conflict would be over in 12 days. After that point, Russia would choose to either take the whole of Finland back into its control or just the key areas they had identified before the war.

But after just a couple of days, it was clear they had massively underestimated their foe. Remember how we said the Finnish Army was just 33,000 soldiers? That was true. Their official army was only that large. But unbeknownst to Russia, in the months leading up to the outbreak of war, Finnish men had been signing up for the reserve forces by the droves under the guise of ‘additional training.’ The territorial army bolstered its military strength to 127,000. They had another 100,000 in reserves and a further 100,000 in the Civic Guard. Supporting them were the 100,000 women of the Lotta Svard, otherwise known as the Women’s Auxiliary Army.

All of a sudden, the Finnish resistance force wasn’t looking too dissimilar to the 450,000 men of the Red Army. What’s more, while Mannerheim had been keen to accept the peaceful route proposed by the Soviets, he had also spent the last eight years preparing his country for this exact scenario. A veteran of WWI and the Russo-Japanese War, Mannerheim had distinguished himself in combat and strategy from a young age. He was as seasoned a military commander as Finland could have hoped for. But he was not alone. Many of the hundreds of thousands of Finnish men who served were combat veterans themselves, having fought in their own country during the Civil War and WWI. Mannerheim had the soldiers and knowledge of how to use them effectively.

So, how did he plan to save Finland from almost guaranteed defeat? His priority was to establish a strong frontline in the Karelian Isthmus, called the Mannerheim Line in his honor. There, he stationed the bulk of his forces while ensuring to place a good number of troops across the rest of the border all the way up to the Arctic Circle. Mannerheim anticipated the Soviet strategy well. The supposedly unstoppable force of the Red Army met the immovable object of the Finns.

Fighting broke out among the snowy forests along the border. The Soviets, dressed in dark khaki uniforms, stood out as they tried to push forward. In contrast, the Finns were dressed in all white uniforms and set themselves up in foxholes and bunkers, making them virtually invisible. Unsure where the enemy was and panicking, the Russians were picked off quickly without much opportunity to retaliate.

The Finnish strategy was simple: hold the line. Foreign support would eventually come from the UK, France, or Sweden. Or Stalin would grow frustrated and broker peace. Until one of those things happened, the Finns wouldn’t shift, and with a harsh winter bearing down on them, the Finnish soldiers had one mission: survive. And survive, they did. Despite lacking conventional vehicles of warfare, the Finns knew the land better than anyone and were resourceful. Most of these men had grown up in the countryside where winters were harsh, and living was tough. While the Russian soldiers were bogged down wading through waist-deep snow, the Finns used skis to get around quickly and quietly, as they had always done in the winters.

The Jaegers, Finland’s elite soldiers, had bicycles that they would use to quickly traverse behind the front line, allowing them to pop up in different spots and perform effective strikes on exposed targets. When tanks rolled through, Finnish men would jam logs into their tracks, effectively grounding the heavy vehicles. They would then light Molotov cocktails and throw them at the exhaust vents, disabling the engines and destroying the tanks. Several tons of Soviet engineering were brought down with some wood, alcohol, and a couple of glass bottles.

And that wasn’t the end of the Soviets’ troubles. In the two years leading up to the war, Stalin’s paranoia led him to gut the Red Army’s leadership and replace seasoned commanders with promoted rookies. The grand strategy in place may have been sound, but much of the middle tiers of their army were out of their depth, especially against such an unconventional defensive force. They immediately experienced crippling traffic jams. The roads into the country were small and far apart, meaning they had to move single-file without the support of those parallel to them. The roads themselves were poor quality and ruined by extreme weather, not to mention the Finnish resistance. So, even with 1,000 tanks ready to fight, the Soviets could barely get any of them into the country.

Stuck in traffic jams, the Red Army couldn’t fan out and were easily surrounded. With destroyed vehicles blocking the few usable roads, these army columns were brought to a standstill. Finland had littered the border with booby traps and mines, making the Soviets hesitant to stray from the main roads. The Finns also placed lone snipers throughout the forests. Men dressed in all white who would lie in wait for hours on the lookout for potential targets. A single sniper was capable of delaying a Russian convoy for hours as they were difficult to detect and frighteningly accurate due to their experience hunting in the Finnish forests. By far, the most notorious of these snipers was Simo Häyhä.

Häyhä had grown up near Viipuri, the first city that the invading Red Army would take if the Mannerheim Line failed. For him, as was the case for almost all other Finns, this war was deeply personal, in stark contrast to most of the Soviets crossing the border who had little connection to the conquest of Finland. Throughout the conflict, Häyhä racked up over 500 kills, making him one of the most lethal marksmen in military history, even though he was only in combat for less than 100 days. Häyhä would take up position first thing in the morning, before daybreak, and long before any enemies were expected to pass by. He would cover himself in layers and lie flat in the snow with a small mound of snow in front of him. As the war dragged on, temperatures dipped down to as low as -40, yet Häyhä would lie there waiting, snacking on bread and sugar to keep warm.

Armed with a SAKO M/28-30, Häyhä opted to forgo any kind of scope. He didn’t want the glint to give away his position or have to raise his head to look through it. With the iron sights he’d grown familiar with, he could stay hidden while still being accurate. It also helped that he was only 5ft 3”. As the enemies approached, he would pack snow into his mouth so that his breath wouldn’t steam up as it passed his lips and rest the barrel of the rifle on the snowy mound he built earlier to cool it and reduce the smoke trails from his shots. He’d sit there watching the enemy for a long time before firing, studying their movements, counting their numbers, and lulling them into a false sense of security. Then he’d pull the trigger.

On December 21, 1939, Häyhä achieved his highest daily count of 25 kills. The Finnish propaganda machine noticed and quickly drummed up a kind of mythology around the man. Everything about his character perfectly summed up what they wanted the Finnish spirit to be. But as a result, viewing Häyhä accurately through a historical lens is challenging. Häyhä gained the

Winter WarA military conflict between the Soviet Union and Finland from November 1939 to March 1940, initiated by the Soviet invasion of Finland. – The Winter War demonstrated Finland’s resilience and tactical ingenuity despite being outnumbered by the Soviet forces.

Soviet UnionA socialist state that existed from 1922 to 1991, consisting of multiple subnational Soviet republics, with Russia as its largest and most influential member. – The Soviet Union played a pivotal role in World War II, particularly in the Eastern Front against Nazi Germany.

FinlandA Nordic country in Northern Europe, known for its fierce resistance during the Winter War against the Soviet Union. – Finland’s strategic use of its harsh winter terrain was crucial in its defense during the Winter War.

MilitaryRelating to the armed forces or to soldiers, arms, or war. – The military strategies employed during the Napoleonic Wars have been studied extensively for their innovative use of artillery and infantry.

TacticsThe art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle. – The use of guerrilla tactics by the Viet Cong was a significant factor in the Vietnam War.

ResistanceThe refusal to accept or comply with something; the attempt to prevent something by action or argument, often used in the context of military opposition. – The French Resistance played a crucial role in undermining German operations during World War II.

SnipersMilitary marksmen who engage targets from concealed positions or distances exceeding the detection capabilities of enemy personnel. – Snipers were instrumental in the defense of Stalingrad, where they disrupted German advances with precision shooting.

TerritoryAn area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state, often a focal point in military conflicts. – The annexation of territory by Nazi Germany was a key factor leading to the outbreak of World War II.

IndependenceThe state of being free from outside control; self-governance, often achieved through military or political struggle. – The American War of Independence marked the birth of a new nation free from British colonial rule.

LegacySomething transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor, often referring to the lasting impact of historical events or figures. – The legacy of the Roman Empire is evident in modern legal systems, architecture, and languages.

All Video Lessons

Login your account

Please login your account to get started.

Don't have an account?

Register your account

Please sign up your account to get started.

Already have an account?