I've been to Kaunas and Vilnius several times on business. Exciting places, very friendly people, stunning women - and a huge, fascinating history too. As a Lithuanian you have a very interesting perspective on Euro-Russia -issues.

 

That's right. Soviets had installed a puppet government of O.W. Kuusinen ready to take over. It was called the Terijoki Government. That was the key indicator to all Finns at the time that it was just not about creating buffer zone for Leningrad. The whole thing was a major PR screw-up on the Soviets' behalf - something that finally made it clear that it was a war of national excistence, not just politics or safety.

Finland wouldn't exist.....or like Poland and East Germany would have just thrown off Soviet occupation or like the Baltic states just thrown out the Soviets.  It was what the Soviets claimed, a move to achieve a buffer for St. Petersburg/Leningrad.  The proof is in the outcome, it wasn't just the losses, in the end the USSR absorbed the losses and had Finland on the ropes, and could have occupied it...but didn't.  And I don't care about Motti tactics and resistance...the Ukrainians, and Georgians, and Balts all "resisted" too...and by the 1960's they were down for the count.  The KKVD/OGPU/KGB and the MVD and the Red Army would have ground down any group(s) that decided to resist an occupation.

 

IF, in 1940, Finland wasn't occupied, it was because either Hitler objected to a violation of Spheres of Influence OR the SOviets didn't want to occupy Finland...your choice, but by the end of the Winter War Finland simply could not continue resisting.  And by the Summer of 1940 no one, Germany, France or Britain was going to be in a position to "save" Finland, because of the Low COuntry/France Campaign underway.

 

No one is more of an Old Cold Warrior than me, but let's not make too much of Finland's chances in 1940 and discuss how Finland saved itself?  It didn't...Stalin got what he wanted...

 

So I ask again, as Finland lost territory any way, wouldn't have been easier to have acceded rather than fought?  Sure several hundred thousand Russians died, but several thousand Finns died too... and it would seem the Finns died for NOTHING, as they lost the ground any way.  So even if you don't count dead Soviets, dead Finns might ask, "what did our sacrifice gain us?"  "Moral victories" are pretty sparse compensation.

You are right. I too believe Finland could have been occupied by the Russians, had they really needed for it to happen. Finnish soldiers had some good qualities in motivation, stamina and ability, but nothing to overcome the huge difference in both manpower and material.

 

Btw the late-WW2 Red Army and the sad bunch that headed this way in December '39 have little else in common than language and rifle-calibre small arms. Soviet army, as you know, was in a horrible shape skillwise in every organisational level and shaped up against Germans because they had to.

 

But what I refuse to give them (=Soviets) is to accept they got what they wanted. They didn't. They had all planned for a regime change and russification. Street signs in Russian ready and all. Soviets were not coming here for anything else but a full occupation.  Well now you can say that the occupation plan was installed only when war became the only option. "If we go, let's go all the way." Honestly, I don't know. Baltic example would suggest that a full occupation and annexation was the plan and that they failed at that.

 

If Americans would have lost so many troops for so little gain the end result would never be seen as anything but a catastrophic defeat. Even though Soviets - and traditionally Russians - were much more liberal at accepting loss of life, you can hardly claim that any sort of victory. It was a bummer for both Finns and the Soviets. 

http://images.google.com/imgre...  Mortor Platoon

 

discrition of the use of mortors in German infantry units.

This is the link.  German mortor usage.