[Oxymoron]

Lets say the Soviets didnt totally fuck up the Finland invasion, and actually manhandled them as was supposed to happen. Would the Germans still launch Barbarossa? Would the victory frighten the west into alligning against the russkies rather then the Germans?

[Wolfman]

Lets say the Soviets didnt totally fuck up the Finland invasion, and actually manhandled them as was supposed to happen.

The Soviets couldn't have won the Winter War anymore then they did. Despite having overwhelming numbers of troops, tanks, and airplanes, they were all shit for two reasons. (1) The Armor and Air Power suffered from being outdated and poorly manufactured because Russian infrastructure, superstructure and general manufacturing capabilities were still wrecked from WWI and the ongoing Russian Civil War between the Red Army and the White Army. So, the only advantage the Soviets could have had was number of troops. But even then, the Soviet Troops in Finland had the same problem the French and German Troops had in Russia: (2) They completely forgot about the fucking terrain. The whole Scandinavian Peninsula is perfectly designed for a defensive land war. Finland has numerous small mountain passes that can be easily defended by a single sniper with a good weapon. Which is exactly what happened. There's a reason one of the most successful snipers in the world is a Fin fighting in the Winter War.

Would the Germans still launch Barbarossa?

Probably. Mostly because Hitler is retarded. There's a story I've heard regarding the man. It is said that British Intel (MI-5?) had an assassin in Germany with access to Hitler. The head of the British Intelligence asked Churchill if the kill order should be given. Churchill's response was "No, Hitler is our greatest ally". If you believe the story, that is.

Would the victory frighten the west into alligning against the russkies rather then the Germans?

Jesus Christ no. The Allies were three groups: Countries that Hitler had already invaded, the UK (that declared won against Finland in support of the Soviets in the Winter War), and the US that hated the Germans more then the British. There is no chance in my mind that the Allies would have become anti-Soviet/pro-Nazi, no matter how much certain US Generals wanted to invade the Russian Bear.

[fuser]

Would the Germans still launch Barbarossa

Yes, they would and probably a much earlier Barbarossa than otl because SU is now a far bigger threat to Germany.

Would the victory frighten the west into alligning against the russkies rather then the Germans?

May be but they surely wouldn't had joined with Germany. Read about "Operation Pike"

The Soviets couldn't have won the Winter War anymore then they did

Yes, they could have, what they lacked was an efficient operational plan based on proper study of terrain and mannerheim line and not men or equipments..

What changed the course of war after they were stuck in their for months was a better operational plan. If they had gone up with original Vasilevsky's draft there is a very high chance that war would had been finished much earlier.

[Far-Right Sage]

the UK (that declared won against Finland in support of the Soviets in the Winter War)

This isn't actually true.

Britain as a political tactic had extended an independence guarantee to Poland. Poland was not invaded by Germany alone, but with the Soviet Union, which joined on the 17th of September. Thus relations between London and Moscow in December of '39 when the Soviet attack on Finland occurred were not good. The United Kingdom supported Finland diplomatically throughout the Winter War, condemned the Soviet Union, and considered it a co-belligerent (alongside Germany). British volunteers fought alongside Swedish volunteers, other Western fighters, and the Finnish military, and Chamberlain was criticized for his failure to enact a decisive plan to assist Finland before a forced peace arrived in Helsinki. He later mined Norwegian waters and the failure to stop both Soviet annexation of Finnish territory and Operation Weserübung led to his political downfall. What you're referring to is the Continuation War.

[fuser]

Well Anglo french power did made plans against SU in support of Finland and there is a large possibility that if winter war would had been dragged longer, France and England would have had gone with their plan i.e operation pike

France was more excited with this pike thing by the way..

[Wolfman]

This isn't actually true....What you're referring to is the Continuation War.

So far as I'm concerned, they were the same war, there was just a year and a half gap in fighting.

Thus relations between London and Moscow in December of '39 when the Soviet attack on Finland occurred were not good. The United Kingdom supported Finland diplomatically throughout the Winter War, condemned the Soviet Union, and considered it a co-belligerent (alongside Germany).

There was also a lot of support for the US backing the Nazis against the UK and the USSR among the general population, and a few US Generals considered the USSR a bigger threat then the Nazis. But guess what, the people who actually make the decisions saw the USSR as an ally, and the Nazis as an enemy.

[fuser]

No one is disputing that wolfman but here the point is would it had been same the case if SU had performed much better in winter war which could have been resulted in annexation of Finland.....

[Wolfman]

No one is disputing that wolfman

I made two points. Which are you responding to?

here the point is would it had been same the case if SU had performed much better in winter war which could have been resulted in annexation of Finland.....

Jesus Christ no. The Allies were three groups: Countries that Hitler had already invaded, the UK (that declared won against Finland in support of the Soviets in the Winter War), and the US that hated the Germans more then the British. There is no chance in my mind that the Allies would have become anti-Soviet/pro-Nazi, no matter how much certain US Generals wanted to invade the Russian Bear.

[fuser]

There was also a lot of support for the US backing the Nazis against the UK and the USSR among the general population, and a few US Generals considered the USSR a bigger threat then the Nazis. But guess what, the people who actually make the decisions saw the USSR as an ally, and the Nazis as an enemy.

I was referring to this post of yours.

[Far-Right Sage]

So far as I'm concerned, they were the same war, there was just a year and a half gap in fighting.

Only in the broader context of WWII, which, as many know, can be classified as a series of wars. Yet many nations changed sides, and your brushing over of history marginalizes this.

There was also a lot of support for the US backing the Nazis against the UK and the USSR among the general population, and a few US Generals considered the USSR a bigger threat then the Nazis. But guess what, the people who actually make the decisions saw the USSR as an ally, and the Nazis as an enemy.

You're simply wrong.

It was official British policy to support Finland in the Winter War, which Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, discussed openly. FDR never pledged support for Germany. Sympathizers with the Axis in the U.S. have nothing to do with the British stance concerning the Soviet aggression against Finland in 1939. Even if some at the time and yourself consider Germany to have been a bigger menace to the goals of the British government, at this point, the Soviets had jointly invaded Poland with Germany and Slovakia, were conquering and puppetizing Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; and were waging what was consider a war of conquest against Finland. Not to mention that due to the pact, Germany was receiving great shipments of raw materials from the Soviet Union anyway, so Britain and France didn't see Moscow as any side to support in '39.

[Smilin' Dave]

Would the Germans still launch Barbarossa?

Probably. The invasion of the Soviet Union was pretty important to Nazi Germany for strategic and ideological reasons. While the defeats suffered by the Red Army against Finland were probably quite the boost to German confidence, I suspect had the Soviets won it would have just been assumed to be the obvious outcome given the disparity in numbers and equipment. The Soviet annexation of the Baltic states didn't startle anyone for example.

Would the victory frighten the west into alligning against the russkies rather then the Germans?

Not sure. As others have already noted, it was a bit of a sensitive point already in the west even when the Red Army was being beaten. On the other hand if the Finns had been defeated and the war ended reasonably quickly, it might have reduced the window of opportunity for action with a limited casus belli or suitable position to launch a counter offensive/successful defence.

Overall, it probably wouldn't have changed a lot, but it might have changed a few events early in the war. So it might have lessened the pressure during the Siege of Leningrad... but then Soviet troops might have been tied down in Finland when Barbarossa started (although on the other hand, they might have been relatively safe there... ). It might have actually given the Red Army false confidence, though in order to defeat Finland you would have to assume they got their act together in the first place.