Why was Finnland not "liberated" by the Soviets?

Both Finnland and Romania were invaded by the USSR. Finnland in 1939, Romania in 1940. Both lost land, and therefore both joined with Germany to fight Russia...
Romania however paid dearly for her participation in that war - Finnland however was not occupied*, and did not go behind the Iron curtain after the War.. :?

The Russians instead only took back her territory which they claimed to be their own.

1) Should they not have done the same with Romania? Take Bassarabia and Bukovina back, but leave Romania alone... :?:

&

2)and..if so, then why did they not take over Finnland as well , to make her part of the 'Soviet Empire'..? :shock:

Cuz they couldn't... they took a pretty bad beating down there

As I said before, things were different with Finland. First of all, Finland fought a war more on her own, by not being an official Axis ally, but a co-belligerent. And that just frustrates me when I see the "German admiration for Finland" in Signal magazine for example, where you have more color pics with the Finns during 1940-45 than with Romanians.

Yes, indeed, the Soviets could have finished with Finland in 1944 but they didn't do it, because the Western Allies managed to convince Stalin not to do it in exchange of other advantages (so the Karelian SSR was for nothing ).

Finland lost more in territories than Romania (proportionally) after the Peace Treaty of Paris in 1947; after officially recognizing Karelia as Soviet, Finland had to abandon the Petsamo coal mines, and the only débouché on the Arctic Sea. So she lost more in territories after the war. Romania also lost some additional stuff, like the Serpents' Island (in 1948 - The Romanian-Jew Eduard Menzicescu signed a paper that gived the island as a present to "our liberators", the mighty Soviet people), but not comparable with the Petsamo strip.

Look here :


Finland in 1940, after loosing Karelia.
Finland in 1947, after officially loosing both Karelia and Petsamo strip.
Source : http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/border.html

Finally, Romania suffered the most because she was economically looted during some 10 years by USSR.

Getu'

QUOTE

Yes, indeed, the Soviets could have finished with Finland in 1944 but they didn't do it, because the Western Allies managed to convince Stalin not to do it in exchange of other advantages (so the Karelian SSR was for nothing ).

I think it was not lost on Stalin's mind that the Finns never went beyond recovering the territories they lost during the winter war. They did not cross their "Dniepr" and that can make a big difference in the man's decision to tone it down for the sake of global agreement with the allies.

Anyway Stalin pretty much got the lion's share everywhere else. Think about Great Britain 's casus belli of Poland in 39 and how they ended up leaving it in Russian hands. By any standard they lost their war :cry:

Chandernagore wrote :

QUOTE

They did not cross their \"Dniepr\" and that can make a big difference in the man's decision to tone it down for the sake of global agreement with the allies.

Maybe you wanted to say "Dniester" (Nistru)... The Romanians crossed the Nistru "on Soviet territory" after liberating Bessarabia...

Getu'

QUOTE

Maybe you wanted to say \"Dniester\" (Nistru)... The Romanians crossed the Nistru \"on Soviet territory\" after liberating Bessarabia...

Oops :oops:

According to the battle field situation, Soviet did have the enough strength to cursh the Finland, no matter how brave the Finland soldiers, they could not prevent Soviet from overrunning their country, but they could do one thing, to make Soviet to pay a huge price to accompolish this task, the Soviet simply did not want to pay that price, first of all Soviet's main enemy was Germany,Finland was not laid on the road Soviet drove to Germany, and Finland herself did not have any important resource such as oil field Rumania had, and only because of these reasons, Finland was saved. But for Rumania, it was a totally different, let alone her important location, just her oil field would make her a target for Soviet, I believe even Rumanian never crossed Dniester river, her fate would not be any different

That's pretty much it. Rumania paid the full price thanks to the geographical position. Even without the oil there was no way the Soviets would avoid Rumania while running after the retreating axis. Same thing for Hungary.

Plus the fact that the country was already overun when everybody was sitting at the capitulation table, while the Soviets didn't yet start the serious "work" on the Finns.

Because Finnland didn't surrender unconditionaly

I think it was not lost on Stalin's mind that the Finns never went beyond recovering the territories they lost during the winter war. They did not cross their "Dniepr" and that can make a big difference in the man's decision to tone it down for the sake of global agreement with the allies.

Anyway Stalin pretty much got the lion's share everywhere else. Think about Great Britain 's casus belli of Poland in 39 and how they ended up leaving it in Russian hands. By any standard they lost their war :cry:

That can't be it, Stalin was not the fairest man on earth. If it was there, if it was in the way and up for grabs he would take it.

Bulgaria did not fight on the Eastern front, they did not fight against their slavic brothers and yet they too were conquered postwar and huge trials took place judging the german colaborators.

Even so called "victims" of germany like the czechs or the Poles...they too were anexed into the greater soviet empire.

I think it has nothing to do with politics..it's more the geography and the location of countries.

I submit that it has plenty to do with politics and history, as well as geography.

Yes, both Finland and Romania lost land to the Soviets before they fought on Germany's side. However, the Russo-Finnish War was well known in Allied capitals as a war and not just an ceding of territory under the threat of force. Finland's hard fight against the Soviets in 1939-40 won it great respect. There was serious consideration given to helping Finland... of course, it ultimately came to nothing, but it was not forgotten in 1945. In that way, Romania's loss was seen as more like the re-drawing of East European borders... a bad thing, but hard to change.

Also, while the Soviets had the military power to crush Finland (certainly from 1944 on) they did not forget the casualties they had taken in 1939-40. Finland had no oil or other resources they (or the Germans) needed and did not host significant numbers of German troops. Why waste resources for no benefit while Germany was still fighting? And when the war was over the Red Army "had what it had". It's much easier to leave troops in countries you have already occupied, than it is to occupy new ones.

Also, I believe the fact that the Finns did not advance beyond the 1939 borders of Finland was significant. It's not that Stalin was fair, it's that he was paranoid, and the Russians have always had a long memory for countries which have invaded them. When they get a chance to turn the tables and punish them, they do not hesitate. Look at Poland -- a victim of both sides in WW2, but Stalin was still getting revenge for the Russo-Polish War of 1920, and for all I know, Polish victories against the Russians hundreds of years before that.