Obviously Finland amazed the world by the large casualties they inflicted on the USSR. Now, I knew that Finland had to cede 10% of its territory in the treaty, but I thought this was favorable compared to other possible alternatives, i.e. "it could be much worse". I mean, Finland did retain its independence and all.
But apparently, according to wikipedia the peace treaty was even harsher than what the USSR was demanding to begin with. So what gives? Did they lose the war, even with their impressive military display? Would Finland have been better off simply surrendering to begin with and giving up 5% of its territory or however much the USSR demanded?
I can answer this even though i'm not a historian.
Put shortly, Finland did lose the Winter war. Finns had early success with their defence, but as the war continued, the more frustrated Stalin was becoming with the situation. He couldn´t risk a situation where Great Britain and France would send troops to fight for Finland, for he knew that he would need allies against the future attack of Germany. Also the Winter war was quite humiliating for the Soviet Union. How could a small rural country possibly withstand an attack of the red army?
Stalin decided to break the Finnish defence by force: 600,000 soviet soldiers broke the Mannerheim-line in February and forced the Finns to retreat. Finns signed the Moscow peace treaty on 13th of march, 1940. Finland lost ten procent of its land areas, some of its islands and Finland was forced to rent Hanko for the soviets for 30 years.
This may seem like a failure on Finland´s part, but we must understand that it was also an unbelievable victory for Finland too. Finland wasn´t occupied and was able to keep its independence. This is important because Stalin may have been planning on attaching Finland to the Soviet Union before the Winter War.
See, in the Moscow negotiations the Soviet Union demanded that Finland had to let go of a part of the Karelian Isthmus. the same area held the Mannerheim-line, an extremely important defencive line that the Finns had built incase of an attack from the south-east. If Finland would have agreed to the negotiations, Finland would have lost a great defencive position. The Soviets would have had a much easier time attacking Finland in the future.
We also know that the Soviet Union had dark plans for its border countries. in the summer of 1940, Estonia was attached to the Soviet Union. We can only guess what would have happened to Finland, if it would have agreed to the border-negotiations like Estonia had.
So that´s my answer. Now, if any of the the professional historians know better, want to correct my answer or just plain delete it, it´s ok. BTW sorry for the bad English.
The Winter War was inevitable for Finland if it was going keep its sovereignty.
Many say that the Soviet Union had never intended to fully occupy Finland. And that would otherwise sound plausible but the Soviet Union invaded Finland from its full border length, the Soviet columns penetrated deep Finnish inland where they were to cut Finland in half and proceed further. But the fear of rising casulties and economic costs forced the Soviet Union to accept the limited war outcome with Finland and cease operations.
