The Finns lost that war.
This winter war, where the soviets went in and pulled back a bloody stump? I might point out that while yes Finland lost 11% of their land, and 30% of their economic assets, I really can’t consider a tiny little army from that tiny little land that causes those kinds of losses in manpower and equipment to have lost. Losing is losing all your land and becoming a territory with the ‘winner’ sucking out all the money and materials to go on and have a go at conquering someone else.
So, if that happens, do the Germans still have to deal with partisan resistance? (Perhaps its nucleus formed around a small band of refugee public-school boys with OTC training . . .)
It’s actually available on Netflix, right now.
I would assume so. Don’t underestimate those kids, they wasted Piggy.
I think that had already happened to the Finns. It was a great chance to kill a lot of Russians. I am told, and have no cite, that when Hitler asked the Finns, “Why don’t you send me all your Jews?” the Finns said, “Why don’t you try to come take them?” 
But you don’t have a point spread on wars. You don’t get to say you “won” because you were expecting to lose by twenty points and only lost by five. Finland ended up giving the Soviet Union everything it had demanded before the war and more.
In reality, while Finland didn’t turn over native Finnish Jews, it did turn over some foreign Jews who were living as refugees in Finland to the Nazis.
I wonder. Imagine an invasion, not of England, but of the Isle of Wight. By paratroops initially. Could sufficient artillery and AA be dropped (in pieces) with the troops to control part of the Channel? The Germans might sneak in some sort of PLUTO for fuel, and then they have a forward airbase from which to contest the air. Consider Malta as an equivalent.
Or perhaps the Germans mount what appears to be a big raid on London but is secretly an invasion of the IoW?
They couldn’t take Malta. Honestly, I don’t know if they planned an invasion of it, but they tried really hard to knock out the port and airfield and they couldn’t. And the only way to really knock out those facilities permanently would have been by invasion.
Impossible they would all die of boredom.
A little Googling showed me that Germany had quite extensive plans to invade Malta that they scrapped for reasons not totally clear. According to Wiki, much of the German high command supported it, Rommel wanted to personally lead the invasion, and the Italians were willing to throw in 70,000 troops and build landing craft specifically for the task.
But really, what would be the point of invading the Isle of Wight? The Germans had very good reasons for taking Malta, as it lay right across their supply lines to North Africa. Why would they take the Isle of Wight, which looks within even artillery range of the English mainland? Even if they succeed in the invasion, the time it would take would allow the Brits to build up substantial defenses on their own coasts nearby, the Brits would totally dominate in the air, and I’m doubtful any German invasion craft could survive a sustained British air assault. It looks to me like a German force there would just be a big punching bag for the Brits.
But… I’m not a professional military strategist, so maybe someone around here can provide a better assessment than me.
FYI, I did find a couple of stories saying Germany did in fact plan to invade the Isle of Wight, as part of Operation Sealion, one among several invasion areas, AFAICT the rest of the forces landing on the mainland. Perhaps they did not want to leave any significant British forces or facilities behind their own forces.
If Malta had been 5 km off the Italian it would have been untenable. It would be roughly the equivalent had the British held Capri, say.
Up to 1940 the British held the Channel Isles, which are 20km off France. They were judged to be untenable and were evacuated, and the Germans occupied them without a fight. The IoW is just 5km off the English coast. So, no.
Yes, that Winter War that the Finns lost. You don’t surrender 10% of your land and create a half million refugees as a result of a war you didn’t lose. This insistence that Finland didn’t lose the war always perplexes me. They lasted longer than expected, and the Soviets took heavier losses than expected, but in the end Finland clearly lost the war. The manner in which Finland acted during the cold war (no criticism of the USSR allowed in the media, censorship of movies and films deemed anti-Soviet, etc) even led to the coining of the pejorative term Finlandization.
Hannibal tore Rome several new assholes making the kill ratio in the Winter War look like the work of amateurs, but nobody is foolish enough to try to claim that Carthage didn’t lose all of the Punic Wars, even though it wasn’t until the Third Punic War that Rome tired of a war with them every generation and completely eliminated Carthage as a political entity.
How can you compare Britain to the Soviet Union?
If the Germans had decided to invade Britain before turning on Russia, you have to consider that the greatest problem for the Germans to overcome was crossing the channel.
Considering the RN and the RAF and other issues as mentioned in various posts, it would likely have been a costly effort, but I think there is a real possibility they could have succeeded. They would necessarily have had to have done it before they turned on the Russians. Keep in mind that Hitler and Stalin had a none-aggression treaty and had carved up Poland between them.
Stalin was actually supplying Hitler with raw materials.
People seem to forget that before Hitler turned on Stalin, Churchill was also at war with Stalin.
So if Germany had managed to solve the crossing, Britain would not have withstood for very long. You can’t compare with Russia. Yes tanks were rolling out of factories in Stalingrad, straight into battle, but there was also raw materials rolling in. Raw materials brought in from as yet unconquered vastness of the Soviet Union. Where would the raw materials be coming in from in Britain?
And with that, add a huge supply of civilians drafted in to the war effort. Often untrained. Simply given a weapon and sent to the front line.
The Soviets lost 20 million people in WW2. Half the population of England at that time. (Population of England was 40 million at the start of WW2, the Soviet Union had a population of 195 million).
Then consider the shear size of the Eastern front. From Leningrad on the Baltic sea to Stalingrad near the Caspian. Would be like going from Dover to the very Northern tip of Scotland at least twice and then some.
With that in mind and if the Germans had successfully solved the crossing problem, Britain would have been conquered in a relatively short time. There simply is no way, the British would have been able to resist the way the Soviets did.
Hence, at the start of WW2, the Soviet Union had three rubbish battleships and no carriers - this across its four fleets.
The SU couldn’t defend the Channel and the British couldn’t defend a long land border - it’s a fairly trite point.
Lots of problems here if you are going to argue that ‘Britain would have been conquered in a relatively short time’. As people have said over and over on this thread the Germans not only had to make a crossing, they had to continue to supply the forces they landed. Even without major opposition there is a limit to how large a force Germany could have sustained across the Channel. With all the greater resources of the Allies in 1944 this was still a constraint on post-Overlord operations. So we are not talking about a force of hundreds of divisions as in the Soviet Union. Assuming we are still talking about a September 1940 invasion by this point British forces were getting their act together, reformed and rearmed since Dunkirk with UK factories ramping up production and munitions flowing in from the United States. Even the Home Guard was beginning to become a potentially effective fighting force, at least able to delay and disrupt German operations if not stop them entirely. If we are talking about 1941 for an invasion, well, this gives Germany time to build some sort of half credible invasion fleet (not entirely unseaworthy barges) and the impact of the weather on resupply might be better for a spring invasion but it also gives time for Britain really to sort out its defences. By May 1941 the strength and effectiveness of the British forces had increased massively.
You say “Where would the raw materials be coming in from in Britain?” The answer is from the same place as in this timeline: from British mines, recycled scrap, and imports. Remember that during the war Britain produced more iron and steel than the Soviet Union and had more available energy reserves. Yes, ultimately the Soviet Union has far more natural resources than Britain but not readily available in 1940-41.
People don’t forget it because it never happened.
Well, Churchill was certainly no friend of Bolshevism, but was the UK technically at war with the USSR?