Talk:Continuation War/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Missing citation

There is a citation missing in the 'Initial stages' section on the Estonian-Finnish cooperation. Here it is:

Leskinen Jari: Veljien valtiosalaisuus. Suomen ja Viron salainen sotilaallinen yhteistyö Neuvostoliiton hyökkäyksen varalle vuosina 1918–1940 (Brothers' State Secret: Classified military cooperation of Finland and Estonia for the case of attack by the Soviet Union in 1918-1940. In Finnish). WSOY, Juva 1999.

If it is possible, could an admin please add it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The numbers...

In the war box people are continuosly counting apples and oranges.

• 700,000 - Is the total number of Finns who served in the Defence forces at some time during the war. It includes all those demobilized due to age or wounds. The total number of those who served under the Finnish defence forces never rouse above 530,000
• In addition to those serving under the defence forces, some 19,000 people were obliged by the law (Työvelvollisuuslaki) to work to the state during the war, mainly building fortifications, some acting as specialists in their own field of expertice.
• Also in addition were those 25,000 who were obliged to work with civilian air defence, meaning mostly acting as fire brigades or maintaining air raid shelters and taking care that all people go to those shelters. They didn't operate any AA guns or searchlights.
• And naturally Lotta Svärd-organisation: 43,000 women volunteers who provided radio operators, clercks, air observers, food suppliers, nurses for wounded, washed the dead etc. etc. so freeing up men to the armed service. --Whiskey (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I found the phrase "700,000 Finns total," coupled with "500,000" rather confusing. Doesn't the 1,500,000 number does the same to Soviet forces? --Illythr (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it was really confusing, even in Finnish in Jatkosodan pikkujättiläinen. I had to read it several times and do some counting from Jatkosodan Historia before I found what the writer intended to say.

The number of Soviet troops "dedicated" against Finland varied even more than Finnish numbers during the war. The lower number presents the situation at Autumn 1941, when Finland was extremely low in reinforcement priorities. The high end -as you quess- the summer 1944. But I suppose you have read my article about the numbers... --Whiskey (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Couple of questions

POW deaths

From the Talk:Continuation War/Archive 10

Just wondering why number of SU POWs died in Finnish captivity is prominently listed in the data while respective list like Finnish prisoners of war in the Soviet Union is not listed in same context even though - compared to ~ 30 % SU POWs lost in Finland - apparently ~ 40 % of Finnish POWs in SU died or went missing during captivity or transfers. Which IMO is a rather clear WP:NPOV violation. Either both sides should be represented or then neither. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please help to improve the article with correct information and appropriate sources. 87.95.136.112 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Any opinion on this one? - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the relevant numbers and their sources? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's an article on that. --Illythr (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Also one could ask what exactly have POWs have to do with 'Finnish Occupation Policy'? - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Aerial & naval warfare

Apart form the 1941 section of the war there are no mentions of naval activity at all.

And there seems to be no mentions of aerial warfare apart from the bombings of Helsinki.

Just thinking that there could be a separate section outside the current year based structure for these? - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Which facts would you add about this? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe what the article most desperately lacks now is the Finnish army offensive in 1941. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well there are those three articles on that (Finnish reconquest of Ladoga Karelia (1941), Finnish reconquest of the Karelian Isthmus (1941), Finnish conquest of East Karelia (1941)), however they all seem like they have been copied and translated directly over from a book of military history. Wanderer602 (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a few statements about each operation. There are no such summaries on the respective pages. Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have written those articles, I could comment a little bit about sources...

In military wise, almost everything goes back to "Jatkosodan Historia 1-6", which is the "official" history about the war, made by military historians in Finnish Army after the opening of the Soviet Archives at 1994. The older version of this serie, "Suomen sota 1941-1945 1-9" was made during the 50s and 60s also by Finnish military historians and was used as well. I have used also Koskimaa's ("Veitsenterällä", "Torjuntavoitto Viipurinlahdella", "Tyrjän rykmentti", etc.) and Raunio's operations series ("Karjalan kannaksen takaisinvaltaus kesällä 1941", etc.) and some unit histories ("Sextiettan", "Kutsui ääni isänmaan; JR 58") as well.--Whiskey (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not about a lack of sources, vice versa, there is too much material and no summary for the level of this article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of the Great Patriotic War...

So I suppose the issue of whether or not the Continuation War was considered to be part of the Great Patriotic War during the war years was settled?Repdetect117 (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it has been settled that it is such a minority view that it is not worth mentioning. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So the decision is that it was considered part of the Great Patriotic War even during the war years (at least from the Soviet point of view)?Repdetect117 (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to acquire the actual Stavka order of 25.06.1941, but, otherwise, Soviet and modern Russian sources describe this conflict in three separate parts: the raid, a defensive and an offensive campaign of the Great Patriotic war. The date of the start of the war (22.06.1941) is a dead giveaway for that, I'd say. In fact, "The Soviet historiography refers to it as the Soviet–Finnish War, 1941-1944" appears to be incorrect - I could find references to "Советско-фин(лянд)ская война (1941-1944)" only in post-Soviet sources. --Illythr (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Finland was an German ally and so a "campaign of the Great Patriotic war" is correct. However Stalin made a separate peace with Finland, so "the Soviet–Finnish War" is also a correct name of the conflict. Peltimikko (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Note the "Soviet historiography refers" part. Repdetect is interested in how the conflict was called by Soviets back then. --Illythr (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's worth anything, here are some of Stalin's order of the day speeches that speak of Finland being part of the Axis: [1] [2] [3] As you said, it would be great if we had access to an actual Stavka order. Other than these speeches, every other Soviet source that labels the war with Finland to be part of the GPW was made after WWII (as far as I know anyway).Repdetect117 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Illythr, by any chance have you found any Stavka documents which include fighting on the Soviet-Finnish border to be part of the Great Patriotic War? I noticed you found a document warning against possible aerial attacks on Leningrad from Finland, so I was just wondering? Repdetect117 (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, someone posted a link to a scan of the order on the ruwiki talk page, I just copied it over here. As for your question, this order could be interpreted as such, as it describes the airstrike as a preventive measure against German forces in Finland. On the other hand, we usually use secondary sources for such interpretation. --Illythr (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources huh? That reminds me, what was wrong with Boris Novikov's sources that he claimed that the Soviets considered the war with Finland to be a separate war of invasion rather than be part of the GPW? Were they misquoted or misinterpreted? I'm not aware if he ever produced any direct quotes which clearly stated so.Repdetect117 (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AFAIR, same thing - he cited the Tehran conference, which is a primary source as well. In addition, there was some original synthesis involved: 1) "the Finnish question" was not "solved" and Molotov discussed Germany's position on it with Hitler in November 1940. 2) The Soviet air offensive was the first major act of war in this conflict. 3) In Rezun's opinion, Stalin's take on the war against Germany and its allies was "the best defence is a good offence" 4) The Soviets had an offensive plan "in case of war" 1)+2)+3)+4) = separate war of invasion. --Illythr (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

$ 300M

Is there a comparison/conversion of this sum into something understandable by a modern reader? 300 000 000 $ isn't all that much nowadays (by country standards), so perhaps some context is in order? --Illythr (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it was 300M$ in prewar gold dollar value. Which was significantly higher than post war dollar let alone Finnish mark. In fi-wiki page of Finnish war reparations the value is estimated to have been - taking account the war time inflation etc - as a total of 4 G€ in 2003 currency. And it (not the whole sum, but yearly amount of war reparations) was in turn from 15-16% (1945-49) to 5-7% (1950-52) of government spending in Finland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Erikupoeg has already added a bit of context, but the above is closer to what I had in mind. If sourced, this would make a good explanation or at least an explanatory footnote for the lead. I couldn't find the source on the Finnish page, though (and what a link to ProKarelia's front page is doing there, btw?). --Illythr (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems most of the material on the wikipage has been taken from the introductory (sort of) section of the that on-line book on ProKarelia's page. Its not perfect match for all the data but it seems to be quite close. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Finnish army helping Germans in the Siege of Leningrad

The Finnish forces were stopped by the 23rd Army under Marshal Govorov as they crossed the old Soviet-Finnish border on the Karelian Isthmus.

The Finnish attacks repeated several times during September-December of 1941 upon German pleas for attacks on Leningrad.

This caused Britain to declare war on Finland on December 6, 1941. ref Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia. By Olli Vehvvilainen. English translation by Gerard McAlister. Palgrave, 2002, pages 100, 101, 104.

The Finns temporarily took, but failed to keep Beloostrov, they also advanced further south from the River Svir in the occupied East Karelia, but failed to establish the second circle of siege in conjunction with Germans.

1. Facts of active Finnish participation in Siege of Leningrad in the book "Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia." By Olli Vehvilainen. English translation by Gerard McAlister. Palgrave, 2002. (the book is available in libraries)

Page 89. One day before the Operation Barbarossa began, president Ryti stated to a parlimentary delegation... "If a war now breaks between Germany and Russia it could be to the advantage of the whole world."

Pages 98 - 101. Finnish forces crossed the line of Finland's 1939 border, and occupied Russian territories north and east of Leningrad.

Page 100. Churchill appealed to Mannerheim in a personal letter: Surely your troops advanced far enough for security during the war and could now halt and give leave. (Note: Finns did not leave, but blocked the railroad connecting Leningrad with Murmansk and crossed the Svir River trying to connect with Germans to form the larger "second circle" around Leningrad. At the same time Finland expelled all British diplomats from Helsinki.)

Page 100. On 6 December, Great Britain declared war on Finland. This was followed by declaration of war from Canada, Australia, India and New Zealand.

Page 104. Hitler proposed a Finnish border which would run from the White Sea to the Svir River and the Neva River. Hitler's proposal was supported by Ryti who announced in the Finnish Parliament the plan of conquering more lands in the east for the Greater Finland.

Page 104. ..plans drawn up in the Finnish Headquarters in summer 1941, it was the task of the occupation authorities of eastern Karelia to prepare the region for permanent integration with Finland as part of the plan for the Greater Finland.

Page 105. Russian place names were replaced with Finnish ones. The population was segregated into 'nationals' and 'non-nationals'... and the latter were to be deported

Page 107. ... the fate of prisoners of war was even more horrible. In 1941 over 65,000 soviet soldiers had been taken prisoner by the Finns. ... during the first winter, over 10,000 prisoners died of hunger and disease in the overcrouded camps. all in all, over 18,700 men died ... while in captivity in Finland.

Page 108. As hopes of a German victory evaporated, so also public references to a "greater Finland" wained.... in June 1944, ..a massive offensive by the Red Army forced the Finns to withdraw from the area (Eastern Karelia, north-east of Leningrad). Then the dream of a Greater Finland was finally buried.

Page 109. For two-and-a-half years the Finnish Army occupied the positions it had captured in autumn 1941 in Eastern Karelia and north of Leningrad.

2. Fact from Encyclopedia Britannica "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [4]

Please be diligent! Please be wise! Grow to the task. Do not rush to argument without reading the books from the list of sources diligently page by page.

Nobody wants Wikipedia contradicting with facts from Encyclopedia Britannica: "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [5]

Result

Looking at the wildly swinging sock puppet accusations there might be a need to reset the results to something more people can agree with. Make it a straw poll if you want to. Suggestion, 'Moscow Armistice', that alone should be enough as there already is an article about it. That is Soviet victory does seem to imply for SU being victorious and Finnish being defeated even though the Finnish army was its strongest after the SU attack in 1944 and also defeated and/or repulsed and drove away all final SU attacks ( Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Viipurinlahti, Battle of Vuosalmi, Battle of Nietjärvi, Battle_of_Ilomantsi, not to mention the utterly failed SU aerial attacks on Helsinki). Hardly results gained against victorious forces. On the other hand RU did manage to push the front back. And Finns did eventually agree on the peace terms - though only after SU made the peace treaty terms less severe. So how would it be if you just took out both soviet victory and finnish defensive victory and just leave it at that? - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Again looking at the outcome of the war and the peace terms, it is ridiculous to not call this a Soviet victory. You should not only look at the Finnish historiography of won battles and Soviet failures. -YMB29 (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of the war was a cease fire and then later a peace treaty, not surrender or capitulation. Peace terms were much harsher before the Soviet attack in 1944 had been stopped. Still doesn't sound like a 'victory' to me. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not sound like a victory when your are wearing pro-Finnish glasses... You don't need to completely surrender to lose a war. The cease fire was only declared when the Finnish government showed that they were willing to sign a treaty on Soviet terms.

And how were the terms much harsher before the Soviet offensive? -YMB29 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unconditional surrender is generally considered to be much harsher than any even conditional peace negotiations, or would you disagree? Though SU did offer peace terms earlier - after Helsinki was bombed - but even though on other subjects this treaty would have been roughly similar to the eventual peace treaty it included twice as high war reparations with far less time to pay them. Though later as i said earlier this changed to unconditional surrender - according to some sources SU later claimed that this was a misunderstanding, possibly to appear to be in accord with what was agreed in Tehran Conference and with US demands (however unconditional surrender was what Finns at that time understood the treaty to mean). Regardless of the reasons those treaties were rejected by the Finns. And after Soviet attacks had been stopped or repulsed the SU dropped the unconditional surrender demand and agreed for a peace treaty with smaller war reparations and longer time to pay them than before. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

When did they want unconditional surrender? Like you said, the only difference between peace terms given before the offensive and the final ones was that the Finns had to pay less reparations, more time to pay them, and more time to get the Germans out. What else? This is hardly an argument for victory... -YMB29 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

SU offered terms and too harsh to accept terms in April 1944 which Finns refused to accept. Then at height of the Soviet push Finns did ask for terms for which SU offered only unconditional surrender (June 22nd) which was flatly refused by the Finns. This was before any of the decisive battles. After the series of battles (listed above) all of which varied from disastrous to mere total failure for the Soviets the SU ambassador (in Sweden) informed that that SU would not (any more) require unconditional surrender and the peace talks started. Before the talks ended Finns had stopped SU advances on the other areas (than Karelian Isthmus) and also destroyed (driven back and forcing them to surrender all equipment) two SU divisions in Ilomantsi. Then SU agreed for lesser terms. And i haven't argued for Finnish victory - I have argued against Soviet victory. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't have an argument against Soviet victory. All you can say is that the terms were made less harsh, but they still were harsh, ones that the victor dictates.

Unconditional surrender is how it was interpreted by the Finns, and again the original terms were not that much harsher compared to the final. Also, like I said before, I don't trust the Finnish interpretation of those "decisive" battles, but all this is besides the point. -YMB29 (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the Stalin would have been offering the darn Moon from the sky but what information went to the Finns was interpreted to say 'unconditional surrender'. And it hardly was purely 'victor dictates' if the terms were made less severe on exactly on the points which were found impossible to fulfill (unless of course victor was dictating to make the peace treaty more acceptable for the Finns - :P ). And the very same question i posted to the other 'thread'... If the Soviets were winning why didn't they succeed in destroying the Finnish Army or reaching the Kymijoki river, both of which were stated goals of the offensive. Or was just that they didn't win? If you don't trust Finnish version then try to figure out a good answer why did RKKA failed to reach its objectives? Why SU casualties kept mounting if the front lines didn't move? Why didn't RKKA reach Finnish post Winter War border? (or in the one place they did then why there did red army divisions run back to SU through the forests abandoning their equipment?) - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an understanding of what is a military victory? It is not about achieving all the military tactical goals, but accomplishing the wider strategic goal or gaining more than the enemy after the war. The main goal of the Soviets during that time was defeating Germany and capturing Berlin, not Helsinki. They just wanted Finland out of the war and pay a price for its alliance with Germany, which all happened. They did not care about completely destroying the Finish army or occupying Finland. By your logic the Vietnam War should not be a victory for North Vietnam, since they did not destroy the US military or win many major battles (not meaning to say that the Soviets did not win many battles against the Finns). -YMB29 (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes i do.. And what Soviets accomplished was hardly a military victory. Political one it was though. If the SU didn't care of destroying Finnish army then why was that declared as a goal for the operation'? Or was it Soviet tactic to make grandiose goals and then declaring victory after being unable to reach them? North Vietnam actually did win several (Ho Chi Minh campaign, Saigon, US withdrawal is whole another story) of the final battles of that war - something which the Soviets were incapable of accomplishing at that time. If failing to win counts as a victory in your books (as it seems to do - by your logic it would seem to me that the US won the Vietnam war) then you are on the right track. OTOH then all major engagements at end of the war would be Finnish victories instead of 'defensive victories' using the same reasoning as you do. And you conveniently ignored the questions i placed for you... - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Again you don't make sense.

The North Vietnamese hardly won a major battle against the US.

When did the Soviets declare that they wanted to completely destroy the Finnish army? They only cared about destroying them enough to push them back and convince Finland to sign peace.

All you do is ignore the final outcome of the war and talk about tales of "decisive" Finnish victories. This is just laughable... -YMB29 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This says so Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive (not the only source, just the one most readily available).. See the Plan. I'll copy the relevant portions here so its easier to view. "The Stavka plan called for a two-pronged offensive, one from Leningrad via Vyborg to the River Kymijoki, and the second across the Svir River through Petrozavodsk and Sortavala past the 1940 border, preparing for an advance deep into Finland. The plan called for the Finnish army to be destroyed in the Karelian Isthmus...". So lets start checking, (1) reaching Kymijoki, failed, (2) reaching Sortavala, failed, (3) destroying Finnish army, failed. I have answered you in the question of what was final outcome of the war and i never have claimed Finns of winning the war. What i have claimed is that neither did SU (at least on military level). Hence result should be just Moscow Armistice and nothing else. And you are still ignoring the line of questions i placed for you.

As for the decisive victories... Again you seem to have not read what i have written.. Decisive battle is often used as a synonym of important battle which indeed i used. However I do not seem to have called any of the battles as decisive victories. Though some of them could be called as such like Battle of Ilomantsi.

Also i never said NV would have won a major battle against US, I just stated that NV did win the major battles at the end of the Vietnam War (which continued, or rather restarted after US withdrawal, not before it). - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No according to your logic the North Vietnamese failed in every tactical objective against the US (just as you say the Soviets failed against the Finns), and the US chose to withdraw based on political pressure (like Finland in 1944 as you and others here imply), so one can say that the US did not lose the war... Your view of the war is that those supposed Finnish "victories" in the end saved it from occupation and ensured that Finland did not lose the war. So it is not wrong to say that you consider them decisive. What questions are you talking about? Casualties were mounting on both sides and Finland knew that it could not last for too long. If one talks about the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, it is a major success even if all the tactical goals were not accomplished. You cling to every tactical objective not being accomplished as proof of Soviets not being victorious. Again Vyborg and Petrozavodsk were liberated (major tactical victories), Finns exited the war and accepted Soviet terms (strategic and political victories). What more do you want? -YMB29 (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It was you who started implying that there were similarities with Vietnam War and Continuation War, not me. Don't try to claim that i said something that didn't. From my POV there are very little similarities between those conflicts and reasons for pulling out of them. All i stated was that in Vietnam War NV did succeed in the final decisive attacks and in Continuation War SU failed. Both are facts.

The questions... Also keep in mind that strength of Finnish army actually increased during the offensive as reservists were recalled for duty (a lot of reservists had been released from duty in 1942) even when you count in the casualties. And this is without counting in the modern (by then) assault guns, anti-tank equipment and fighter planes which greatly increased Finnish army's fighting strength.

• If the Soviets were winning why didn't they succeed in destroying the Finnish Army or reaching the Kymijoki river, both of which were stated goals of the offensive. Or was just that they didn't win?
• If you don't trust Finnish version then try to figure out a good answer why did RKKA failed to reach its objectives?
• Why SU casualties kept mounting if the front lines didn't move (rate for SU casualties was much higher than during the static phase of 1942 - 1943)?
• Why didn't RKKA reach Finnish post Winter War border?
• Or in the one place they did then why there did red army divisions run back to SU through the forests abandoning their equipment?

Kymijoki river and beating of Finnish army on the Karelian Isthmus were the initials goals of that offensive. You seem to be ignoring that Finns didn't agree to initial SU terms. Or that SU changed the peace terms to unconditional surrender. Or that when attack failed - Finland didn't surrender or capitulate - and Finns refused to agree with SU demands, SU first have give in with the 'unconditional surrender' demand and also make the terms of the agreement less severe. From military perspective the operation was a failure for the SU. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The North Vietnamese failed against the US just like you said the Soviets failed against the Finns in the end (this is your view of course), so logically it is correct from your thinking to say that the US did not lose the war just like Finland.

Talk about the increased strength of the Finnish army is useless. Its leaders knew they could not last for long if the Soviets launched another major operation. This is admitted, and they would not have signed the treaty otherwise.

Very high losses for the Soviets and not for Finland is just part of the Finnish version of the war.

Again just because it was a stalemate at the end does not change the fact that the Soviet offensive was successful in driving the Finns back and forcing them to sign peace. You keep on ignoring this and going in circles. You also did not prove that the Soviets wanted unconditional surrender. -YMB29 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

NV did fail to win against the US troops. However US departure was not related to military situation in Vietnam. You should notice that US troops left the Vietnam before the Vietnam War reached its conclusion. The final battles - which were decisive NV victories - were fought against South Vietnam. There is very little similarity with Continuation War.

Very high losses compared to the losses suffered when the fronts were static in 1942-43.

You could just as well say that Finnish military fought well enough to force SU from conditional surrender demand to peace treaty. And what exactly do you require as a proof of the Soviet demand for unconditional surrender? Marshall Mannerheim in his memoirs specifically mentions Soviet demands (which he received in 23rd of June 1944) as demands for unconditional surrender - I won't bother posting the text as it is in Finnish and you didn't seem to approve not accept documents written in Finnish. Some Internet sources [6], [7].

Also, as usual, you have failed to provide any evidence on the contrary. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What sources you want? That Finland paid $300,000,000 to the USSR, or that the Soviets took Vyborg and Petrozavodsk? You did not see my source about Stalin talking about Finland at the Tehran Conference?

Again unconditional surrender demand was how it was interpreted by the Finns. Losses were very high for the Finns also and they could not take those for much longer.

The North Vietnamese did not achieve their military goals against the US, just like you said the USSR did not against the Finns (you are in denial), so logically if Finland did not lose then the US did not also. -YMB29 (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that the reparations were twice as high with far less time to pay them when Finns didn't agree to them in Spring 1944. After which Soviet raised the demands to unconditional surrender (check Mannerheim's memoirs if you don't believe it). After Soviet attacks had been beaten and defeated Soviets not only withdrew the unconditional surrender demand (by claiming it had been a misunderstanding was seemingly just a face saving ploy) but also agreed to halve the reparations and give longer time to pay them (just like Finns had requested when it came clear reparations had to be paid). And Stalin promised a lot of things to the Western allies. Only few came to pass (did democratic elections in Poland or in rest of the Eastern Europe happen).

As i have stated several times strength of Finnish army grew also. Finns had disbanded a lot of reservists after the front stabilized at the end of 1942. These were recalled. Also younger age class had just been trained. Finnish army's strength was considerably higher at the end of the SU attack than before it.

I'm still not getting why you keep drawing Vietnam War into the same frame as Continuation War. Totally different and totally separate events. And just FYI US departure had very little to do with NV successes or failures. There was no winners or losers in the Vietnam War at that state (yet). Vietnam War continued after the US had left. And then - again after the US had left - did the North Vietnam beat the South Vietnam - situation couldn't be more different than what it was in Continuation War. Please check the facts you are using. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Vietnam War is used to demonstrate that the result of a war is judged by the political and strategic outcome. The US did not lose much battles, but lost the war. If you think it did not then you are the one who needs to check facts. Even the most patriotic Americans admit that. Here you are trying to push the view that since Finland supposedly won the last few battles, it did not lose the war. Look at the outcome. Reparations are paid by the losers...

The reparations were halved because it was understood that Finland could not pay the original amount. The US and Britian were worried about that. How much effect the Finnish resistance in the end of the offensive had on the decision is open to speculation, but the most you can claim here is that Finland improved its position a little. This does not change the fact that Finland had to submit to harsh demands and therefore lost the war.

You want to think about unconditional surrender being real and dismiss Stalin's words as lies, go head; it is just further proof that you are in denial.

By the way, elections did take place in some Eastern European countries, like Czechoslovakia for example. -YMB29 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Which the communists lost.. and Soviet sponsored coup de etat happening there in 1948 was certainly something in accord with Stalins promises to the west... free elecions - right... Not to mention Prague Spring - another Soviet 'high' point. And the other free elections (in Hungary) ended also in communists losing them but Soviets enforcing the communists ruling position..

If you have any proof the Soviet demand during the campaign was not an unconditional surrender then please present it. Finnish sources are quite clear that during the initial phase of the attack SU demanded unconditional surrender (capitulation). This has been repeated in several sources. Only after the attacks had been stopped did SU remember that it didn't ask for unconditional surrender.

Something to read on the issue:

• Finland's Relations with the Soviet Union, 1940-1986
• Stalin's insistent endeavors at conquering Finland

Again here you claim Finns didn't win the final battles. Please provide some proof that they didn't. Finnish sources are explicit about this. Repeated Soviet attempts failed to have any effect. As losses kept mounting and it came apparent that RKKA had failed Stalin pulled back the better quality elements which had been attached for the operations against Finns and moved them against Germans. It has also been shown that those elements were withdrawn only after the SU attack had been stopped.

So you conveniently ignore the fact that it was the domestic opposition and policy changes (and at points even the worse foreign relations caused by the war) which lead to US withdrawal from the Vietnam War. Which yet again makes the Vietnam War something which can not be compared against Continuation War. And from what i have seen there are lots of people who do not considered that US lost in Vietnam. After all US made peace with North Vietnam and then withdraw its troops - at which point the situation remained undecided (or a draw). Which was done before NV launched its final attack (at which point US was no longer participant in the war).

Again, here you present the Soviet view. But Soviets were not offering anything else than unconditional surrender until their attacks had been stopped. Now i leave the burden of proof for you... Finnish documents provide quite clear details on how RKKA was stopped and driven back and how and when did SU demands change into peace terms, so.. Please provide evidence or proof that (i) If Finnish army didn't stop RKKA (ie. win the battles) how did RKKA failed to reach even initial goals of their offensive, (ii) Finnish army didn't win the battles, (iii) SU was not offering unconditional surrender during its attack. - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Czechoslovak communists did not lose in 1946, but got the most votes. And in 1948 they had enough support to take over. Anyway, this is very off topic. For unconditional surrender, look at your own link to a forum discussion about the surrender document. The actual message to the Finns was very different and unconditional surrender is how the Finns interpreted it. Anyway this again is irrelevant when talking about the result, as even if unconditional surrender was demanded at the height of the offensive, the results of the war don't change. Again all the talk about conquering Finland and unconditional surrender are speculation. Nothing solid has been provided by you. Slowing down or stopping an advance does not mean winning all the battles. It seems as if the Finns regard any battle in which they did not retreat or lose kilometers in ground as deceive victories... The fact that troops were recalled to other fronts simply means that the other fronts were much more important and what has been accomplished was good enough (which of course proved true with Finland accepting terms). The US failed in all of its strategic aims in Vietnam, so that is why Americans themselves consider the war as lost. This shows that the strategic and political outcome is most important when determining losers and winners of wars. I could go and provide various sources, but you are the one who needs to present reliable sources for your controversial statements. -YMB29 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well.. i only responded to the Czech issue as you brought it up.

So.. after i did provide sources you still decide that because think you are right you do not need to provide any sources but instead i would need to provide more? Right....

So according to your so far non-existing sources if Stalin tried to conquer or subvert Finland in 1939, 1940-41, and 1944 - 1948 he suddenly didn't want to do so in Summer 1944 when issuing unconditional surrender demand. Perhaps you need to back up claim with something else as well. Also as said several times throughout the discussion Mannerheim as well as several other prominent Finnish figures list the Soviet demand as unconditional surrender.

You are continuously twisting my words. I haven't said the battles were decisive Finnish victories. I said the last battle, where two SU divisions were broken and driven from their positions while capturing all their equipment and heavy weapons, could be decisive victory. It and the other battles were however decisive battles. (there is a big difference between decisive victory and decisive battle) I have pointed this out several times already in this thread but still you seem to be insisting about this one.

US strategic goals shifted midway during the Vietnam War. It would be hypocritical to select a single instance to represent their strategic goals throughout the war.

I have provided sources. You have provided nothing. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You have provided nothing but empty talk and speculation.

How did the US strategy shift in Vietnam? They lost the war and there is no way around that, just like for Finland...

Decisive battles implies decisive victories, especially if you claim that Finland won them. -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The shift in US policies during Vietnam War... Open any decent history book and read about it? Or check something like Role of the United States in the Vietnam War, or Nixon Doctrine, or equivalents? All tell the same thing. Which is that you are still comparing apples with oranges.

Now then... Battle... Namely decisive battle.. (quote from the linked page) A decisive battle is one of particular importance; often by bringing hostilities to an end, such as the Battle of Hastings or the Battle of Hattin, or as a turning point in the fortunes of the belligerents, such as the Battle of Stalingrad. A decisive battle can have political as well as military impact, changing the balance of power or boundaries between countries. There are no mentions (in wikipedia or in dictionaries) that for a battle to be decisive it has to be decisively won by any of the warring parties. From Finnish POV the battles (which can be proven to have happened and ended in favor of the Finns) were of particular importance, hence for Finns they are decisive battles as in those battles attacking SU units were stopped dead in their tracks and acted as turning point after which SU dropped its unconditional surrender/capitulation demand and agreed to less harsh terms.

Extremely interesting that when i explicitly point to the articles (several times) and to memoirs of notable figures (Mannerheim) you still summarily just dismiss them as nothing while providing nothing to oppose those. If i cant use valid articles or publishes memoirs as sources what can be used? Only books and texts which adhere to Soviet interpretation of the events? - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... Where are your sources that prove Finland did not lose the war despite accepting loser's terms to end it? Or solid sources for unconditional surrender?

Decisive battles that you say clearly ended in Finnish victories... Well it does not take much to see that you imply decisive Finnish victories. Simple logic here...

You want to think that battles in which the Finns did not run in retreat and give up significant amounts of land are clear Finnish victories, go ahead... But even if they ended in crushing Soviet defeats the results of the whole war cannot be changed...

The definition you brought up fits the Soviet offensive well.

If you like bringing up definitions from Wikipedia look at the one for strategic victory: A strategic victory is a victory that brings long-term advantage to the victor, and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage a war. When a historian speaks of a victory in general, it is usually referring to a strategic victory.

The US went to Vietnam to stop communist expansion and failed. Shifts of policies don't matter... This war shows that the most important outcome is the strategic one, not some short term tactical one. Is that so hard to understand? -YMB29 (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

War ended in armistice/peace treaty, not in surrender, not even in conditional surrender. As far as i am concerned that (Moscow Armistice is the end result). Unless you have sources saying otherwise?

Mannerheim, C. G. E., Muistelmat, osa II ("Memoirs, Part II"), page 450. 1952. - Rough translation:

• Evening on the 23rd of June when Ribbentrop was still in Helsinki the government received a following communication from soviet regime via Stockholm:
• Because the Finns have several times betrayed us, we want Finnish cabinet/state to make an announcement signed by the president and the foreign minister where they tell that Finland is ready to surrender and turn to soviet government in asking for a peace. If we receive this kind of announcement then Moscow is ready to accept Finnish delegation.

Essentially demanding an announcement of surrender without any conditions attached (ie. unconditional surrender). Demand was made as an response to Finnish peace inquiries during the Soviet attack. And it was refused.

You are the only one drawing those conclusions. When i say 'decisive battle' i do mean 'decisive battle' i don't mean 'decisively won battle'. If you fail to see the difference then you probably should study the meanings of those two expressions a bit harder.

Soviet push was hardly a decisive, advanced roughly a 100 km, failed to penetrate or reach their goals, and Finns were holding the line and sitting in negotiation table both before and after the attack.

The US certainly went to Vietnam in order to stop communist expansion. That i do not deny. However as the policies shifted US that goal was no longer valid and they signed a peace treaty and pulled their troop away. As far the US is concerned the war ended into that peace treaty couple of years before the Vietnam war (between SV and NV) actually ended. You are making far fetched conclusions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes the war ended in the Moscow Armistice, which was dictated by the USSR. The terms clearly indicate who the victor was, I don't even understand why I am wasting my time arguing the obvious with you. Most users here have agreed on this.

As I said before, that message, although harsh, does not mean unconditional surrender. It is basically asking for official confirmation that the Finnish government is willing to talk about peace.

It is not my conclusion that the US lost in Vietnam... Your denial of this again proves that you only consider defeat when an army gets totally defeated on the battlefield.

Yes the Soviet advance was hardly decisive... Only 100 km... Finland only had to pay $300,000,000 as a result...

And again, winning in decisive battles implies having decisive victories. If one follows standard logic... -YMB29 (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You should notice that the peace terms were much more harsh earlier and then SU even demanded unconditional surrender. Only after SU offensive had failed did they agree on the milder terms. Given that attacking SU troops were defeated i cant understand how it could be counted as Soviet victory. Sure it was a success if you considered that it removed Finns from the war but you should also consider that Finns had been trying to end the war since 1943 - SU could have gained somewhat similar success without any use of troops - Mannerheim had informed Germany that should they lose Estonian/Baltic coast Finns would be forced to make peace even at unfavorable terms (this happened before summer 1944). For them ending the war was hardly a 'bad thing' or 'failure'. Terms were fairly harsh true but those were something that Finns could agree to unlike any of the previous terms. Its interesting that in your case the loser has undefeated army while the winners army had been beaten and pushed back.

Demand for surrender without any conditions is the definition of unconditional surrender. So it was a demand for unconditional surrender. If SU leadership was not able to understand what they were demanding that is another thing. But what matters is that they demanded unconditional surrender and that is how it was interpreted by the Finns.

Ok, that might be your conclusion. What you are failing to see is that there is a difference in determining the winner and loser in battles and in wars. For battles its relatively easy, for wars it rarely is unless either side clearly loses (didn't happen in continuation war) or a clear surrender (again this didn't happen either).

If one follows standard logic he should FIRST check the definitions of the terms before insisting and telling others how they should be used and interpreted. You clearly have not done this. Please try to learn the difference in the definitions of the terms decisive battle and decisive victory. You shouldn't start making your own interpretations on terms which you clearly are not familiar with. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Still rambling on with this? I think you are the one who needs to learn some definitions here...

You still can't explain how that message means unconditional surrender.

An undefeated army does not get routed and retreats for hundreds of kilometers, leaving behind major positions and cities... -YMB29 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been claiming several times that 'decisive battle' must lead to a 'decisive victory.

• Decisive_victory - A decisive victory is an indisputable military victory of a battle that determines or significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict. It does not always coincide with the end of combat. and The term has also been used to describe victories in which the prevailing side utterly overwhelmed the losing side.
• Battle#Types_of_battle - A decisive battle is one of particular importance; often by bringing hostilities to an end, such as the Battle of Hastings or the Battle of Hattin, or as a turning point in the fortunes of the belligerents, such as the Battle of Stalingrad.
• Rout - A rout is commonly defined as a chaotic and disorderly retreat or withdrawal of troops from a battlefield, resulting in the victory of the opposing party, or following defeat, a collapse of discipline, or poor morale.

And now you claim Finnish army was routed (perhaps yet another definition you need to check) - it must a wonder then that SU never really managed to capture more than a handful of POWs, or that SU attack was halted by these same routed troops which actually contraty to the routing held of the SU and made orderly withdrawal... Sounds more like yet another bit of SU era fantasy talk. Finns gave up the major positions (which were still unfinished at the summer of 1944) after they had been breached and there were no longer good reasons to keep them. Losing Viipuri on the other hand was a sad event (it was not really defended at all due some apparently command issues), though on a hindsight it allowed Finns to take much stronger defensive positions in Tienhaara just north of Viipuri.

I see the message as what it was, a demand for announcement of surrender without any set conditions. Which is a synonym with uncondional surrender. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You can see whatever you wish; that is your problem.

I think you need to pay close attention to those definitions, as well as logic (victory in decisive battle --> decisive victory)...

What do you call losing that much territory and retreating if not a rout? But yes the Finns had more POWs (according to you), so I guess that outweighs everything... -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So if the message is written in a way that explicitly demands unconditional surrender before talks in your opinion it should have been read to mean something else?????

I provided you even the references from where to check the definitions of the terms you have been using, and yet you insist to keep twisting the words?

You can check the number of POWs as many times and from as many sources as you like. But please provide the evidence here before you make baseless claims. And i'm not claiming that number of POW would be an absolute tool, but its evidence contradicting your statements. Unless you have some way of proving otherwise?

Again, rout refers (commonly) to disorderly or chaotic withdrawal or retreat. Finnish troops made orderly withdrawal. So it just could not have been a rout. - Wanderer602 (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ready to surrender and ask for peace is not the same as unconditional surrender... You fail to see how the terms apply to the Finnish situation in 1944 or to what you were saying. Your POW claims in no way contradict what I am saying; they just show how misguided your are.
Also:

The heavy Soviet tanks ruthlessly smashed their way through the Finnish lines. The morale of some Finnish units collapsed, and the men fled in panic. Others offered a stout resistance, but before long they, too, were forced to withdraw in the face of overwhelming material superiority. The Soviet forces advanced 70 km in ten days. Surprisingly, the defenses of Vyborg crumbled, and on 20 June Soviet forces overran the city almost without a fight.

-Finland in the Second World War: between Germany and Russia by Olli Vehviläinen (page 138) [8]

Looks like a rout to me... -YMB29 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge difference in making an armistice and eventually a peace treaty compared to surrender (or especially unconditional surrender). As now Finns could choose if they wanted to accept the terms or not. On unconditional surrender SU would have been in position to dictate them or even occupy the whole country.

Also as proven earlier - none of the treaties signed by the Finns had any reference to surrender (not conditional or unconditional).

If it was rout how come SU never managed to inflict heavier losses on the Finns? Sure, some individuals broke and ran. Army as the whole didn't - it withdrew to secondary positions or started delaying actions. It took heavily mechanized and armored SU units with air support full 10 days to advance that 70 km. 7 kilometers per day hardly sounds like operation against routed foe - especially as in 1941 it took less than 10 days for the unmechanized Finns without air support to advance 100 km in the same area. Loss of Viipuri was a sad thing though on a hindsight Finns gained very strong positions along the waterway just north of the city due to that loss (ones SU did not manage to breach at all regardless of several attempts to do so). - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You are just in denial... It was not just some individuals who broke and ran... So now 70km in 10 days is not enough? Well what is enough for you, 150.527km? In 1941 the Soviets were more concerned with the Germans, not the Finns. And it is not like the Germans did not provide air and mechanized support for the Finns.

Surrender can have different interpretations, but the Finns did give in to Soviet demands so it was not just making an armistice. -YMB29 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You are once again misrepresenting what i wrote. Try reading the whole comment before commenting a single sentence, like the one following the one you grasp on "Army as the whole didn't (break)". And as said, 70 km in 10 days was not that impressive pace as unmechanized troops did the same operation in less than that 3 years earlier. The fact that Germans were the assumed primary target was the reason SU attack progressed as well as it did as it was unexpected (Finns had less than 90 000 troops in the Isthmus). At which time Germans provided essentially no air support (Detachment Kuhlmey arrived only at 17th) and no mechanical support (arrived even later, at 21st) for the Finns.

Surrender sure can have different interpretations but given that Finns categorically refused to sign treaties which had any reference to surrendering, it seems very far fetched idea. Nor were any of the Finnish troops disarmed by the SU troops. By any defintion of the words it was an 'armistice followed by peace treaty' while it is only by some very loose definitions a 'surrender'. But then again by that extension several other conflicts would need to be re-evaluated as well. Like that SU surrendered to Afghans. - Wanderer602 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, what conditions did the Soviets accept from the Afghan rebels?

Again, surrender or not, the Finns gave in to demands.

And I meant that the Germans provided air and mechanized support in 1941.

As for the Finnish collapse, I guess no matter how many sources I provide you won't accept it and will keep on rolling out useless excuses... -YMB29 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter - by using the definition you we're using - they withdrew and ceased combat. By the same definitions you interpret the Finnish armistice to be a surrender can the SU withdraval be interpreted to be a surrender.

Yes, that they did - in the negoation table when discussing armistice - not of surrender.

Germans provided no air or mechanized support for Finns before summer 1944. And even then those needed to be bought (apart from the actual German air/mechanized units which also were present only in summer 1944).

Well it all depends on what you say to have collapsed. The two defensive ('mainline' and 'VT'-line) lines certainly did collapse fairly soon after SU assault began. If you say that then i have no problems with it as it is true. However Finnish army - not even just the units on the Isthmus - did not collapse. And i havent seen that many sources provided by you here. Wanderer602 (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said I am not going to waste my time providing more sources only for you to make some more elaborate excuses after.

Germans did not help Finland with at least air support? I would think they did since they were using Finnish airfields. However this does not even matter as most of the Soviet forces were tied up with the Germans.

Finland did not just withdraw, it accepted terms dictated by the Soviets, which included surrendering many of its positions, whether physical or political, but you refuse to see the obvious. -YMB29 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Elaborate excuses? You provided a single source from which you took an ambiguously worded quote that you interpreted to say something it didn't. The quote you posted just didn't say what you claimed it to say.

Germans provided no air support for the Finns before summer 1944.

Finns accepted the call to ceasefire and eventually peace talks. Terms were harsh but still less severe than what SU had demanded in spring 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So the Finns did not just withdraw then...

The quote from the source was enough to show that it was a rout or at least a major retreat and defeat for Finland, but you are in denial so what can I do... You start saying that the quote did not have the word rout, that the Finnish army did not totally collapse and surrender, that Finland defeated the Soviets in 1941, that Finland had more POWs, and other irrelevant things... -YMB29 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote you used said that some units paniced and others kept fighting on. Drawing from that a conclusion that Finnish army was routed is not possible as the quote stated that the other units kept fighting (i.e. even the quote states that whole of the army did not rout).

Also as said.. Finnish army did not collapse. It was even after the breaktroughs capable of orderly withdrawal (or retreat) and perfoming delaying actions. However two defensive lines did collapse and roughly half of the Karelian Isthmus was lost.

I did not say Finland defeated Soviets in 1941. I said Finns defeated Soviet units in the Isthmus is 1941.

POW comparison seemed like fairly reasonable method for assessing if army or perhaps rather the units of the army had been routed or had lost their will to fight. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, the number of POWs is not a real indicator of an army being routed, retreating for 100s of kilometers is...

Orderly withdrawal with delaying actions... This is really just a more positive way of saying full retreat.

Some units fought on while others panicked, but, like the quote says, the result was a full retreat and quick loss of territory, which fits the description of a military rout. Keep denying the obvious... -YMB29 (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully or at least mostly mechanized army advancing whole 10 km per day does not sound like operations against routed foe. Especially as unmechanized Finnish units advanced roughly 15 km per day in 1941 in same area.

True, it is same as saying that the Finnish troops retreated - though not exactly sure what you mean by 'full retreat'. However it also is clear that the event (an orderly withdrawal) was not a rout as rout is by definition a disorderly or chaotic withdrawal. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Another "orderly withdrawal" like that and the Soviets would have been in Helsinki... But for you even that would not be a rout...

You can't figure out what a full retreat is?

Again where did you get 15 km a day for Finland? They were facing a much weaker force anyway. -YMB29 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No matter how you want to twist it the rout is by definition an chaotic and disorderly withdrawal. As this did not happen it could not have been a rout. Claiming it have been rout would be tantamount to lying.

Its interesting then that SU troops failed to advance any further not to mention failing to achieve their goals if their opponent was opponent had been broken.

Finnish troops on foot captured in 7 days the same 100 km that mechanized and motorized SU units took in 10. 100 km / 7 days is 14 and then some. I could have used 14 there if it makes it seem any better.

Much weaker you say.. Lets see.. In 1944 SU had 300k - 450k troops vs Finnish 75k (nominally 90k). Which gives SU 4:1 advantage though as Finnish reinforcements arrived it gradually grew smaller. And this without taking armor, artillery or air forces into account. In 1941 Finns had 7 divisions and SU had 8 (7 'real' divisions and 1 division strength 'fortified area'). German offensive made SU move two divisions to south of St. Petersburg leaving there 7 Finnish divisions facing 6 SU divisions. Given that normal SU division was at least nominally slightly stronger than its Finnish equivalent not to mention being much better equipped (including integral armor support) the opponents had essentially equal strength. So where did you get this 'much weaker force' idea? - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to be a military analyst... First of all, divisions' actual status and readiness have to be taken into account, not just looking at numbers on paper. Secondly, I am not even going to get into another detailed discussion on an off-topic subject on Wikipedia with a patriotic e-historian... You accusing me of twisting and turning, plus lying? How ironic... You want to think that a rout was just an orderly withdrawal, go ahead... I get your points. Finland did not lose the war, did much better than the Soviets, was not the aggressor, was not a real German ally... There is no point in trying to convince you otherwise. Most credible sources prove you wrong, but at least you are not manipulating them like Boris Novikov... -YMB29 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

First you make unbased claims that something was much weaker than something other and when i post contradicting comments you immediately discredit my comments as something from patriotic e-historian?

As for your claim of unit readiness.. State of war (i mean the real war since the 25th of June) had existed for nearly a month before the attacks in the across the Isthmus began. It can't be blamed on unit status or readiness at that point any more.

All i have said that orderly withdrawal is not a rout. This is in accordance with the definition of the term rout. The usage which you have insisted of using contradicts the accepted usage of the term rout. You didn't provide any evidence that on the whole Finnish army would have disorderly retreated from the battle.

Please provide these credible sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Just like there is no evidence that the whole Finnish army surrendered and therefore Finland did not lose the war... Like I said this is patriotic e-historian talk. Did you come here from the axishistory forums by the way? I have seen a lot of patriotic e-historians there...

Fact is the Finnish defenses collapsed and many of the units were routed, and as a result the whole army was in mass retreat. Call it an orderly withdrawal if it makes you feel better...

The Soviets were not ready for war and when the Germans attacked they sent the best troops and equipment to face them. There were huge problems with supplying the army during the disastrous start of the war. So of course the Soviet units facing Finland were much weaker and not ready for combat.

Like I said you need to learn real history (not patriotic historiography) but I am not going to educate you here and keep providing you with sources. -YMB29 (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, i have never registered or posted there. As there aren't that many forums talking about Finland in WW2 searches related to Finns in WW2 quite often direct there however.

Nope. Finnish line was breached at a weak point so badly that the breakthrough could no longer be contained. The unit that had been defending that particular section may well have been routed. At this point however the Finnish HQ deployed fresh units to stall Soviet breakthrough while they pulled the troops from the rest of that line to avoid them being surrounded. These units then made orderly - often while fighting delaying actions - withdrawals. Which gives us a situation where 'few' or 'some' units fled or were routed while 'most' or 'others' made orderly withdrawal. However the army was far from being routed when it reached the 'VKT' line.

SU had started mobilizing its armies when the German attacks begun. When Finnish attack began on the Isthmus a month later they may not have been ready for war but they expected (to some degree) one to start quite soon. And as i described the Soviets did pull some of the units defending the Isthmus to fight against Germans. Though what they had may have been second rate units - of that i do not have information. But if they should have been ready for combat. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Finns should have been ready for combat in 1944 even more.

Well at least you agree that the frontline units were routed... -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

On 'ground level' troops had become used to the 'static/trench warfare' and on highest levels expected there to be peace sooner or later (given the talks between SU and Finns in Spring 1944).

Front line troops where the Soviet breakthrough happened. As SU did not make attacks across the whole front against the Finnish positions. Instead they concentrated on single spot on the line. So expanding the concept (troops being routed) for the whole of the front line wouldn't be true however. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Front as in where the fighting took place. Of course troops that were not attacked could not have been routed... -YMB29 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Soviets managed to break through only at a single position. They did attack pretty all along the front extending from Baltic Sea to Lagoda as well (either as faints or then as failed probes). - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Single position? Maybe it was only one small Finnish unit in one small position that collapsed and all others retreated because of that one unit... -YMB29 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

First in Valkeasaari (Beloostrov) - against Finnish main defense line - and later in Kuuterselkä (Lebyazhye) - against 'VT' line. In both cases using overwhelming numbers and heavy support. In Valkeasaari SU used extremely heavy artillery bombardment and then attacked (3 Finnish battalions vs. 48 Soviet battalions or a regiment vs. an army corps). Not too surprisingly the line broke there. SU gained some 15 km deep and wide penetration into the Finnish line in which point rest of the troops on the lines were ordered to retreat (indeed some of the troops close to the breakthrough position were routed and retreated in panic). In Kuuterselkä the 'VT' line was broken but SU breakthrough stopped and held long enough to allow all troops to be orderly withdrawn to 'VKT' line.

So, yes. A Finnish unit was crushed and the resulting breakthrough (especially with armor) forced the rest of the line to retreat. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well using massive force on a weak position is how breakthroughs were mostly made... The point is that you can't blame it on one or a few units. -YMB29 (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure it can. Rest of the Finnish line fought and then retreated orderly to secondary line as there was no point in keeping rest of the line after the breakthrough. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if the whole front line defense collapses after only a few units were overpowered then something is really wrong... -YMB29 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As said several times before.. The line did not collapse - it was breached at relatively weak positions (all credit to Soviet intelligence/tactical geniuses for spotting those). After containing the Soviet breakthrough proved impossible the forces manning the line were withdrawn (or retreated which ever term you happen to fancy) to secondary lines to avoid Soviet units encircling them while delaying the Soviet spearheads.

Unlike Germans and Soviets Finnish command did not believe that it would have been able to sufficiently support or help a surrounded unit to break free from the encirclement and instead chose to pull the troops without wasting units defending a battleline that had already been breached. Finns had no interest of creating a mirror image of the event that took place in Porlampi-Sommee motti in 1941. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If the breach caused this massive retreat then the line did collapse... However there is no point in trying to convince you of the obvious... -YMB29 (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Collapse generally refers to uncontrolled event where a section of a front is lost. However Finns were able to contain the Soviet breakthroughs for long enough to make sure the troops could be orderly withdrawn. So - in other words - the lines did not collapse. Sections (breakthrough sections) of the line did. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Again you are putting a spin on it, as you always do... You are denying collapse the same way you did rout. If the army gave up so much territory in a relatively short time after its defensive line was breached, there is nothing else to call it but a defensive collapse... But again I don't see a point in discussing it with you, as you refuse to accept anything that is not favorable to Finland. -YMB29 (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Suit yourself. I just try to avoid using misleading names for things. Far too often it seems that calling things by wrong terms can lead to serious misunderstandings. As said before i have no problems with terms or in this case saying for example 'Finnish JR 1 (Jäger Regiment) of the 10th Division crumbled and was routed by heavy Soviet pressure' or that 'the Valkeasaari section of the line collapsed'. Both are undeniable facts. However referring the Karelian Army's (i.e. Finnish troops on the Isthmus - not to be confused with Soviet Karelian Front) withdrawal as a rout would be misleading as Finnish troops (for most parts) withdrew orderly and kept delaying the advancing Soviets. Also saying that Finnish line collapsed would imply (again misleading) that the whole of the line crumbled. As this did not happen i fail to see how describing something with very ambiguous (and misleading) terms when dis-ambiguous alternates exists would in any way help any one. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So now you are talking about not being misleading... Talking around facts and trying to make excuses to make Finnish defeats look better or non-existent is not misleading?

"The whole line did not collapse at once so that means there was no collapse", just like "the whole Finnish army was not defeated so there was no defeat". Yes strong logic there... For months you have been going in circles with this. -YMB29 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You got it somewhat wrong. Making generalization when there are no facts to support it them is generally considered to be misleading. Say of the German 1941 offensive, i have seen it being claimed that it 'crushed the Soviets' that is equally false claim as saying 'Finnish lines collapsed'. Both claims were most likely valid before they were made into gross generalizations. Again if there are less ambiguous ways of saying the same thing then why do you insist on using ambiguous phrases? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What less ambiguous ways? Like saying "the Finns retreated because one unit collapsed"? That is just laughable...

It is not a generalization saying that the Finns collapsed when there was such a mass retreat and loss of territory.

And the German offensive in 1941 did crush the Soviets during that year. -YMB29 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets see... "the Finns retreated because one unit collapsed".. that is partially true though the reason was not that the unit collapsed it was that the section of the fortified defense it was manning collapsed as well making mobile SU able to both strike deep into the Finnish rear or to encircle the units still manning the fortified line.

"It is not a generalization saying that the Finns collapsed when there was such a mass retreat and loss of territory." - Well it is. Lets start go through that in small bits: The Finns collapsed claim is false as most of Finns made orderly retreat which leads to the your next claim such a mass retreat which with the current wording implies that line broke due a mass retreat while in truth the retreat was due to line's being breached.

Saying the Finnish defensive line collapsed at Valkeasaari which led to a general retreat and loss of territory. would be far closer to the what can ascertained from documents.

Claiming that Germans crushed Soviets in 1941 is also false. Germans managed only to crush the Soviet troops in vicinity of the summer 1941 border. Further into SU they made strong resistance and eventually (and quite literally) bled the German offensive strength dry. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't post on Soviet related topics for 6 months (maybe it will be less)[9], so I can't reply here for a while... -YMB29 (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, user YMB29: The Finns were not "willing to sign a treaty on Soviet terms". That is exactly a part of the Soviet failure. A peace would be only signed if the Soviets would agree to give up the demand for unconditional surrender. The Soviets saw no option but to agree to this, after a series of final determining battles, which were all victorious for the Finns.

A defensive war can only be won by a defensive victory. That is what Finland achieved - a clear defensive victory, on all battle fronts.

The Soviet intention had been to conquer Finland, as a number of sources on this page and the Soviet war plans reveal. Instead, - ever since the Soviet war-opening attack - the Red Army was never allowed to cross the war-preceding border. Please take the rest of my answer below: 87.95.136.112 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You are like a comedian here...

The Soviet intention was never to conquer Finland. They did not care for unconditional surrender; they just wanted Finland out of the war and to pay some price.

A victory when you have to retreat, demobilize, fight against your ally, pay reparations, and agree to a number of political demands is just silly. -YMB29 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Even though you apparently purposefully ignored my response i might as well say something about this.. Even if (and this one being very strong if) Soviet goal was not to conquer Finland (like its demand of unconditional surrender makes it seem like) the RKKA never achieved its goals against the Finns. Kymijoki river (the minimum goal for the Soviet push) was far beyond their reach and destruction of Finnish army utterly failed (as Finnish army was even stronger and far better equipped after the SU push in 1944 started than before it). And i was not saying Finland won but what I'm saying is that SU didn't win either. After all the outcome of the war (treaty) was fairly close to status quo - not exactly victorious outcome for either side, less so for Finns but certainly not victorious for SU either. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the Soviets took Vyborg and Petrozavodsk - the main territorial goals one may say. I just don't understand how you can say it was not a Soviet victory given the results I listed above. Seems that for you the only way it would have been a Soviet victory is if Finland would have been annexed... -YMB29 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

All the fighting (apart from Ilomantsi) took place on the area the SU had captured in 1940 and which Finns had retaken in 1941 - or even deeper in the SU area. SU main initial target (territorial goal as you might say) was reaching Kymijoki river which failed. Finnish army was not beaten (in fact stronger than ever). SU attacking force was beaten and in certain areas driven back. Result of the war was a peace treaty.. Not surrender (conditional or unconditional) or capitulation. Hence result should be Moscow Armistice and not a victory for either side. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

All this is nice but why did they accept the harsh peace terms? If you are winning, why give so much up like a loser? You don't make sense. -YMB29 (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Finns had seen already in late 1942 (according to various memoirs) that Nazi-Germany was fighting a war they would lose sooner or later. They had no intentions to stay in go down with it. The only reason why Finns didn't start seeking peace earlier (or indeed try to stay out of the war altogether - though Soviet aggression after the Winter War prevented this) was the fear of German reprisals. Finns had hoped to retake most of the territory captured by the Soviets and then leave it at that. That is Finns had believed that regardless what would happen in Nazi-Soviet war there would still be Russians living next to Finns. So the peace treaty was what the Finns were after (in 1943 and later) but they had no way of doing so as far as the Germans were still strong enough to avenge it. So peace was the Finnish goal of the war - and given the lack of German triumph it would probably be on less stellar terms. Also in the similar manner as you asked - if Soviets were winning why didn't they succeed in destroying the Finnish Army or reaching the Kymijoki river, both of which were stated goals of the offensive. Or was just that they didn't win either? SU historians were notoriously lazy in documenting not so successful operations - possibly cause at least earlier giving back too negative reports, even if truthful might have grave consequences. AND FOR THE FINAL TIME I NEVER SAID FINNS WERE WINNING THE WAR EITHER - please try even acting like you would have read my comments.

Also.. it one of the reasons why SU attack was initially so successful was that it was totally unexpected for Finns. Given that both sides had already been seeking the peace and main sticking points had been the war reparations and some territory questions Finns didn't think any sane enemy would attack them. As SU was bound to get somewhat similar deal without fighting. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You were saying how the Finns were successful in winning on the battlefield... Obviously if that was the case they would not have accepted such terms while still winning the battles. But again all this does not matter, even if the Finns would have been pushing towards Leningrad. They accepted Soviet terms. War reparations are paid to the winners... -YMB29 (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Finns had wanted to be left alone in the first place but imperialistic maneuvers SU made sure that was impossible. And Finns had beaten and driven back Soviet assaults before SU 'noticed' that it hadn't been requesting unconditional surrender in late summer 1944. Many Finnish front line commanders wanted to counterattack. Finnish troops were winning on the battlefields. Yet they accepted the terms. But that was political decision made after the military part of the SU campaign had been beaten off.

Given that SU goal in 1941 had been complete take over (Molotov's talks with Germans) and that even in summer 1944 SU still demanded unconditional surrender and that only after Finnish army had beaten the SU formations send against them did SU agree to change their stance from unconditional surrender to peace terms and even made terms less severe (halved the reparations you seem to keep so important) i am just unable see how string of SU military failures count as Soviet military victory. They failed to achieve their 1941 goal, they failed to achieve the military goals set for the campaign in 1944. All the succeeded after practical military means were exhausted was a political 'victory' as Finnish political and military leadership were well aware that standing alone with Western nations either trying to hold neutrality or as Soviet allies the Finland would eventually lose if it stood alone - there is only so much a lone nation could do with less than 4 million can do against nation with nearly 200 million citizens. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well at least you admit that it was a political victory, and that is most important in terms of the result of the war. Again the US in Vietnam did not lose militarily but politically, and so lost the war.

However what you are saying is just Finnish patriotic historiography. There is no proof of Soviets planning to conquer Finland and seriously wanting unconditional surrender. Again see my source on Stalin at the Tehran conference.

And Finland was not losing in 1944 as much as the Germans were at the time... -YMB29 (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

US didn't lose the Vietnam War. It departed before the War had reached its conclusion. Their departure was not related to NV failures or successes. Also there are very little similarities with Vietnam War and Continuation War. TBH I'm having very much difficulty in finding any.

Molotov's request in pre-war time to Germans' to get free hands with Finland? Pre-war threats, additional demands, tampering with Finnish Presidential elections, prevention of Swedish-Finnish defense agreement, continued and open support for revolutionary organizations... Not to mention the demand for unconditional surrender which miraculously turned into a peace agreement after SU armies were too inept to reach even their initial goals.

Do I really need to do this again? Very well.. AND FOR THE FINAL TIME I NEVER SAID FINNS WERE WINNING THE WAR EITHER - please try even acting like you would have read my comments.

Whole war ended into Moscow Armistice, with both armies still fully intact in the field. So that should be the end result of the Continuation War as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So by your definition a war victory is only when the loser's armies are not intact?

Let me change that to "Finland was not losing in 1944 as much as the Germans were at the time...". Yes big difference...

Again there is only speculation about unconditional surrender.

The US did lose the Vietnam War. Check what I wrote above. -YMB29 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Only speculation of unconditional surrender comes from you. Provide proof that there was none of stop making such claims.

Also answered above of the US and Vietnam War.

And first you blame me for twisting your words though you have kept doing that yourself all the time. Finland was far from losing in 1944 after the attacks had been stopped. Army was eager to continue, there are several instances where Finnish front line commanders asked from the HQ for permission to counter attack but due to peace negotiations it was prevented. So Finnish army was intact (not that it would be mandatory for it to be defeated) but it had also held off and pushed back the RKKA attacks until RKKA had exhausted itself. Also Finnish army was still standing fast deep in the SU land (judging from post Winter War borders) when the armistice came to place, hardly a place to be for a losing army.

Wars are seldom clear cut victories. Its much easier to find a winner for a battles than it is for a war. Also nations do have different goals for wars which makes it even more difficult to decide who actually won and what exactly unless there is a clearly defined surrender. You could view that in Continuation War SU won cause it got some reparations, much less so than it had demanded and also it failed to occupy or to annex Finland (or to cause uprising). At the same time you could just as easily view that in Continuation War Finns kept their freedom and independence and their democratic government while not being able to regain the land lost in Winter War. Both sides win? Both sides failed? - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Provide proof that there was none? I think if you are making the claim, you should provide solid proof of that, like what I provided about the Tehran conference. Then we can discuss...

You keep avoiding the question as to why a nation with such a victorious army accepts such harsh of a peace deal? The Germans in 1944 could have claimed about their army what you said about the Finnish army... No doubt that the German army was losing at the time, even though they were still on Soviet land. The situation was similar with Finland and if the Finns would not have accepted Soviet terms the same would have awaited them. No doubt Finland failed in its objectives in this war and had to then concede demands. The Soviets regained the 1940 borders, got Finland out of the war as German allies and to fight on their side, obligated Finland to pay reparations and concede a number of political demands. Conquering Finland was not an objective, unless you have solid proof of that... -YMB29 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As i have stated. Marshal Mannerheims memoirs clearly and explicitly mention SU demand for unconditional surrender. Same issue is mentioned in several other sources as well (including memoirs of other prominent Finns). On the other hand only mention of Finland and Tehran conference seems to vaguely indicate that Finns could be (not that it should or would be) offered a separate peace.

I keep avoiding? - i just explained it above... Finns knew all the time that fighting alone against SU would be pointless (but it should be made as costly as possible regardless). As western powers were allied to SU the logical source for help was gone. Sweden seemingly kept too busy trying to please everyone to help any one. Nazi Germany had been losing the war since winter 1942/43. Finns had no help coming without which nation with 4 million is just unable to fight alone against nation with 150 million. So peace had to be made. However as long as Nazi forces still were in position to retaliate making a separate peace would have been suicidal.

Germans didn't have democratic system. Nazi-Germany like SU was a dictatorship. And any resentment which was apparent after bomb attack against Hitler was swiftly crushed. There was no one even starting to make peace. Finland on the other hand had been trying to make separate peace since 1943.

I did post about the Finnish goals and objectives just in the last post. I see no point copy pasting it again here. If goals crushing the army, advancing to river-line (Kymi) and from there to Helsinki (goals of the SU operation in 1944) were not part of a plan to conquer Finland then for what were they? Also - read the articles i linked to the discussion earlier - you have provided no sources what so ever to support your point of view - hardly a position from which to demand solid proof for anything. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No the source I provided clearly says that Stalin wanted a separate peace and no unconditional surrender.

I understand why Finland had to make peace, but that makes them losers in this war...

The Finnish objective was to make peace only in 1943 (as you said), but before the aim was to at least retake land given up in 1940.

Where did you get that the Soviets wanted to take Helsinki? Again the goals were to defeat the Finnish army enough for its leaders to agree to peace (plus other objectives like securing the safety of Leningrad), which happened.

Again you are making the extraordinary claims here so you provide real proof and not just talk. -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Downside with that claim is that Stalin didn't keep the agreements/promises he made as was shown with the agreed democratic elections and procedures in Eastern Europe (where there were whopping 2 democratic elections and even both of these were immediately followed with Soviet supported communist coup d'etat soon after).

For Finnish POV keeping the independence was the main goal of the war. And it was kept. I'm not denying that getting back the land SU got in 1940 wouldn't have been an important factor and an important goal. Read the bit starting with the Wars are seldom clear cut victories. couple of lines back. IMHO both you and the 'Boris Novikov' are equally wrong in your insistence on setting a single 'universal' truth.

Yes, in 1943 (starting right after SU had informed in February that it would be willing to negotiate) Finns still hoped that SU would agree to leave all (or at least some of the) land it captured in Winter War to Finns. Peace talks however continued even though SU was unwilling to start negotiations on those terms. When SU demands for 1940 border and heavy reparations came to be known in early 1944 the proposal was rejected. But the peace talks still continued. Until SU attack in the June 1944 and simultaneous demand for unconditional surrender.

Also.. how come if - as you state - Finnish army was defeated that SU troops kept dying and failing to advance in the battles and even managed to lose two divisions to a 'defeated' enemy? At the same time (actually from 1941 to 44) managed to get a total of 3500 POWs (assuming enemy was defeated - surely there would have been POWs?). - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You are really getting desperate... What does the number of POWs, most of whom were captured before 1944, have to do with this? Again you are saying that for a country to lose a war its army has to be totally defeated... The Finnish army was defeated enough to be driven way back and this was convincing enough for their government to accept Soviet peace terms.

Keeping independence was only an issue when the Finns realized that they were on the losing side, not when they decided to take part in the German invasion...

Stalin not only promised but emphasized that Finland will be independent and won't need to unconditionally surrender. There is no reason to think that he was deceiving. -YMB29 (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to lose its army.. For army to lose battles the common result as seen throughout the battles in the Eastern Front was a significant amount of prisoners of war. Finns took over 60 000 Soviet POW during similar campaign during 1941 in which SU troops in the Karelian Isthmus and in Eastern Karelia could be considered to have been defeated. In retrospect SU invasion in 1944 produced only around 5 % of the POWs Finns gained in similar campaign. Which implies that Finnish troops managed to do an orderly withdrawal without being defeated. Just pointing out that SU failed in their attempt in defeating Finnish army.

Keeping independence had been the main issue since the start of the winter war - also the reason why Finns were seeking for German help in 1940 - 41. Possibility of taking back the land SU had captured during was an additional incentive. What actually happened and the actual reasons why it happened are still AFAIK debated.

There was no reason to believe Stalin would have been deceiving with his promises of the Eastern European countries and democratic elections in there but yet he did. Also if he was intent on not demanding on unconditional surrender then why didn't he or the SU inform the Finns, as what they got instead was a demand for unconditional surrender or capitulation? - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I mean you are really falling apart here. You are running out of arguments you can make up. So now according to you the winning side is the one with the most enemy POWs...

Finns did not receive an unconditional surrender request, read what I wrote above.

So you are saying that the Finns conspired with the Nazis to keep independence? In 1941, before the start of the war, relations with the USSR were getting better and a Soviet attack was much less of a threat, especially since the Finns already knew of the German attack plans... -YMB29 (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You claimed Finnish army was 'defeated enough'. And i used the number of POWs to demonstrate that is very unlikely that it was. Though SU managed in the early attacks break through the Finnish defensive lines it failed to defeat the Finnish army. Finnish army was stronger than ever before after the SU attack thanks to new German weapons and reactivated reservists (as Finns had deactivated a large amount of reservists in 1942). The number of POWs was relevant was the operations of SU in 1944 and Finnish army in 1941 were roughly similar. I didn't say it was determining winning side. I said you could roughly see if the units were defeated or not. SU units in 1941 were, Finns in 1944 were not.

You read a demand of an announcement of a surrender without any known conditions as something else as unconditional surrender then what it is?

SU actions in 1940 alone had already made Finns threatened and very suspicious of the SU. And then in winter SU interfered with Finnish presidential elections which did not exactly improve the relations. Finns were fairly convinced then that SU would invade in 1941. All this drove Finns to the Germans who were more than happy to sell weapons for a troop transit treaty and some other deals (at first). Not to mention that Finland lost some of the best arable land it had and gained more than 400 000 refugees, add to this the failed harvests in 1940 (and also in 1941) and that SU tried to blackmail with the food shipments and you should have pretty good idea why Finns couldn't trust SU. Only after SU realized - far too late - that it had pushed Finns to the Germans did they try to make a change. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Now you are just repeating the same things over and over... Defeated in 1941... Well I did not see the Finns taking Leningrad or the Soviets giving up, you know like Finland did in 1944... You still don't make sense with your POWs argument... The message was a demand that Finland's government officially announce that it was ready for talks again, but you like to see something different... Grain was sent to Finland before the war and overall relations were better. Finland did not see a real threat from the USSR just before the war. But yes it was too late, Finland already committed to the German side in 1940. -YMB29 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mannerheim halted the attack on Karelian Isthmus before it reached Leningrad - roughly at pre 1939 border. And despite of continued German requests he forbade Finnish troops from continuing or even firing at or bombing the city. If Finns could or couldnt have taken the city is unknown, as they never tried to. In 1944 Finns gave up defensive line once they had been breached and then orderly withdrew to next defensive position. Given that SU attacks against Finns since Tienhaara and Tali-Ihantala failed one after the other does not support your view that 'Finns gave up' - had they given up there would have been plenty more POWs.. like the tens of thousands of SU POWs Finns captured in 1941 (SU troops which were defeated and clearly gave up).

Nope.. I see the demand as what it was, a demand for announcement of surrender without any set conditions. Which is a synonym with uncondional surrender.

Grain from SU came (if it came at all) delayed and was even halted by SU (Mannerheim's Memoairs, part II, p. ~ 297) by false accusations that Finns had neglected to honor the peace treaty. All which made sure Finns kept moving closer and closer to Germany - SU could hardly have done better job in ushering Finns to Germans. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Finnish political and military leaders decided on war in 1940 so there was little the Soviets could do just before the start of the war in June of 1941.

Again it was an announcement to get the Finns to officially agree to negotiate, and it does not matter what you see.

So Finland accepting Soviet terms is not giving up (or for you giving up is when a whole army does it)? I don't remember the Soviets accepting any Finnish demands in 1941... But you only like to judge by POWs... -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

SU had so good job convincing Finns that SU was not trustworthy in 1940 alone.

Perhaps it was intended to be one - like SU later claimed - but the the wording demands an unconditional surrender before any talks can be held and that is how it should be understood.

Finns could not make or accept any open peace initiatives before summer 1944. Germans were by that time still far too powerful. And what exactly are you referring with 'any Finnish demands in 1941?'.

Armistice terms were negotiated and both sides agreed to them. Finns 'gave up' the territory as agreed but the army didn't give up. POWs just seem quite good for checking if something was defeated and/or routed (like you have, without any evidence, claimed to have happen to Finns). - Wanderer602 (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I proved the rout above.

Again you are going on about the POWs and army not giving up...

Yes both agreed to terms of the armistice, but most of the terms were for Finland to follow.

You were saying the Soviets were defeated in 1941, and I said that they did not accept any Finnish demands like the Finns did in 1944. So how can you call the first situation a defeat and the second one not?

And again there is no unconditional surrender in the wording. Well at least now you are willing to admit the possibility of it simply being misinterpreted. -YMB29 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You claimed it was a rout according to a single source which mentions specifically that some Finnish units collapsed and ignored the following statement others offered a stout resistance before withdrawing. Interesting that not even your source calls it a rout. No mention of chaotic or disorderly withdrawal (apart from those some units). It was a retreat, not a rout.

Terms were mostly for the Finns, that is true. But it still was a viable (something Finns could fulfill) peace agreement and not a surrender.

I said SU units were defeated in 1941. I didn't say SU would have been defeated or even that Karelian Front (not sure what name that had at that time in SU nomenclature) would have been defeated. However according to some sources SU did offer peace terms (backed by western allies) to Finns in 1941/42 but given the German strength and position of that time it would not have been possible to agree to those even though they would have included the pre Winter War borders.

There is no specific wording for unconditional surrender however the message demanded an announcement of surrender (with no guarantees of SU terms) before any talks (ie. terms) could be made. Which is the same as surrendering unconditionally. Note that Finns didn't surrendered at all in the end. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well again you can say that they surrendered since they gave in to the harsh demands.

Before any talks could be made? Then why did they want the Finnish delegation? The phrase "turn to Soviet government in asking for a peace" indicates that peace talks were to be held.

You said Soviet units were defeated but then denied that any Finnish units were...

Yes some Finnish units offered resistance but were still overwhelmed. You have some very "solid" logic here... Since you don't see the word rout then it was not a rout... Do you need things to be literally written for you to understand them? -YMB29 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You can interpret it as you like, however as it was discussed earlier there is a very interesting controversy between the terms even in wikipedia armistice is The key aspect in an armistice is the fact that "all fighting ends with no one surrendering" and (by loose definition) surrender is Entire nations can also surrender in an attempt to end a war or military conflict with list later on including armistice. Not to mention that Finns had repeatedly rejected earlier, harsher terms set by SU and only agreed to less severe ones.

SU demanded Finns to announce their surrendering before Finnish delegation would be accepted. There was no mention that any talks would be held. Finnish delegation could just as well have been asked there to listen to or receive the list of SU demands/articles for the surrender as far as Finns were aware.

Yes, i said SU units in 1941 were defeated. Unless SU rated losing several thousands of men in motti's as something else (though i doubt even they would call it a victory). And i didn't deny that some of the Finnish may have been defeated. But on a whole they were not routed like you have repeatedly claimed.

Rout, refers to chaotic or disorderly withdrawal. Unit offering (stout) resistance but retreating due being overwhelmed is not a routing unit. It is a retreating unit (unit performing orderly withdrawal). There is quite clear difference between the two. - Wanderer602 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It said only some offered stout resistance... but you only remember them and not the ones who ran in panic. Again you are in denial and nothing will convince you.

"losing several thousands of men in motti's as something" - What are you talking about? Yes because they retreated they were defeated tactically, but the Finns in 1944 were defeated tactically and strategically.

"SU demanded Finns to announce their surrendering before Finnish delegation would be accepted." - No, you are just jumping to conclusions... Surrender as in willing to give in to terms, not unconditional surrender. There is no indication that they wanted the Finnish delegation just to listen to a list of demands... Yes the Finnish government interpreted it as unconditional surrender, but that does not mean that this is what the Soviet government meant.

And again whether to call what Finland did as surrender or not, it does not matter. -YMB29 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The text you posted referred that some units collapsed and men run in panic while other units offered stout resistance. It doesnt really tell which was more common.

I was referring to the battles fought in the isthmus during in 1941. Again it is interesting that you claim that Finns would have been tactically defeated in 1944 as after the initial breach they still managed to stop SU assaults on every battle. Tactically Finns were far from being defeated in 1944. Strategically SU had no longer even resources to defeat them assuming they still wanted to keep pressing Germans as heavily as they did. Armistice was something both sides wanted - Finns saw (had seen long time before) that German campaign is SU was doomed and after failed campaign (as per original goals) of 1944 SU had no intention to keep wasting more troops against the Finns than they already had.

I was not jumping to conclusions. I read the statement as it was delivered. It clearly demanded surrender before any delegation would be accepted. There was no indication that any talks would be held. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement may not have been worded the best way, but claiming it is a demand for unconditional surrender is jumping to conclusions. This is not what the Soviets had in mind.

The fact that the Soviets gained so much land in the offensive indicates that a significant part of the Finnish army collapsed.

Are you claiming that a mass collapse and retreat is not a tactical defeat?

So you are saying that the Soviets retreating in 1941 but stopping further Finnish and German advances is a Soviet defeat, while the large Soviet offensive pushing the Finns way back and regaining most of the lost territory before eventually also being stopped is not a Finnish defeat? Considering that the Finns dropped out of the war on Soviets terms as a result of the offensive, your claim is just laughable...

The Soviets could have left Finland for later and the Finns understood that time was not on their side, so that is why they gave in to demands. -YMB29 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement demands a declaration of surrender/capitulation before any (even guarantees of) talks and without any knowledge of the treaty terms. That is by definition an unconditional surrender.

There was no mass collapse. SU managed to breach the Finnish forward lines. After the resulting breakthrough the troops on the rest of the line were withdrawn to avoid them getting trapped and the troops in the path of main SU advance were ordered to delay them. Finns were more interested in stopping and slowing the SU advance than leaving the troops surrounded in positions were they couldn't be supplied. It did result in loss of land that much is true, but it did not result (nor was caused by) in collapse of the army.

Interesting... I didn't know i had claimed it as Soviet defeat. I said SU units in the area were defeated. Given that (in Isthmus and Svir) Finns pushed to the goals set by HQ and stopped it does not appear that SU resistance would have been the reason for the stopping the advance. Even in Eastern Karelia (where Finns had most supply problems and where SU resistance was strongest) the attack was stopped by command from HQ once the goals had been reached. On the other hand SU advance was stopped far before reaching its goals and in cases it was even driven back.

Given that Finns had been trying to make a peace since 1943 i can't really see where you invented the idea that SU advance made Finns to drop out of the war.. They had been trying to do so for more than a year before the even the start of the attack. Also SU itself made the treaty less harsh for the Finns after SU troops had failed.

Finns only agreed to ceasefire/peace talks after SU attack had been stopped. What agreements were made there is whole another thing. Armistice was in both sides interest at the time. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if paying $300,000,000 was in the interest of Finland at the time... So I guess Finland decided that it got bored with the Soviets and finally accepted the peace terms. Finland was ready for a long time to do this and needed no convincing, right?
SU units in the area were defeated = a Soviet defeat? Or do you follow some other logic? Anyway funny how Finland's failure to advance is only an order by the command to stop... Did the Finns also retreat in mass in 1944 only because the command ordered to do so?
Did not result in collapse at all? Well tell that to the units who ran in panic...
And I don't need to see your definition of unconditional surrender again. -YMB29 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again you start twisting my words... Very well lets respond

I said armistice was in both sides interest at the time.

Well you could understand it as Soviet defeat in Karelian Isthmus in 1941. Finlands 'failure to advance' was a decision made by HQ. Historians still seemed to be unsure what would have happened if in 1941 Finns would have kept pressing on to the St. Petersburg. However, in Isthmus advance stopped where it had been planned to be stopped. River Svir was another stop (Finns were supposed to meet advancing Germans there). And in Eastern Karelia attack barely managed to capture the assigned goals before calling the attack to a halt. In 1944 after the SU had breached the two forward lines Finnish HQ saw no point in keeping rest of the compromised lines and withdraw the troops to secondary lines. So for most parts in 1944 Finns retreated because the command told them to.

I said there was no mass collapse. Even the quote you used as a reference says as much. Some units may have run. But army as whole did not.

And not sure what you refer with 'my definition of unconditional surrender'. I just read the demand as it was. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes really, what it was...

Of course every soldier did not collapse and run, but enough of the units did to call it a collapse of defenses, full retreat, and a rout.

Yes the Finnish HQ made decisions, but again why did they make such decisions? The advance to Leningrad was halted by the Soviets and the Finnish HQ had to stop its push forward because of high losses and decreasing moral among troops (some of whom refused to advance over the old border).

Also peace was in the interest of Finland far more, as they knew they were running out of time... -YMB29 (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Where do you have support for this fantastic claim that enough of the units collapsed?

Given the slow pace of SU advance with mechanized troops the opposition could not have been collapsed. Making 10 km per day is not exactly fast pace for armored units. Which yet again lends more evidence on the side that the Finnish troops made (for most parts) an orderly withdrawal and performed delaying actions while doing so.

Sure, there were moral problems once the border was crossed. SU resistance was not that strong. Finns even captured parts of the famed KAUR (spelling?) fortified area just to straighten the bends in the front line. It was moral and political choice to halt the troops at old border. On river Svir - as Finnish troops did cross the river in some places it doesn't appear to have been that problematic obstacle either - it was part of agreement with Germans.

SU had made a bid to end the war using their military might and failed. As - even though vastly superior in overal strength - they had no freely available strength to continue operation against the Finns - not to mention pressure from Western Allies - it was in best interest of SU as well. And yes, peace was in the interest of the Finns, surrender was not. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Should I even answer that? Just a mountain of excuses and denials, nothing more...

"SU had made a bid to end the war using their military might and failed" - You are beginning to sound more and more like Boris Novikov... Yes the Soviet offensive had nothing to do with forcing Finland out of the war; it was just a decision of the Finnish HQ, right?

Again such a huge retreat does not happen if there is no significant collapse.

"It was moral and political choice" - Yes the morale of the Finns was low and so was the political will because of the military situation.

Keep your excuses and denials coming... -YMB29 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You started this argument yourself by interpreting an ambiguous quote in a way which actually led it into being self-contradictory. You didn't need any help making your statement invalid there.

Finns had been trying to make separate peace since 1943. The attack did not in any way miraculously change this. Finns still wanted separate peace. The offensive seems to have had some effect however as SU changed its demands to less demanding after SU troops were stopped and they failed to achieve their goals in the operation. You seem to be happily ignoring the fact that Finns had been trying to make separate peace for over a year at that point - in that respect SU attack was pointless. Granted that it probably also had an effect to the negotiations but of what size is unknown.

There were two reasons why there was that 'huge' retreat. First Finns didn't want to leave their troops surrounded - so after a defensive line had been breached troops on the rest of that line were pulled back. Second, there was no good terrain for the defensive battle before the area where the lines stabilized - keep in mind that Finns didn't have any modern anti-tank weapons at that point. Fighting in less favorable positions against armored or mechanized troops would have been in addition of being suicidal an utterly idiotic action. There didn't need to be a significant collapse.

Military situation was hardly the reason given that Finns had no problems moving troops to other fronts from there and that they were easily able to demobilize part of their army. Even after the attack Finns still took part of the KauR fortified area from the SU. Finns just didn't want to move against St. Petersburg. Moral issue was not that troops would have had low morale in general they just were conscript troops who didn't think they had any business beyond the old borders. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes conscripted troops did not want to get killed attacking well defended positions... Finland could not take huge casualties.

The Finns retreated because they did not want to get surrounded? Well why were they in danger of being surrounded? Why could not they fight in open terrain? Why were they out gunned? The fact is that the Finnish army was not strong enough to hold off the offensive, and once its defenses collapsed the only option was a full retreat.

Soviet offensive was pointless?? So you are saying that before the offensive the Finns were willing to pay the huge reparations, fight the Germans, and concede to other demands? I wonder why negotiations broke down in February... Keep making me laugh.

And what quote are you talking about? -YMB29 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

All the armies in the WW2 (in Europe) were conscript armies (more or less). But you are right. Finns tried to conserve the man power as the reserves were not nearly as bottomless as SU reserves. However that did not prevent them from taking and keeping part of the KauR.

I thought i had explained that.. When a defensive line(s) broke and the advance could not be contained the troops on the 'wings' of the breakthrough were on the risk of being enveloped. These were pulled back to avoid this as Finnish HQ considered any surrounded unit as 'lost' and tried to keep them from being surrounded. Finns did have very little in the way of modern anti tank weaponry in the summer 1944 (before German help arrived). In open country against armored SU units Finns would have torn to shreds with their few 75mm AT guns.

Pointless as in Finns were already in spring 1944 willing to agree (or at least negotiate of them) to most of the terms of the treaty. Had SU taken Estonia - at least according to Mannerheim - Finns would probably have agreed to very similar armistice terms as they did now. Finns were almost fairly certain that Germany would lose the war already in late 1943. Real sticking points at that time were still the heavy German presense in Estonia as well as some of the SU demands. In late summer 1944 SU had driven German from Estonia and also made the treaty less severe (essentially 'addressing' the two main problems with the treaty of the spring). In short there was reasonable chance that Finns would have agreed to similiar(ish) treaty.

The Soviets did not have time to wait until Finland gets convinced; they needed to clear the axis forces from the Northern front, especially around Leningrad. Finland agreeing to a similar treaty with its army fully intact and occupying a large piece of Soviet land near Leningrad is wishful thinking.

Also, again, you can't blame the Soviets for the problems of the Finnish army. -YMB29 (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

They wouldnt have had long to wait. Finns were living mainly on the food ferried over from Germany. Had SU taken Estonia and interdicted the shipping routes they could have quietly starved the Finns into submission.

Nope, i cant really blame them for that. But it explains why Finns didn't stand and fight in the open country. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well we can speculate about the what ifs, but it is clear that the Soviets wanted to liquidate the danger to Leningrad and move on as fast as possible. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well.. Mannerheim gave his opinion to that particular 'what if' during the war time negotiating with Germans that should Estonia fall (and hence sea lines to Germany be exposed in addition to the long Southern coast of the Finland) Finland would be forced to sue for peace at 'severe' (heavy/very costly) terms. Winter 1944-45 proved this point. Supplies from Germany stopped. Pretty much only by the food from the Sweden did Finland avert famine (according to book 'Jatkosodan Pikkujättiläinen'). - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well when the offensive began supplies from Germany did not stop and Estonia did not fall... -YMB29 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the operation Bagration and the Western Allies landings in Normandy stretched Germany to such an extent that Finns didn't expect it to be able to avenge should Finns quit from the war. Which was the other big factor complicating the negotiations. Worst case scenario for the Finns would have been to agree to quit from the war, get German troops landing in the relatively weakly defended southern/western coast or in Åland and then being forced to accept Allied (Soviet) troops to fight them off (with little guarantees they would actually leave). - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Again there were many factors, but without the offensive Finland would have been in a much higher position during the negotiations and there were no guarantees that Finland would quit from the war. -YMB29 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Had there been no actions in the Baltic area then that might have been true. You should keep in mind that at that time Finland was not able to produce enough food which made it dependent on German support and grain deliveries. However even in operation Bagration alone SU pushed either to or then next to Baltic Sea coast in Lithuania/Latvia region which would have easily enabled SU aircraft to interdict shipping from Germany to Finland. Its true though that it would have produced somewhat different negotiations but I'm not certain it would have allowed Finns to have had stronger positions in the negotiations. That is unlike in 1939-40 i think its certain that SU had (even in Baltic fleet & Leningrad front alone) capacity to starve Finland into submission had they chosen that route. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well again the Soviets did not want to wait; they wanted Finland out of the war. -YMB29 (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That was their choice. However on a hindsight they only managed to waste both manpower and material for pretty much nothing (as there already existed a less bloody if slower route). - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well this is the Finnish view on it... The same can be said about Finland, not only for 1944 but for the whole war. -YMB29 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

After the Winter War (which was instigated by SU mind you) there was very little Finland could have done to avoid getting caught into the war. Given the long border dependence on the foreign trade and lack of manpower and money Finns would have preferred to stay neutral however the superpowers of that time made it sure that it would be impossible. Possibly even regardless of that given the location and strategic value of Petsamo alone. - 20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes blame it all on the superpowers... As though Finland did not want a land grab... -YMB29 (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the Finnish pre-WW2 era policy as well as the woefully equipped military before the Winter War it would have been really surprising if Finland would have done anything - well would have been able to do anything. Keep in mind that most armaments received during the Winter War were gifts given due to the war not due to a threat of war. And its rather unlikely that Germans would have ever sold weapons to a truly neutral Finland. Which in turn would have left Finnish army totally incapable of offensive operations. Sure there would have still remained a chance that it would have been drawn to war but that is out of scope of this discussion. Also as Finland was - and still is - a democracy there are people who dissent the prevailing policies (namely the often advertised 'Greater Finland' groups) which had enough voice to be seen abroad but little to no actual power in Finland.

After the Winter War Finns main goal was the restoration of 1939 borders. For example parliament 'reintroduced' those lands back to Finland after the land had been taken back from the Soviets. However the rest of the area like the Eastern Karelia remained separate. Karelia was still seen as land of the oppressed kindred people (ie. Karelians) so given chance there was interest in some circles to claim that land as well as part of Finland but during peacetime these had been clearly marginal groups. Apart from that there wasn't really anything. And even that was possible only due the greatly improved relations with Germans after the Winter War and Interim Peace time Soviet 'politics' which pretty much seemed on hindsight being aimed at pushing Finns into Hitler's arms. So... Yes, in case of Finland there are rather valid reasons to blame the Soviet Union for the wars (first Winter War and then by its extension the Continuation War). - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Finland made a gamble in 1941 on Germany winning the war. It could have stayed neutral, and maybe seek a diplomatic solution to the issue of the loss of territory.

Also the idea of Greater Finland was the majority view during the war.

This is getting too off-topic... --YMB29 (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well in the attack phase it did - not that Finns would have had plenty of options. Trying to pull away from Germany at the time Finns became aware of their plans could have resulted in same fate which for example Yugoslavia suffered. In my opinion (as i'm not sure if there is consensus about this) the original idea was to get some (well, any) counterbalance for the Soviet aggression. But sure, you are perfectly right in saying they had options - how viable those options were at different times is whole another story. However given the Winter War, the refugee crisis, and the aggressive Soviet - like open support of revolutionary organizations etc. - posture after the war kinda made it sure that anti-Soviet move would carry (again something where Soviet Union could have played its hand better).

Do you have a source or reference for the 'Greater Finland was the majority view during the war'? - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

About Greater Finland here: [10] Like you did not know that... -YMB29 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That only says the Greater Finland was a view shared at the top (so to speak). It does not say the Greater Finland idealism would have been a majority view neither in Parliament nor among people during the war. I'm not saying that it couldn't have been a majority view at that time - though even the article you linked mentions that it had also its share of opponents so - it was far from being a unanimous view. I just don't recall seeing it proven as being a 'majority view' anywhere. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know if there was a national vote or something, but if "at the top" it is a popular view then what does that tell you? Again you are just denying the obvious... -YMB29 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There were no such things of the war time matters. And i just mentioned that (if you read what i wrote) that even IF it had been (and possibly it was) a view shared by the head of state and some other high ranking officials it does NOT make it a popular or majority view in Finland. It does not even make it a popular or majority view in Parliament.

When i read that reference you posted it only makes explicit mention of President Ryti being committed to the Greater Finland idealism and separately mentions Mannerheim (on occasions) being involved in it too (probably due to the Sword Scabbard declaration) though also mentions that Mannerheim had severe doubts of the idea. General Airo as discussed elsewhere made the 'borders' acting under orders so he can hardly be blamed for his claims. Also given the rather severe results Mannerheims declaration had it would be rather dubious at best to claim that 'Greater Finland' ideology would have been a majority or a popular view. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Soviets had detailed plan and intention to conquer Finland: Execution of the plan began 06:05, June 22, 1941

1) I must most politely point to you once again, that the Soviets had not only detailed plans to conquer Finland, but - importantly - an intetiton to conquer Finland, as the historian emphasize.

2) Once again, the fact which you keep ignoring: The Soviets have officially admitted, even "emphasized" that they started the war. That question has already been solved and it does not need to be discussed here.

The appropriate source for the Soviet admitting has been attached to the article, and you had it protected. Thus, please do not remove that source any more, particularly since you have refused to answer what - if anything - you see wrong with that source.

You had that source - No. 6 - protected for the article, although you are misusing the source by trying to prove with that source your theory of the Soviet campaign of having been "defensive".

By removing that source from hear on, you'd again contradict your own editing and further disrupt the development of this article for all.

Again, there were not only the plan and the intention' to conquer Finland, but also the attempt to execute the plan. That attempt did not end before September, 1944. The attempt ended in Finnish defensive victory (as sourced).

An appropriate source will be soon included which shows what the Soviet man-power strength on the Finnish border territory was still in early June, 1941. Naturally, when the Soviet came under the German attack, a part of these forces were soon needed elsewhere. Boris Novikov (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, I can't find a quote about this "execution of a Soviet attack plan on June 22 at 06:05" here, in the translated section ("Summary") of Jokipii's book are referring to. He does write about extensive German-Finnish planning and offensive preparations, up to discussing the future (expanded) Finnish borders. --09:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't answer to questions related to the correctness of the info on the page you offer or the correctness of the translation, or why that particular information was chosen for that particular "summary".

Jokipii wrote about a lot. Different summaries can choose to "summarize" what they find interesting for their particular target group, their audience. Summaries of books, in the book covers for instance - due to their briefness - can seldom provide much of the details revealed in the book.

However, the emphasis of ours in the comment above was the starting point of the first Soviet war-opening attacking against Finland (not including the earlier Soviet aggressions relating to the shooting down of a Finnish passaneger plane, the numerous border violations, etc.).

Please find the sources relating to that particular fact - the starting point of the Soviet attacking against Finland - below: Boris Novikov (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Jokipii writes that the Soviet attack at 6:05 was in response to Finland's invasion of the demilitarized Åland Islands. So not exactly "war-opening"... -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Finland did not brake any agreements. The Soviets had no right to attack Finland because of Operation Kilpapurjehdus, or because Finland practized defensive exercises under a thread of war, as I believe user Wandered correctly pointed out to you (although I'd have to read his/her comment in full, before totally endorcing it). Boris Novikov (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Jokipii also wonders how did the Finns know exactly when the war would start if there was no cooperation with Germany... They had no right to invade a demilitarized zone when there was no danger to it, and also no right to arrest the Soviet consulate. This violated the agreement. -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It is doubtful that there was no danger to it, as archives have revealed afterwards that both Germany and Soviet Union had prepared plans to occupy the Åland islands. The year 1922 treaty for demilitarization explicitly demands Finland to protect islands against any threat from the foreign military, and allows Finland to base military to the islands in that case. The 1940 treaty with Soviet Union forbids even that. So Finland had to choose which treaty to break. The choosing was made quite easy by the fact that islands stood in the middle of Finnish connection to the Sweden and Danish Straits: Any foreign controller would have a noose around Finland's throat... --Whiskey (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't pretend that Finland saw any danger in Germany at that time... Obviously this was done in cooperation with Operation Barbarossa as Jokipii writes... The breaking of the treaty at exactly that time shows that Finland was not neutral from the start of the invasion. -YMB29 (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As said before that treaty was not a peace treaty and it was not violated before SU aircraft had already attacked Finnish vessels. Besides like Whiskey said there were two treaties both of which couldn't be honored at that time. One treaty demanded Finns to protect the islands and another said it shouldn't. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Coincidence that they chose to violate it when they received confirmation of the German attack? The Soviet attack was in response to the Finnish invasion; again the ships already started on their operation to invade late on the 21st. -YMB29 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a coincidence - But as said to you several times already, there were two treaties which at that point were contradictory (Finns were essentially demanded to defend the Åland without any troops or ships). Finns had to choose which one to follow and they chose the one which guaranteed safe passage through the Finnish archipelago where enemy aircraft and subs were a minor nuisance. Finns had not invaded (how can you invade your own land, even if it would be demilitarized?) anything when the Soviet air attacks started. Sure the ships had started in 21st but they were recalled (ie. called back to port) before they reached Åland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The ships were ordered to pause and wait for confirmation of the German invasion. Finland was invading when the Soviet air attack came. Read the book. Again invading the demilitarized islands in coordination with the Nazi invasion, not when there was a legitimate reason to defend the islands, was an act of war anyway you put it. -YMB29 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were. Nope, Finns were preforming operations as demanded by earlier demilitarization treaty.

Not a legitimate reason? War being fought in the Baltic Coast and Baltic Sea is not enough? War which given the ties formed between Finns and Germans in early 1941 was likely to spread. And as you have been told several times, the treaty about Åland with SU in 1940 was not the peace treaty. It was a separate agreement with clearly defined procedures in case of violations. Attacking with bombers was not listed in there - so SU did break the treaty as well. And they broke it before Finns had reached Åland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes the Finns were just having a good time sailing around in the area on military ships and the evil Soviets spoiled the fun...

Again violating the 1940 treaty was an act of war and the operation was part of Barbarossa, not a result of it. -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Finns have all the right to sail in that area as they see fit.

Interesting that you do not seem to consider the SU air attack (which happened before the treaty was breached) to have been an act of war. Operation was a Finnish reaction to information that real war would soon start on the Baltic. Wanderer602 (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes information they received long ago from Germany...

The air attack happened as the Finns were invading, so the Soviets did not breach the treaty first.

The Finns had the right to sail in that area, just not on military ships...

But what is the purpose of this argument as far as the article is concerned? -YMB29 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And from who else would have they needed to get the information for it to be valid?

Finns were demanded by earlier treaty to protect Åland by placing troops there if there would be a war.

Kihti (where the attack happened) is a heavily trafficked area in the border of the Åland.

Finns have right (if limited) to sail there with military ships as well. And the treaty which states that they have that limited right also mentions that Finns should defend the islands in case of a war in the Baltic. Finns were following the treaty of Åland and were moving to place troops there as war seemed certain. And then SU managed to attack before the troops had been placed. That SU attack has been thanked several times as it gave full legitimacy (had been any doubts before) for placing troops in the Åland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes keep the excuses coming. Group of warships sailing around and heading to a demilitarized zone, violating the treaty from 1940. Nothing wrong with that...

And yes exactly my point, valid information was received from the Germans, Finland's allies in war. -YMB29 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How does the information or where it was gained matter? Finns were demanded by the earlier treaty to defend the islands in case there would be a war in the Baltic Sea. And you clearly have no idea how restrained the navigation is in Archipelago sea area. There just is no way to avoid moving to the border of the Åland in those waterways. - Wanderer602 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a way not to have warships there...

The 1940 treaty did not allow any militarization. And again there was no war in the Baltic when the operation began.

Information being received from the Germans proves that Finland was an ally from the beginning and that the Åland invasion was not just a security measure of a neutral nation. -YMB29 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The 1940 treaty talks in some detail of the borders of Åland etc. then it discusses on actual treaty agenda mentions demilitarizing the islands (not clearly but presumably referring to more clearly defined demilitarization rules of the earlier treaty), bans making any fortifications on the islands, demands Finns to make sure no one else militarizes the islands, then separately mentions that no military structures may be build.

There was a threat of war in the Baltic Sea. And the treaty allows under 'expectional circumstances' Finns to station troops in there (war which is known to start is probably such).

Finns received the word when the war would start and planned the troop movement to Åland to coincide. Anything else would have been foolish regardless what would have followed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What is foolish is claiming that the Finns did it because of their obligation to protect the islands, while it is obvious that it was part of the planned German-Finnish aggression against the USSR. -YMB29 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How is moving troops to opposite direction from the SU an aggression against the USSR?

The treaty doesn't mention against who or under which circumstances the war starts. It just demands Finns to protect and defend the islands. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And the timing proves that all they wanted to do is "protect" them... I guess just like they "protected" Karelia later on...

Breaking a demilitarization treaty and arresting the consulate is aggression, and of course this was only the first step... -YMB29 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Timing doesn't prove anything like that. Finns just made sure the Islands were manned like they should have been given that there was war going on in the Baltic Sea. "Protecting" Karelia? Taking back/reconquering/liberating what SU had conquered in Winter War? Or the conquest of Eastern Karelia?

That is the point, Finns didn't even break the treaty. They acted according to the treaty (apart from the consulate issue). Wanderer602 (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Jokipii seems to think otherwise...

And I am not only talking about the Finns "liberating" the territories lost to the USSR in the Winter War. I am sure the Finns were just protecting their borders, right? -YMB29 (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Mannerheim seemed to have different opinion in his memoairs.

What the government was deciding at the time i have no idea. There were supporters for 'Greater Finland' though these were clearly a minority but for most parts Finns aimed to regain the lost land. Advance past the old border was exactly a popular act even though it was deemed necessary at the time (both as bargaining chip as well as due the German demands). - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Like the Finns would not have stayed there or taken more land had the war turned out to be different.

And I will take the research of a respected and objective historian over the memoirs of a political figure anytime... -YMB29 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What their goals were i do not know. Had the Stalins purges not happened in Eastern/Olonets Karelia there probably would have been much more interest in integrating the captured land into Finland. However (granted that it is based on post war comments) main argument is that the land was taken as a bargaining chip for post war negotiations. Finns assumed that regardless of the successes and failures in the war there would still be Slavic (Russian) people living next to Finland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well of course if you are on the losing side, you can use the taken land to better your position, but if Finland would have been on the winning side that land would go into Greater Finland... -YMB29 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That might well be true.. However had that happened Finns probably would not have any need to worry discussions with SU any more. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the USSR would not exist... -YMB29 (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

USSR most likely wouldnt have. However according to Jokipii's book Finnish HQ general Airo assumed that russians still would be there (both as a people and as a nation). This is sort of evident from a 'wishlist' of territory (Airo made it at German request) what Finns wanted. Starting (Germans would beat SU) from restoring the pre Winter War border with exceptions that southern half of the Karelian Isthmus would be given to SU and then Finns would be compensated for that loss with territory somewhere along the border (not that much different from Soviet pre Winter War demands). In next case (assuming Germans would beat SU totally in the north) an access to White Sea along the canals leading from there to the lakes (still 1/2 isthmus would go to SU). Rest were cases were SU would totally crumble where border on Isthmus would run along 1939 border. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if the USSR would have crumbled Finland would have looked like this (at least): [11] -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. Actually the light-blue + grayish-blue is what was the 'last' (i.e. the largest or most extensive) territory request listed by general Airo at the German request. All the preceding ones were have been less extensive. Inclusion of Estonia/Ingria was not part of any of those plans nor was inclusion of Finnmark or the Torneådalen. Which until the Stalins purge's was predominantly Finnic area (note, not Finnish). Had SU had less interest in the region there could have been another Finnic state there (AFAIK people of that area - at least in pre-SU era - were not that keen on the idea of 'Greater Finland' due religious and slight language issues - that was even stated in some book, just can't remember where). - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that if the USSR was completely defeated Finland would not annex additional lands, including the Leningrad region? -YMB29 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That was the opinion of the Finnish HQ (or at least opinion of one of the leading generals). Those borders are pretty much the 'full extent' of the area where Finnic peoples lived before communists took over so i guess they were thought as something which could be taken if possible. As it seems Finns had no territorial ambitions apart from the land where Finnic people existed. Though you should notice that in the last 'best-case' scenario it was still assumed that there would be German dominated Russian puppet state/states in the area and the Finnish HQ may have also wanted to avoid needlessly antagonizing the Germans with excessive territorial demands. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the Germans would have had more than enough territory... -YMB29 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Finland's undertaking with 'Kilpapurjehdus Regatta' gave no right for the Soviets to further attack Finland.

Professor Mauno Jokipii, "Jatkosodan synty" (1987), page 559, line 27, in reference to the Soviet attacks against Finnish target on June 22, 1941:

"Klo 6:n maissa aamulla venäläiset pommikoneet ilmestyivät alueelle ja yrittivät pommittaa panssarilaivoja Kihdin selällä, Alskärin linnaketta sekä tykkivene Uusimaata Korppoon länsipuolella ..."

"Approximately 6 am, the Soviet bombers appeared in the area and tried bombing the armored ships on the open sea of Kihti, the fortress of Alskäri and the gunboat Uusimaa on the west side of Korppoo ..." [User:Boris Novikov|Boris Novikov]] (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes and read the previous sentences... -YMB29 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which of the previous sentences? That Finns had two treaties one demanding them to defend and one not to defend Åland? That SU units attacked before Finns had even violated the treaty? Soviet attack could not have been in response to Finns moving troops to Åland (as it hadn't happened by the time SU attacked) and as discussed earlier Finns have the right to move troops in their own area as they see fit. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a demilitarized zone... So the Soviet attack was the start of the new Soviet invasion that coincidentally was planned to take place at exactly the time of Operation Barbarossa? You are picking up where Boris Novikov left off... Clearly it was a response to the Finnish operation.

Here from Jokipii's book (translation from Russian):
During daytime on 21 June 1941 Finnish warships had already relocated to the area of Nauvo Korppoo, and were followed by transports with troops in the evening. Although during the night they stopped on the border of the territorial waters to await confirmation of the German attack on the USSR, and after it was received at 4:30 the movement continued. At about 6 o'clock Russian bombers appeared in this area and attempted to bomb battleships, the Alskari fortifications and a gunboat, but without much success. The unloading of the transport ships took place quickly during that same morning. One may ask how did Finland know the "exact time" precisely during the night of Operation Barbarossa to carry out such a large scale operation in the waters of the demilitarized Åland Islands?
-YMB29 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a demilitarized zone Finland was demanded to defend. And at that time it was not a coincidental that it happened at the exact time when operation barbarossa started. Finns knew war was coming and wanted to make sure Åland would be safe (as demanded by the earlier treaty). And yes, order to proceed was finally given in 0430 when the start of the German offensive had been verified. Actually the 'preparing' orders had been in place since 19th of June. Also from what books i have the unloading took into the following morning (23rd) before it was completed. So, what do we have... There were conflicting treaties on status of Åland, Finns were moving to secure Åland (as they were demanded by demilitarization treaty), the beginning of the operation was timed to occur simultaneously with Operation Barbarossa, Finns hadn't yet transported the troops (ie. had not violated the 1940 treaty) by the time SU bombers attacked. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the unloading took place early on the 22nd and the Soviets only attacked when it became obvious what the Finns were doing. The Finns knew there will be war but they also knew the exact time. This is because of the cooperation with the Germans, so all the talk of having a duty to protect the islands is just an excuse. -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any facts supporting that? The sources i have tell that SU attack in Kihti area (at roughly 0600) was directed against Finnish warships escorting the troopships towards Åland. It must have been mightily fast reaction to operation if the ships after receiving order in 0430 would have had time to both unload and then somehow be again moving troops towards Åland mere hour later. In practice this would have been impossible, so the ships couldn't have unloaded any troops and got back to sea with heading again towards the Åland before SU aircraft attacked them which makes it impossible for the SU pilots to have been able to react against that (any evidence against this?). As said before Finns got very vague timetable from the Germans which only got accurate - but wasn't trusted - just before the German attack begun.

Finns knew there was a war coming and prepared for it. That hardly is illegal. And regardless of your opinions Finns had two conflicting treaties regarding the Åland.

And (as minor detail) you should notice that SU broke the treaty. Treaty clearly mentioned the allowed methods for making complaints in case of violations. Attacking with aircrafts was not one of those. - Wanderer602 (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes make a complaint after the islands are already taken... The Finns broke the treaty with the Soviets and it does not matter if they did not break the other one. Was the Soviet Navy preparing an invasion? There was no danger to the islands. The Finns got a timetable and it makes no difference if it was vague or not trusted, stop trying to make up excuses...

Where the navy ships were exactly at the time of the attack does not matter. They left the Finnish territorial waters. It was obvious what was going on. Or are you going to tell me that they were not going to invade if the Soviets would not have attacked. This is just silly... -YMB29 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not making much sense.. For example SU broke the agreement on shipping grain to Finland way before that. Or shot down a civilian aircraft. Should those breaches of treaties have nulled all the previous agreements between the countries as well? Or that SU violated Finnish airspace - they had to in order to ever reach the area in question.

As it were SU managed to attack before Finns had breached the treaty. But the timing of SU bombings provided even better legitimacy for moving troops there.

Kihti area is middle of important waterways. It is sort of crossroads between major routes north and south and from west to east making it nearly impossible to avoid when sailing from Turku almost regardless where you are headed to. And its still lays only at the border of Åland.

And nope, Finns would have moved the troops to the islands regardless of the SU bombing. According to treaty of Åland's demilitarization Finns had every right (well.. they were essentially demanded to) place troops to defend the islands. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So I see that you like to discuss the same thing in two places...

Don't know about the Finnish airspace being violate, but the Finns did violate Soviet airspace on that day. You are bringing that airplane argument again? There was no act of war committed by the USSR that would have annulled the peace treaty.

You are going with that cheap legitimacy argument... If you want to get technical about who was first to violate then there was probably a condition in the treaty of 1940 that said something about military ships in the waters near the Åland islands, which the Finns violated before the Soviet attack. However, this does not matter as the operation got underway way before.

What exactly are you trying to prove here, that the Finns were not planning war together with the Germans? -YMB29 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How exactly can SU airplanes attack a spot hundred kilometers inside Finnish borders without violating the airspace? You claim that Finns violated? Are you 100% sure or are you mixing Finns with Germans?

Treaty of 1940 said very little about ships (to be precise, it says nothing of them), it talks of fortifications and military structures. In other aspects it referred to the earlier treaty which in turn demanded Finns to move troops to Åland (as war in the Baltic Sea had became unavoidable - regardless of the Finns). So from this aspect the 1940's treaty with SU technically demanded Finns to occupy the Åland if there was a threat of war.

Given that Finnish troops were kept in Finnish command (apart from few loaned exceptions in Lapland) and German troops in German command (again only with minor exceptions in Karelia - mostly with disappointing results according to Mannerheim) there was no central leadership in that matter - in other words Finnish HQ was not subordinate to Hitler or to German HQ. Some operations (mainly naval) were planned together, and other almost certainly were timed to coincide, however the war was not jointly planned. Finns had their own plans and goals which were adapted to situations and German successes and failures but they were not the same as German goals. - Wanderer602 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if the Finnish HQ was separate or that the whole war was not jointly planned... Stop going around the fact that the invasion of the islands was planned and coordinated.

"the 1940's treaty with SU technically demanded Finns to occupy the Åland" - No you are really stretching it...

You have the whole text for the 1940 treaty?

Spot 100 kilometers inside Finnish borders? Anyway, the Finns violated Soviet airspace already on 21 June 1941; it is mentioned in Jokipii's book. -YMB29 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that no german ships or units participated into the operation it is unlikely that it was jointly planned. Finns merely made it to coincide with the beginning of Barbarossa.

Not stretching. Just reading what the treaty states. SU seems to have had fondness of using vague wording or references in their treaties and calls for surrender.

Its in online repository.

Pretty much its roughly 100 km if i measure the distance from the spot where the attack took place to border of Hanko. If we take most direct route over sea it still is at least 60 km inside Finnish border (and that would have required SU planes to fly over Åland). Finnish violated, are you sure? I mean i do know Germans did, but did Finns? - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes the Finns violated Soviet airspace; like I said, it is in Jokipii's book.

Well I don't see where it demands that Finland has to occupy the islands... or arrest the Soviet consulate...

Germans did not have to participate for the operation to be planned and coordinated. The Germans gave the time of their invasion and the Finns executed their planned operation to coincide. -YMB29 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It never demanded arresting a Soviet consulate. Also are you sure of that? I did find some reference to SU consul in Northern Finland being arrested but much less anything related to Åland. Regardless the treaty did demand Finns to protect and defend the islands.

As for the airspace violation, could you copy or link the relevant quote? I mean i cant seem to find anything related to Finns violating the border at that time.

And what exactly is the problem with coinciding the operation? - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Coinciding shows that Finland was not neutral and was in alliance with Germany...
Violations of Soviet airspace:

Due to the increased threat of war, from 21 June 1941, the Finns started to carry out, one to two times a day, systematic reconnaissance flights over the Gulf of Finland. They were done by the forces of the sixth reconnaisance squadron over the regions of Hanko, Paldiski and Tallinn.

The airspace of the enemy was also entered in the Karelia region... (Jokippi's book chapter 5, part 9)

Åland invasion and the Soviet consulate:

Finland of course knew of its violation of international norms with regard to its occupation of the Åland Islands, and in part because of this its protest against the Russian bombings was limited to a mere protest note. If Finland wanted to make a big sensation out of the bombings, it would have to explain what its ships were doing in those waters. On the other hand, the occupation meant the declaration of military order on the territories of the Åland Islands, and the Soviet consulate could no longer function by the conditions and standards of peace time. The request of the Soviet consulate on 21 June for food to be delivered to Mariehamn was refused. New observers were not allowed on the archipelago. The personnel of the consulate - 31 people - was transported out, despite its protests, in the evening of 24 June 1941, a day before the start of war between Finland and the Soviet Union. (Jokippi's book chapter 5, part 2)

-YMB29 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Coninciding shows that Finns were aware when German attack would began. Nothing else.

Are there any proofs that Finns would have crossed the border before 21st of June? As the statement you copied could be understood that Finns just reacted to SU bombing of Finnish ships in early morning of 21st of June.

I didnt really see there reference to arresting Soviet consulate. Just that they were transported out of Åland just before the Continuation War really started. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Right... What does transported against their will tell you?

The only thing you do here is deny the obvious and make excuses, even when I provide solid sources.

Why don't you read some books or articles on the subject like Jokipii's book, and then we can talk... -YMB29 (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a violation of their rights, thats for sure. But there is no mention of the consulate personnel of having been arrested - just evicted. Given that SU aircraft had already by that time attacked Finnish ships and SU artillery in Hanko had been shelling Finnish positions its hardly surprising that SU observers wouldn't have been allowed to the archipelago.

And the source you used only shows that Finns violated (from the quotes you posted) the Soviet airspace only after the initial Soviet air and artillery attacks against the Finns. Which is - again - not exactly surprising event. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't even read carefully the sources I post... Try again.

You don't see the word arrested so that means they were not arrested... Again here is a case where you deny a fact because you don't see the actual word.

Jokipii talks about the violation of international norms by Finland so I will take his word for it, not your denials. -YMB29 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Your source - as quoted - is saying that Finland made border violations after the Soviet attacks on 21st of June. I don't have ATM that book at hand so i can't check what it exactly says.

Given that there was a war coming (and even existing in the Baltic Sea) there were no legal issues in sending troops to Åland. Nothing surprising there and it really couldn't have been violation of international norms - inconvenient perhaps but not a violation. However the arrest or eviction or some other action taken against SU consulate and by extension its personnel and their affiliates was a flagrant violation of international norms. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Jokipii writes that the whole invasion was a violation of international norms...

What Soviet attacks on June 21st are you talking about? -YMB29 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Got the book finally and it does appear so. Interesting as according to current legal texts Finns had and still have every right to move in if the Islands are threatened.

I'm sorry. I meant the aerial attacks on 22nd. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the violations started on the 21st...

Not sure if they had the right to send troops in any case according to the 1940 treaty, but the islands were not threatened at the time... -YMB29 (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Border violations - on both sides - had continued for whole 1941. Finns made several clear violations (its not sure if these were detected) and SU did dozens of detected violations before that.

Treaty stipulated that war in the 'Baltic Sea' was enough and there was one in the Baltic Sea at the time. So they appeared to have had a reason to do so. However i do agree there that islands were not really threatened at the time. The withdrawal of troops SU demanded in 1940 as well as some vague evidence that SU had plans (not really surprising, they probably had plans for many other contingencies as well) for an airborne assault made Finns suspect that the islands might be threatened. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Still that is not enough to break "international norms".

Don't know about the history of border violations in the whole of 1941, but the Finns were the ones making the first reconnaissance flights just before the war. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well... It was still within bounds of the treaty.

Sources do not seem to be clear on that. Both sides continuously violated their respective borders. Both before and after the 22nd of June. Soviets bombed (unsuccesfully) a small Finnish freighter in 23rd, at roughly the same time Finns were making photographic flights in Karelia. In 24th an SU flying boat deep within Finnish borders had an engine failure and didn't manage to fly out of the Finnish territorial waters before it had to ditch and was captured - at the same day Finnish reconnaissance plane was shot at when it flew too close to Estonian coast. Again, both sides violated continuously - actually firing (or bombing) was less common though.

It is mentioned in Ylijokipii's book that SU aircraft made 59 reported border violations during 1941 (8 in Jan, 5 in Feb, 19 in March, 5 in April, 13 in May, and 8 in June). Given that Finns had no radars (until 1943) and the air defense was at peace time level it is extremely unlikely that these would have been the only violations. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes both sides violated borders so you can't say that one is more guilty of war based on border violations. -YMB29 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Finding a result

Vote perhaps?

In my opinion result should be Moscow Armistice

Reasons (see above discussion for details):

• Finland was demanded (see above discussion) unconditional surrender which it rejected
• Even the armistice terms were made less severe after SU attacks had failed
• Finland didn't surrender unconditionally or conditionally. Instead it signed an armistice and later a peace treaty
• SU troops attacking Finland failed to achieve their goals (Kymijoki and destruction of Finnish army)
• SU troops kept failing to advance since battle of tali-ihantala. Even in last battle of war two SU divisions were beaten and scattered in Ilomantsi
• Even when armistice was signed SU troops still hadn't managed to push Finns out of the area SU had captured and claimed in 1940.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A military conflict ends either in one side's victory or a stalemate. An armistice is not a result, it is merely a document outlining the result. Our job is to convey what the mainstream of scholarly and encyclopaedic sources state as the result. And I have not seen a respectable encyclopaedia that claims other than Finnish surrender.

As it appears from the discussion above, Stalin demanded conditional surrender on 8 February, not unconditional. Although the Soviet peace terms did not explicitly state that, it is obvious from the fact that these demanded Finnish representatives to travel to Moscow for peace negotiations. In the case of unconditional surrender, there are no negotiations. The reason why Finland rejected the terms was the amount of reparations. The terms remained the same for Moscow Armistice as they had been on 8 February. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well.. Couple of things... SU did not demand an unconditional surrender at 8th of February, but instead the terms were refused by the Finns. But they did demand an unconditional surrender at 22nd/23rd of June (when the SU attack was underway), which was also refused. SU demanded an announcement (term implies to public announcement) of the surrender before any kind of the meetings (in plain English.. no talks before surrendering) could be held. Essentially demanding Finns to make an unconditional surrender. That demand for a surrender without conditions was interpreted to be a demand for unconditional surrender, how else it could have been interpreted?

War reparations were cut in half if from the first treaty proposal, and also the time allowance for making the reparations was lengthened by several years (in the armistice treaty proposal of July 1944 - after SU attack had been stopped). So the terms of the treaties (of February and July) did not stay remain the same - and keep in mind that SU did demand unconditional surrender between the treaties as well.

Finns never surrendered or capitulated. Not after winter war in 1940, not after continuation war in 1944 nor after lapland war in 1945. If you can spot a single line in the treaty referring to capitulation or surrender (of any kind) please feel free to point it out. See for example [12]. Finnish troops never gave up arms nor were they made prisoners or held in any kind. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a relevant quote from surrender (military) article: "Entire nations can also surrender in an attempt to end a war or military conflict. This is done through the signing of an armistice, an unconditional capitulation or peace treaty." --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting.. cause here is also a relevant quote from Armistice article: "The key aspect in an armistice is the fact that "all fighting ends with no one surrendering"". - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

>I agree, it cannot be only Moscow Armistice. Can it be stalemate? It does not sound good. To my opinion correct wording is "Finland's Defensive Victory against Soviet Union's Invasion, Moscow Armistice: Finland has to pay enourmous war indemnity and to cede land in order to stop the war", because article tells of the war and that sentence describes really what happened. Soviet Victory gives missleading picture for occasional reader. It sounds like Soviet succeeded in military operations. Comments to this proposal. Could the result text be a bit longer so that it easier to get better understanding with at glance Koivuhalko (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we are looking for the term Strategic surrender? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does it need to be anything else? There are several other articles of wars which have no definition of stalemate, or victory to either side, I'm just unsure why people keep insisting that this needs to have if other articles lack it? - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. Here is the policy from Template:Infobox military conflict: "result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, the preferred method is to enter a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section")." Let me point out, however, that Anglo-American sources clearly use the term surrender or its synonyms for the conclusion. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Using a 'Aftermath' section for that does indeed seem like it would be the most balanced option. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Any opinions on using separate 'Aftermath' (or something like it) section for actual result. Please do notice that it would allow all opinions to be properly represented as well as sourced (which should be beneficial for everyone). And the description of that option in the infobox policy sorta implies that it should be used in contested cases. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As there have been no responses I take there are no objections with the use of linked aftermath section in the infobox instead of declaring it a outcome directly. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I support it. I am unsure about the others. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not just let academic sources do their job, as per WP:RS? Here's a bunch of non-Finnish, non-Russian ones that name the Soviet Union the victor and place Finland among the defeated countries of WWII: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Notably, David Kirby quotes several prominent Finnish politicians on this and sums the general feeling among the soldiers in Finland that "the USSR has won the war, but Finland came a good second." --Illythr (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet even some (well.. most) of the sources you posted use specifically 'Moscow Armistice' as the principal result of the war. Defeat or some other such term is only mentioned in passing even in those sources. Please do note that i do not dispute that SU came better off. I just dispute the use of term 'Soviet victory' at least without any clarification of it (as it hardly is a 'classical' victory given that SU failed to reach even its own borders during the war). Such support could be presented in the said 'Aftermath' section - as it is doubtful it would be practical to fit it into the infobox. And the 'USSR has won the war but Finland came a good second' is a known quote from a (fictional, if based on true events) book 'The Unknown Soldier (novel)' (or 'A War Novel' depending on the release and version) by Väinö Linna, not exactly a compelling evidence of their opinions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I posted before: an armistice is not the main result of a military conflict, it is merely a document formalising the outcome. It is our job to present what the secondary sources claim the outcome was. If standard expressions like someone's victory or stalemate are inappropriate, we can simply lead the reader to the Aftermath section (See Aftermath), but naming only Moscow Armistice is not much better than leaving it blank. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be OK with me as well (i.e. a link to a separate aftermath section) - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing misleading about Soviet victory. This article should not serve the nationalistic Finnish POV on the war. -YMB29 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The result should be Soviet victory. It is supported by available sources. (And has nothing to do with nationalistic POV.)--Whiskey (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I mean if one uses twisted logic to deny the Soviet victory or claim Finnish victory, it is clearly an example of nationalistic POV. -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There was sources for Finnish victory too, so I still suggest that it's Moscow Armistice. It is the historical fact. --84.249.61.239 (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My view is that it was a partial Soviet victory. The Finns had to stop fighting a day before the Soviets, for example - hardly the sign of a winning side. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no mention of that in the treaty or elsewhere. Reason for that one day delay in SU side ceasefire has often been said to have been the time it took from the SU to verify that Finns had indeed cut ties to Germany. Also Finns were not sure if SU had meant 4th or 5th of September when saying 'tomorrow morning' during the negotiations the night between 3rd and 4th and decided to play safe. Regardless of that Finns did shoot back when shot at, dropped at least one aircraft and repulsed several SU attacks (i.e. they did start shooting if SU attacked). They didn't lay down arms and surrender. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You can put it either "Soviet victory" or "Finnish lost". --Pahoinvointivaltio (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Section break 1

Yet another revert issue appeared with the result box. I still can not really understand what so 'non-official' is in using the term Moscow Armistice as the result of the war as that is the principal/generally accepted result (even according to the references earlier posted by Jaan Pärn). As discussed in some detail here and elsewhere in wiki talk pages it is clear the result can not be Finnish victory - regardless the facts that between spring 1944 and September 1944 terms of the agreement were changed in direction favored by the Finns, or that at no point did the Soviet troops manage to gain permanent foothold within 1940 borders, or that Soviet 4th strategic offensive failed to achieve its goals due Finnish resistance and at the time war ended Finnish troops were still in Soviet side of the 1940 border. And that it can not really be Soviet victory either - for the very same reasons. All which seems to leave only two options. Either some one makes a really, really good case why Moscow Armistice can not be used as the result and then makes up a proper 'Aftermath' section or then the Moscow Armistice should be accepted as the result of the war. Seeing battles in black and white when trying to figure out the winner is one thing. Trying to use black and white (winner and loser) strategy when setting result for a prolonged - and indecisive - campaign or war is just not possible without carrying nationalistic POV bias one way or the other. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet again: here is the policy from Template:Infobox military conflict: "result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, the preferred method is to enter a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section")." Let me point out, however, that Anglo-American sources clearly use the term surrender or its synonyms for the conclusion. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet the last batch of 'Angle-American' sources you linked here used Moscow Armistice as principal result of the conflict (armistice is not synonymous to surrender - see for example current Korean status). Also as i said before the conflict was indecisive which in turn makes setting any explicit 'winner' or 'loser' a POV issue. What i'm saying is that making use of the "...the preferred method is to enter a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section")" is likely to be the least biased version that could be used. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The method is for cases where the major sources do not describe the outcome in standard terms. However, for the Continuation War, there is no doubt in the Anglo-American sources that Finland surrendered. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Care to provide the said sources? - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Both Encyclopaedia Britannica and Americana mention the capitulation of Finland in 1944. The Eesti Entsüklopeedia and Tietosanakirja do not feature standardised outcomes of the war while the latter argues that in comparison with the Soviet peace conditions of February 1944, those of August 1944 were more favourable to Finland as that time not demanding an unconditional capitulation. As obvious from the double negative, the Moscow Armistice was about the conditional capitulation of Finland --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So making original research (i.e. making assumptions "As obvious" based on your own interpretation of the text) is ok then? You seem to ignoring the fact that in June 1944 Soviets did demand (unconditional or conditional - not certain as the wording is rather ambiguous as discussed with YMB29) Finns to surrender in a way which in Finland was interpreted to be a demand for unconditional surrender and their demand was rejected (and kept rejected even after Soviets affirmed that it wasn't unconditional surrender). If you take this into account then any kind of claim based on the double negative is either groundless or OR (as you claim that you know that the 'not' refers only to the 'unconditional'). - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Section break 2

• I provided a bunch of academic sources that name the result of this war a Soviet victory (and, conversely, a Finnish defeat) at the very beginning of this discussion an am amazed it had continued for so long. Opinions of professional historians matter, opinions of anonymous Wikipedia editors do not. --Illythr (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My claim is based on the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Americana. The Tietosanakirja and Eesti Entsüklopeedia do not argue against them. I rest my case. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets see the academic sources.. Posted by Illythr earlier..

• [18] - page 301 (where it actually handles the result of continuation war is not previewable) - granted elsewhere it marks the result as 'Soviet victory'
• [19] - not accessible.. i can only see only line from the given link

  Strange, they seem to have changed how the search works... Try this. In any case, here's the relevant quote from page 35: "With Soviet victory in the Continuation War and in World War 2 as a whole, the power structure in Finland's salient environment had radically changed". --Illythr (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• [20] - makes it clear that result was an armistice followed by peace treaty

  Unlike some other defeated states, Finland was not occupied by Allied forces. --Illythr (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• [21] - makes separate mention that any agreements made between Finland and Soviet Union lacked any reference to word 'surrender' and that the end result was ceasefire (armistice).

  Yet it refers to Finland as a defeated country throughout. --Illythr (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  Yes it does. Which is why I'm not disputing fact that Finns failed to win (one of the several meanings of the word 'defeat'). What i was saying is that the end result was indecisive and that instead of having a result declared out of the blue it should use a separate Aftermath section where the account and result of the conflict could be properly handled as suggested in military conflict infobox template in the first place. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also.. encyclopedia britannica is inaccessible for me so i have no way of checking what it actually is claiming (excerpt it offers is only one paragraph long).

And those were only the sources provided you which already conflicted (somewhat) with claims of sourced 'capitulation/surrender' event. Other examples (using same 'google books' as the others have):

• [22] - again a source claiming the result was an armistice (or just 'peace').
• [23] - source marking the result as an armistice.

Unless Encyclopedia Britannica is some how holy infallible source those above examples quite clearly illustrate that the result was hardly as clearly defined as EB lets you understand. Which in turn makes the deducted result of 'Soviet victory' which was based on that source much less solid that what it was. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You are mispresenting this as if Moscow Armistice and capitulation of Finland were mutually exclusive. In fact, even if we had just one major source claiming Finland capitulated and no major source arguing against it, it would be fair to call the outcome a Soviet victory. The reality is even clearer: we have multiple major sources claiming Finland surrendered and no major sources against it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica is not holy but just a major source. If you can't access a library, check out for instance page 147 in this book. You also forgot Encyclopedia Americana. If you wish to prove them wrong, it is not enough to provide sources that are unclear about the outcome. Instead you should provide sources that actually conclude that there was no clear winner. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not misrepresenting. Capitulation of Finland implies (by definition of the word 'capitulation') of surrendering. However by definition (and please i urge you - do go through the treaty texts) Moscow Armistice could not be such - you could call it cease fire or cessation of hostilities, but it was not surrendering or capitulation (again merely by definitions of the terms used). So those two are mutually exclusive events. Either Finland agreed to Moscow Armistice (fact, treaty text available - lots of sources supporting it) or Finland capitulated (unproven fact, some sources supporting it). And now you are claiming that EA and EB both are infallible sources regardless of the several opposing sources. Most interesting claim - apparently it does not matter how many opposing sources there are as long as EA and EB disagree with them (and i do not even have any idea what exactly these two sources are saying, all i have seen have claims that 'EA' and/or 'EB' says that)...

I provided several sources which stated that result as Moscow Armistice but according to you EA and EB are infallible. All which points that the current result derived from the texts of the very EA and EB is contested. Which is pretty much all i need to prove to make sure the separate Aftermatch section is required for the result. Also while the link you provided is fine do you really consider that a source which it self is unsourced (even if there is bibliography section at the end) that handles the end of Continuation War with one (1) sentence is a good and 'major' source? - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are major sources that conclude on Finland accepting military defeat, there are no sources claiming the opposite and still you cannot accept that but keep presenting ridiculous OR. I don't think there is anything we can do for you. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Last major source from you ended up being a single unsourced one-liner from a history book. Not exactly compelling evidence. And (by your own admission) you had interpreted a 'double negative' (not demanding an unconditional capitulation --> other one must be capitulation) and concluded from it something that was not stated or even claimed in the referenced source and then you go blaming others for doing OR... Right... - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Section break 3

So what will be done with this? Or rather why does it seem to be unacceptable for certain people to use separate text section for discussing the outcome of the Continuation War? From my point of view it would offer the best compromise as it allows for actually explaining (or discussing of) the outcome (the result and the effects of it). - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can some one please explain how one is supposed to talk and reach consensus when the person (Jaan Pärn) demanding the discussion refuses to participate in it? And has been ignoring the discussion for several weeks now. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You may want to draw wider attention to this article, perhaps, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. It's quite clear that you won't reach consensus with those who regularly visit the page. --Illythr (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The two Soviet clowns YMB29 and Illyther must be paid from some Russian goverment buro the post all this shit. For exampel YMB29 who claims that Viipuri was "librated" in 1944! Liberated from what???????????? Face it, Soviet stated this war and to say it was great Soviet victory that the Soviet put forward a peace proposal 3 years after they started the war that Finland finnally could accept doesnt sond like a big victory to me. Espciallly after the fail Soviet offensive aginst Finland in 1944.(Posse72 (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)).

To Wanderer: talking and reaching consensus is really easy. Just bring proper counter arguments to oppose other people's arguments. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana and a bunch of other major reliable sources provided by Illythr and I state that Finland admitted defeat. The only way to counter that is to provide sources that claim the opposite (Finland did not lose the war, the Soviet Union did not win the war etc). Until you do that, you will be the one ignoring your opponents' arguments. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not ignoring your your claims. And i provided several sources that supported my view or contested the current result. When i requested to see your source (attributed to Encyclopedia Americana) it proved to be a single unreferenced one line statement in a generic history book. Which was not then and is still not a very strong supportive evidence on your statements like you have claimed it to be. Illythr's sources at least were of the topic though even those were not unanimous of the matter and for which with very little effort plenty of opposing sources could be found. On the other hand you seem to be disregarding any and all references i have posted on this subject. All which points to conclusion that the result is contested which again indicates that the single word result statement should be replaced with a link to a text section where the result could be properly discussed, argued and referenced - as instructed in the infobox military conflict template help section. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with wandrer. Usally anglo-american sources on the Finnish-Soviet conflict are unrelible and shallow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.237.176.131 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To Wanderer: I do not know what you are talking about. I do not have copyright for neither Encyclopedia Americana nor Encyclopaedia Britannica, so I have not provided excerpts from them. I have only stated what they conclude on the outcome of the war. Your failure to access any library cannot affect the credibility of the sources.

Regarding your sources, please cite them again, because I seem to have failed to spot even a single one. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

First your 'strong case source' which proved to be worthless: Encyclopaedia Britannica is not holy but just a major source. If you can't access a library, check out for instance page 147 in this book. excerpt is quote posted by Jaan Pärn. And that strong source ended up being a single one liner. In unreferenced history book.

My failure to access any library? What are you ranting about? Of course i have access to library, several in fact. I just so far have seen no references (worth anything) posted about Continuation War from either of those two sources. Also i have posted opposing sources. All which is indicates that result of the conflict can not be summarized by single line. If you do that you are knowingly approving only selected sources which support your POV while disapproving and discrediting opposing sources which in other places is considered to be roughly equal to outright lie. I'm not saying your sources wouldn't be credible. I am just saying that there are credible opposing sources as well.

For the other sources.. see for example the section which starts from the Section Break 2.

All i am contesting is the single-minded conclusion of the result of the war which you apparently share. And where did i claim i wanted the result to be explained in couple of sentences.. Well come to think about even that would be an immense improvement to the current single line. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In Section Break 2, you only provide two sources which claim that the result was Moscow Armistice. These do not contest the Finnish surrender as Moscow Armistice was the agreement that formalised the capitulation. You are yet to provide sources that argue directly against that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to point what exactly in Moscow peace treaty of 1944 or in Paris peace treaty of 1947 formalizes capitulation and/or surrender. Neither (official treaty text) treaty refers to any kind of surrender/capitulation. No troops surrendered to the SU troops. None even gave up arms. And as discussed several times.. Signing an armistice is quite far from a surrender. And even further from capitulation. Assuming you insist calling it a surrender then by the virtue that the Moscow Armistice was a mutual agreement i suppose its equally valid to state that the Soviet Union surrendered to Finland?

I have several times asked how do you figure that your concept of 'double negative' is valid. In this case determining that if the June 1944 Soviet demand - . As you yourself deducted earlier:

• "... of February 1944, those of August 1944 were more favourable to Finland as that time not demanding an unconditional capitulation. As obvious from the double negative, the Moscow Armistice was about the conditional capitulation of Finland".

I understand that in mathematics two negatives do make a positive. In text - it does not - it may resolve as a positive or a negative and in this case when there are even more options that just the two you represented available it has even more possible outcomes. If using double negatives to make a deduction is not OR then what is?. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: what exactly in Moscow peace treaty formalizes capitulation - These are irrelevant as wp:primary. We can only use wp:secondary and in such a general topic, rather wp:tertiary sources.

RE:double negative - It is our job to interpret the secondary and tertiary sources, not the primary ones. My intention was only to figure out what the Tietosanakirja was stating as the outcome. Apparently it did not convince you and I agree that the Tietosanakirja is not clear about the overall result, as is not Eesti Entsüklopeedia. However, this does not mean that they explicitly argue against the Encyclopedia Americana and Britannica, which clearly refer to a Finnish surrender or capitulation.

RE:None even gave up arms. - We have been through this. You are using a false definition of the terms surrender and capitulation. Feel free to verify in a dictionary of your choice that the terms mean to accept military defeat, no giving up arms or anything else further. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have tertiary sources and secondary sources that are contradictory what then? We would need to see what secondary sources (books of the subject, articles) the tertiary sources (like the encyclopedias) used. You can not go claiming that a summary article (which last time consisted of single totally unreferenced sentence) is the absolute truth of the matter when contradictory secondary sources are available. Again using only tertiary sources for setting the result - especially without knowing their sources - and disregarding opposing secondary sources is folly.

They (Tietosanakirja or Eesti Entsüklopeedia) don't need to be explicitly against EA or EB - it is enough that they do not agree with EA/EB about the result. There you have even tertiary sources which are not clear on what actually took place. Which yet adds to the evidence to support the use of separate section where the result could be properly discussed.

If Finns had 'accepted military defeat' they would have surrendered in June 1944 when there actually was a threat of military defeat. However this did not happen and instead 4th Strategic Offensive ended up as a failure. There were no significant military actions going on when the armistice was being signed. Most of the fighting had stopped well over a month before there were any news of any armistice. Finns accepted the fact that the war could not be won (had done so already in 1943) and waited for the SU to agree to a peace treaty. Though in exact same way it could be argued that as the assaulting Soviet forces were defeated SU accepted the military defeat against the Finns and agreed to peace treaty (by your terms this would mean that Soviets surrendered to Finns - not that i think so but it should make it clear how absurd such a claim is) - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The World War II and the following conflicts had created such an onimious view that the loser of the war has to lose totally; become annexed, occupied, partitioned or so... While in reality most wars in the last 2500 years ended with only minor changes in borders, no occupations or partitions. And there hasn't been any trouble finding winners and losers in those wars. Just in the way the Continuation War ended: No annexation, no occupation, minor changes to borders. Both parties were willing to compromise their demands to secure the end of the bloodshed. The war ended with Moscow armstice, but it ended also to Soviet victory, not total victory, not in the victory in WWII sense, but in the victory as it was defined in the previous milleniums. That is why most sources from the issue define it as a Soviet victory, as it should be here also. --Whiskey (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, if it can be said that 'most sources' say it was Soviet victory. The above discussion is related to this issue. So far two - as discussed above - unreferenced (as it is) tertiary sources are opposed (as in not having clear Soviet victory as the result) by other tertiary sources as well as both opposed and supported (both exist) plenty of secondary sources. Also as this is Continuation War had an 'uncommon' result comparing to the rest of WW2 era conflicts (by your own statement "...not in the victory in WWII sense...") it should be clearly noted so - however as people have repeatedly claimed that result box can not contain more complex result this results in clear need for separate section where the result can be properly discussed as indicated in the infobox military conflict result box guidelines. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You are deliberately using a logical fallacy. Not clearly stating a winning side is not opposition to the fact that there was one. For example, none of your posts mention that Risto Ryti was the Finnish President in 1944. By your logic, it means that you are opposing the claim. You are amply demonstrating your failure to put forward a single source that argues against the Soviet victory, even by arguing that there was no clear winner etc. I repeat, choosing not to present the winner of a conflict is not opposition to anything, it is simply a lack of conclusion. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It might so if there were only few sources on the issue. However there are plenty of sources which deliberately do not state the result as a 'Soviet victory'. Which means that 'most' sources will not agree on Soviet victory as the result is left undecided (or rather left up to the reader to make his own conclusions) in quite a few sources. In this manner the sources which avoid stating Soviet victory in effect oppose this statement for the result. All which yet again makes case for the use of separate section for discussing the result.

Not sure what you are after with the Ryti thing. The sources i mentioned handle or discuss the Continuation War in some length. If they still leave the result undecided then that is a deliberate choice to do so and an omission like you represent it. This discussion has not been about the Finnish President during the 1944 nor should it be turned into one. I would appreciate if you would not try to derail the discussion by such means. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is no less than bending the evidence - making them say something they don't. You cannot build your case on the sources that do not claim anything about the specific matter. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If we were talking about sources which take 'generic WWII history' approach to the issue then no doubt you would be correct. However several sources which specifically discuss the continuation war and its result in length omit the 'soviet victory' or equivalent phrase and instead leave the result undecided (or rather undeclared). Such sources if any should have clear image of the result yet they leave it undecided and instead of declaring the result in single (or two) words go in length to discuss the result - which is what I'm suggesting we should do as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Most sources witch specifically discuss the water don't specify that the water is wet. So the result should be Soviet victory , but it could be accompanied with a link to the Armistice treaty or to the aftermath section of this article. --Whiskey (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not the same thing. Far more closer would be if you would able to find wealth of sources (actually roughly equal in numbers of sources opposing it) handling or discussing the WWII and its aftermath which are not saying (for example) that Germany lost the WWII. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Also... If a source is deliberately avoids setting a single phrase outcome for a conflict and instead aims to provide a broader view to the outcome how can it ever be used a source if we are using your logic which seems to indicate that only those sources where the result is clearly set can be counted? Also there are several encyclopedic sources which avoid stating any kind the single phrase result for the conflict - which clearly contradicts the 'water is wet' analogy used by User talk:Whiskey. As for the bending the evidence... If a source goes to lengths to avoid stating a single phrase result then how is trying to use that same method here any kind of 'evidence bending'? - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Were all of the sources to avoid a single statement on the outcome, your proposal would be relevant. However, a wealth of sources have a clear cut statement on the outcome. It would be incorrect to deny that in the article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said it should be denied in the article. I said the result should be handled and discussed in the article instead of giving a single phrase result. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there are major sources that state the outcome was a Soviet victory must not be denied in the infobox.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

By the very same logic the fact that there are major sources which omit stating the outcome must not be denied in the infobox - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You cannot deny the non-existence of anything. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You understood perfectly well what i meant with that post. Just in case you are not acting lets clarify... It is a fact that the there are also several sources which omit stating any outcome at all for the conflict even though some of them discuss the result of the conflict in depth. This should also be reflected in the infobox. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And regardless of source's reputation of being a 'major source' the reputation alone does not automatically make a source into an infallible truth - like you have represented the EA/EB - especially when the source handles the whole topic in a single one line statement. And please do notice that i do not claim that they would be worthless. The comments and especially the basis for their conclusions should and could be properly represented if the whole result would have a separate section in the article. I am just saying that given the wealth of sources which omit the single phrase result it seems like the best option would be to use such a separate section as described in infobox instructions where all different comments, conclusions or omissions of the outcome could be properly handled. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So you prefer to represent only select sources - only the ones which you deem valid - in the infobox instead of allowing the result to properly handled? Calling that a balanced view would be rather far fetched. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we need to pick something, don't we. Most of the data presented in the infobox (like casualties, belligerents etc) are referenced to a single source while the rest of the relevant sources either have alternative claims or do not feature any claim at all. Following your logic, the infobox, instead of information, should consist in links to "See this or that section for clarification because this is oh so complicated". Like most sources dealing with the war do not feature the claim of 63,204 Finnish dead or missing. Do you think the number should be removed from the infobox because of that? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The infobox should contain the summary of the war/battle. It cannot contain very long descriptions, or need to read further sections. --Whiskey (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It can contain 'a need to read further sections'. Its even separately mentioned in the result section of the instructions for the infobox usage. Now you are conveniently ignoring that outside of those select sources the result is often mentioned as 'Moscow Armistice' without declaring it to be win for either side - not at least on terms of WW2 era win. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Only 'select sources' feature the claim of 63,204 Finnish dead or missing. Is the infobox 'conveniently ignoring' that? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how that would be in any way relevant to the discussion at hand - it seems to serve only to derail the discussion. Besides number of casualties is totally different matter than the abstracted concept of result in the conflict. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)