Talk:Continuation War/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Reintroducing the edit war?

I visited the archives. Before that particular archive page was created (done by you), the history in question and the related texts - your opponents' edits - were tampered. You were accused of participating in that sorry operation, under the user name of 'Roobit'. You had also argued under the user name of 'Whiskey' - and point by point you were shown to be wrong !

Accordingly, on Christmas Eve, 2006 - using the name 'Whiskey' - you gave up your campaign of lies, and publicly agreed to allow the text in question to remain on the bottom of Wikipedia's Continuation War page.

Yours is a very Stalinist way of attempting to change history, in areas where the Red Army failed. This shall not prevail ! Just look around a bit for assurance ... to Estonia for example.

The Soviet Union has long since collapsed ! It was wiped off existence, to the pages of the history of failed totalitarian systems.

On the other hand, Finland's parliamentary system and her democratic ways of governing lasted over the entire period of the Soviet Union, including Stalin's sick terror campaigns and the Second World War.

So - what's the point of you wasting your time now, pushing lies, in year 2008 ... defending evil, denying the truth ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitri Karpov (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bwahaha! (c) The Truth shall not pass! For my sick twisted pleasure, of course. Please continue. Your words are music to my, uh, eyes. --Illythr (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And around we go again. --Stlemur (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Shush! Maybe he'll say something even more hilarious... ;-) Look! It's that smiley again! --Illythr (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, in stead of patronizing answer and childish remark, could you pls, tell me why

• 1 Why its still so controversial to admit Soviet responsible for the continuation war?
• 2 Why is it sooo hard for Russian still in these days to admit the failure and defeat in the end of the continuation war?

RGDS --Posse72 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because this has been covered seriously and in meticulous detail over a year ago, as our friend here was still in the process of discrediting himself by breaking almost every rule of Wikipedia. Go ahead, and read it yourself, KGB and all. I'm almost tempted to try and reply seriously, just to see how many more people will bite the bait and flock to defend that loon stalwart Defender of The Truth. --Illythr (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well ill have to admit, calling you KGB is very childish, and I'm convinced that you and whiskey is not the same user. I also want to thank you for taking many heated discussions. It gives me a good chance to understand a general Russian view.--Posse72 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But back to the main issue, why is there no article in Russian Wikipedia over the battle of Tali-Ihantala? Rgs --Posse72 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There are several reasons: 1. Incompleteness: The Russian Wikipedia is 10x smaller than the English one. It sometimes lacks articles on much more critical topics than these obscure battles no one knows or cares to know. 2. Lack of sources: The battle, as well as the war itself was not as successful, or important (after the Siege of Leningrad was lifted and East Karelia liberated) to Soviet historiography, considering that it touched on several rather sensitive points, so the Russian books about it are often aptly called "The forgotten war". 3. Lack of neutral sources: Soviet period history articles in ruwiki are often copied from (old) Soviet sources (sometimes as old as 1932), and are thus often POV in ways that are sometimes borderline hilarious. 4. Lack of interested editors: There appear to be few consistent editors currently working on history articles in ruwiki. Some of them doggedly defend the old Soviet POV they probably inserted themselves, some others try just as doggedly to insert strongly anti-Soviet POV, with the resulting clashes taking up most of their time and spooking productive editors (like Silent1932) away. Why, I believe I was actually called a Finnish Nazi collaborator for trying to neutralize an article about the Finnish occupation of Karelia a bit. The Finnish Nazi himself being, apparently, user:Whiskey who participated in the same effort. Ah, one can really see that ruwiki is a sister project of enwiki... ;-) --Illythr (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But I do feel I've been able to affect some NPOV and factual issues in ru-wiki. It is really shame I don't write Russian... (Hey! Did you notice? No smileys yet! ;-) Oh well... There it goes...) --Whiskey (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Amen my brother self! There is no smiley cabal, of course. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but the battle of Tali-Ihantala was the 4th greatest in europe in the year 1944.--Posse72 (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends. By the face value, at least Falaise Gap, Narva bridgehead and Tannenberg line were bigger, as well as Hube's and Korsun pockets. That's already five bigger battles. Then comes major offensives, Overlord, Bagration, Market-Garden, Balkans.... It had a lot of peole concentrated in an awful small area though. --Whiskey (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont think atleadt two of the battles you mentioned was bigger, and according to a new Finnish book Tali-Ihantala was the forth largest battle. The battle is the Singel most important event in the nordic contries since the german invasion of Denmark and Norway, and shaped the post war of the whole region, soo to call it " obscure battles no one knows or cares to know" tells more about the person who fell this remark, than the event itself.--Posse72 (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You can check the numbers if you like. (They are also available here in Wikipedia.) You are naturally correct about the importance of the battle in Finland and in the Nordic countries, but similarly you have to understand it's relative lack of importancy to the readers from Russia, USA or Western Europe, who all had bigger and more important battles for them. --Whiskey (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, sockpuppets or not, we do seem to share a sinister link on perspective. Maybe we should register a cabal? Indeed, that is what I meant. What is of deciding importance to some, is a sideshow for others and yet others (vast majority, in this case) don't even give a damn. I do not aim to insult the Finnish war effort with this remark, as you seem to believe - the situation is exactly the same with, for instance, Jassy-Kishinev Operation, which, while large, very important, and among the most successful Red Army operations in the entire war, remains virtually unnoticed in the West. Hey Posse72, did YOU know about this operation before I mentioned it? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Done that already --Whiskey (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not by the name (but ill know a bout the offensive vaguely, but wasn't this offensive the Soviets started 24h after agreeing on a ceasefire with the Rumanians? And this is not a fieldbattle, its an operation. Rgds --Posse72 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least you know that they weren't picking daisies out there. Yes, an operation with such intense action in a short period of time it was pretty much a continuous battle - on one of the primary fronts, too. And even in Russia not that many know about it. You're welcome to read the article for the rest. --Illythr (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear 'Putin youth': Every well informed soul in the world could tell you that this Wikipedia article is in need of a total and comprehensive overhaul !

Well informed observers of the political situation of Russia are also aware of the harsh realities you're facing. Accordingly, vast majority of your Finnish neighbors meet your pain and frustrations with love and understanding. After all, you too clearly are victims of the circumstances created by the past rulers of the Soviet Union, now Russia.

The manipulation and misinformation associated with these circumstances of yours in fact are the obvious very reasons why Wikipedia could not possibly serve its purpose in providing accurate information for its users in topics such as the Continuation War. An average Wikipedia user realizes this.

As during WW2 - and before -, your Finnish neighbors wish your nation peace and prosperity, and success for its democratic development. Stable Russia is better than unstable for those who appreciate peace.

Continuously and rapidly increasing number of Russian people are aware by now, that Finns indeed helped to save the Soviet Union from a Nazi occupation during WW2. They are also well aware, that what you try portraying here as a Finnish offensive in 1941, was merely a counter offensive - of course -, to counter a massive Soviet offensive against Finnish targets (note: not against German targets), launched by nearly 500 planes' air attack.

Forced to do so - during the Interim Peace period -, Finns had prepared to counter this upcoming and continued Soviet take-over attempt of Finland. The intruding enemy had to be thrown back behind Finnish borders - and it had to be held a safe distance away until the wars end. As any good chess player could tell you, the best defensive move is counter offensive by nature.

Dimitri Karpov (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm touched. Too bad I've been in Russia for about a year... :'-(

The best defensive move is actually a pre-emptitive strike, preferably aerial. Not that chess players would know about airstrikes... --Illythr (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to suggest that USSR's massive 500 plane "air" attack against Helsinki, Turku, and other major targets on June 25, 1941, was merely a "pre-emptive strike" and a "defensive move", it won't be bought by any civilized soul. What should Finland have done at that point - wait for more bombs to fall and the cities to burn to ashes ?

USSR simply launched a new war against Finland - a continuation for the Winter War - which the contemporaries properly named "Continuation War". The Soviets wanted to finalize Finland's take-over campaign, as they had explained to Adolf Hitler in Berlin on November 12-13, 1940. Dimitri Karpov (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems our dissociative identity disorder is getting worse day by day, as I have visited Hungary and Belgium during the last year... But anyway, that troll is back in business, he has been properly warned, and if he doesn't behave, appropriate administrative action should be in order. (No, I don't wish to repeat last time. I used too much time for arguing with him with no effect.) But in case somebody else likes to do that, I'll archive last half a year of this talk age to make room for that. --Whiskey (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh no Nah, no more serious discussions with this one. Not that he said anything new since last year anyway.

Got yourself an Europass, huh? Now would be an excellent time to turn out to be my sockpuppet - I really could use one of those. --Illythr (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"WorldWars, I see that you want to NPOV this article by representing two different positions. That would be fine if you provided in-line citation supporting your text and "wikified" your text. If you do that, I would support your version. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)"

Good for you Biophys. I can assist, when I have a moment. Others can participate, as I'm rather engaged with some other entertainment. Dimitri Karpov (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening moves

Dimitri Karpov is right in the fact that the article miss out that it was the Soviet Union who opened the first major hostilities in this war, with is ill fated air offensive the 25th of june. Not to recognize this in the article is pure censorship.--Posse72 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the article from here. Also, do read that archive. All of his claims were discussed and debunked there extensively. Oh, and the guy's original user name is user:Art Dominique or Kven. This (Dimitri) is his n'th sock puppet.

+Hmm, now that I have read it myself, that "but even...had to admit..." part is rather POV. I'll rework it a bit later today. --Illythr (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is from the report British ambassador sent to London after the attack. I'll admit it seems to have slight POV, indicating he *wanted* the attacks against Germans, but unfortunately by information available to him, he could only confirm attacks against Finnish targets.--Whiskey (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am addressing that POV. It should read something like, "according to a report by the British embassy", or something, instead of portraying the embassy as some kind of accomplice - "...even those filthy liars had to admit...". It would also be nice to see if the report says that the Soviets preferred to attack Finnish targets only, as the article states, or that it only says what was known to the embassy - that they saw the planes bomb just the Finnish targets. --Illythr (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, if you are indicating that me and DK is the same person, just drop it. But there is no where mentioned that this attacks where big failures. The old Soviet sources claims somewhere between 50-150 destroyed Finnish and German aircraft, the Finnish warbooks confirms 3 lost aircraft during these day, in witch no was due to enemy action. German warbook does not confirm any losses. And Whiskey and Illythr pls drop the sarcastic remarks, it does not help your effort. Rgds --Posse72 (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

First, no, I don't, and I believe also Illythr doesn't consider you and DK same person. You raise valid points and are able to discuss about them. DK cannot do that. Second, it is extremely hard not to be sarcastic when discussing with someone about issues he periodically raises although he was already shot down more than a year ago, even more so, when the person in question doesn't have a hint what the term 'viivytys' (delay) means in military discussion. Third, the issue, the words ineffective and high-profile can be used for describing the initial Soviet air offensive. In the same way as all the other battles are handled in this article, it is not useful to go too deeply into this single offensive here. If you like, you could create a separate age for that offensive where additional information is presented. --Whiskey (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, what Whiskey said. Hive mind? While you share Kven's POV on the issue, at least you are sane about it. Kven's mindless repetition of same old, after being thoroughly refuted, raises certain doubts. His activity is also remarkably in line with that Truth essay, which is quite fun in itself. Oh, and your mistakes in written English are inconsistent with his. ;-).

My own issue here is only with the wording. I won't challenge the factuality of that section until I get a hold of a reliable source, which, considering my schedule in the near future is highly unlikely.

Huh, take a look at the last paragraph of that section - it's Kven's stuff almost verbatim! How did I manage to miss it before? --Illythr (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But unlike Kven's ramblings, it is supported by sources. Even by Soviet sources. If you like, I can dig out the exact places. --Whiskey (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A source for "...so although Soviets had started the war against Finland..." would be nice, yes. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The good old Platonov. Not exactly his words, but could be read between the lines. The official line runs along the like Finland started it as Finnish and German planes attacked Leningrad from Finland, and the air offensive was a retaliation for that. Now we all know that there wasn't German planes based on the Finnish airfields, and Finns only provided fuel for German planes returning from the bombing runs to Leningrad. Platonov even presents the given order during the first days of Barbarossa which forbids attacking across Finnish border unless Finland openly sides with Germans. --Whiskey (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, doesn't make the rest of the article kinda contradictory? Besides, even that much amounts to hostile action, doesn't it? The whole section provides an account of who did what to start the war and then bluntly drops the hammer. Hmm, I'll try to reformulate... --Illythr (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Can you agree, that Soviet air offensive was the first open, large scale act of war during the Continuation war? There are numerous cases, where clandestine or secret military operations had not started a war. But there are also number of cases, where commonly viewed initial agressor has used those operations as a Casus Belli. Believe me, the first hours of the Continuation War has been gone through in Finnish political and historical discussion minute by minute who did what and who said that and what orders were given. The only thing all those Finnish historians has been able to agree with themselves is that the first open act of war was the Soviet air offensive, which -by the way- is also the view of Platonov. The Soviet case would be far more solid if there had been German planes stationed at those airports and if Germans had attacked Soviet Union from Finnish bases. As it is, all that is left is pre-emptive strike based in faulty intelligence. --Whiskey (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That the Soviet air offensive was the first open, large scale act of war isn't really something to agree on, being an obvious fact. However, which previous action can be or was considered an act of war is not so obvious. This: "only provided fuel for German planes returning from the bombing runs to Leningrad" is an excellent candidate, though. Anyhow, take a look at my attempt at reformulating it to avoid complications. --Illythr (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasnt the two german moutain division in Norway on Barbarossa tag? As ill rember it they started to cross the Finnish border on the 22nd of JUne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, I only changed the sentence structure there. The original text is a translation from Finnish, so, huh, no idea.--Illythr (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to find it in my book, but nothing specified yet, maybe Whiskey got something on this?--Posse72 (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Both mountain divisions were in Norway, and moved to Finnish Petsamo at the morning of 22 June. One should note, that both Soviet and German forces were under strict orders NOT to attack or even fire across Finnish-Soviet border. Only at 25 June this restriction was lifted. --Whiskey (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User A. Tihonov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be yet another sockpuppet: his latest edit. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Poor restless soul... He has been at it for over two years now. Reinserting the same piece over and over again... --Illythr (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ceded territories

An anon added the following passage today:

As with the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, the United States goverment have never accepted the Soviet occupation and annexation of Finnish Karelia neither in 1940 or 1944. -Max Jacobsson "own roads"

Can anyone verify this? Do the United States really consider these areas part of Finland? :-/ --Illythr (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

-Yes, during the, Paris peace 1948 USA did not regognized either the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states or Soviet occupation of Finnish Karelia, this i well written in Max Jacobssons book "Own Roads" as he was him self pressent in Paris. --Posse72 (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, but unlike the Baltics those territories have remained part of Russia. I would assume that US, as well as every other country out there recognized Russia within its current borders after the Soviet Union fell apart, no? I'd still like to see some kind of official text by US stating the former, though. --Illythr (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

US Government maps of Finland don't show the ceded territories as part of Finland. --Stlemur (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They had also showed the Baltics as part of the USSR. But sometimes did add a note that US doesn't officially recognize it this way. Mmh, some sort of impartial source on the issue would be nice, as well as reaction from other states (that is, regarding the 1947 non-recognition), to put that statement in proper perspective. --Illythr (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why they wouldn't have accepted it if Finland had accepted? USA was a party in the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947 where the frontiers were confirmed as well. --Pudeo⺮ 10:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why it needs verification. --Illythr (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, United States was not a party to the Paris Peace Treaty between Finland, Great Britain (and Commonwealth) and Soviet Union, as it had not been technically at war with Finland. However, United States is party to the Final Act of European Conference on Security and Cooperation of 1975 (forerunner of the present-day OSCE), where the participating countries (incl. Soviet Union and Finland) affirmed the present European borders and deemed that they can only be changed by peaceful means. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, what about the Baltic states, then? o_O --Illythr (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Already covered in some other discussion a long time back, The Helsinki Accords, although denounced as a sell-out and betrayal by Baltic nationalists, only recognized "frontiers" and never used the word "borders" hence--and quite intentionally--absolutely no recognition of any change in sovereignty regarding territories considered to be occupied by the USSR. The Soviets got what they wanted, though, which was a promise to not invade them to take back what didn't belong to them. —PētersV (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you produce a source for the quite intentionally part? I am inclined to believe you, because otherwise it'd be a killer argument against the whole non-recognition thing, but am still curious. The exact eording would also be interesting to see... And is there any kind of evidence about the non-recognition of those former Finnish territories? --Illythr (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Soviet bombing offensive of 25th June 1941 is controversial in Putins Russia, here its not!

The Russian started the war with there bombing offensive of 25th June, and i should be writen in the article!--Posse72 (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Interested editors may wish to comment at this Request for Editor Assistance. JohnInDC (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

DUH! Posse, it IS already in the article! The CW is divided to three phases: Finnish offensive 1941, War in trenches 1942-3 and Soviet offensive 1944 for a reason, as they describe the large picture of the war. There is no hidden agenda in that division. So, please don't add your version there. --Whiskey (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh, what happened to Posse? It's almost like his account was taken over by Kven for same old purposes... --Illythr (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Finnish Barbarossa ‎conspiracy

We need to start the article on the Finnish Barbarossa ‎conspiracy. Here is a good Finnish language source to start with: Jatkosodan harhautus-- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You could try. I wouldn't recommend the above mentioned link, as it contains numerous errors.--Whiskey (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the central aims of the conspiracy was (in addition to bypassing the democratic process) to create the false impression that "the Soviets attacked Finland". As we have seen, there are still people who believe in this myth. It is natural that these true-believers see "numerous errors" in the true historic record. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Petri, you should try to remain civil. This "conspiracy" of yours is mainstream view of the Continuation War. The address you are referring us to is a site where high school students publish their essays under nomes de plume such as "Og the Caveman" [1]. I would not recommend it as a serious citation. --MPorciusCato (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a source, but not a reliable source. It is however one of the best pieces written on the subject. As to conspiracy:

Agreement to join Operation Barbarossa was reached between Germany and the Finnish War Cabinet ("the conspirators") sometime in 1940 (some may say 1941). The middleman for the negotiations was former prime minister Kivimäki, Finnish ambassador to Berlin. To succeed the conspirators had to do the following.

1. Keep the Finnish parlament Eduskunta in the dark. The pro-peace majority would have blocked any war plans.
2. Keep the Finnish cabinet in the dark.
3. Mobilize
4. Keep the Soviets in the dark.
5. To preserve international good will and popular support, make it look like the Soviets started the war.
6. Get parlamentary approval for war.

Because a war of aggression would not have support in the parlament - and possibly not even in the cabinet, it was agreed with Germany that Finland would start offensive actions only after being first "attacked" by the Soviet Union. To ensure a Soviet responce Finnish war planners had to ensure sufficent "German" military action from Finnish territory and from German troops placed in Finland. Finnish mobilization was started on June 17. The same day Finnish submarines were given orders to mine Tallinn harbour, an act that would later have devasting consequences, in the Evacuation of Tallinn. After the Soviet airforce finally bombed German targets in Finland it was no longer difficult for the war cabinet to get parlamentary approval for a declaration of war. One lasting reminder of this Finnish deception is the fact that this article still "officially" says that the "Continuation War" started on June 25., when in fact a state of (secret) war started a week earlier, on June 17. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place where all notable opinions may be written into articles compassionately and with such length as their public support merits. It is not the place where we find the Truth. If this opinion, which you apparently support, has notability, it should have much better third-party sources which demonstrate this. --MPorciusCato (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The facts about the start of the war are already presented in the stable version, which I intend to restore once protection expires. BTW, was the Tallinn harbor mined by Finnish or German subs? --Illythr (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Aims of the war revisited

There are two problems with the current version: 1) The given Finnish aim is exactly the same as the Soviet one given below (acquisition of buffer territories to defend against an inevitable attack), except no sources are given to support it, and it makes no sense - the conquest of East Karelia began in September 1941, when it was still widely expected that the Soviet Union will fall within a few months, and was stopped in November, when an Axis victory seemed delayed, but assured. 2) The view that the pre-war Soviet policy was aimed at staying out of the war and regaining land lost after the fall of the Russian Empire, does not contradict the view presented by Soviet and Russian scholars, and is actually quite compatible with it - the "staying out of the war" part was stated by Stalin in his "pulling chestnuts out of the fire" speech and the "acquisition of lost territories" part only adds to the Soviet view the fact that these territories once belonged to Russia, while not contradicting the "acquisition of defensible land" statement in the slightest. --Illythr (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Finnish involvement in Operation Barbarossa

The war also includes the Soviet offensive of 1944, when Barbarossa was long over. --Illythr (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the name "The Continuation War" is commonly used in English language literature, so it couldn't be discarded as Finnish POV. In fact, it is surprisingly neutral term, and befitting to the war, if you think about it.--Whiskey (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Both sources for losses are finnish.

That's a nice way to be objective. Again, Good job wikipedia, keep it up if you don't want the article to be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.50.118 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The casualty numbers of the Finnish troops are rather well researched. There is an online directory listing all Finnish soldiers who died in the war or were declared dead after being missed in action. The numbers are very accurate, indeed and they also agree well with the number of military graves on the Finnish kirkyards. (You might call the Finnish interest in our sankarivainajat, "late heroes", almost moribund.) The Soviet loss numbers are much more inaccurate, but I do not think that Russian research seriously challenges the numbers presented here. --MPorciusCato (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Finnish Unit in 1941 Moscow Offensive?

Was there a small Finnish unit in the 1941 offensive on the central front facing Moscow?--Woogie10w (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The only unit containing Finns at the German front was Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS, and it was in training at the time. They were part of SS division Wiking, which was in Ukraine during the opening stages of the war.

This story is although repeated from time to time, see discussion in [2]. --Whiskey (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Finland, Continuation War and the Siege of Leningrad as an example

In fact Finland was involved in the Siege of Leningrad in 1941 - 1944, see this: Fact from Encyclopedia Britannica "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII. [3]

The chief of the Finnish Government Police (VALPO in Finnish) visited the Theresienstadt concentration camp in 1941. <-- removed for no source.

1. Germany's supply of much needed nickel from Petsamo and iron from Sweden was critical to the Nazis' ability to prolong the war. <--- removed for having nothing to do with Finland. Seems like USSR propaganda to put it here. (it is true though).

This was after Soviet Union had attacked Finland? Or Finland attacked as partner of the Nazi Germany?

Example: Fact from Encyclopedia Britannica "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [4]12.34.80.73 (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)12.34.80.73 (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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]

The Putin youth and revision of history

Sorry, but just because EB has one error doesnt automaticlly mean that we have to translate it to Wikipedia. Despite you political agenda in changing this article many of your conclusions i allout wrong or based on just untrue matter. For exampel thou it looks nice in Russian history books that Govorov and the 23rd army stopped the Finnish army outside Leningrad in September 1941, its just another lie.

The Finnish Army had destroeyd the 23rd army as an effective fighting formation in August 1941 with near minmal losses, and in no way the 23 remenants of the 23 army would have been any problem if the Finland decedied to take Leningrad.--Posse72 (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the above is about, but specifically this needs to be thoroughly verified before inclusion, as the claim looks rather far-fetched. For example, for the Baltic states there is this map, where it clearly says so. Nothing about Karelia, though. --Illythr (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This article in general is looking more and more like the bible rewritten by the devil...

First of all to claim the source of this unreliable is a sick joke. Max Jacobsson is the nestor of Finnish Foreign policy, and was himself present at the Paris Peace treaty signing ( Where You?)Max_Jakobson to call that an unreliable source but listing a number of Soviet pro sources is laughable.

Then we have the nice whitewashing of this article by Soviet ultra nationalist and Finnish people democrats, removing issues as Soviet murder of civilians, Soviet own guilt for the war, but blaming Finland for everything and using Soviet propaganda as a source.--Posse72 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between unreliable and unverifiable - as the named source is not available online, we have only your words that it says what you insist. As the claim itself is rather extraordinary (like, "never recognized", means also as of 2009?), a more thorough verification is needed, preferably adding an explicit statement by an official US agency. Once that is provided, we can put the statement in proper context.

PS: "Soviet nationalist" is an oxymoron. ;-)

PPS: I bet a "Bible v1.666: The Devil Edition(tm)" would be a much more entertaining read than the original, hehe. Certainly useful for improving the NPOV. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What about skiping all the text, put a picture over starving Leningrades and have a short text saying "The continuation war -Finnish unjust aggression aginst peacefull and fredom loving CCCP"?--Posse72 (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be the same as putting a picture of killed Finnish civilians and having a short text saying "The Continuation war - Soviet unjust aggression against peaceful and freedom-loving Finland." --Illythr (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. Posse, if you could provide a little bit more specific location to the Jacobsson's book/article in question, I could try to verify that part. (IIRC, and if it is the same article I vaguely remember, Jacobsson argues based on US declaration about non-recognition of the border changes after the Sep 1, 1939.) --Whiskey (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there's no official statement on that (and this doesn't seem to be an issue in modern us-ru relations, hinting that it never was), it should be changed from a statement of fact to a speculation by Jacobsson. --Illythr (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Italy

Please do not remove Italy or the United Kingdom from the belligerents. Although their role was minor (as is clearly stated directly under), it still is a fact and should be mentioned. I am aware that some Finnish people have political reasons to deny this, but Wikipedia is not the right forum for political revisionism. -91.32.253.154 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dunno what you mean with 'political reasons', but I do feel that the UK and Italy aren't noteworthy enough to be added in the info box. If we add them, shouldn't we add Sweden -- or 'Swedish volunteers' -- too? Considerably more Swedes fought in the Continuation War than Italians or British. Not to mention the Estonians and former Soviet citizens in the Finnish ranks. Where do we draw the line? Is there an established policy? 62.183.251.50 (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

UK forms a special case, as it is one of the very few cases when one democracy officially goes to war with an another, so it has merits to be included. Italy, on the other hand, had a contribution of few sailors in five MTBs which operated only few months during 1942. Even Swedes and Estonians had bigger contribution to the war. --Whiskey (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the size of the Italian force in Finland was minor compared to its two allies, but those were Italian troops fighting in Finland under the Italian flag. One could argue that the Swedes might have contributed more, but that was all done by private people and never under the Swedish flag — even if some Swedes did participate, the Kingdom of Sweden didn't. Unlike the Kingdom of Italy. -91.32.192.123 (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

According to a TV Documentary these Italian sailors did not take part in military action. According to Russian testimonies the Italians used to take their boats to harrass the supply route to Leningrad, but they turned back immidiately when the Soviet artillery fired - without exeption. The Italians never engaged any Russians in any action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.239.133.56 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Political reasons" really don't make any sense here, most would prefer Italy as an ally rather than Nazi-Germany. It's just that Italy is never considered as a participant of this war in any sources even if they sent a totally marginal group of troops. UK is also questionable but it at least makes some sense because they declared war on Finland (when Italy declared war on Soviets it had nothing to do with Finland or our wars). --ML (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if Italy was in war with the Soviet Union for that or for some other reason. There were Italian troops in Finland fighting under the Italian flag. Furthermore the role Italy had in the war is clearly stated in the relevant section of the article: "Italy was officially at war with the Soviet Union from June 1941, but the country's involvement in the Continuation War itself was limited to a flotilla of minor warships that operated in Lake Ladoga".

Personally I find it interesting that you "would prefer Italy as an ally rather than Nazi-Germany", but friendly Italian troops in your country on your side did not make it one? The fact is that 1) Finland was an ally of both Italy and the Nazis and that 2) the role of the Italians in the Continuation War was relatively minor but existent nevertheless. That some Finns in retrospect want to see their country as something else than an axis nation is a rather subjective opinion, nothing more, nothing less. -91.32.192.123 (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that Finland can be counted as an ally of Germany and Italy, but it's not a good reason to add Italians in the info box. There was so few of them in the Finnish front that if adding them would very much overstate their significance, esp. regarding the role of Swedish and Estonian volunteers. I'm going to revert your revert (which, BTW, also reverted a number of other edits). 62.183.251.50 (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unbelievably stupid to insist that everything revolves arround the interests of some larger powers such as Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Finland fought its own war and if the Nazi Germany and Italy helped us then that is at least one occasion they did right and their effort should be appreciated also in USA and UK if not in Russia. The germans were not spot on with their help. In fact the Germany was allied with Soviets when these two attacked Finland in 1939. By 1941 Germany had repented and tried to rectify the terrible crime of Molotov-Rippentrop pact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.239.133.56 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I find myself completely agreeing with: "It is unbelievably stupid to insist that everything revolves around the interests of some larger powers such as Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Finland fought its own war..." Anything that paints this as something larger than Finland versus the Soviet Union over the results of the prior Winter War (read, Soviet attack for not signing a pact of mutual assistance) is POV. PetersV       TALK 01:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest boxed quote (Kirby)

Re:

It is clear that the Barbarossa plan envisaged a subordinate military role for Finland, and the Germans certainly assumed that Finland would play that role when the time came. It is also clear that the Finnish political and military leaders were not unwilling to enter into a 'war of compensation' as co-belligerents of Nazi Germany. What is not certain is the extant to which the Finns were prepared to strain their limited natural resources in order to accomplish the overall German objective of defeating the Soviet Union. There can be little doubt that such an objective was highly desirable to the Finnish leadership, or that it was hoped that Finland would acquire a sizable share of the northern territory of a defeated Soviet Union.

Finland in the Twentieth Century

I respect Kirby's scholarship on Finland. However, quoting Kirby here as the box quote does, while pertinent, also takes Kirby out of context; the quote (completely) fails to indicate what content is Kirby's original synthesis versus what content is a recounting of decisions/events. Without the surrounding context, the passage allows the reader to infer an eagerness of cooperation and belligerence which Kirby, by his explicit use of Kissingerian double negatives ("not unwilling"), is clearly communicating to be far more ambivalent (that is, doing a deal with devil #2 to counter devil #1).
   This content is better integrated as appropriate into the article narrative. PetersV       TALK 01:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Full protection

The article has been protected three days due to the edit war. There are only two posts on this Talk page since August, and I do not see anyone giving explanations here for such huge additions and removals of text. Please make your case on Talk for what should be in the article, and supply references for any material that could be challenged. After protection is lifted, if any editors continue to revert without explaining their changes on Talk, they may be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look in the archive of this talk page, you'll see that this is just another iteration of User:Posse72 adding the same unsourced, unhistorical essay arguing for the fringe position that the Continuation War was both started and lost by the USSR that he's been pushing for...I think it's two years now? --Killing Vector (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'd say that the USSR started the CW isn't a fringe position, as it is widely agreed that the first open hostilities were started by USSR in a way of aforementioned aerial offensive. --Whiskey (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fringe or not, User:Posse72 is a sockpuppet of Art Dominique per WP:DUCK. The account should be banned and all his edits reverted. Too bad Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Art Dominique failed to show anything. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely - their behavior pattern, general attitude and poor English differ. POV similarity is there, true, but this is the first time Posse used Dominique's pointless tactic... Curiously, Kurt Leyman decided to move in for similar stuff at about the same time... Must've been a solar flare, or something... :-\ --Illythr (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. He has uploaded a picture of his grandfather to Commons, see commons:User_talk:Posse72. Some Googling finds his Facebook page. He does not seem to be a Kven meatpuppet either, as all his friends are Swedish. Anyway, this Greek site is a bit shocking! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

<Petri Krohn, you sould be a shame of your self over your internet stalking of me. I dont think its in line with wikipedia rules leting you reveling my identity.--Posse72 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Petri Krohn

Petri Krohn have showed him self total unfit for any editing of this article, the reason is that he has a political agenda, who has no support in the academic research. Yeasterday, Petri showed up in support for "Nasji" demonstration in central Hesinki, who made the way to the headlines. Acctually this is the ultimate prove that this page i being edited in bad faith in favor for Soviet propaganda and russian neofacism.

http://www.hbl.fi/text/inrikes/2009/3/23/w25203.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Kinda funny that Petri's is the only name in the article mentioned without any kind of description. Sort of, "well, you know, it's THE Petri Krohn! Everybody knows him!" You should probably post this to his talk page, though - it has nothing to do with this article. --Illythr (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, its of great importance! beccause he clearly edits in bad faith in this article--Posse72 (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Or is it as hard for you to understand as Soviet/Russian aggression is not always seen as "liberation"?--Posse72 (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If we start blocking people based on their political views, alleged or real, there won't be anyone left around to edit Wikipedia. But we don't. So there. --Illythr (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Guy is with in the organisation "Finnish anti facism" an organisation who Swedish sister organisation AFA is listed as a terrorist group by Swedish police. He openly advocate that the baltics contries was never occupied by the Soviet, but they where liberated. I guess you Illythr share his view......--Posse72 (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that consistent personal attacks against other editors tend to get people blocked around here? As for my views - it depends - here on enwiki I'm an evil KGB agent, whereas on ruwiki I'm a ZOG employee and a Fenno-Polish Nazi collaborationist. --Illythr (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wuhu... poor you, but for me it seems very strange that you side withs a neo-communist as Petri Krohn and the take every oportuntiy to tilt this article so it fits whit the officell Soviet/Russian view. You have to start being objective if you would be liked to be considerd as a serious editor. Sorry for nice mod isnt there, but pepole who advocat defence of Soviet/communistic-dictatorship and russian neo-facisim also Jusify killing of my familly members and the fact that Soviet/Russia stolen our homesteed. I have no sympathy with that kind of dudes... --83.250.234.190 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your personal grievances against the Soviet Union, Russia or whatever other entity are best left outside of Wikipedia. Besides, according to your own proposal above, you should be banned from editing this article as well, because your real life background clearly prevents you from editing USSR-related topics from a neutral POV. Good thing that's not a rule, eh? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Posse, I agree with Illythr. Petri has a certain political view, but so do I (with a little digging you could find quite a lot about my political view.;-)), you and Illythr. We all have our own political views, but those views shall not affect our ability to edit WP. Also every historian has his/her own political view, and also those do not affect their ability to do historical research. Freedom of speech is the best guarantee that the truth will come out, and that no extremist group could hijack our society.--Whiskey (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

...in theory. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as we debate verified, incontrovertible facts, not manufactured versions of history, and don't use labels such as term Petri used prior to his enforced absence symbolically striken. PetersV       TALK 23:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture selection

Other wise we have a discusion over the selection of picture in this article, or ill be puting up a lot of picture of destroyed Soviet tanks and killed Soviet soldiers.--Posse72 (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I will also remind you of that a year ago we removed a picture of dead Soviet soldiers because the russian advocaters find it disturbing. So now the same advocater with out any hesitet put in a picture of Finnish war dead.--Posse72 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to make a proposal before using threats to support it. --Illythr (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is to have a good balanced discusion of wich picture best describe the war, in the same way as with the text. other wise i see no other way then starting to balance "up".I reminde you again of the removel of dead russian soldiers, very soon it will find its way back to the article if not the picture of dead finns is removed. Because more Russian soldiers died in the conflict, that means that a picture of dead russian better captures the true event.--Posse72 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think the article could use more illustrations, yes. However, I will agree with Illythr in noting that the way you proposed adding the photos did come across as sounding like a threat or a challenge. --Killing Vector (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific as to what you wish added from or removed to the article. We can't discuss it if we don't know what it is. If you wish to remove pictures of corpses, then I'm all for it. There are also two execution photos - I think one's more than enough and would rather remove the second one. That smile is giving me the creeps.

Eh, the current photo composition is rather unbalanced in favor of the Finnish side, I might add.--Illythr (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your dialog, yes ill really want the removal of those Finnish corps, because ill think its unethical, they probably have family still in life etc. Yes I think one spy execution is enough, there are probably no Russian photos of there own executions. Suggest an own image section where pictures are presented in chronological order. --Posse72 (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Lots of other articles have a Gallery, would one be appropriate here?

A gallery of corpses? *Shudder* Yeah, I know that war is primarily about people dying and not about pretty maps and cool explosions, but I think that posting shock images were it is not absolutely necessary is a bad idea. --Illythr (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Posse, are you sure you want the picture with the dead Finns out of this article? While I agree that using it is unethical (shock image, possible living relatives), I think you must realize that including this image, (with dead Finnish civilians) depicts the Soviet side in a bad light. With this in mind, would you confirm your previous statement favoring its removal? --Illythr (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Continuation War formally was seen as a separate war by both Moscow and Helsinki

In fact, Hitler was eager to sign more resolutions between Finland and Germany, as shown by the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement of 1944.

"The Continuation War formally was seen as a separate war by both Moscow and Helsinki," in the sense that treaties were signed separate from, and earlier than the treaties with Germany and Italy. But Moscow, in fact, and Russians today, sees the battle with Finnish and German divisions on the Finnish front as part of the greater "Great Patriotic War." However, it is ok to say that Helsinki saw it as a separate war.

So, please explain in what sense Moscow sees it "formally" as a separate war? As you might know, Russia also signed "separate" treaties with other Axis coutnries too, like Bulgaria, which declared war on germany too as the tides turned. (Rakovsky 01:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

I wonder that also. It is understandable that Finns consider it separate, and it is understandable that Russians consider it just a front in GPW. The Moscow Conference (1943) demanded unconditional surrender from axis nations and when both Romania and Bulgaria fronts collapsed and both countries were occupied by Soviet forces, unlike Finland, they could be seen signing surrender unconditionally. Also, both Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary were signatories of Tripartite Pact, unlike Finland, so there are some differencies, although I guess the official Soviet point for consider Continuation War separate stems from the necessity to sign less than unconditional peace with Finland at the time. --Whiskey 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Moscow never saw the Continuation War as separate from the Great Patriotic War. (Repdetect117 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

I think Finnish political government saw the Continuation War in different aspects in different times. In reality the was was neither alliance nor separete fully. Recently Helsingin Sanomat asked 28 Finnish historian professors the question. The answer was the majority of profesors saw the Continuation War as alliance with Nazi-Germany [6][7][8] (in Finnish) Peltimikko (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In Russian: "Continuation War" or "Soviet–Finnish War"

How should we translate "Continuation War" in Russian? We have two paths: either we translate directly as "Война-продолжение" or we use a version "Советско-финская война 1941 – 1944" (literally: Soviet–Finnish War 1941-1944). Finns use always a name Jatkosota (Continuation War), and Russians use, probably, the name "Soviet-Finnish War", "Карельская кампания" (Karelian campaign) or even this disputed "Continuation War". What the third party sources use? Google found 88 500 hits as "Continuation War" and 5240 hits as "Soviet–Finnish War". Peltimikko (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And further: in Russian Война-продолжение (614 000 google-results) vs. Советско-финская война (59 500 google-results). Peltimikko (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems here: 1) Война-продолжение is a very search-unfriendly term, as Google refuses to recognize the dash as a critical symbol and returns all sorts of irrelevant stuff like (translated) "The war: continued", or "war is a continuation of politics" etc. 2) As the article states in the lead, the Soviet Union did not consider this military engagement as a separate war, thus it has no name in Soviet historiography, being instead referred to as "Finnish participation in the war against the Soviet Union" (Here's an example), or individual Soviet campaigns in the region, like the Karelian Campaign (or Front). The war became target of specialized research only relatively recently (since the 1980s or so), and there doesn't seem to be a consensus as to how to call it. 3) The current presentation in the article is self-contradicting - seeing as how the name "Soviet-Finnish war 1941-1944" "is preferred by Russian historians", why then use another name as the main one?

Here's a link to the article "Finland" in the Great Soviet encyclopedia, as another example (in Russian, alas). Relevant excerpt:

В конце 1940 между финл. и герм. командованием была достигнута договорённость о сотрудничестве в подготовке войны против СССР. 17 июня в Ф. началась всеобщая мобилизация. 22 июня 1941 Ф. вступила в войну против СССР на стороне фашистской Германии, хотя формально объявила войну только 26 июня. 30 июня 1941 финл. армия перешла в наступление [...]

It explicitly mentions the Winter war as "Soviet-Finland war 1939-1940" a little earlier, but the Continuation war is described as Finland entering the war against the USSR on Germany's side. --Illythr (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Still, the direct translation of Continuation War is Война-продолжение, but you have a point. How about this way: "Russians have named the war Soviet–Finnish War (Russian: Советско-финская война) or Carelian campaign (Russian: Карельская кампания) as a part of the Eastern Front." Peltimikko (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A majority of soviet/russian historians do not see the so-called "Continuation War" as a separate conflict, just as they don't see say Romania's participation in the same war as "Soviet-Romanian War" or anything like that. This is not limited to strictly russian view anyways, for instance, David Glantz in his "The Battle for Leningrad, 1941-1944" deals with Soviet operations against Finnish forces. Thus claiming that "Russians have named this war "Soviet-Finnish" or anything like that represents a minority view, and probably shouldn't even be included in the lead, just explained later on in the article. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest Finnish academic publishing of "moles" during the Continuation War

I red a interesting article in Helsingin Sanomat where political journalist Unto Hämäläinen gave review of a new book Pettureita ja patriootteja (in english Traitors and Partriots) 16.6.2009 page C1. The book is written by professor Osmo Apunen and academic researcher Corinna Wolff. According to the journalist Hämäläinen, the book is a good comment to the lately had discussions, where especially a younger generation of Finnish historians have question the doctrine of the "separate war" (See also my comments in above talk page). According to the book it was clear by the end of the 1942 that Germany will not win a war. Stalin and Molotov also thought a Finnish war front for a while, and it was decided that Finns should be separated from Germany and turned against it. The first thing was to find Finns who where willing to do co-operation with the Soviet Union. The operation was lead from the Embassy of the Soviet Union in Stockholm, and Swedes sincerely gave help in these peace-efforts.

The most important "mole" the Soviet Union recruited was a ex-communist Eero Wuori (1900-1966). During the Finnish Civil War he fought by "Reds", he was a one of the founder of the Finnish Communist Party, later he turned to Social Democratic Party of Finland and he moved up to the political elite in Finland. After the war Wuori was a minster in two different Finnish governments. In the beginning of the Continuation War, Wuori supported president Risto Ryti, but from the year 1942 he became more critical and began to find the pathway to the peace. Wuori forwared confidential information directly to the Soviet Union. The information included top-secret political discussions of the terms of peace. Wuori had discussions with Mannerheim, Paasikivi and Kekkonen. Peltimikko (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

German losses in infobox

As the German forces in Finnish Lapland are given an entry of their own in Strength, shouldn't the Germans also have an entry in Casualties and losses in addition to Finnish losses? 62.183.251.50 (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We must tell what happened

We must present all important events that occurred. Then we can analyze why these events, and other things that were triggered, took place.

Since there was a decisive Soviet offensive against Finnish targets in Finland on June 25, 1941, it must be revealed. Neither the Soviet offensive nor the Finnish offensive that followed can be left untold.

When a nation has become under attack, and when it attacks back, the widely accepted and commonly used term for it is 'counter-offensive'. War began with Soviet offensive (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

These facts are already in the article, in the very next chapter. Please check it first before duplicating them. --Whiskey (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Headline must reflect the text that follows / 2. Major events deserve their own headlines

This block of text in question discusses the major Soviet attack against Finland on June 25, 1941, and minor related events before it. Not a word is said about a Finnish offensive - which is fine, as the Finnish offensive came after this and as it is been discussed in the next editable blocks.

Thus, the headline is wrong. The headlines must reflect the text that follows as well as the historical timeline of major events. Furthermore, all major events that took place deserve their own headline, and in right order.

Only the next editable blocks discuss the Finnish offensive, in stages. Those blocks can be under the main headline, 'Finnish offensive'. The block before, however, which discusses the Soviet offensive, must be under the headline 'Soviet offensive'. Boris Novikov (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Art Dominique. You're getting better, but still too obvious.--Illythr (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User name changed, per request

I changed my user name 'War began with Soviet offensive' to 'Boris Novikov'. Boris Novikov (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Casualties.

Why does this article commit a typical mistake by citing russian casualties not from russian sources? Not from Krivosheev for example? Why is some foreign author used? It is widely acknowledged that the most accurate count for soviet casualties is done by Krivosheev, and not by any other author. Should I calculate the casualties that Krivosheev estimates and add them or someone else will do it? Because as of now, the numbers in the infobox for example are plainly funny.--99.231.50.255 (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov

It is because Manninen has used Krivosheev's numbers as a starting point, and added sections Krivosheev has left out by going through Corps level 10-day casualty reports from STAVKA archives and added those numbers to Krivosheev's figures. As Krivosheev also presented Leningrad front as a single entity, Manninen also separated it to the northern (Finnish) and southern (German) sections and estimated respective casualties. (See Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk_Offensive for specific dicussion about the issue.)

If you feel you are able to do the counting in a better way, feel free to do it. Or I could add the explanation to the reference.--Whiskey (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, but I thought Krivosheev's work is the most respected work. He calculated the total numbers for the whole war. Not sure Manninen was right in adding anything to Krivosheev's numbers. After all, if Manninen added something somewhere, shouldn't something be subtracted elsewhere? I mean, did Stavka have a report for total number of killed and wounded? Something like that would be useful to check Manninen's estimate. How does Manninen know Krivosheev left things out? Don't get me wrong, the reason I am so critical is that it seems that by 1944, the soviets would be losing much less troops than finnish (same as happened with gemrans for most battles starting 1943-44), the reason being the better tactics and strategy (certainly better than in 1940), plus overwhelming materiel advantage. And I don't think anyone will convince me that finnish were better equipped or trained than germans, even discounting the terrain difficulties so characteristic for Finland. Yet, the casualties given by Manninen suggest exactly that conclusion, that finnish fared against soviets better than germans did. Seems strange to me. Anyway, I still think that solely Krivosheev's numbers should be used for soviet casualties, after all, that seems to be the general rule of thumb. Otherwise, next thing you know, there will be a russian historian adding things to Manninen's estimates, claiming Manninen left something out. --99.231.50.255 (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Yes, it is the most respected work available, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have any deficiencies. In this case, Krivosheev himself writes in his book that the casualties he is giving for Leningrad front are between June 9 and June 20: By selecting a certain cut-off date to the casualty reports, while offensive was still going on three and half week after that date (to July 15) is a clear admission from Krivosheev's part that his statistics are not complete. The total losses for all Soviet forces or total losses of Leningrad Front forces at a given timeframe Krivosheev gives are the best we have, but the only place he separates losses against Finns and against Germans for Leningrad Front is this Vyborg-Petrozavodsk-offensive. All the "missing corpses" are included in the total number of losses of Leningrad front, where it cannot be determined which one were happened against Finns and which against Germans.

There is no surprise that Finnish-Soviet casualty ratio was so much better than German-Soviet ratio. There are two reasons: First, Red Army never managed to achieve deep breakthrough against Finns and never managed to encircle larger than company sized units. Second, Finns never used no-retreat orders: If there was a threat for an encirclement, the unit was always allowed to retreat. (Well, there were two occasions, when Red Army managed to cut road connection to the Finnish infantry regiment, but Finns were able to retreat through the forests, leaving only their heavy equipment.) --Whiskey (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

1)Well, since we are concerned here with total casualties, and not the casualties against Finns and Germans separately, we should include only Krivosheev's numbers, and include the total, not some estimation by finnish historian. That is, include the total number that Krivosheev gives for offensives that happened (btw, which ones are we including into Continuation war?), and leave it at that, and use, I want to stress again, Krivosheev's and noone else's numbers. As soon as you start using finnish historian for russian casualties, you get bias there regardless. It is better to include more, and cite both finnish and german casualties for the Axis side (finnish from finnish source, german casualties from Overmans, then add them), and cite solely Krivosheev's casualties for the soviet side for the front, and that's it, and note to invent some silly criteria or try to separate the numbers for the parties involved on the Axis side. 2) I think you are confused. Krivosheev gives numbers for defensive operations and offensive operations, I am not aware of him giving numbers for the front. Or do you mean the defensive operation? Or the offensive? He gives the number of casualties for The Leningrad-Karelian DEFENSIVE operation as 67265 killed (and more wounded etc., but let us concern ourselves with killed only for now), numbers are given from 29 June, to 10 October. 3) the fact that finns had good tactics did not cancel out that soviets had overwhelming amount of artillery. Just by looking at german accounts, they (germans) were sometimes losing 50% of units in the preparation alone. Considering there was no tanks involved (difficult terrain), soviet artillery preparation would have to be even more powerful than usual. 4) You have to understand something: you can not give numbers for finns against soviets, simply because it is impossible to estimate them, you have to give total german+finn vs soviet numbers. Any attempt to take solely finnish numbers vs soviets would make it strongly biased against soviets, for a simple reason that finns would stand no chance against soviets without german help (at least material), the evidence of which we saw in the fact that Finland ended the war in a smart way and with good timing, i.e., before its soldiers were thrown into the water (which would happen if soviets would keep pushing and not encircling finns). So, my advice is not to invent anything, and just give total numbers for germans + finns against soviets, and if we are considering the Leningrad defence as part of continuation war, we should add mroe germans to picture. If we are only considering the soviet advances into the Finland (two operations), then we should give casualties only for them, which Krivosheev has, and not include Leningrad front. --99.231.50.255 (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

1)No. German casualties south of Leningrad do not belong to the scope of this article. Krivosheev doesn't separate Leningrad front casualties (http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_11.html) to those which happened south of Leningrad and those north of Leningrad. We are here only interested to casualties north of Leningrad.

2)Check http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_11.html for front casualties.

3)Not necessarily. The terrain was very sandy, so it would have dampening effect to the shells. Finnish divisional units never reported such loss ratios. Even the losses of Infantry Regiment 1, which was at the breakthrough point, were only 30% from total numbers (Naturally there were platoons, which were almost annihilated...).

4)South of Kestenga was only one two regimental German infantry division (122.) and one half-strength German Assault Gun brigade (303.), and they were only one month during summer 1944. Similarily North of Kestenga there were only one battalion and few separate companies of Finnish troops among Germans. So it is quite easy to separate Finnish and German units and their losses. And it would be quite straightforward to do the counting for opposing Soviet forces.--Whiskey (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the Finnish book of Continuation War "Jatkosodan pikkujättiläinen", year 2005, in page 1161, where Pekka Kurenmaa and Riitta Lentilä refer generally to new studies of Soviet archives. The total lost were 757,500 men (including death, wounded, frosbites and prisons). However, the number is missing losses of naval and air forces. In year 1941, losses were 230,000 men, where on Karelian Isthmus 51,000, Laatokka-Syväri 65,00 and in east Karelian 113,000. In year 1944, the Red Army lost 125,000 men in the Karelian Isthmus alone. But this section is poorly referenced, so it is unclear whose studies orginally these are. Peltimikko (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not interested in finnish books here, we are interested in estimations for soviet losses, which should come solely from soviet (russian now) sources.--99.231.50.255 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.¨

Which source in the Soviet Union / Russia should we use - perhaps the ex-Premier, the leader of the entire Soviet nation ?

The post-WW2 Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev put the estimate of the Soviet casualties in the Winter War alone in one million. In his memoirs he explains how the Soviet officials outright lied about the Soviet casualties.

If the Premier of the Soviet Union himself claims the Stalin period Soviet casualty figures to be falsified, why should the world now rely on such "estimates" ? War began with Soviet offensive (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note that in Wikipedia, we do not strive for the "truth". We strive to present all sides of the argument fairly and compassionately. For obvious reasons, the Finnish historiography has centered much more heavily on the Continuation war than the Russian historiography. For the Finns, the war shows as a separate thing, for Russians, the Continuation War is just one front of the Great Patriotic War. Consequently, even Finnish casualty numbers for the Russian side are notable. --MPorciusCato (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Casualties. Again and again...

The casualties figures seem misleading. Since the source for Soviet casualties is Finnish, can someone who reads Finnish translate the relevant section of the source? Or give an explanation of how the author arrived at the casualty figures? -YMB29 (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of using operation related tables from Krivosheev's book (as you have done), Manninen used Front related tables from the same book. Purely against Finland operated Northern Front (up to Aug 23rd), Karelian Front (from Aug 23rd) and separate 7. Army. He took their casualties directly into account.

The Leningrad Front was much more problematic, as it fought against Finns north of the city, and against Germans south of the city. In the book, these casualties were not separated. Fortunately, daily casualty reports of 23rd Army, which operated only north of Leningrad are available from the Moscow Ministry of Defence archives and Manninen used those to determine Soviet losses at the Isthmus. He has also used 10-day summaries of Corps casualty reports to determine Soviet losses at the Isthmus during the Soviet offensive of 1944. When the Leningrad Front was created at Aug 23rd, Finns were still north of River Vuoksi except the bridgehead at Vuosalmi and haven't yet even captured Vyborg, so there was still a lot of fighting happening there...

So, what is the problem here? That a Finnish historian has published his research in a Finnish publication? That is doesn't matter that he has used solely Soviet/Russian primary/secondary sources in his research? --Whiskey (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this is English wiki and you only want to use a Finnish source, which we can't read and you don't translate so we don't know how accurate and objective it is. What is the problem with using a Finnish source from Finnish wiki and a Russian source from the Russian wiki?

Using front casualties is not any better. The Soviets fought against both Finns and Germans in the Northern and Karelian fronts. It is not that easy to separate casualties caused by the Germans and those caused by the Finns. And should this even be done at all since the Germans are also participants? There is no clear understanding of what fronts, battles, casualties should be included in the Continuation War, so why not leave two casualty figures for objectivity (like is done for many other wars/battles)? -YMB29 (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Continuation War is not sexy enough that historians from Russia or West bother to research it properly. The only place in the world where seems to an interest to dig deeper into the issue is in Finland. Ohto Manninen, who has conducted this research, is one of the most respected Finnish war historians. Also, eventhough he and V.N.Baryshnikov are commonly opposing each other's conclusions, I haven't never seen or heard Baryshnikov complain Manninen's use of archive materiel. (And based on how bitterly they fight, if there would have been even the slighest misdeed, it would have been noted in their battle.) But shortly: There is no available reliable sources in English or in Russian. They are all too old and/or one-sided. And my translation doesn't help: If you don't trust my word that it says so and has used these sources, how would you trust my translation which says exactly same although with a lot more words.

That would mean that we support two different truths(tm) on the same issue. Not a good idea.

Finns had always accepted that all casualties happened along the Finnish border, from Arctic Sea to Gulf of Finland, belong to the Continuation War, eventhough some of them happened against Germans fighting in the northern Finland. So it would be very straightforward to do the separation. It is even quite simple, as Soviets never lost army or even corps HQ or their archives in the battles against Finland, so their reports are available in Russian military archives.

And again no. It is not for objectivity, if you claim casualties from some limited area and timeframe to present all casualties of the war. --Whiskey (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Other sources too old and/or one-sided?? The source you are referring to is from 1994 and by a Finn who counts the casualties of the Soviets... So your source is not exactly new and neutral. It would be nice to read how the author explained this.

There is no one truth. When there is a dispute it is helpful to present both sides; this is what Wikipedia is about.

Separating Finnish casualties is easy, but not the Soviet ones. Soviet fronts fought both against the Germans and Finns. I am for including all casualties, including those of the Germans. However, it is unclear what battles and other fighting for the Soviets should be included in this war.

Data of both sources is not perfect, but you can't only have one because you like it more. Look, I am not deleting your source but just adding an alternative one, so there is no need to edit war. When there is a dispute on the accuracy of sources, it is best to present both. -YMB29 (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As it seems we cannot reach a solution, I'll ask the third opinion (WP:3).--Whiskey (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion: Casualties

Following views disagree:

Whiskey: My source (Manninen), although in Finnish, has used Krivosheev's front level casualty figures for the whole duration of the conflict, not only some space or time limited operation figures which present only few months of the conflict as my opponent wish to add. In case of Leningrad Front, which operated both against Finns and Germans north and south of the city respectively, Manninen has used Corps and Army level casualty reports from the units which were fighting against the Finns. These reports are available from the archives of Russian Ministry of Defence. The battlebox should contain the most reliable figures which present the casualties of the whole conflict, not the figures of some limited portion of it. --Whiskey (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

YMB29: There is no clear understanding of what fighting should be included in this war, so there is no accurate data for the casualties. There are no figures that separate Soviet casualties caused by the Finns from those caused by the Germans, which is what Whiskey is trying to do. His source is a Finnish book from 1994, and since most in the English wiki can't read it, it is unfair to use it above other sources and claim that it has the most accurate figures for the Soviets losses. This Finnish source supposedly uses unit casualties but assumes that the units only fought the Finns. Russian figures from the Russian wiki are from casualties lists for operations (defensive and offensive) that were against the Finns. Both are not perfect in separating Soviet casualties against the Finns, so it is best to just leave both Russian and Finnish estimates. Again, I am not deleting his source, but just adding an alternative one.

Also there is a wider issue here with Whiskey. In articles related to Soviet-Finnish conflicts he actively tries to push his Finnish POV and often acts like an article owner. He even has gone over to the Russian wiki to control what is there. [9][10] Calling me his opponent is further proof that he treats this topic as a battleground. -YMB29 (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No clear understanding? Eventhough literature in English fails to dig deeper into the issue, none of those books have trouble to define which area of fighting belonged to the Continuation War. And even in the Soviet side certain units are issued to the certain locations, so there is no trouble at all to find these units and their casualties, if one just bothers to do some digging in the Soviet archives. If the unit is located on the Karelian Isthmus, it is ridiculous to claim it is fighting and suffering casualties in Demyansk. Using Krivosheev's operations data covers on few months of fighting, and leaves most of the war uncounted. Using the same Krivosheev's book but it's tables for Front casualties by year, shows that Karelian front lost more men 1942 than 1944. 1944 was conducted that Petrozavodsk offensive by the forces of the Karelian front.

Just like in Talk:Continuation_War/Archive_4? You give me and my none-existent Russian skill too much credit in Russian wiki.;-) Ah! We have different opinions and we are jousting them to find out which one is more credible in an academic sense. Refreshing, isn't it? --Whiskey (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? I was not involved in this article before.

Don't act like you don't know what I meant. Fighting in the Karelian Isthmus in July, 1944 was clearly against the Finns, however, for other fighting earlier it is not clear what was against the Finns or the Germans (like for Karelian Front in 1942). To you this war is only about Soviets vs. Finns, right? My point is that you can't just separate the Germans, and say that a figure is the most accurate number for how much casualties the Soviets suffered purely against the Finns, according to a Finnish author. Does the author even say that he calculated this pure figure? See that is the problem, I and others don't know what exactly is in your Finnish source.

You talk like you dug in the archives yourself... The operations data is incomplete but it covers the major fighting against the Finns. And again, only going by front/unit casualties is not accurate too, so there is no perfect data.

Probably the best way is to include casualties for fighting where Finns were definitely involved, but also include German casualties or at least mention them (when the Soviet losses caused by them cannot be separated). -YMB29 (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that number of German casualties should be included. I'll dig about it... --Whiskey (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Illythr: (Note that since I have worked with the article and user Whiskey before, this probably doesn't count as a third opinion. Therefore I'm labeling it as a comment.) Regarding Whiskey's behavior, I'd say Whiskey's a pro-Finnish POV-pusher no more than he's my sockpuppet or Stalinist (look here for the context). His comments on ruwiki talk pages hardly amount to "attempted control" either (and he was absolutely right there). As for the content dispute - I am inclined to agree with Whiskey: Krivosheev's data concerns two short periods only: 29 June - 10 October, 1941 and 10 June - 9 August, 1944. On the other hand, the way Whiskey describes it, Manninen did a very thorough job there and I have no reason to suspect him of nationalist bias just because he's a Finn. Compared to the way things are presented here ("German victory" achieved by losing Narva and massive Soviet casualties derived from Krivosheev's work via a "garbage collection" method), I would describe this article and Whiskey's role in developing it as highly positive. --01:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought that Whiskey is more or less objective until he started saying that Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive was not a Soviet victory... The terrible shape of other Soviet-Finnish articles which he edited also made me doubt this. -YMB29 (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• More than 2 people, so 3O isn't appropriate. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Er, I probably don't count. An outside opinion would be definitely welcome. --Illythr (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Finnish target: Securing the Finnish-Soviet border on the outskirts of Leningrad

Little over one year after the Finns had been able to stop the Soviet take-over attempt of Finland in the Winter War, the Finns came under a renewed Soviet attack on June 25, 1941.

Thus, the Finns - and most observers outside USSR (now Russia) - saw/see it justifiable that the Finns at this point pushed the Red Army behind the pre- Winter War national borders, including on the outskirts of Leningrad where the nations' border ran.

On some other sectors the Finns saw it strategically important to keep the Red Army far enough behind the border, a safe distance away, until the final peace would be negotiated.

On the Leningrad sector, for the Finns - primarily - it was a matter of returning to the legal pre- Winter War national border, and not an attempt to participate in a siege of Leningrad as such. Here, the Finns wanted to stay away from the major battle of the city.

Yet, it is only natural that there were skirmishes on both sides of the nations' border here as well. The Soviets would have wanted to push the Finns deeper into the Finnish side, while the Finns - on their behalf - tried to secure the critical spots of the border area.

On the nations' border on the outskirts of Leningrad, the trouble spots on the Soviet side included Beloostrov (Finnish: Valkeasaari), a strategically important border-crossing area, and Sestroretsk (Finnish: Siestarjoki), 35 km northwest of the center of Leningrad.

Sestroretsk had been a part of the 'Grand Duchy of Finland', but was traded with Russia to the area of Petsamo. The Soviets had occupied Petsamo in the Winter War and were in charge of a part of Kalastajasaarento there when the Continuation War began. 87.95.43.79 (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Finland's official policy remains today that the Continuation War was a separate war from WW2

It ought to be added, that during WW2 - besides Finland and USSR, and many other nations -, also USA saw Finland's war as a separate war from WW2, as in the links above by user Peltimikko it is stated.

User Peltimikko:

Having followed the related development somewhat closely, I have not come across any suggesting that "now majority of historians see Finland as an ally for Germany". In your link No. 2, above, it is correctly stated that still currently today Finland's official policy remains that Continuation War was a separate war from WW2 (Editor in Chief Janne Virkkunen, Helsingin Sanomat).

In you link, Janne Virkkunen states: "Virallinen Suomi on edelleen erillissodan kannalla, mutta tutkijoiden nuorempi polvi näkee asian jo toisin." That is Mr. Virkkunen's personal view, of course, and in my view he falls into over-generalizing in the latter part of that sentence. There are a few vocal younger researchers, who have been given quite a lot of air time, as their views are seen as rather radical and therefore also interesting.

In your link No. 4 above, it is stated: "Näin ajattelee enemmistö 28 historian professorista, joilta Helsingin Sanomat kysyi, onko perusteltua puhua erillissodasta" (i.e., majority of the group of 28 professors chosen by Helsingin Sanomat think this way). Yet, this statement appears to have been given as a bait for the new discussion topic on that page, and no information is offered as to who these chosen 28 professors in question are, and no further details are offered.

Please note the wording of the question which had been pointed to the alleged group of professors. They were not asked whether or not Finland was an ally of Germany, but instead they were asked if they saw the term "separate war" justified. There's a difference. Boris Novikov (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I read the Helsingin Sanomat article, and I became convinced of the alliance immediately. Afterwards I quickly read the book "Aseveljiä vai liittolaisia?" by Markku Jokisipilä. Furthermore, he wrote an excellent article "Kappas vaan, saksalaisia!" into book "Sodan totuudet". He writes that "ajopuuteoria" as well as "erillissotateesi" are historical myths. Those have no scientific background. Among recent Finnish book I have only met a separate war theory (100% pure) in a book "Hitler, Stalin ja Suomi" by Jukka Seppinen (the book was quite unscientific anyway with lot of assumptions without references). Anyway, undestanding the Finnish alliance with Germany does not make the Continuation War any less important or rejected, but deepens our understanding of the war. After the Winter War receives the FA-status (hopefully), a natural continuation for my edits would be the Continuation War (heheh). Peltimikko (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, in the situation where Finland was, it could have not been 100% either way. Wishing you best of success and luck in all that you are involved with ! Boris Novikov (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Need input from others in resolving an edit war

Why are you ignoring requests for you to reason your reverts of the 'Soviet attack' from the headline of the related text

Killing Vector: Despite requests, you have refused to give any reasoning for your reverts, whereas I have explained my edits. Do you not agree that the Continuation War started with a major Soviet attack against Finland on June 25, 1941 ?

If you agree, that this is where and when the Continuation War began, why in your opinion this fact - perhaps the most defining moment of the entire war (as it launched the war) - does not deserve to be included in the headline of the block of text which discusses the topic ?

I ask you kindly once again, - please explain your reverts - can you not offer any reasoning at all for you doing this ? If you can't, please allow the war-initiating Soviet offensive to stay in the headline where it belongs.

I wait for your answer, before reverting your revert. If you decline to offer any acceptable reasoning for your reverts, or if you continue giving no explanation at all, I believe others agree that your reverts are unjustifiable and your removal of the Soviet attack from this headline should not be withstood.

My suggestions for the headline in question are: Initial stages - Soviet offensive starts war - - or - - Initial stages - Soviet air raid begins war - - or - - Initial stages - Soviet air offensive launches war - - or - - Initial stages - Soviet Union attacks Finland - - or - - Initial stages - Soviet offensive, June 25, 1941 - - or, perhaps the best - - Initial stages - Soviet offensive of 1941.

The 'Initial stages' was a suggestion from user Illythr, so I left that part in the headline - since this block indeed discusses the initial stages as well, besides the Soviet attack. Boris Novikov (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Any other suggestions for this headline - leaving the Soviet attack in ? Or, does anyone else wish to state why in their opinion this war-initiating major Soviet offensive should not be in this headline ? Should the Finnish offensive not be in the following headline either ?

In my view, the most appropriate phrasing for that following headline is: Finnish counter-offensive of 1941, as that is what it was - a counter-offensive. Yet, I am also ok with the current headline there, Finnish offensive of 1941, as long as the prior Soviet offensive is stated in the headline before this. Boris Novikov (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My initial view was, that the escalation to the war were to be included into the "Path to War"-chapter. If you want to have alternative names, then try something like "Escalation to the War" or "Guns begin to talk".

The major chapter names define the general outcome of that/those years; For 1941 it was the Finnish offensive, 1942-3 it was war in trenches and 1944 it was Soviet offensive. I don't see any reason to add "counter"s or "counter-counter"s to the headlines. Soviet air offensive was a defining moment of the war, as it was the First open, large scale act of war between Finland and Soviet Union; after that, there was no turning back. It also defined the climate where the war was fought. But it was an end point of gradual escalation, it was not followed by planned land offensive and it's military effect was minimal so it doesn't need it's own chapter. --Whiskey (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. Yet, the aggressive war-type of escalation in Finland happened really only from the Soviet bombing of Regatta to the Soviet Bombing on June 25, 1941 (in addition to the Soviet Air Force, other Soviet forces were involved in the attack then as well - the Soviet artillery and the Soviet Army in particular, although not in a very large scale). On Finland's behalf, there was no aggressive escalation - only ongoing defensive preparations.

I am suggesting for the 'Initial stages' to be kept as the heading for the text which discusses the initial stages, and to have 'Soviet offensive of 1941' as the heading for the part which discusses the Soviet attack of June 25, 1941. Is this agreeable to you, user Whiskey ? Boris Novikov (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In here [11] I gave a bit more detailed response to the points which user Whiskey raised. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Boris is right! Still nearly 70th years after the war we dont now anything abouth the real reason, decision making and preperation of the Soviet attack. Proffesor Otho Manninen did find out that the Soviet air attack was the first stage of an grand offensiv against Finland that never materialized. So it could no supricingly be so that the Soviet had a plan to knock out Finland in case of war with Germany.--Posse72 (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, Posse. Every military has plans for all kind of situations. The Soviets simply took first part of that offensive from their playbook, but they didn't have forces to follow it according to the original plan. So it's importance is not so big. --Whiskey (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi all - and thank you for your input. User Whiskey, I believe that you'd agree that this major Soviet offensive was a significant event, as it launched the war.

Besides, at no point during the entire war did Finland - nor would Finland have been able to or willing to - mount similar type of bombardment against a large number of Soviet cities (at any one given time nor over a longer period), including as targets the current and past capitals of the nation (note: in Finland's case, both Helsinki and Turku were among the many Soviet targets in this war-initiating attack).

I suggest, that - as a compromise - we'd go for now with user Illythr's 'initial stages', added with 'Soviet offensive starts war', like this: Initial stages - Soviet offensive starts war.

All of us know - and everyone interested in this subject certainly knows and/or can easily find out as well - that this massive Soviet attack took place. We must stop trying to cover it up and to hide it in the little detail. After we have laid down the major 'defining moments' of the war, we can try to begin analyzing together what led to these events, why they happened. That'll be more fun - but let's get there first, in unison!

If we are not clearly telling what clearly happened, we are not doing a favor to anyone, anywhere - and this article will remain less interesting read than a telephone book, and it will remain a waist of anyone's time, including ours. Boris Novikov (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, this reminds me of GLaDOS. "You will be fed and there will be cake". Creepy. --Illythr (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)