Talk:Winter War/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"which would not have made sense if a full annexation was intended"

The full comment: "He points out the different treatment Finland was given, compared to the Baltics: unlike the Baltic states, Finland was demanded limited concessions, which would not have made sense if a full annexation was intended. No such demands nor negotiations took place with the Baltic states."

This makes no sense. The Soviet demands to Finland and the Baltics in the Autumn of 1939 included the establishment of Soviet military bases in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. And there were no peace negotiations between the Baltics and the USSR as they were never at war in 1939 or 1940. Betelgeuse X (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Stephen Kotkin's role as a reliable source needs to be seriously questioned. His claim that "no such demands" were given to the Baltic states is objectively false. I'm going to delete this paragraph unless someone can provide a good reason not to do so. Betelgeuse X (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

As a wikipedia editor your role is not to question or delete a world-famous academic because you think you know better. Your role is to either question my interpretation of Kotkin, or to add academic statements that critique Kotkin's position. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely is the role of Wikipedians to remove factually incorrect information. It's also the role of Wikipedians to not post factually incorrect information.

It's amusing how you keep referring to Kotkin as a "world-famous" historian, as if to brush away the now-obvious questionable role he plays as a credible source. I've never heard of him, and I doubt many here have heard of him. And more importantly, his lack of understanding of basic events such as the demands given to the Baltics by the Soviets implies that he is not a credible source. Because yes, those demands did take place. This is a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_(1940)

"The Soviets pressured Finland and the Baltic states to conclude mutual assistance treaties. The Soviets questioned the neutrality of Estonia following the escape of a Polish submarine from Tallinn on 18 September. Six days later, on 24 September 1939, the Estonian foreign minister was given an ultimatum in Moscow. The Soviets demanded the conclusion of a treaty of mutual assistance to establish military bases in Estonia.[5][6] The Estonians had no choice but to allow the establishment of Soviet naval, air and army bases on two Estonian islands and at the port of Paldiski.[5]" Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You are not the arbiter of factual correctness, and you have cited an unsourced sentence. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Good God, this is just silly. So do you think that the Soviet bases in the Baltics just spontaneously came into existence?? The topic is covered in this article as well as others, like the one I linked. Betelgeuse X (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears there has been a misunderstanding, maybe due to how I worded it in the article. Nobody's claiming the Baltics weren't pressured into mutual assistance pacts, which resulted in their de facto annexation. The claim is that Finland was not pressured into a similar pact. I have now clarified this in the text. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Losing the Karelian Isthmus left Finland in a worse position

This should be made explicit in the introduction. It was what made Mannerheim state on the inability of continued war, and to push the Finnish government towards accepting Soviet demands.

I was thinking of adding to the end of this sentence the part in square brackets: "After the Soviet military reorganized and adopted different tactics, they renewed their offensive in February 1940 and overcame the Finnish defences on the Karelian Isthmus[, leaving rest of Finland vulnerable.]"

Maybe someone prefers some other wording? "more open to attack?" "reduced capability of defense?" Other ideas? MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Of ~150,000 square miles of Finnish territory, the Red Army occupied a couple thousand square miles. So how do you arrive at the conclusion that the rest of this territory was "vulnerable", when the Red Army had slowly advanced only on the southern coast, and at great cost at that. The statement simply doesn't make sense. Betelgeuse X (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not how wars work. By that logic, WW1 wasn't lost by Germany, since no entente soldier set foot on German soil.

Why did Mannerheim urge Finns to accept Soviet demands, and why did Finland agree to give more land than what the Soviets had already occupied, if they weren't in a bad position as you argue? MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

How do you manage to go on a tangent regarding who won or lost? That's not what we're discussing. Saying that the rest of Finland was "more vulnerable" doesn't make sense, for the reasons I keep giving over and over.

Peace discussions started in January after the USSR gave up on a conquest of Finland. Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I will cite Mannerheim, on March 12:

"Should we be able to hold the enemy until the thaw gave us a few weeks' respite? On the long front in the wilderness [North of Ladoga] this appeared possible, but in the main theatre of war [South-East], where our troops had almost reached breaking point, a retreat seemed inevitable." MrThe1And0nly (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, I'll refer back to the fact that the Red Army had already tried to occupy all of Finland, and had failed to do so, meaning that "leaving the rest of Finland vulnerable" is nonsensical. Betelgeuse X (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I have taken your point into account, and have edited the introduction according to Mannerheim's words instead. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

"Most sources conclude that the Soviet Union had intended to conquer all of Finland"

What is this "most" based on? A simple tally? Of all academics who've spoken on the issue? Looking at the sources, it seems pretty even (at a glance: European historians favoring the "full annexation" side, and American historians the "limited demands").

I think this sentence should simply read along these lines: "Whether or not the Soviet Union intended to conquer all of Finland, it remains academically contended" (and citing the respective academic groups). MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Dan Reiter is American. Roger Reese is American. Betelgeuse X (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well if you look at the very sentence in the article, the beginning of which is the title of the topic, you will see that I arrived at my conclusion by taking a look at the sources cited under F 7 and F 8, and simply googling the authors. Reese isn't cited in the article. You can add him to the "Soviet end goal" section, if he has relevant arguments. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You implied that American historians were split on the result, which isn't the case. Du Bois and Zeiler are yet two more American historians who agree that the USSR intended to conquer Finland Betelgeuse X (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Three americans for full annexation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#cite_note-40

Three americans against: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#cite_note-45 MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Reese is the fourth for full annexation. And who are the three against annexation? Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I repeat, Reese isn't cited in the article. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Then he can be added, and it'll be four. Compared to two against annexation. And as you said, European historians favor full annexation as well. Hence, "Most sources conclude that the Soviet Union had intended to conquer all of Finland" is indeed a valid statement. Betelgeuse X (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There's three Americans against annexation.

I think a tally like that is unproductive, because hypothetically nothing stops people from digging for historians to then cite in the article for one or another position. It would be great if there was some aggregator like an encyclopedia we could reference, instead of individual historians. Britannica seems to be ambiguous about it:

"Following the invasion, defeat, and partitioning of Poland by Germany and the Soviets in 1939, the Soviet Union sought to push its border with Finland on the Karelian Isthmus westward in an attempt to buttress the security of Leningrad (St. Petersburg) from potential German attack. To that end, the Soviets also endeavoured to gain possession of several Finnish islands in the Gulf of Finland and to secure a 30-year lease for a naval base at Hanko (Hangö). The Soviet proposals for those acquisitions included an offer to exchange Soviet land. When Finland refused, the Soviet Union launched an attack on November 30, 1939, beginning the Russo-Finnish War." MrThe1And0nly (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Soviet Victory According to Definition and Multiple Sources

"A war is traditionally won by a signature on a piece of paper." - The United States Army Association. Finland surrendered and accepted the terms stipulated in the Moscow Peace Treaty: ceding a significant portion of south-eastern Finland (including the second largest city Viipuri) and leasing Hank to the Soviet Union. As a result, it is clear that the end of the war was Soviet victory, and any argument to the contrary is simply going against the definition of victory in a war. Also all the following sources label the Winter War conflict as Soviet victory:

Bidlack, R. (n.d.). Soviet-Finnish War | Encyclopedia.com. [online] www.encyclopedia.com. Available at: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/soviet-finnish-war [Accessed 18 Sep. 2022].

Reiter, D. (2010). Chapter Seven. The Logic Of War: Finland And The USSR, 1939–44. How Wars End, pp.121–139. doi:10.1515/9781400831036-009.

Simkin, J. (2020). Soviet Invasion of Finland in 1940. [online] Spartacus Educational. Available at: https://spartacus-educational.com/RUSfinland.htm.

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica (2018). Russo-Finnish War | Summary, Combatants, & Facts. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/Russo-Finnish-War.

U.S. Library of Congress (2019). Finland - The Winter War. [online] Countrystudies.us. Available at: http://countrystudies.us/finland/19.htm. Warshadee (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"In a traditional sense, a war is won by a signature on a piece of paper. For some wars, victory means deposing the other side’s political system and replacing it with one of the victor’s choosing." - The United States Army Association

The USSR failed to replace the Finnish government with their puppet Finnish Democratic Republic.

"the Winter War had been, for the Soviet Union, a dismal and embarrassing failure" - Robert Edwards

"It was a dangerous defeat because it encouraged our enemies' conviction that the Soviet Union was a colossus with feet of clay." - Nikita Khrushchev

And what is this definition of victory in war that you speak of? The source that you yourself posted mentions "deposing the other side's political system". This was the goal of the Soviets, and it failed. Betelgeuse X (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of the literature is that both sides achieved some but not all of their war aims, which is precisely the reason this question is constantly rehashed here. For example, we have Edwards (2006) saying Winter War had been, for the Soviet Union, a dismal and embarrassing failure and then discussing the outcome for pages and pages. See also e.g. Lessons of the Winter War: A Study in the Military Effectiveness of the Red Army, 1939–1940 by Reese (2008): The Soviet war against Finland (1939–40) is generally seen as a fiasco because the U.S.S.R. failed to conquer and absorb Finland, as Joseph Stalin had planned... These indicate that boiling the result down to a simple "victor" and "loser" is non-trivial. The broad consensus regarding the use of infoboxes on Wikipedia is to not engage in speculation or use complex terminology (even modifiers like "tactical" are prohibited), but rather to reference a suitable article or section that contains a longer discussion. This is what happens both here and in Battle of Jutland, which says both sides claim victory.

For sure, the outcome parameter can be changed if we can establish that there's a broad consensus among historians that the result is best summarized as an unreserved victory for one side. But the links you have provided above do not, in my view at the least, suffice to demonstrate the required broad consensus. I don't have full access to Reiter, but the first page at least states More pointedly, why did the Soviet Union not pursue an absolute victory... (emph. added). Based on a skim-reading, neither do Simkin nor Encyclopedia Britannica explicitly state this was an (unambiguous) soviet victory. Same for Countrystudies. In fact, they appear to be rather handily summarized as Ended with the Moscow peace treaty. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that @Warshadee has been engaging in trolling on Wikipedia in recent months, which makes it a bit difficult to take anything they say seriously, the matter is far too contested to change it to a victory for either side. Like BX said, the Soviets failed at their goals, miserably. TylerBurden (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Soviet "failed" and yet all their prewar demand was accepted by Finns plus Viipuuri which was at time 2nd most populated city in Finland. 109.60.11.222 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The Soviets' reason for invading Finland was to install their Terijoki puppet government into Helsinki for the eventual annexation of Finland. Their goals for the war clearly extended beyond their official demands to Finland in October and November 1939.

"The Soviet war against Finland (1939–40) is generally seen as a fiasco because the U.S.S.R. failed to conquer and absorb Finland, as Joseph Stalin had planned" - Roger Reese

"The Winter War had been, for the Soviet Union, a dismal and embarrassing failure" - Robert Edwards

"It was a dangerous defeat because it encouraged our enemies' conviction that the Soviet Union was a colossus with feet of clay" - Nikita Khrushchev

I'm not sure what your point is in stating that Viipuri was the 2nd largest city in Finland. We can also point out that the Siege of Leningrad, which occurred as a result of the USSR's Winter War failure, led to the deaths of a million citizens of that city - further highlighting the failure that the Winter War was for the USSR. Molotov stated after the war that "securing Leningrad" was the reason for the invasion. Obviously this didn't happen.

But the bottom line is that the USSR didn't achieve its objective of annexing Finland. I've provided quotes from historians - as well as Khrushchev himself - indicating that the war was a Soviet failure. Betelgeuse X (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

All i see from you argument was that Khruschov said that USSR wanted to secure Leningrad which they did by annexing Viipuri. ( no ...Winter war was not reson for siege of Leningrad but Barbarossa )

...and bunch of personal opininon of some "reliable historians" propoble same one who put that silly and histricaly unaccurate remark under Simo Hayhna picture. 109.60.11.222 (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Finnish participation in the Siege of Leningrad indicates that Leningrad was most definitely not secured. Without Finnish participation, the siege would not have occured. The Finnish Army completed the encirclement of the city to its northwest. Access to the city would have been possible otherwise.

Finland wouldn't have attacked the USSR in 1941 had the USSR been successful in conquering Finland, ergo the very thing that the Soviets said they wanted to accomplish with their attempt to conquer Finland - preventing an attack on Leningrad via Finland - happened because of their failed attempt to conquer Finland. But we know that "securing Leningrad" was only the Soviets' propaganda reason for invading Finland, as the actual reason was to annex the country into the USSR, which of course also failed. Hence why the war is not listed as a Soviet victory.

"...and bunch of personal opininon of some "reliable historians" propoble same one who put that silly and histricaly unaccurate remark under Simo Hayhna picture."

Huh?? No idea what your comment about Simo Häyhä means.

Clearly you'd rather disregard the findings of historians since they conflict with your idealized point of view. Betelgeuse X (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

My comment about Simo Hayha mean that Soviet troop's never called him "White death" as its remarked under that picture. That nickname was inveted probobly by same "reliable historians" during 80'. And this info you can find on his personal wiki page. 109.60.11.222 (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the Siege of Leningrad is not the reason for the result box not listing the war as a Soviet victory. I brought it up in response to those who claim that the USSR had "secured Leningrad" as a result of the Winter War. Betelgeuse X (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Then don't mention it. With that type of argument you can argue anything. I could say that eg. Britain lost WWII becouse "We know" thei goal was to keep Empire ...and they failed with lost of India few year later. We could also say that Soviet lost it too...as "we know" Stalin wanted to occupie most of europe but he clearly occupie only east part of it and they lost that too 40 year later. 109.60.11.222 (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes they failed, and sources back it up. You're offering nothing but the same rantings of people who wish to present a Soviet victory on this article have been doing for years, no policy involved, just your opinion. TylerBurden (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You brought up Viipuri being Finland's second largest city, and I responded with an equally relevant comment. Though I will say that the examples you list are laughable. Securing Leningrad was the literal reason the Soviets gave for invading Finland. Feel free to point out when the British leadership stated that "keeping its empire" was the reason that the UK fought in World War II (as if this even makes any sense), or when the Soviets stated that their war against Germany was to "occupy most of Europe".

The typical approach I see from you and others who maintain that the war should be listed as a Soviet victory goes something like this:

1. State that the USSR won because it gained land from Finland.

2. Ignore the rebuttal pointing out that the Soviets intended on conquering all of Finland, or insinuate that this was simply a secondary goal and shouldn't be considered in the analysis.

3. Ignore the conclusions of multiple historians stating that the war was a Soviet failure, or imply that they're simply "personal opinions" and "unreliable".

4. Accuse anyone against listing the war as a Soviet victory as peddling propaganda or their own personal opinions.

5. Make false comparisons to other wars.

6. Repeat the above steps in an increasingly angry manner involving swearing, wishing ill upon posters' families, etc. (as is the case with the recently-banned IP address). Betelgeuse X (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is beautiful, valuable and benevolent. I support taking this direction and being rigorous about it. Thank you, @Ljleppan. 91.154.160.208 (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

IT'S NOT FULL VICTORY FOR USSR: Pyrrhic victory at best: The bottom line is because of this war, Finland never became part of USSR slavery and USSR really wanted this war to end asap: The Soviets had lost more than five times as many soldiers as the Finns! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.66.143.73 (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Victory? Fail? Soviets achieved all their goals while Fins none. That's your answer to the question. Please update any info if it's not. But these 2 or 3 guys will continue trying to troll Wikipedia... 139.47.80.70 (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

- Soviets achieved all their goals while Fins none

The Soviets' goal was to fail to insert their puppet government into Helsinki and fail to annex Finland?

- But these 2 or 3 guys will continue trying to troll Wikipedia

Funny how those accusing others of trolling are themselves ignoring published sources, making unbacked claims, etc. AKA trolling. Betelgeuse X (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Why was my comment removed without explanation? I was simply pointing out the logic of refusing to state that the Winter's War did not end with Soviet victory. Have I embarrassed somebody? It seems very weak not to give an explanation. 89.175.204.6 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not the venue to discuss general questions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The Soviet's goal was to secure Leningrad, and they met that goal. Real Robert J. Oppenheimer (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The Soviets' goal was to install their Terijoki puppet government into Helsinki and annex Finland into the USSR, which failed. Betelgeuse X (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you think stopped the Soviets from annexing all of Finland after Karelian Isthmus fell? Why do you think Finland suddenly capitulated? Mannerheim knew already beforehand it would end like this, and hence urged for a compromise. If the Soviets had wanted, there was nothing in their way of taking all of Finland. Indeed, Molotov said exactly that during the final negotiations. Would any of that have flied in any other circumstance, other than a total Soviet victory? (Poor performance in first months of war notwithstanding - those are separate questions and many seem to be conflating the two.)

I am very far from some sort of Soviet allegiance, but this here is a plainly politicized interpretation. Nobody in the Finnish government would've denied their defeat. How could they? Victors don't capitulate.

At the most one may argue that the Soviets were wary about some sort of international reaction over a full annexation, which would perhaps have created some sort of international coalition against them (don't forget, USSR was under immense siege mentality/panic). But that's hardly saying Finns "won" or that Soviet victory is contentious.

(part of this answer is a repost from another I made just now way up the thread) MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I already responded to you above, but I'll repeat it here: the Soviets had been defeated on every front except for one. Attacks in Pelkosenniemi, Kuhmo, Ilomantsi, Suomussalmi all failed. The Red Army was nowhere near taking all of Finland. A quick look on a map and an understanding of what territory the Soviets actually controlled can tell you that. This should answer your question about "why Finland remained independent".

Your claim about the Soviets being wary over international reaction over full annexation is silly. Clearly they had no qualms over annexation, as they had a puppet government destined for Helsinki. Betelgeuse X (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you unaware of the change in Soviet war planning under Timoshenko, the whole point of which was to pull men from godforsaken tundra from the north, in order to focus efforts on blasting the only relevant part of the frontline under Karelia? That was Shaposhnikov's plan from the beginning, had it been adopted by Stalin. Why do you think Gustaf Mannerheim capitulated right after that happened? Why do you think Gustaf Mannerheim already predicted defeat before the war? Sorry, but ignoring Mannerheim's capitulation is just patently onesided. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here. The change in war tactics was due to the total failure of the Soviets' initial full-scale attacks. Hence why the Soviets abandoned their Terijoki puppet government on January 29th and informed the Finnish government that they were willing to negotiate peace, after which discussions began. You seem to be completely unaware of this, implying that Finland suddenly sued for peace in March. This is all covered in the article, I suggest reading it.

Please elaborate on what "Mannerheim capitulated right after that" means. It was the Soviets that capitulated on their puppet government, changing their war goals after their attempt to overthrow the Finnish government had failed.

"Patently one-sided" is an apt description for someone who somehow manages to ignore the Terijoki puppet government, ignore the fact that the Soviets invaded along the full length of the border, intending to occupy cities like Oulu (which is nowhere near the territory that the Soviets were supposedly after), and ignore the fact that all of Finland was listed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (all the territory falling under the Soviet "sphere of influence" was eventually annexed by the USSR, with the exception of Finland). Betelgeuse X (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The Finns were not fighting the Terijoki government, which is why the war did not end on January 29th, after its "capitulation." You also forgot to mention the repeated attempts by Finnish government to contact USSR pre-January 29th. I guess that would ruin the vibe.

Timoshenko took command on the explicit condition that he be allowed to adopt Shaposhnikov's pre-war plan of a focused narrow-front attack through the Mannerheim line, opening up Helsinki. The plan had previously been rebuked in favor of a full frontal assault, proposed by Meretskov. After the war, Stalin had personally admitted to Shaposhnikov that he had been right from the start.

The MRP spheres of influence were not a guarantee of invasion. Finnish inclusion in the Soviet sphere was an attempt to prevent German-Finnish collusion. How do you explain the different diplomatic approach USSR took to Finland as opposed to the Baltics, if not by having different end goal in mind? With the Baltics, there was no threat of international intervention.

As for who was losing, lets consult some easily accessible third parties:

"Despite courageous resistance and a number of successful defense actions, the defense of the Karelian Isthmus broke down, and Finland had to initiate peace negotiations."

"In February 1940, however, the Soviets used massive artillery bombardments to breach the Mannerheim Line (the Finns’ southern defensive barrier stretching across the Karelian Isthmus), after which they streamed northward across the isthmus to the Finnish city of Viipuri (Vyborg). Unable to secure help from Britain and France, the exhausted Finns made peace (the Treaty of Moscow) on Soviet terms on March 12, 1940,"

Rest is from the Finnish wikipedia article on the Moscow treaty:

"Rauha astui voimaan 13. maaliskuuta, kun Suomen joukot olivat murtumassa ja Neuvostoliiton joukot jo lähentelivät Viipuria."

"Rauhasta ei varsinaisesti neuvoteltu, vaan Neuvostoliitto saneli ehdot."

"Avuntarjouksen torjumiseen johti marsalkka Mannerheimin arvio, jonka mukaan rintama ei kestäisi enää kauan, lännen apu tulisi liian myöhään ja olisi liian vähäistä."

I could go on, from this article and others. But I'll end with citing the words of a clear winner:

"Let the hand wither that signs this monstrous treaty!"

It's patently evident the Finns were in the worse position. The only saving grace was the threat of international intervention, which probably didn't look promising enough to proceed with the war. Finland was exhausted, its defensive position lost, and Mannerheim said the defense cannot continue. And so they accepted an unpleasant treaty, after having protested the conditions.

I have no doubt you will now attempt to edit the cited article. Fortunately you cannot edit Mannerheim's statements or the archives.

In conclusion, however, I'll say it's not unreasonable to leave the victor undecided, since we cannot fully discount the possibility of USSR having attempted to annex all of Finland. It seems to me the evidence is mostly contrary to full annexation, or at most it became a goal after Finns refused the initial demands, but we can leave that open.

I will however protest your undoing of my sentence "leaving the rest of Finland vulnerable," since this is plainly written in the quotes I offered. Maybe we can find a consensus here that we can both agree upon?

I will start a separate topic for that. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

"The Finns were not fighting the Terijoki government, which is why the war did not end on January 29th, after its "capitulation." You also forgot to mention the repeated attempts by Finnish government to contact USSR pre-January 29th. I guess that would ruin the vibe."

Obviously the Finns weren't fighting the Terijoki government. They were fighting the country that wanted to install the Terijoki government into Helsinki. Not sure what your point is regarding the the "vibe". Obviously Finland attempted to contact the Soviets before January 29th. It was only when the Soviets abandoned their attempt to overthrow the Finnish government with their puppet government that they began discussions.

"How do you explain the different diplomatic approach USSR took to Finland as opposed to the Baltics, if not by having different end goal in mind? With the Baltics, there was no threat of international intervention."

Huh?? Are you not aware that the Baltics were never at war with the USSR in 1939 or 1940? On the other hand, the demands the Soviets sent to the Baltics and Finland were all similar: the establishment of military bases on their respective territories.

"I have no doubt you will now attempt to edit the cited article. Fortunately you cannot edit Mannerheim's statements or the archives."

Another bizarre comment.

"It seems to me the evidence is mostly contrary to full annexation."

How anyone can come to this conclusion is beyond me. Do explain then why the Soviets established their Terijoki puppet government, with the following statement by TASS:

"The People's Government in its present composition regards itself as a provisional government. Immediately upon arrival in Helsinki, capital of the country, it will be reorganised and its composition enlarged by the inclusion of representatives of the various parties and groups participating in the people's front of toilers."

"I will however protest your undoing of my sentence "leaving the rest of Finland vulnerable," since this is plainly written in the quotes I offered. Maybe we can find a consensus here that we can both agree upon?"

Of the ~150,000 square miles of Finnish territory, the Red Army occupied a couple thousand square miles. So how do you arrive at the conclusion that the rest of this territory was vulnerable, when the Red Army had advanced only on the southern coast, at great cost at that. The statement simply doesn't make sense.

"I could go on, from this article and others. But I'll end with citing the words of a clear winner:

"Let the hand wither that signs this monstrous treaty!""

Just as the Soviets failing to install their Terijoki puppet government and annexing Finland into the USSR is the mark of a clear Soviet victory. Betelgeuse X (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh so we're going by TASS statements now, I see? Shall I edit the article to include the breadbaskets Soviets were dropping on starving Finnish peasants in Helsinki as well?

There are many reasons for why having a Terijoki government would be beneficial for the USSR, such as exerting political pressure on Finland, or attempting to muddy the waters and seem less aggressive for outside observers. To conclude it must only have meant they were actually attempting to replace the Finnish government, based on a TASS statement, is nonsensical. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The breadbaskets are already referenced in the article.

"attempting to muddy the waters and seem less aggressive for outside observers"

How this even begins to make any sense to you is beyond me. It was perfectly clear what the Soviets' intent was when they launched an invasion along the entire border. That would qualify as aggressive. Contrary to your laughable assertion, the Soviets announcing their intention to install the Terijoki government into Helsinki only further confirms Soviet war aims. Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, curiously the Soviet statement on breadbaskets isn't taken seriously.

If you can't see the way a puppet regime can be leveraged either against your opponent or onlookers, that's on you. In any case this conversation is pointless, because I am content with leaving the victor status as is. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Do provide an example of when a puppet government was created solely for "leverage against your opponent or onlookers". Betelgeuse X (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Numerous governments-in-exile, exiled monarchs or throne pretenders from history. But for a modern take, just look at current Russian puppets: South-Ossetia, Abkhazia, probaly Artsakh and Transnistria too. They're just geopolitical chips to toss around on the bargaining table. Look at proxy wars between Arabia and Iran in Yemen, both supporting each own puppet. Iran's intent isn't to conquer Yemen, but to screw Arabia. Hell, maybe even look at Taiwan - it's a major thorn up China's side and under US protection. But nobody in their right mind works towards Taiwan ruling mainland China, or recognizes Taiwan's authority over it. Again, just a chip. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

So the USSR failing to install their puppet government into Finland is somehow equivalent to your list of countries that supposedly already have puppet governments installed? Interesting logic there. And listing Taiwan is hilarious. Any more propaganda you'd like to add? Betelgeuse X (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

All of them are rump states that exist solely due to foreign support, and none of them have overall formal recognition. Calling this propaganda doesn't add to your credibility. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Implying that a puppet government exists in Taiwan is propaganda-level absurdity. It also shows that your understanding of what constitutes a puppet government is severely lacking. And the other part of your comment tries to imply that a failed attempt to install a puppet government is somehow equivalent to countries that (supposedly) have puppet governments installed. Equally silly on multiple levels. Betelgeuse X (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan is recognized only by: Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Tuvalu.

I won't be continuing this discussion, for reasons stated above. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

So who installed this puppet government into Taiwan? Care to elaborate? Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

References