Talk:Battle of Tali–Ihantala/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initiation of the war by the Germans and the Finns

Whiskey, I am sorry, you are right: we must not get carried away, regardless of how appallingly biased some passages are.

I agree. And on all points. This article is a mess. Somebody with little knowledge on the issue has added unsourced claims and added facts from totally different battles. Unfortunately I don't have time to seriously rewrite this article before the Continuation War is ready. And it seems to take time. :-(

Here we go:

• Erkki Nordberg, Arvio ja ennuste Venäjän sotilaspolitiikasta Suomen suunnalla, Helsinki, 2003, ISBN 951-884-362-7

"The Continuation War began with landing operations, aerial reconaissance and minelaying operations several days BEFORE (emph. mine) Germany attacked the USSR. Beginning on June 17 the Germans conducted aerial reconaissance over the territory of the USSR from the airfields at Rovaniemi and Kemijarvi. On the morning of June 22, Finnish submarines mined the waters in the area of Gogland (Estonia)" (citing from [1], see there for more fun fun facts)

• Just as good a source as any Finnish one: Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Finland, Moscow, 1974, ISBN 0028800109

"By June 17 Finland began the total mobilization. Finland joined the war against the USSR on the German side on June 22, although officially it declared war on June 26." (citing from the Russian text)

• Encyclopædia Britannica Premium, Finland, 2006, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-26105

"When Germany attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, therefore, German troops were already on Finnish territory, and Finland was ready for war; its submarines, in fact, were operating in Soviet waters."

Nordberg is a little too gratious here, as Finns had started sending patrols over the border quite soon after the Winter War ended. On the other issues, have you checked the Interim Peace article, which was separated from Continuation War? I have tried to present all the facts there, but please point out if I have missed some. Unfortunately I don't have Nordberg on my table, I have to visit library to check what he writes on the issue.

The mining of Soviet (or Estonian) waters was done about 8-10 AM June 22. Two hours earlier Soviet garrison of Hanko started firing artillery to the Finnish side of the border and Soviet planes bombed Finnish ships near Ahvenanmaa. On the starting date, as German reconnaissance operations started already a week before Barbarossa, why not put it there in the article?

The history of Soviet Air Force cites Finnish actions as provocations for which SAF responded with the strike of June 25. Platonov in the "Battle of Leningrad" describes orders to the army being "not to initiate hostilities as long as Finns do not openly side with Germans".

I hope it helps a little bit to clear up the confusion as to who started the war.

The starter of the war is generally considered to being the one who is first to commit open hostilities against the other, regardless of the undercover actions before that. Soviet air offensive was too big and too carefully planned and executed that it couldn't be explained away. (Did Israel started six-day war? Or did Japan open the Pacific theatre?) All previous actions were too minor to act such a way. (Turkey was considered neutral or even anti-US in current US-Iraq war even it allowed US bombers to rise from its soil and allowed reconnaisence teams to operate from there.) The situation was like two schoolboys in the same table: Both kicking each other under the table until one of them starts using fists over the table.

Finns were not blameless. Finns did allow German fleet to hide in the archipelago and come out to mine the Gulf of Finland. Finns did allow returning German bombers to refuel in Finland thus allowing bombardment of targets otherwise outside German reach. Finns have placed one division and some detachments under German command in Northern Finland. Finns have allowed Germans to place too many soldiers to the Northern Finland. But does it mean Finns started the war? No. The commander of the German forces was furious that his forces were not allowed to attack or even fire the Soviets on the other side of the border, openly preparing their fortifications.

Nazi butchers worked side-by-side with the democratic Finnish troops to block and starve to death 1 million civilians in Leningrad, precisely how Russians feared it would happen. If anyone is still in doubt, there is plenty more fun facts we can look up! Guinness man 11:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it a great relief that finally someone from Russia gets interest to these articles. As my Russian skill is nonexistent, I have a certain handicap when using Russian/Soviet sources. Please add more facts whenever possible (but please give sources...), especially on issues you consider misrepresented. --Whiskey 21:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and even according to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the war officially started at June 26. ;-) --Whiskey 21:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being a sane and fair person :) Sadly, everyone is pressed for time, but I'm trying to check on things periodically and look up some sources. And btw, I'm from sunny California :) (not so sunny at the moment) Guinness man 06:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Some weird things here

some really wild claims made here - sourses? Too much Fantasy Undefeatable Finnish Warriors and other BS. 150 000 troops is not a 1/3 of Soviet Army anyway, and so on 20 000 losses also doesn't look like much.

I agree that 1/3 claim is fantasy, and I haven't found it in any respectable source of the battle. This article needs serious cleanup, as it concentrates too much to what happened before the battle esp. at Valkeasaari. (f.ex. that artillery fire concentration...)--Whiskey 15:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Nazi butchers"

Don't generalize. By your logic all Soviet soldiers were fanatical communist.

"to block and starve to death 1 million civilians in Leningrad"

Finnish did not take part in the siege and the siege was not a war crime. Stalin could have evacuated civialian population if he would have wanted to, like in Stalingrad. If Finnish could evacuate over 500000 people from the territories that were given to Soviet Union after Winter War in few days notice, Soviets could certainly do the same with longer amount of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs)

Where exactly did I generalize or used the word all or all Germans or all Finns? Are you by any chance denying that among the Nazis were sadistic people who starved and mass-murdered the Jewish people, Slavs, Gypsies and others?

I am not even going to talk about the second part. Could have-would have-should have. Point me to at least a single credible reference with your claims. Guinness man 18:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What are the proves that the Soviets knew about the minings? That they were laid doesn't prove that they knew about them. Hence one cannot say that it led to the Soviet attack. I belive that it is widely accepted that it was Hitler's radio speech in which he talked about alliance with Finland that in the end led to the bombings. Kurt.

Your acts of vandalism are pure and simple, all the items you removed have been sourced. You not only removed real information but also the sources which proves that you are only interested in vandalism. (Deng 11:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Kurt, I don't think it as widely accepted that Hitler's radio speech was the main reason for Soviet offensive. The Soviet Union had extensive spy network in Finland at that time, and was fully aware of German troop movements inside Finland. (F.ex. mobilization transportation to Kem and Salla started immediately after German troops had turned eastward from Rovaniemi.) Also Soviets were aware that German bombers cannot reach Leningrad from Germany proper without refuelling somewhere, which led to misbelief that they were based on Finland. --Whiskey 11:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"I don't think it as widely accepted that Hitler's radio speech was the main reason for Soviet offensive."

Not the main reason, but the attack did come soon after it. Soviet Union saw Finland (the radio speech only made their opinion stronger) as an ally of Germany. Kurt.

The speech was at the morning of June 22. The attacks were at the morning of June 25. There was time to collect and analyze information from many sources, not only from Hitler's speech, which was countered by Finnish Foreign office. --Whiskey 12:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"which was countered by Finnish Foreign office" Correct me if I am wrong, but hadn't the Soviet embassy and Soviet officials stopped all diplomatic talk with Finland after the start of Barbarossa? And my apologies. I was under impression that Hitler held the speech later than that. Kurt.

The talks continued, as it witnessed by ambassador Orlov's statements, but telegraph connection between Finland and Soviet Union become more and more controlled. Also contacts continued in third countries (like in Sweden). --Whiskey 12:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Peace, please

Kurt, would you please refrain from editing the article for a while. I'm trying to find common version with Deng. --Whiskey 13:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Losses

Ive changed a sentece in the Losses section. "The Finnish army lost 8,561 men wounded, missing or killed." changed to "The Finnish army reports that 8,561 men were wounded, missing and/or killed in action". It makes more sence now in my oppinion, I might be wrong tough, feel free to re-edit.--DerMeister 21:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete it?

Does this battle have a Russian name or is it just a creation of Finnish pro-Nazi propaganda? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We have Soviet sources from Platonov, which describes the order to Govorov to continue attack to Priozersk on the north and to the border of 1940 on the west. Platonov describes the results of the command in one paragraph cited in the article. From other sources, we have the lists of the units serving in the different parts of the frontline at the time. It is very hard to believe that Govorov, who was just promoted from his capture of Vyborg to field marshall, and who had advanced just according to planned timetable to Vyborg, wouldn't even try to fulfill his order.

There are reasons why these battles don't have Russian names: 1) On the Finnish measure, they were big, but in the Soviet measure they were small (50 000 were 10% of Finnish armed forces, 150 000 were, what, ~1%(?), of Soviet armed forces). 2) They weren't successful. It would be nicer to remember successful Vyborg operation, or Vyborg-Petrozavodsk operation instead. 3) The whole Finnish-Soviet war was a sideshow of the Great Patriotic War and all real and meaningful battles happened against Germans. This had directed Soviet military researchers and their research away from Finnish front to the more 'fashionable' targets. --Whiskey 00:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It was one battle in the Soviet fourth strategic offensive --MoRsE 14:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would a battle fought in Finnish soil even have a Russian name? --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Compare with Operation Silver Fox or any of the hundreds of offensive operations that had occurred away from home territory. BTW, did you notice that you're replying to a two year old thread? Necromancer. :-P --Illythr (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Armored losses

The web page of Antti Maunuksela wasn't a scientific research (or even his pro gradu work) but a short historics about the sites he and his group were going to visit during the summer of 2002.

He is also using his sources carelessly, as IV Corps reports that it has destroyed 351 tanks by June 30, it doesn't mean that they had destroyed them during the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, but during the whole retreat through the Karelian Isthmus, where IV Corps was facing the main Soviet thrust all the way from Valkeasaari through Kuuterselkä to Tali-Ihantala. The official history of the Continuation War by Finnish National Defence College (http://www.mpkk.fi/en/) states that Soviets lost 750 tanks destroyed and damaged during the whole summer offensive of 1944 at Karelian Isthmus. Matti Koskimaa in his work "Veitsenterällä" ("On the knife's edge" estimates that Finns destroyed 600 Soviet tanks at Karelian Isthmus during the summer of 1944 and about a half of them during the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. From Soviet sources, P. Igumenov's "Research of defeats of domestic tanks" gives Soviet losses to 415 tanks during the summer offensive at Karelian Isthmus.

I hope this helps.--Whiskey 08:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Pekka Kantakoski also gives the number 750 in Punaiset Panssarit (p. 438), he refers to Jatkosodan Historia 5. --MoRsE 05:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also on page 442 he says that an additional 200 were destroyed on other fronts during 1944. The Soviets manufactured at this point 79 tanks per day which means that the losses were equivalent to 12 days production, while the finns destroyed 9.2 soviet tanks per day. The battles against Finland (from June 9, 1944 until the armistace) lasted for 103 days. During this period the Soviet Union manufactured 8,137 tanks. The Finnish Air Force destroyed about 40 tanks on the isthmus and the Germans claimed that they had destroyed about 130. Kantakoski says that this number is somewhat wrong as his research shows that the Finnish land forces destroyed 612 tanks (the StuG brigade destroyed 87 tanks alone). Tank destroyer badges were awarded to 327 men during 1944.. The German Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 303 destroyed 3 tanks....phew he lists a lot of information on specific units here too. --MoRsE 05:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tali

The Tali section of the artical needs more text!--Posse72 15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So ill added a littel text to Tali. My refernces is Laguksen rynnäkkötykit- Rynnäkkötykkipataljoona 1943-1944 Erlli Käkelä WSOY 1996 ISBN 951-50-1560-x (ill used the Swedish verision of this book) Soumen Sota 1941-1945, Eero Kuussaari-Vilho Niitemaa ,Militärlitraturensförlag 1949 (Swedish version) Veitsen Terällä Matti Koskimaa wsoy 1993 ISBN 951-0-18811-5 Finlands krig del3 Kai Brunilla Schildts förlag 2001 ISBN 951-50-1200-7

If anyone could help me with the referens ill would be glad.--Posse72 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The German commanders

When I first added this information long ago you reverted it, implying that the German commanders do not deserve to be mentioned in the battlebox because they did not act "independently". I find this a bit confusing and would be thankful if you could clarify it. How did they not act independently? Were they under overall Finnish command in this case and who were the commanders? Regards, --Kurt Leyman 14:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The 303 sturmgescutzebrigad was a battalion strenght unit who was put under the command of the finnish armred division (Gen Laugus) im not sure about the commad structure for geschwader Kuhlmey.--Posse72 15:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok im sorry but this scale of this battle dose not justiffy puting Khumley in the leader box, when it come to Hans-Wilhelm Cardeneo and 303 SGB his efoort was a best described as mediocer, AND itwas under the command of the Finnish General Ruben Laugus.--Posse72 22:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Herr Kurt from what iv seen you only make trubble on the Wikipedia. In the leader box only the suprem commanders of the battle should be namned. As this was a Finnish operation with only "2" german support formations. If we name them we aölso must name the other batalion sized leaders who, would not be wise as the list would be so large that it coluld turn in to an own artical. Khumley and especially Cardeneo hade either the supreority or the the inpact on the battel as General Oesch. These batlion sized leader do not have anything to do in the suprem leader box.--Posse72 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Herr Kurt from what iv seen you only make trubble on the Wikipedia." Thank you for these kind lines, but no one answered my question properly. "german support formations" You do not seem to know how important the support of Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey was to the Finnish forces. "If we name them we aölso must name the other batalion sized leaders who" No, we must not. The Germans themselves were not part of the Finnish military, unlike the other forces. If someone could answer my question properly then we could stop this. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 12:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Flight detachment Kuhlmey was ordered to function independently, but Col Lorentz asked for their help and Kuhlmey answered as much as they could, in all the ways he could. The cooperation between the Finns and the Germans was completely seemless and the results were also good.

The German 122nd Division (Greif) was subordinated the Finnish 5th Army Corps --MoRsE 13:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If the Hans-Wilhelm Cardeneo's Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 303 was working under the operational command of Ruben Lagus I am fine with Cardeneo not being mentioned in the battlebox, but if Kurt Kyhlmey's Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey was technically functioning independently I feel that he should be mentioned in the box. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 15:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

303 operated under command of Ruben Lagus and 122.D (Breusing) first directly under command of Oesch and later under V Corps (Svensson). Kuhlmey instead operated independently although with close co-operation with Oesch and Laatikainen. So, as Kuhlmey was not part of the chain of command up to Oesch, and because the importance of German bombers in the battle, he should be listed in the commander box, although he didn't command any land forces. --Whiskey 21:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Even more important was the Finnish radio integence, should we but thier commanders namn in the box as well?--Posse72 11:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No. There were a lot of troops and their commanders whose work was essential to Finnish success but who were only in a supporting role to the troops performing the actual battle. Kuhlmey didn't command any land forces, which could be reason for removing his name, but coming outside from Finnish chain of command and the portion of the bombs his unit dropped are good reasons to add his name here. Also other battles have important subcommanders named in a commander listing (See f.ex.Battle of Lützen (1632)). --Whiskey 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Discusion over Karelia diversion

I dont agree on the recent divison of Karelia is the "tradionally" as Viipuri certaintly under any spectrum used is a tradionally Finnish city.--Posse72 (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Separate war

You have to make up your mind with regard to the separate war-theory (for the Continuation War). Was the war contemporary with, or a part of, WWII? Wikipedia better stick to one version by default, and expand on arguments for or against in one appropriate article. /M.L.

Comment: From Finland's perspective the war was separate but not from international and Soviet, although internationally the only enemy of Finland was Soviet Union. Even in Finland both the winter war and continuation war were considered (and still are) to be part of WW2 in a larger international scale. Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is one "evidence" of this.

Comment: 1: Finland was driven to fight in the Winter War. Thus, after the pronouncement of the Kuusinen's government no one could trust in any announcements of Stalin's regime. 2: Sweden and other Scandinavian countries were unwilling to have any political or economical contacts with Finland during and after the Winter War fearing the wrath of allied Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. 3. The Ribbentrop treaty was quite well known in Finland, and the results with two totalitarian regimes dividing Europe between them was well forecasted. 4. Soviets actively forced the Finns to Germany's arms by defying the food deliveries that had been agreed in the peace treatments and by sending Finnish renegade communists to Finnish factories and plants to create disorder. However, these agitations were quite unsuccesful, (people who have fought and lost their families, friends and land to an aggressor are not the best of victims for propaganda). Still it showed to the Finnish government that the 'conflict' was far from over. 5. With over 20% percent loss of cultivated land and huge losses of working farmers, the country was in desperate need of food, that realized finally during the winter -41-42. 6. Molotov asked for permission for the'Final Solution for Finland' late 1940 from Hitler. All of this was well known to the Finns. 7. There is no question about Finns being pro Germany in the beginning of Barbarossa, but the Russians had done their utmost to drive Finland against them, there was no choice. 8. Legally, the Russians started their air attacks to Finland some 1h before the minings (by the submarines in Estonian coast) and the Finnish ground forces started their attack to Soviet Union many days later. 9. The myth of the Finns having been part of the active surrounding of Leningrad is totally false. The Finns stopped in the Karelian Isthmus to the old border and left the service route over Lake Ladoga open despite several demand from OKW and even Hitler personally visiting Finnish HQ. Even flying over or near Leningrad was not allowed and as easy as it would have been to the Finns, the Murmansk railroad was not cut. 10. The Germans in the North of Finland, who had any forces to attack Russia were totally useless and kept so (this being more by the inability of Germans to understand Nordic warfare than the will of Hitler.) The Finnish HQ thought and understood them as a defensive force against possible Russian attack. 11. The Germans wanted to have Finnish Jews for their concentration camps. Instead many of the liaison officers to the German army were Jews (knowing the language), they were even awarded with a couple of Iron Crosses (which they declined to receive) to the horror of Germans who just then found out that they were Jews. There was even a front synagogue near the German's headquarters. The Finnish government, when asked said that there is no Jewish problem in Finland, there are only Finns in this country. Six Jews were deported to Germany by the basis that they were German citizens, and that is a shame because at that time it was widely known what would happen to them. Russian POW's were deported to Germany too, many of them Jews, but the basis was their position as political actors and change for Finnish related German held POW's, many of whom were recruited to the Finnish army. 12. All of the German based arms import was paid with hard currency, before 1944 mostly outdated Russian originated war loot. 13. The last comment is about the complicated plan to get weapons from Germany without making any formal agreement with Germany. President Ryti made his position and word as an offer for Finland's independence. All this can be read from contemporary documents. The Russians were beaten and Finland was not invaded and occupied as all of the other countries bordering Soviet Union.

The sources can be found from the books needed to cope with the first and second year courses in Helsinki University, Faculty of Political Science, Department of Political History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.252.205 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Impact

First, a 3:1 troop ratio is not an overwhelming force, when assaulting fortified positions. It is, in fact, a theoretical minimum requirement for the attacker.

Second, It remains unanswered whether or not the Soviet Union would have had enough adequate resources for defeating Finland and if some of its forces were not needed elsewhere.

I don't understand this statement. Does it imply that the strongest land army in the world (at the time) would not be able to defeat the exhausted Finnish one if the former had this goal as a top priority (at the price of letting Berlin fall into the hands of western Allies, that is)?

I removed the sentence from mainspace until someone explains it and provides objective reasons for its inclusion.

It would probably be a good idea to mention the concessions that the Soviet leadership had made to the proposed peace treaty (instead of an unconditional surrender it had demanded before). --Illythr 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no "unconditional surrender" demand from the Soviets, which makes the whole difference. The Soviets response contained the following (my free transtation): "Since we at several occasions had been fooled by the Finns, we would like to receive an official declaration from the Finnish governement signed by the primeminister or minister of the external affairs that Finland capitulates and asks the Soviet Union for peace. If we receive such a document from the Finnish governement, Moscow is ready to receive a delegation from the Finnish governement". So: "capitulation", "ask for peace" and "receive a delegation" are the key words, no "unconditional" in the text. What would be the meaning of sending a delegation from the Finnish governement to Moscow, if there were no terms to negotiate about? Besides all that, the Soviet side denied Finnish interpretation of their own demand as "unconditional" - in "Pravda" on July 2, 1944. This information was published in several Swedish newspapers on July 3 (3 newspapers as I know, among them "Dagens Nyheter" and "Svenska Dagbladet", two major newspapers). Narangino (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no terms to negotiate about. At March 1940 there was no changes in Soviet demands in "negotiations". At February 1944 Mrs Kollontai presented to Paasikivi that the given Soviet terms were negotiable, but when Paasikivi went to Moscow, there was no changes in initial Soviet demands in the "negotiations". At September 1944 the initial Soviet demands were changed before the "negotiations", but after that, it was only to accept or not to accept. No "negotiations".

And of course it wasn't a demand for unconditional surrender: The conditions were very exactly put out. Unfortunately Soviets didn't bother to "negotiate" about the terms with their allies beforehand, despite repeated attempts by ambassador Clark Kerr in May-June 1944 (AVPRF (Arhiv Vnesnei Politiki Rossijskoi Federatsii), fond 135, opis 28, delo 3, p. 10-17). Also, the planned conditions didn't differ practically from unconditional surrender (Dokument o bezogovorotsnoi kapituljatsii Finljandii. Sekretno. Projekt. AVPRF, fond 135, opis 28, delo 8, p. 8-20) --Whiskey (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean with "Soviets didn't bother to "negotiate" about the terms with their allies"? You know well that the allies met in Teheran in December 1943, where Finland's future faith was discussed. On December 1 1943 "the Big Three" agreed with Stalin's terms about Finland - Soviet Union would let Finland remain independent, they would only take Vyborg, Karelian isthmus and Hangö territory. Stalin was willing to exchange Hangö for Petsamo. Roosvelt replied that it was a "fair exhchange". Read about it in Churchill's memoirs. Narangino (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Stalin's terms were only the framework. If you had bothered to read the part of the Paris Peace Treaty concerning Finland or Moscow Armstice Treaty they contain a lot of more text than that agreed in Tehran. It was that text for what ambassador Kerr sent his inquiries. In a letter, the document found in the Soviet archives fulfills the framework outlined in Tehran, but still contains a lot of issues not discussed at all in Tehran, including Soviet occupation, Soviet general having sovereignity over Finnish leaders, internment and imprisonment of all anti-Soviet elements and all members of the White Guards to the Soviet Union, confiscation of all gold and currency found in the country, cutting of all phone, telegraph and radio transmissions outside from the country etc. etc. All fulfilling the letter of the Tehran, true? --Whiskey (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: Since the Soviet Union was the attacker in this battle, shouldn't it be list first in the infobox? --Illythr 00:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What you call "fortified positions" were nothing like what you seem to think. "3:1 troop ratio is not an overwhelming force" I beg to differ. "exhausted Finnish" You apparently have no idea of the Finnish military situation when the peace was signed. Finnish forces were far better equipped when they were at the beginning of the Soviet offensive. I do not see how the Finnish military was "exhausted". --Kurt Leyman 15:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Finnish situation was growing from hard to desperate at the time, as its chief supporter was now more concerned with its own survival than with aiding its ally. The Soviet Union, on the other hand was at the peak of its military production capability. Without external support, Finland had no hope withstanding the Soviet war machine, had Helsinki been its main target. However, by putting up a competent defense, Finland had indeed managed to "convince" the Soviet military to focus on more important matters instead and being satisfied with the Moscow armistice. So, "difficult" is ok. But "Impossible" needs to go. The sentence above is a rather strange speculation that must go as well. --Illythr 21:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Kurt is partly right, as the only fortifications which were available when the Soviet offensive begun were built at front of Vyborg, and the rest of the line was on the map only. Also when the Fourth Strategic Offensive was planned, it was decided that 2.4:1 was necessary ratio, but in reality STAVKA overestimated Finnish numbers so they had higher ratio (Platonov et.al. Bitva za Leningrad). And as Finland called back into the service some age classes which had been demobilized during the war in trenches, the usable manpower was much higher after the battles of June/July than before, and thanks to material deliveries from Germany, they were better equipped, it is hard to claim Finns were exhausted.

BUT, you are right that Finnish strategic situation were becoming more desperate, as German defeats elsewhere made it's continuing support less likely and effective. Also the statement you pointed out is very confusing and missing important qualification: "...with the forces available". And in fact it became clear that Leningrad Front didn't have enough forces and material to defeat Finland at the time, and it would have needed resources from German front to prepare a new offensive and finish the job, which would have weakened Bagration and Lvov-Sandomierz at critical phases. So I agree with your wording. Also, it is evident that T-I didn't "convince" Soviet commanders, as they tried to flank Ihantala in the battles of Bay of Vyborg and Vuosalmi at Karelian Isthmus and at Nietjärvi and Ilomantsi at Ladoga Karelia. It wasn't a single battle which convinced Soviet leaders, but all these battles together, that Finland was still a hard nut to crack. --Whiskey 23:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Were the "trenches" of the "War in trenches" dismantled by the time? As for exhaustion - I derived this from the last sentences here. I mean, Finland was suing for peace...

Soviet offensive had passed those trenches already. Finns had concentrated the fortification work to the front line (so called "main line" and to the VT-line, so there wasn't enough material and workforce to do anything on VKT-line. It seems that I have to continue writing...

Well, with "...with the forces available" is still a speculation. Fact is that the Soviet Union decided not to and din't (or, rather, vice versa :) ). Convincing: well, was this the last battle? Then we can write that "...after it the Soviet command became convinced..." etc.--Illythr 23:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so much. Govorov asked more men and materal from STAVKA, but was not only refused, but had to release his breakthrough forces. Ergo, he didn't have enough forces, and STAVKA didn't consider this section important enough to give more men and material to him, but cancelled it's previous attack order. --Whiskey 12:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to forget: The landings at Normandy took place during the fighting, initiationg the race to Berlin. --MoRsE 08:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Overlord happened before Valkeasaari. I consider race to Berlin starting with the breakout from Normandy, which happened at July 27 (Operation Cobra), when it became evident that Germans cannot contain the beachhead.--Whiskey 12:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, 3:1 infantry thats not an overwhelming force, but the Soviet warfare of summer 1944 was not about hugh infantry attack (do they still existed) It was about firepower and mobility, so in the air, the numbers of guns and tanks trully made the Soviet force overwhelming compering to the finnish forces.--Posse72 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This battle was a Finnish defensive victory. Please, do not remove the correct result

No Soviet forces were moved from this front before this battle was over. No such source has been provided either, despite request posted at the Continuation War page.

Even if some Soviets or Finns had been moved between different battle stages, the result of this battle still is a Finnish defensive victory. 87.95.85.139 (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with that. One editor have recently appeared here to edit this article to look like same as whole Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offense (and same time to edit Vyborg-Petrozavodsk to look complete Soviet victory). Im not sure why, but in my eye it looks pretty much like some kind of russian nationalist or war propaganda (nashi propaganda) which we DO NOT want to wikipedia.62.216.127.93 (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Soviet redeployment of troops was planned before Tali-Ihantala

Even if broader operational plans existed for fighting the finnish army, the Soviets decided what to do next already prior to June 20 and capturing of Vyborg. According to A.M Vasilevsky ("Delo moyei zhizni", M., 1976, pp. 450-451) he and general A.I. Antonov discussed the question with Stalin regarding the perspectives for operational development against Finland and that they decided that "after reaching the line Elisenvaara - Imatra - Virojoki and with the assistance from the Baltic Fleet liberating Bolshoy Berezovyi (the biggest Koivisto island) and other islands in Vyborg Bay a strong defence should be created on the Karelian Isthmus and after switching over to the defence there the main attention of the Leningrad Front should be concentrated on participation in the battles for the liberation of Estonia".

This means that the re-deployment of Soviet troops from the Isthmus to the Baltics was planned even before the battle of Tali-Ihantala took place. Creating defensive positions on the Karelian Isthmus was also planned prior to the battle. Koskenkorva (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of of these arguments are your personal opinions, non of them have anything to do with outcome of Battle of Tali-Ihantala. You can have your own opinions, I fully accept that, but wikipedia is not right place to represent them. Only "research" (if it is one) you are representing is made by Red Army officer in Soviet Union during darkest times of Cold War. I haven't seen ever any research, text or book which doesn't call result of Tali-Ihantala as finnish victory. Not even Russian ones. Tali-Ihantala was delaying battle for finns in front of finnish VKT-line and it was very succesfull one. None of russian forces managed to cross the line, which was situated in Ihantala. Soviet troops suffered almost 20 000 men casualties dead and wounded and 300 tanks (for comparison only 800 tanks were given to troops at the beginning of Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offense). So did Soviet troops even changes to continue offense without reinforcements. Not really. And even if they could, they de facto didn't do it. Does this mean that finns won the battle. Yes it does. There really is no realistic argument to make result look different. If using your method of defining the results of battles, you can say as well that Siege of Leningrad or Normandy Landings or Operation Bagration ended to stalemate, or Operation Barbarossa ended to decisive german victory.62.216.127.93 (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we start with one thing first? Can you answer the question, what exactly was won at Tali-Ihantala - 1. Finnish independece 2. revert of Russian demand for "unconditional surrender", 3. stopping Finland from leaving the German-Finnish "brotherhood" or 4. preventing the Soviets from taking back the borders of 1940? Also: what was the reason for the Russian re-deployment of troops, Finnish resistance or their own internal decision from June 17 (Vasilevsky, Antonov and Stalin) and their own order from July 11 (July 12 in other sources)? Koskenkorva (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "I haven't seen ever any research, text or book which doesn't call result of Tali-Ihantala as finnish victory.". Then you must have seen only the Finnish books. Perhaps it's time you broaden your horizons a little bit. Koskenkorva (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the full text from A.M. Vasilevsky's book ("Delo moyei zhizni"):

В ту же ночь в разговоре по телефону И. В. Сталин спросил меня, как он часто это делал, не смогу ли я без особого ущерба для выполняемого задания прибыть на два-три дня в Москву. Я согласился и уже днем был в столице, а вечером 17 июня вместе с А. И. Антоновым встретился с И. В. Сталиным. Как выяснилось, основным вопросом, ради которого меня вызвали в Ставку, явились события на Севере. Войска Ленинградского фронта после ожесточенных боев на Карельском перешейке, нанеся серьезное поражение финским войскам, готовились к штурму последнего оборонительного рубежа. Как стало известно, финское командование уже перебросило часть своих сил из Южной Карелии на Карельский перешеек. Не сомневались мы и в том, что немецкое командование, чтобы спасти Финляндию от поражения и обеспечить ее дальнейшее [412] участие в войне на своей стороне, вынуждено будет, несмотря на все трудности, усилить этот участок фронта. Поэтому фактор времени при решении задач, поставленных перед войсками Ленинградского фронта, играл теперь исключительно важную роль.

Связавшись по телефону с командующим Ленинградским фронтом Л. А. Говоровым, И. В. Сталин заслушал его детальный доклад о ходе событий и подготовке к штурму и дал ему ряд советов и указаний. Удовлетворенный заверениями Говорова в том, что задача ускорить наступление будет решена его войсками в течение ближайшей недели, он пожелал Леониду Александровичу успеха. Тогда же было решено, что после взятия Выборга необходимо будет продолжать наступление и с выходом войск на рубеж Элисенваара — Иматра — Виройоки и освобождением при помощи Балтийского флота Большого Березового и других островов Выборгского залива прочно закрепиться на Карельском перешейке и, перейдя там к обороне, сосредоточить основное внимание Ленинградского фронта на участии в боях по освобождению Эстонии.

You'll find the whole chapter from this book at http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/vasilevsky/23.html. Koskenkorva (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a great excerpt! And especially it proves the point that Soviets really tried to push through Tali-Ihantala and -as we know in history- failed in doing that. So that excerpt proves that the defender was victorious in this battle, as the attacker failed to reach it's goals.

It is interesting to note, that Vasilevsky's memoirs contradict the orders Govorov received from STAVKA after the capture of Vyborg. In that order Govorov was ordered to continue offensive to Virojoki-Lappeenranta-Imatra-line, with part of the forces to Elisenvaara-Käkisalmi-line, and in the same time prepare continuing offensive to River Kymijoki to Kotka-Kouvola-line. Also the operating boundary between Karelian and Leningrad fronts lies on the line Korovkino-Southern coast of Lake Ladoga-Tervus-Elisenvaara-Taipionkoski-Lappeenranta-Lahti. Central Archive of Ministry of Defence of Russia f. 148a, i. 3763, f. 166, s. 376, 377. The original. [RA. GPW. vol. 16 - 5 (4), pp. 97,98]--Whiskey (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

With your logic, every time a successful offensive reaches it's limit, then it is a defeat. Don't you see how rediculous this sounds? And yet again, the Russians, tried to reach the Finnish border, but chose not to lose too many soldiers on achieving that limited goal (the main goal was alreday achieved - Finland was already under great pressure). The Soviets got intelligence reports, that the Finns had moved in troops from Karelia, so now, 4/5 of all the Finnish army was on the Karelian Isthmus. In that situation, continuing to break through this increased resistance would have been a foolish decision. Interruption of the battle was plannen on June 17, well, perhaps 30-50 kilometres further West, but still - it's far from "Russians beeing defeated" by the Finns. That you must admit. Koskenkorva (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If the offensive meets the targets given when it was planned, only then it is successful. Sometimes it can reach much more than originally planned. But if it doesn't reach the targets, then it is only partially successful at best, failure at worst. Offensive is a very complex thing, and it can have several battles, some victorious and some defeats, but the outcome of the offensive doesn't affect the outcome of single battles. With your logic, the Battle of Ligny was a French defeat, as they lost the whole Waterloo campaign. In the same way, the outcome of the Soviet offensive doesn't affect the outcome of this single battle.

When Gusev committed his forces to this battle, then it was either reaching their targets, when it would have been a victory, or not reaching the targets and losing the battle. As I have already written above, it doesn't matter how it was achived or not, but only the end situation compared with the targets given before the battle should be checked.

You have asked some questions. May I ask one? If memoirs of a marshall contradicts documents found in the archives of the ministry of defence, which one should we believe? --Whiskey (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You have asked some questions. May I ask one? If memoirs of a marshall contradicts documents found in the archives of the ministry of defence, which one should we believe?. Who says they "contradict" each other? It is fully possible the original fronline could have been modified during the ongoing operation. Vasilevsky's information about the June 17 decision, could hav been modified in a later order to Govorov. But the document you quote still doesn't prove that the Soviets wanted to "occupy" the whole Finland. Operational line doean't mean that Russians wanted to caprure Lahti. It was a border line between the Soviet armies, nothing more. If you present me with an order which esplicitly demands the Soviet army capture Lahtis, then it's another matter. You must carefully read the document you yourself quote.

Also, Tali and Ihantala wasn't "the name of a battle" for the Russians, these were merely villages and towns on their advance route towards the Finnish-Soviet border. When Govorov didn't get a chance to comtinue his attacks, he said to Stalin he could capture Helsinki in two weeks if needed. Stalin didn't approve with that, and ordered re-deployment once again. You know, Govorov actually planned to move 2 rifle divisions of the 45th army across the Vyborg Bay on July 12th, the same day he was order to stop his operations on the Isthmus? Do you know that? If Russians were beaten, why on Earth were they still planning NEW ATTACKS on the Finns???? Koskenkorva (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Gen. Platonov: "repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces failed ... Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks"

Regarding your editing of the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, user Koskenkorva. In your edit summary you state:

"... it was the Soviets' own order that halted the offensive - troops were order to the Baltics".

However, it is wrong for anyone to try to insinuate that the Soviets lost the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, because troops - or a part of troops - had "already" been moved away. The burden of proof of such troop movements is on the contributor who makes the claim.

In the article, the sources given for this claim appear to have been misused. No support for such pre-battle troop movement can be found from the sources offered. Only Soviet troop movements reported are the ones which took place after the Red Army loss in the battle. Thus:

What proof can you provide us of such troop transfers which would have been executed from this battle arena, before the battle took place. We need your detailed source information please - full with the page number of the book in question, as well as the quote which makes such claim.

Furthermore, even if troop movement had taken place, that would not change the fact that the Soviets lost this battle, as it has been correctly stated in the result segment.

The Soviet specialist on the topic, General S.P. Platonov, makes no false excuses for the Soviet loss. In a Soviet period book 'Bitva za Leningrad, 1941-1944', published in the Soviet Union and edited by the General himself, Platonov states the following:

"The repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and in repulsing all attacks of our troops ... During the offensive operations, lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them in the orders of the Supreme Command, issued on June 21."

Which source in your view describes this battle as a "stalemate" ? If you believe such a source exists, we need to review the source in question. Please make sure to provide us with the exact page number and the related quote in question.

If you cannot provide us with such a quote from an appropriate source, please do not revert the result of this battle.

The result will be now reverted back to Finnish victory - and, the Soviet General Platonov's book will be attached as a source for the information. Other sources can be added. 87.93.76.18 (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

In response to the request for verification of the current source, there appears to be no shortage of reliable English-language sources supporting the statement that this was a Finnish victory:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=Bg8drRyDGhEC&pg=PA184&dq=%22Battle+of+Tali-Ihantala%22&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22Battle%20of%20Tali-Ihantala%22&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=p58vtOKyVy8C&pg=PA14&dq=%22Tali-Ihantala%22&as_brr=3&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22Tali-Ihantala%22&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=Dh6jydKXikoC&pg=PA467&dq=Ihantala+battle&as_brr=3&cd=3#v=onepage&q=Ihantala%20battle&f=false

If someone feels these sources are necessary, they can be cited in the article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Of course it was a tactical victory... and strategic disaster for the Finns. Mannerheim writes in lengths that he used all available reserves, leaving his left flank in East Karelia naked (where Karelian front captured Petroskoi and crossed 1939 borders, advancing up until 9 august). So Finnish army exhausted it's ability to hold off the Russians, and that is why Finns signed the armistice. --Tbma (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Article also creates a false image, that because of that battle Soviet forces were moved to another fronts. Those transitions were in fact planned, because the Finnish theater was of secondary importance (Mannerheim), and much more important advances were planned in Belorussia and Baltics. Russians just pushed Finns off the way, and continued to the main direction (the same way they did in Kurlandia with the remnants of Army Group North). --Tbma (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that Leningrad Front's offensive which was supposed to continue a fair bit further failed to do so and that Karelian Fronts 7th Army's offensive was stopped short of reaching its goals as well and the forward divisions of 32nd Army were soundly beaten it doesn't seem like Finnish army had exhausted its ability to hold off the Soviets. More like Soviets had exhausted themselves trying to break Finnish defenses after their initial successes despite of moving additional troops into the Isthmus after June 20 (the 59th Army). Leningrad Front was ordered to keep attacking toward much further targets (orders #120 and #121 - Ставка ВГК. 1944-1945 гг. Том 16 (5-4) doc). Battle of Tali-Ihantala started on the June 25th. It ended (nominally, small scale actions continued) on July 9th. Soviet troops assault troops (what was left of them - some PoW (not exactly reliable source, i know) accounts tell regiments (probably just some of them) of the 30th Guards Rifle Corps in Isthmus were down to roughly 100 men from the original 2200) were pulled back and moved south starting on mid July ie. only after it had become clearly obvious that Soviet strength in Isthmus was not enough to force another breakthrough. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that Leningrad front did not reach it's stated objectives, which where 50-60km behind Ihantala (not Helskinki of course). But Karelian front did continue after that: Karhumäki was taken on 23 june, Olonets on 25, Vitele on 27 june, Pertozavodsk (Pertoskoi) on 28 june etc. - already after "Tali-Ihantala". The numbers are also greatly overinflated; "USSR and Russian wars in XX century" [2] gives 200 000 men total on Karelian isthmus, which actually a close match to Soviet 1944 TO&E for two armies (you can look at them for example here [3]). The same goes for losses, which are a close match for total loses of two armies on the whole Karelian isthmus for the whole operation. In no way that would happen on the 7km wide front. That gives of course gross over-inflation of Tali-Ihantala importance. So if the Finns won, why did they continue to lose Finnish territory in Eastern Karelia, and why they did not counter attack? Why did they sign the armistice? --Tbma (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes they did manage to capture Karhumäki later on but Karelian front was also stopped short of reaching its goals on the Finnish 'U'-line (battle of nietjärvi) and at battle of ilomantsi. But i fail to understand what does Finnish victory over units of Leningrad Front has to do with advances of Karelian front?

Also are you aware that for one reason or another that link you provided (to Krivocheyev's data) is missing the losses Leningrad front suffered after the June 20 (STAVKA order confirms that LF did continue ops after that) - it also omits the 59th Army from its listing (as that was shipped to Isthmus after June 20). So the data does not cover the whole operation. Why Krivocheyev did cut the casualties and strength listing at June 20 is in a way understandable (first phase of the LF op was completed), but why he did not include the data (strength and casualties) from the rest of the offensive (2nd and planned 3rd stage of LF) is not. Please do note that Tali-Ihantala events happened after the Krivocheyev's data 'cuts out'. They are not included in Krivocheyev's listing - neither are casualties from the battle of Tienhaara, or the crossing attempt of Vyborg Bay or the battle of Äyräpää/Vuosalmi - which all happened after June 20 and were fought by units and formations of Leningrad Front.

Finns had tried to sign armistice or peace with Soviets since 1943. What happened in the battles of 1944 or in failed soviet bombings of Helsinki had no real effect on that intent. They probably did (quite likely) have an effect on the timing of the events as well as on the terms of the treaty. But they did not suddenly push Finns into ceasefire - they had tried to achieve that for nearly a year at that point. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where did you get the "goal was finnish U-line" from. I did not find any russian sources about that, and if anyone would say the 7th army goals, it would be russian sources first, right?

Finnish left flank was weakened by the troops transfer to the Karelian isthmus. Immediately after front stabilized there on 20-21st june - Karelian front started it's offensive. Not sure what 59th army has to do with any of this, because it was in reserve, and did not play any part of those battles. It's operated on islands only. As I understand Krivosheev based his data on name-by-name hospital lists, if 59th was in reserve probably it was not using front line hospitals. In any case losses on islands were minor afaik, and cannot change resulting numbers much.

Also not sure from which sources you get 20th june losses cut-off date.

Any cease fire or armistice needs just two things, general will to sign it and mutually accepted terms. So what are you saying is that Finns had a general will to sign it since 1943, but terms offered were not acceptable for USSR. That is why I disagree that all those battles affected "timing only". They are certanly affected armistice terms also, i.e. was or was not Finland accepting itself as a losing side of the conflict. --Tbma (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Soviet goals (assuming STAVKA order for Karelian Front can not be found) can somewhat be deducted from the STAVKA orders issued to Leningrad Front where it defines clear operational boundaries for both fronts - unless it was intention for the Karelian Front to reach that line then why would it have been defined in such accuracy. It could also be assumed that town of Sortavala was the main goal of Karelian Front as that was important transportation hub - both to rear of the Finnish troops on the Isthmus as well as directly deeper into Finland. Also or alternative disruption and disorganization in support of Leningrad Front's offensive could be taken as one - which apparently didn't work as both Leningrad Front and Karelian Fronts offensives were either stopped or (in Ilomantsi) driven back. In any case Karelian Front seemed (as i haven't seen their orders) to have failed to accomplish any reasonable goals they could have received. But granted that remains unverified.

Leningrad Front continued (well tried to - repeatedly, at heavy cost) after June 20 all the way until mid July. Are you claiming that repulsed Soviet attacks against Finns (which were all made under Leningrad Front command in the Karelian Isthmus - proven by the STAVKA command i linked above) as well as Germans (Kuhlmey and 122nd Div) caused 0 casualties? Because Krivosheyev's list makes clear that it does not include Leningrad Front losses after June 20. 59th Army took part in landing operations in Vyborg Bay and took casualties in there. It was not reserve formation. Read from these discussions Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk_Offensive. Krivosheyev's omits data according to his owm admission (as the cut off date in his data is for Leningrad Front operations was set to June 20 - while operations continued until mid July).

Don't forget that final armistice agreement was not as harsh as the Soviet demands of Spring 1944. And also the Soviet surrender demand issued in June ~20 was summarily (both before and after SU claimed it was not an unconditional surrender demand) rejected by Finns. Agreement on the armistice was made only as late as in September well over a month after the Soviet offensive was stopped. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess we do agree both then, that Karelian front not meeting it's goals is a speculation. The same goes for talks about Krivosheev errors until there are no another sources or citations provided. Krivosheev actually makes another error calling Leningrad front right flank, and Karelian front left flank. But they look that way only to the Finns, not if you look from the russian side.

I do remember the dates, and also statements about secondary importance of the offensive (i.e. planned transfer of troops to the Baltics) in the same source that you've cited above. The only goals that I could find in any sources stated "push Finnish forces back from the Leningrad" and "initiate Finland exit" from the war. As I understand both of those were reached, and by September SU had much more important offensive to deal with - Bargation op. with 2.4 million of troops committed. --Tbma (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. 1) STAVKA orders define Karelian front goals as liberating Sortavala, reaching 1940 border and preparing to advance deeper into the central Finland. 2) There is no Krivosheev errors at the time he includes in his calculations. The only error he does is that he stops counting the casualties of the Leningrad front at June 20 as he himself states in his tables. This interpretation is valid, as elsewhere he uses the same date notation to indicate fronts starting and leaving the offensives. (For example 2nd Belorussian leaving East Prussian offensive and starting right away Pomeranian offensive even as the same time Baltic fronts continue East Prussian.) 3) It is not an error, as it was the right flank of the Leningrad Front and the left flank of the Karelian Front. 4) STAVKA orders specify very clearly the targets of the offensive. And this (as well as casualties) are discussed already (several times) at Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk_Offensive#Stavka_orders and in fact the whole talk page of Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk_Offensive. --Whiskey (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

1) not really, if you are using sources used by Wanderer602. The goals stated were to "continue advancing in a direction of Sortavala". Other than that Sortavala is not mentioned in STAVKA docs, and "central Finland" is not there. 2) Now you are trying to interpret and speculate on Krivosheev errors and stating that some errors are correct while another are errors. 3) 4) the same.

Nope. I only say that Krivosheev is correct in his and his group's writings. I only read his tables consistently at the way they are written. It is you who claim that there is an error in his tables where he writes that Leningrad front casualties are not between June 10 and June 20 but instead between June 10 and August 9. It is you who claim there is an inconsistency in his handling of Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offensive and East Prussian/Pomeranian offensives. I find it very peculiar to claim that the STAVKA order, with all location names and dates do not say what is written to that order.--Whiskey (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case all russian losses are pure speculation, the same thing as with tanks and sp.guns losses below. I could not find the discussion about STAVKA order #122 (23 june), the only one mentioning Sortavala. (there is another one #278, but it's post-armistice). If you have any real STAVKA order numbers, related to that, I would be happy to discuss it.--Tbma (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Not pure speculation. Manninen used Soviet military casualty reports (not some hearsay or Finnish estimates) for fill the gap which was present in Krivosheyev's data. Though his data is slightly biased to have slightly higher amount of WIAs at the cost of KIAs - as some WIAs ended up KIAs in after they 'left' the unit roster for hospitals - it is the best data available (and it is not speculative data).

And regarding the Sortavala.. Well they never reached it - not even close. Karelian Fronts offensive was stopped at U-line (see Battle of Nietjärvi).

As for the fronts and their flanks... Leningrad Front extended all the way from some point south of St. Petersburg to the line mentioned in the STAVKA order. Its right flank was facing the Finns on the Isthmus and left flank was facing Germans (and Balts) in the Estonia/southern coast of Bay of Finland). Karelian front however reached all the way north from there (though iirc at one point there was an arctic front there as well..) with its left flank facing Finns north of lake Ladoga and its right flank facing Germans north of the Finnish-German operational boundary. So the offensive against the Finns had on its left flank the right flank of the Leningrad front and on its right flank the left flank of the Karelian front. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Google books sources stated in the article are even funnier than that. One calls it "defensive victory" [4] and states 300 tanks destroyed, second one [5] 600 tanks already (thats 75% of all tanks used by both fronts) :) but just a "victory", third one [6] "decisive defensive victory" and "history major armor battle" but does not provide any numbers. I wonder it it was 1200 tanks lost based on this trend. All of those full of speculations about losing Helsinki etc. That is some science. --Tbma (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, your description how armstice was reached is faulty, because there is always two sides making the deal. In truth both Soviets and Finns wanted to made deal before summer 1944 but unfortunately they couldn't agree on the terms. At February/March 1944 they were quite close, and there were only two sticking points: An amount of reparations and the timetable of German withdrawal. During the negotiations Paasikivi explained to Molotov that demanded reparations were too high and Finns couldn't intern Germans as quickly as demanded. At that time Molotov refused to alter these demands. Six month later both of these points were amended and the treaty was signed.--Whiskey (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tbma, if you are not schooled in military tremolgy, pls dont make up your own unacademic vocabulary to replace your lack of credible sources. Tell me why its not to beconsider a Decisive Finnish Victory when the Finnish army manged to destroy over 40% of all the tanks the Soviet hade on Karelian Isthmus at Tali-Ihantal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.237.134.146 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide reliable sources stating 40% of tanks destroyed on 7km wide front, and any "academic sources" calling Tali-Ihantala "decicive" without S? --Tbma (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Krivosheev here [7] for example states 294 tanks and sp. guns lost during the whole 61 day of operaions. --Tbma (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't really comment on that. It might contain similar error like the rest of the Krivisheyev's data regarding the offensive. Also it is possible that SU did not list armored vehicles that were fit to be repaired as 'lost' (any idea about this) as AFAIK it was not that uncommon for armor to be repaired even if it had been a 'combat loss'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Tali-Ihantala belonged to the Soviet Union in 1941-1944 but were occupied by Finland

I see that my change of the location in the info box has been reversed. Once again, Tali and Ihantala were parts of the territory in 1944, these places became part of the Soviet Union according to the Moscow Peace Treaty of March 12, 1940 (see the map in the linked article which in red colour shows the areas that Finland lost in that War). Juridically that territories still were Soviet property, even when re-occupied by Finland in 1941. Between 1941 and 1944 this was occupied Soviet areas held by Finnish troops. Accordingly to this, we never speak of Battle of Kiev (1943) as "Kiev, Germany". The info box in that article says "Kiev, USSR", even if the city was held by German troops between 1941 and 1943. I will change the info box in our article accordingly, so please don't change this information. Koskenkorva (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"he area of Tali and Ihantala was Finnish territory before winter war(1939) so it is totally irrelevant to compare it to German occupied Kiev. Finland only tried to invade back the land lost in USSR offensive agreed in Molotov Ribbentrop agreement made by USSR and Germany in the beginning of the WWII in 1939. Here is a link to a map of Finland in the beginning of WWII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winterwar-december1939-soviet-attacks.png) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.119.34.83 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Soviets broke such agreement, when it attacked Finland, starting on June 22, 1941 - the major Soviet offensive taking place on June 25, 1941. 87.93.76.18 (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please also remember that Finlad officially annexed the lost territories of 1940 back into Finland in 1941. The Western Powers allied with Soviet did accept the reinstatement of 1939 borders, however not the further advance into Remote Karelia. It lead to war declarations from the Britain and the Commonwealth which had a weaker position towards Soviet than US. The United States Secretary of State, Cordell Hull did congratulate the Finnish envoy on 3 October 1941 for the liberation of Karelia but warned Finland not to go in to Soviet territory. Due to the conditions of war, the Western Powers, especially US, accepted the Finnish annexation of its lost territories as lawful. The native population was also given rights to return to their homes in the territories. Therefore it is fully correct to refer to the areas as Finnish until at least the armistice of 1944 under the provisional de facto terms. Full acceptance however based on Paris peace in 1947. The Soviets did also treat the 1944 armistice terms, and later 1947 peace as a new land treaty.

I find it unbelievable how someone can call this a "decisive Finnish victory". What exactly did the Finnish win? Certainly not more favourable peace terms. They were in all essentiality the same as the Soviets demanded for over a year before the battle.62.182.6.136 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Finnish defensive victory" means, that the Finns pushed back the war-opening 1941 Soviet attack, then held the Soviets behind the pre-war (1940) border until the final moment of the war, and until the Soviets agreed to give up the demand for Finnish surrender.

At no point of the war - in addition to its war-initiating attack - could the Red Army cross the pre-war Finnish-Soviet border. In the final battle in Ilomantsi the Red Army made its most successful attempt. However, - in the end - two Red army divisions were decimated there, as the Soviets were pushed back. 87.93.76.18 (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What did the Finns achived?, well they stopped an Soviet offensive who had Helsinki as final goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

POV discussion

Seen removal of soviet sources in article, and I think we should discuss it here. As far as soviet and russian historiography is concerned - none of this ever happened. No 150 000 men shoulder to shoulder advancing on 7km wide front, no hundreds of destroyed tanks. Only overinflated Finnish propaganda. --Tbma (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe i put a NPOV on the article about Moscow, i havent see it so it can not exsist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.234.124 (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles and books about Moscow in many languages and by many authors. It is hard to find any mentioning of Tali-Ihantala except in Finnish sources or by Finnish authors. In Russian sources it is not mentioned at all. --Tbma (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Therefore it the article is based almost solely on Finnish POV, Russian POV is not reflected. Which is far from neutral. --Tbma (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Russian have been silent of this battle due to their great loss, but we use Platonov a Soviet lieutenant-general who writings fairly well fits to the Finnish view of the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Platonov writes about attacks on VKT line as a whole, not about Tali-Ihantala specifically, so this point is void. The same goes on in about every other book i've read. Other than that - requests for deeper verification has been removed, and any other sources has been removed as well. I don't see any NPOV in this article. --Tbma (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Idont care if you (YMB29?) dont see any NPOV or not,

This article has been verified by lots of book, and I have about 5x times more literature in this subject confirming the event. Actually this is not the main problem, you have to search for reason in your disagreement in your own psychic (post-soviet neurosis?.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You want to fill WP with fantasies and fairy tales - it is nobody's problem. But why should the readers of the WP suffer for that daydreaming? And please restrain your personal attack here. --Tbma (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeehh,, haha, and the picture of destroyed Soviet tank? And the first count account from the war veterans? I think you have to make a reality check.

But where are pictures of 300 or 600 destroyed tanks? Pictures of hundred thousands of advancing Russian troops maybe? I am sure that was easy to take, since 150 000 people on 7 km front would make 20 lines of densely packed troops. No such pictures? Single destroyed tank there and there does not make hundreds of them. It is easy to find a destroyed tank picture for every other battle, that does not necessary makes every single clash a biggest battle in a history. --Tbma (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because you seem to lack knowledge about Soviet warfare in 1944 don't give right, in the battle Soviet units consist of among other 14 divisions, 3 armoured brigades,840 artillery pieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I know enough about Soviet 1944-45 warfare to say that numbers are grossly incorrect and exaggerated, and go against Soviet combined arms doctrine arrived in 1943. Those armies were not tailored for the goals, that article claims they were going to do. The numbers you are citing are for the whole western side of VKT line. That is hundreds of kilometers long. In no way that whole number could participate in discussed battle. --Tbma (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

VKT-line appears to be that long. However the line run - after the loss of Viipuri - along extensive waterway network (both Vuoksi and Viipuri) which severely limited troop deployments. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And what's your source for the numbers being "grossly incorrect"? Nazhin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

STAVKA documents cited above. Soviet combined arms doctrine is in detail discussed in "August Storm" by David Glantz, where you can find numbers, tactics, and standard areas of operation for soviet armies and divisions of the period. --Tbma (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats no argument, You dont prove anything. Ex: The following Soviet Division was involved in the Tali-Ihantala battle the 30 June-1 July, identified and located: 358, 314,,172,372,90,46, 45gd,63gd, 64gd, 72, 286, 168, 269,does Glanz disapprove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

1st - Identified by who? Where are those numbers come from? There are no independent NPOV sources, just Finnish authors. 2nd - Glantz discusses general doctrine and numbers. IN no way he would discuss a battle of huge scale happened only in minds of Finnish scholars. --Tbma (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you any sources who contradicts this? My grandfather was there him self, do you call him a liar? We have come to an end in this discussion, there is no further point pushing this, its We who have the high ground in in sources and facts, you have absolute no valid argument and your are only lead by your neo-fascist Russian nationalism. Its petty that a great country like Russia is such a dwarf when its comes to handling its own history.

If you still persist in your childish view, you are welcome to take the mater to WP:NPOVN. BTW you have just proven an old Finnish saying " A Russian is A Russian even if you fry him in butter" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You are continuing to discuss me, instead of discussing the article, and that is of no interest to me. As I understand that your have no other arguments, - I don't see a point of continuing this discussion. I will return the {{POV}} and {{Disputed}} tags, as admin have recommended and wait for couple of days for more reasonable editors. If that will not happen - I will certainly arise WP:NPOVN request. --Tbma (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any opposing Soviet/Russian sources on the strength or identities of the Soviet forces that took part on the Leningrad Front's 21st army's offensive after June 20? There are several Soviet/Russian sources which agree that Tali-Ihantala (or in other words Soviet 21st Army battles) took place (Platonov, Morozov). - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes please raise your question at WP:NPOVN so we can have swift end to this long running bad Russian farce who stopped being funny a long time ago when you where YMB29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Source for this battle [8]

There are sufficent sources (english language) to conviince me that this battle happened.Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Battles happened along all VKT line and there are numerous sources about that. But the actual factuality, and numbers portraying the scale of Tali-Ihantala differs from one book to another so greatly, that indicates high amount of speculation. All requests for further sources, and all links to the books questioning the importance of that front (and therefore questioning huge numbers of involved troops) has been removed from the article. --Tbma (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about, most of the VKT where quiet for example Taipale and most was covered by impassible river, making Tail-Ihantala the best point to breach the line as was shown during the winter war and during the Finnish liberation of Karelia 1941. This home made claim of you that "Battles happened along all VKT line and there are numerous sources about that." Shows that you lack basic knowledge and are not fit to edit this article on facts.Posse72 (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This charade has been going long enough and must have an end now, if Tbma don't provide any reliable source for his claim or specify his criticism of the source the NPOV and dispute tag must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

For example Kantakoski, Pekka (1998) (in Finnish). Punaiset panssarit - Puna-armeijan panssarijoukot 1918-1945 (Red tanks - the Red Army's armoured forces 1918-1945). - Gives exact soviet forces there as following armored units: 30th Guards tank brigade, 27th tank regiment, 124th tank regiment, 27th Guards "Breakthrough" tank regiment, 260th Guards "Breakthrough" tank regiment and 1 Assault gun regiment. - that gives total only 199 tanks, if those units were at full strength. Which is far less then even losses stated in the article. He also mentions that total involved Soviet troops were 60-70 000 - that again is more than twice less than stated in the article. Sources used in article give either 300 or 600 of tanks lost (speculation!) - which is also 2-3 times greater than number of all tank losses for all armies for all fronts in Pertosavodsk-Vyborg op in Russian books. The article shamefacedly states losses as 300+ - speculation again, instead of simply "unknown". --Tbma (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles are written upon sources, the only one speculating is you, this is the same Russian habits as in all articles like how many where murdered in Katyn?, How many perished in Gulag? How many tank where lost in Kursk. I cant help that you dont trust Finnish sources, but together with what you have written here earlier you dont have much creddit.

Kantakoskis book covers the Soviet armoured in whole Soviet during 1918-1945 and should not by any mean be seen a a prim source for Tail-Ihantal battle. BTW his research fail to identify many of the armoured units in Karelia 1944. Prim sources are Manninen and Kosikmaa who rehearsed the main subject both with high academic skill.

Your tags will be removed soon if you dont come up with better facts.Posse72 (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So you are agreeing that factual details are controversial, and prefer one sources over another. I don't know anything about Kosikmaa and his academic importance, but I see that the article based on his works is already a laughing stock of the Internets. Please refrain from personal attacks in the comments on me again, I did not say a single nationalistic word yet. If you continue - I will issue you another warning and see if admins can do something to stop you. Until details of the article will remain controversial - please leave tags in place. --Tbma (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Laughing stock according to you? or www.Sovietempire.ru? Koskimaa was the head of Finnish military academy. All your edits are highly nationalistic. Nothing is controverial in the article, its just you provoking.Posse72 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum, and I don't wish to discuss me here. I wish to discuss the article. If you are unable to do that - I don't see what we can discuss. --Tbma (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Show me who misstrust Koskimaa? The Putinyouth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that are you talking about. What Putinyouth? --Tbma (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Section break

You are saying the battles happened along all of the VKT line. In this case you should notice that Soviet 59th Army was responsible for the operations in the bay of Viipuri and that 23rd army was responsible for the whole front reaching from Vuosalmi (Äyräpää) to the lake Ladoga. Most of the front - in 23rd army's area of operations, if measured in kilometers of front - was held by the troops of fortified regions (gun and machine gun divisions) on the south/west bank of Vuoksi waterway. In addition as User:Posse72 said Taipale was quiet, as was the Valkjärvi/Kiviniemi crossing. Fighting (well there were some small scale fighting on other sections but no major operations) that took place happened on three specific spots. One area was the region starting from Viipuri and reaching east from there to Vuoksi (which includes Tienhaara as well as Tali and Ihantala). It held the most 'armor friendly' terrain in the line. That area was responsibility of 21st Army. In area west from this is bay of Viipuri where 59th Army fought and was responsible for and from east of it is Vuosalmi where 23rd army fought and was responsible for.

In other words all that 21st Army was responsible for was Tali-Ihantala region. Even if there was fighting elsewhere on the VKT line (and given the extensive waterways it was impossible for there to have been battles 'along all of the VKT line') it wouldn't have been 21st Army's issue.

AFAIK problem with Soviet strength on the Tali-Ihantala area is just the lack of Soviet/Russian literature of the issue. Even Krivosheyev's data manages to ignore the losses and strength of Karelian Front after June 20. What is known that 21st Army threw several (pretty much all of its) army corps into Tali-Ihantala but failed to break through. I do not have actual division numbers at hand (or the numbers of assisting separate armored and artillery formations) but Karelian Front's 21st Army used at Tali-Ihantala 4 rifle corps (97th, 108th, 109th, and 110th) and three division (45th Guards, 63rd Guards, 64th Guards) strong 30th Guards rifle corps. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the armored losses.. Finns counted all immobilized and abandoned tanks as kills in addition to tanks blown to bits (combat loss vs true loss). It is entirely possible that same tank would have been 'killed' several times by Finns in different engagements. In 21st Army Soviets had - according to [9] - one armor brigade (~60 combat vehicles), 5 separate tank regiments, 5 SPG regiments (assume each with ~20 combat vehicles) and 1 armored battalion (presumably 10 tanks). And you get roughly ~300 (270) tanks available for the 21st Army and also therefore available for Tali-Ihantala. Its not impossible (though there might be some overhead) for the Finns to mark 300 as combat losses for the Soviets from that number (most were probably repaired and returned to duty) as the battle lasted some 20 days and Soviet units presumably got resupplied. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If those are estimates, then it should be said in the article - "300 estimated" or "claimed". And those are all estimates and claims - because as You know yourself this battle is completely ignored by Soviet side. Not only any that, but also many people who should have been mentioned it - ignore it (as it never happened) in their books. So all the Finnish authors do - is to continuing to inflate the myth of gigantic scale battle, that happened on a secondary importance front. Because they don't have any real numbers. --Tbma (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As Soviet troops advanced (and even in Tali-Ihantala in the end most of the battleground was in Soviet hands) most of the wrecks and disabled and/or abandoned tanks were within Soviet lines so Finns were unable to confirm their status. Its the same issue everywhere.

Soviet/Russian choice to ignore it is their own problem. Battle in which one side had 5 rifle corps (97th, 108th, 109th, 110th and 30th Guards) with combined 14-15 infantry divisions (with Soviet avg div. being ~7 000 men that gives us ~ 100 000 men in infantry alone) supported by at least 300 tanks and several artillery brigades and regiments is not a small one (and it seems that force estimate of 175 000 for the 21st army is not that far of as it first might appear).

Battle might not appear large compared to the other operations but it should be noted that it was of pretty much the same scale as the Normandy landings. And it was the largest single engagement fought in the Northern Europe. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Many battles have probloms with both OB's and casualties (for example d-day) but no one would claim that means that d-day never happened. At teh end of the day there are many sources that confirm this battle happeened, if there are probloms wioth details then we have a full coverage of the discrepancies we do not delete the page.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to add that the number of armored units i listed does not yet include the units included to the offensive from the Leningrad Front reserves (for example Soviet 1st armor brigade participated to Tali-Ihantala). Also some of the divisions of the reserve formations were attached to the active front line units for the offensive (for example Finnish books mention that 59th army tried to cross bay of Viipuri with 124th and 224th rifle divisions). All this adds to the difficulty of getting an accurate count of units and vehicles. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What reserves have to do with the numbers? Why not to include all Soviet army reserves - there were a lot of those. Soviet books mentioned that 23th army actually crossed Vyoksa and held land until the armistice, that is why I was saying the battles happened along all VKT line. The 59th army involvement was noted only on island. --Tbma (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Reserves are relevant as some of those were 'activated' and used in the attacks (identified at least by Finnish (radio) intelligence). And i wont be claiming that all Leningrad Front reserves would have taken part in battles on the Isthmus or in specifically in the battle of Tali-Ihantala. And yes, Soviet 23rd Army did eventually cross the Vuoksi at Battle of Vuosalmi but it was unable to continue from the small (7 km x 2 km) bridgehead it had gained. Soviet 59th Army did (try to do) more than take the few islands (Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944)) in the bay of Viipuri. It took from the 59th Army four days to clear the few islands and then on July 8 they tried to land on the opposite side of the bay only to run into fresh if understrength German 122nd division which promptly drove the landing troops back into the bay. But most of the VKT line (the Tali-Ihantala as well as Vuosalmi were fought on rather short or narrow area of the front) remained fairly calm. Depending on the historian in question the battles in questions are considered to be something from three separate engagements, to Vuosalmi and Viipuri bay being described as diversions for Tali-Ihantala, and eventually to Viipuri bay as being described as diversion for the Tali-Ihantala and Vuosalmi as the last desperate attempt to gain breakthrough (there probably are additional theories and combinations as well). What seems to be generally agreed is that all three took place, all three happened on relatively narrow strips of the front, and that all three happened separate (geographically) from the other each other. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Tbma own original research

First Tbma only a few days after calling this whole article a hoax has fund a new sources to breakdown this article to crap.

First he claims the Soviet had preplanned its withdraw from the front, but Finnish sources who is supported by POW interview, intellegnce data and Otho Manninen extended archives research in SOviet/Russian archives have pinpointed exactlly witch Soviet units where pressent in the battle and when they left.

What we now for certaint is: The composistion of the Soviet major combat formations where pressent, they Soviet was reinforced by 100 tanks and SPG before the battle, and during the battle 21 Soviet army sent more of its formation in to the battle.

This contradics any statment of withdraw to other fronts or the redicules low figure as only 60000 Soviet red army men.

What about Tbma sources?

The Sources of 60000 men from "Punaiset panssarit - Puna-armeijan panssarijoukot 1918-1945" is by no mean to be seen as a final statment over the battle as the book is abour red army tank, and just uses a few phrases on the Tali-Ihantala battle.

On the "withdraw" is issue i cant find the first source, where does this article support this???:under ed. Zolotarev V.A. (1999). Russkij arkhiv: Velikaya Otechestvennaya. STAVKA VGK: Dokumenty i materialy 1944-1945. [Russian Archive. The Great Patritic War. STAVKA. Documents and materials 1944-45]. Moscow: Terra. p. 97. ISBN 5-300-01162-2. The second : ^ Vasilevsky, Aleksandr (1978). Delo moyei zhizni [The point of my life]. Moscow: Politizdat. p. Does in NO WAY support TBMA case and i wonder why its even there? The third:^ N.I. Baryshnikov (2006). "Fenomen falshi: "Pobeda v protivostoyanii. Finskaya istoriografiya o zavershayushchikh boyakh leta 1944 g. s sovetskimi voyskami" [The fenomen of lies: The victory in the confrontation. Finnish historiography about final battles of summer "-is so vauge in deatails that it contradicts with deatailed sources like Manninens on the event but gives no fact like witch units was withdraw? when where they withdrawn? The value of this text is very poor, and if it should be in the text it should be moved down to section like Russian neofacist view of the battle. Posse72 (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Tbma sources doen not support his claim! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop talking about me, you are going to be punished for personal attacks again. As fot the sources - all this stuff is easy to check. --Tbma (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather interested in the claim of 60 000 men. As 21st Army used pretty much all the available forces in Tali-Ihantala region that would mean that 14 Soviet divisions (of which 3 guards divisions) would have avg strength of ~ 4 300 men - and that is by discounting all armor and artillery. Given that formations used in the Karelian Isthmus had prolonged training and R&R period before the offensive it would be rather surprising that they wouldn't be filled to at least 7 000 like - AFAIK - most Soviet divisions (for example the divisions in the Karelian Front's 32nd army were at level) in R&R. Do you have archival sources which state the strength as 60 000? - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And yes... Soviets had planned to withdraw some of their forces to support the Operation Bagration in end of the July 1944. It may have contributed to the Soviet failure at Tali-Ihantala by forcing Soviet commanders to rush their attacks sooner than what would have been preferable. However Soviet plans called for troops be at Kymijoki or even further at that point. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

At least we agreed on something there, and that will help to portray the full picture in the article. About 60 000 men - Shigin's book which trans_title (I cannot put it in the article anymore) is "Battle for Leningrad: Major operations, unexplored spots, losses" - is talking how understaffed the divisions on (page 270) were and gives max strength of the division as 4000-5000 men. --Tbma (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't say i have seen 60 000 claimed anywhere though.. I have seen claims of 100 000 and 86 000 both as well as the 150 000. Not saying it couldnt be possible if LF was unable to rebuild the units like KF did (the two divisions involved in Ilomantsi had at June 20 combined strength of ~ 16 500) - or if the units suffered casualties along the way. It is known though that some of the 21st Army's Army Corps were set to R&R before Tali-Ihantala (and some claims are that they would have been reinforced at that time as well). Not really sure what are the true values on those - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really a proper way of doing this but at least this is something (from Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive)... Using the Krivosheyev's data [10] on the Leningrad Fronts Vyborg offensive we get the combined strength of 21st & 23rd Armies (and their supports) after the June 20 as 188800 - 30029 ~ 158800. Also it is known that on June 21 there were (7 or) 8 army corps on Isthmus (30th guards, 6th, 97th, 98th, 108th, 109th, 110th, 115th) in 21st and 23rd Armies combined of which 5 took part in Tali-Ihantala (30th guards, 97th, 108th, 109th, 110th). Which by crude comparison and even if assuming that no reinforcements were available would give something along (158800 * 5/8) or ~ 99 000 as the 'slice' of the total strength 'involved' in Tali-Ihantala. Though as the total numbers most likely included 2 fortified regions the actual number is probably somewhat smaller (the 86 000 might be quite close). However all this is by assuming that units were no resupplied or reinforced. But this is already bordering too much on the OR to fit in here unless some accurate sources for the numbers can be gained. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Though not strictly strength related but Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk_Offensive#Quotes could prove some insight into the issue. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For the defense/withdrawal - 1st reference is the STAVKA directives, and on page 97 is a directive from 21st june is talking about goals for the Leningrad front. "First to take Imatra-Lapperanta-Virojoki. Then try to advance to Kouvola-Kotka and then switch to defense on east bank of Kymi river. Support the main forces from the north". Vasilevsky, who was in STAVKA during the planning stage of this operation is literally repeating the above directive, and then writes - "and then hold on Karelian isthmus, switch there to defense and focus all the attention on Estonia". 3rd reference on professor Baryshnikov's work that cites the above references and also talking about goals of the operation. --Tbma (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Leningrad Front never succeeded advancing towards Imatra-Lappeenranta-Virojoki line - though they tried nearly for a month. All attempts (Tali-Ihantala, Vyborg bay, Vuosalmi) were Soviet failures. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course the operational goals were not achieved and there are numerous sources for that (even STAVKA directives talk about it later). But if we talk about strategic goals for the operation - it is not that clear. Vasilevsky for example states that the goal for the whole Vyborg offensive - was a distraction for the German's group North. They were hoping that Nazi's will help Finland and will transfer troops from Estonia. And that will help the main operation, Bagration offensive. And of course - to initiate the Finland's exit from the war. --Tbma (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well as we see the "withdraw issue" have absoultlly no impact on the batte, yes units where to be withdrawn, but the sources pressented by Tbma dosent etiher support this case that this was a major or minor factor in the battle.Posse72 (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources say that transfer of troops was planned, that is all. And they are referenced for that. And that is completely contradicts that transfer started as a result of the battle. No it was not. --Tbma (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So why should it even be in the article? it was a preplaned withdraw? Your source is petty wage and there is sources like Platonov who contradict this, all we know is that after the Finnish artillery achived a stunning defeat of the Soviet army at Ihantala units was withdraw, the rest is just speculationPosse72 (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Because article created a false impression that withdrawal was a result of the battle. About the Platonov's 1964 book - it's a such an old rarity that citing it hardly can be verified, and was written in Soviet times when there was no access to archives at all. And WP is about verifiable sources. Utter speculation - is that stunning effect of the artillery actually. The battlefield was left for the Soviets, so those claims were never actually verified. --Tbma (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The withdraw was a very much a result of the battle, the 21 Army got stuck and needed to rebuild. Platnovs event fit very well with Finnish describtion of the event, that is nothing you can say about your newer sources as forexampel Baryshnikov who is at the oposit. Platonove is deatailed, Baryshnikov is not, Platonov is military historian- Baryshnikov works out of a political contex in order to fit a dogme. The claim that artillery effect was not verified is BS. Intellegence, Radio-survillence, POW, air recon photos, archives reserch by Manninen, and how the strenght of the Soviet offensive ebbed out all confirms that Finnish artillery achived an marklble succes! (or is red army soldiers impregnble to shells?) BTW after the first bombardment a Soviet major capitulated to the Finns with the word "Not even the devil could stand that bombardment. Other Pow said that the Finnish artillery was the worst. Posse72 (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

First, that is a lie, and sources I put there prove that it's a lie. Works of the Baryshnikov are widely accepted, and he is a acknowledged authority on matters surrounding WWII Leningrad battles, much more than Manninen actually. Capitulated majors is another invention of his? Next thing you say would be probably that Finland won a war together with their Nazi allies. --Tbma (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Second, there was no "withdrawal" as you picture it - i.e. no ground was lost to the Finns. Finnish armies even failed to push back 23th army from the northern bank of Vyoksa, or regain lost ground in Tali from the "destroyed" 21st army. Before, during, and after the "Tali-Ihantala" - armies of the Leningrad and then Karelian fronts were in offensive, advancing until early August. --Tbma (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Baryshnikov does have (or rather is considered to have) rather biased views. There are several instances where after the Soviet offensive had ended the Finnish front commanders literally begged for permission to attack but Finnish HQ prevented those. Attacking (or rather not doing so) had at that time become a political issue rather than military issue. Of the 'advancing until early August'... LF fronts advanced very little since June 20. In 3 weeks that followed it managed to capture few islands from the Vyborg bay, advance roughly 10 km in Tali-Ihantala, gain 2 x 7 km size brigehead in Vuosalmi - and it was totally unable to proceed from any of these gains. KF (7th Army) on the other hand stumbled into Finnish U-line in mid July and it pretty much ended their offensive (with final effort in Nietjärvi). On the final Soviet advance of the 32nd army ended up with two Soviet divisions being stopped on July 31 and then barely escaping alive through trackless forest on August 8-9 after being forced to abandon all heavy equipment. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And then again considered biased by whom? I see Posse72 here as one of the main contributors, who's views are not less biased, and built on books of Manninen. As for how big the advance were - I thought you might be interested in two maps, that I've found [11][12] --Tbma (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well... Baryshnikov seems to be mainly repeating old Soviet era rhetorics or otherwise revised and controversial historic stories and seems to be considered to be similar clown like Finnish Juhan Bäckman. And yes, seen both maps several times and i consider them to be very valuable indeed. However they are not in any way contradictory with what i stated above. Though it seems like in both maps Soviets draw the destroyed Mannerheim line in there as well. On Finnish literature they were only two fortified lines the Soviets passed in the Isthmus, the 'main line' (or the front line) and the 'VT' line. 'VKT' line was unfortified and most troops moved to the line started the job by digging trenches and foxholes themselves. There was further back the heavily fortified Salpa line and in Eastern Karelia there was fortified 'PSS' line and the unfortified (pretty much the same state as 'VKT' line) the 'U' line. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My favorit Barysnikov is his claim that the Winter war was a just cause and a preemptive strike on Finland who secretly ploted to attack the peaceloving Soviet. Why Finland would have done this and by witch means (The Finnish army lacked much of everything 1939) is open question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Of the operational goals... From Finnish book.. Whole Soviet offensive was mainly a sideshow intended to draw German attention and reserves. It was planned to proceed in steps, (1) LF offensive to Vyborg, (2) KF offensive to Sortavala and to main Finnish road and railroad network simultaneous with (3) LF offensive to Kymijoki via Virojoki-Lappeenranta line, (4) this was assumed to be enough for Lapland/Estonia based Germans to deploy troops to help the Finns in which case KF would start offensive in the north against Germans in Lapland, (5) LF would press forward as long as is required/it had time. After which fronts would move to defense and offensive troops would be moved to support Operation Bagration. All the phases were intended to be accomplished before the end of July (when the assault troops were to be moved to south). As a whole as Germans deployed only one infantry division, one StuG 'Brigade' (of single battalion strength) and one flight regiment i doubt the offensive 'succeeded' even in diversionary sense, especially as the offensive formations got their fair share of losses as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As for initiating Finnish exit from the war... Finns had tried to exit from the war since 1943. And only (well, so some sources say) dropped the spring 1944 peace treaty by the grounds that the reparations were too excessive and that timetable for driving out Germans was impossible. Essentially stating that Finns would not have been able to fulfill the treaty terms (and this was agreed by Western Allies). After the June 20 (or so) Soviet (un)conditional surrender demand - which the Finns rejected - next proposal was well over a month after the offensive had ended. And then just the two sticking points Finns had had with the earlier treaty were both smoothened out. So it would be rather questionable to claim that the offensive would have had a clear effect on Finland's exit from the war. Finnish dependency on imported food thanks to Soviets having taken 20% of the arable land in Winter War (Germany was the major source - without Swedish support there would have been famine in Finland in winter 1944-45 after German supplies stopped) and the general German weakness (no retaliation) were both extremely important factors affecting the decision. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wanderer602, i agree on everything you write, but also both in old books as Platonov and new one like "Штурм Карельского вала" states that the Soviet armys goal was to destroy the Finnish army, this can of course coop with the geographic goals of the offensive. My belife is that the Soviet army belived the Finnish army reused to old Mannerheim line therefor its very common to read Russian histographs who said that Mannerheimline was breached in 1944 and that Soviet army brook trough 3 Finnish defence lines. This wrong idea i personally belive comes from bad Soviet intellgence in the summer of 1944 This is "my own original reserch", but idont puch it in to the textPosse72 (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

3 lines usually refers to the "main line", "vt-line" and defensive lines around Vyborg. [13] --Tbma (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What is a lie? Pls speciffy as you become to emotionel. The account of the Major who capitulated is from Jukka L Mäkeläs book on the battle, he would certaintlly know this becaus he was an intellegence officer during this battle. Finnsih intellgence rapport is very relible as contradic to Soviet Finnish leader wanted to know what was happning, and not what was political oppurtunity. Secondlly Barysnikov is a "laughing stock" in the whole Nordic contry academia. Just your webb-link shows that.

On the withdraw Issue, 1) on the 22-24 june Soviet tries to break trough att Tienhaara but fails. 2) at Tali-Ihantala SOviet tries to achive a braktrough but fails, using att least 15 divisions, 2 armoured brigades but the fails, in a meare two weeks the achive a 9km deep advance. Finnish artillery concentration finnally takes the aim out of the offensive. FInnish shifts focus to 23rd army who with heavy losses got stuck in a very unfavorble possition. Finnsih send reinforcment from Isthmus to the east and first halts the 7th army, and the the 32nd army. or did the also got "Secret withdraw order" only mentioned by Barysnikov?Posse72 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A lie is that any withdrawal was taking place as a result of "Tali-Ihantala", and "15 destroyed divisions" is a lie as well. As I was saying - no ground was lost, only gained (and there are numerous sources for that). What 15 imaginary divisions exactly, and from what imaginary armies were destroyed exactly and when? --Tbma (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

NO i said the 21 army USED 15 division, not that 15 division was destroyed (thou many Soviet division was heavlly decimated, confirmed by finnish long rang recon patrol), are missinterpetate me on purpose? Yes it was a great Soviet Succes in using 15 divisions( among them The following Soviet Division was involved in the Tali-Ihantala battle the 30 June-1 July, identified and located: 358, 314,,172,372,90,46, 45gd,63gd, 64gd, 72, 286, 168, 269), 2-armoured brigades and sevral other armured units TO achive a break trough of 9 KM in time span of two weeks!, BTW on the 25th of June the 27 Independent Tank regiment was destroyed to its last tank.Posse72 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Noskua vs Ihantala

Something which seems to be quite usually ignored.. The attempt of Soviet 23rd Army's 6th Army Corps (13th & 177th & 382th RD, supported by (not exclusive list) 2 Guards rocket artillery regiments, 3 mortar regiments, 2 AT-gun regiments, a cannon brigade and a regiment, 2 howitzer brigades and 3 armored regiments) to push towards Antrea on the west side of the Vuoksi (between Noskuanselkä and Vuoksi) on 21 to 30 of June (just when Tali-Ihantala was being fought). That is it happened along the line starting from Vyborg and ending to Vuoksi but on east side of 21st / 23rd army operational boundary. Should it be included to the Tali-Ihantala? Or it does it have any 'better' name assuming it would be handled as separate? - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the monologue... As the Tali-Ihantala page lists that Pajari's 3rd Division was part of the Tali-Ihantala then it also sorta requires that Noskua battle would be included to the Tali-Ihantala. Problem lies in that are the values - losses - currently listed only for the 21st Army or for the whole Leningrad Front. That is according to 'Jatkosodan torjuntaisteluja 1942-44' (Raunio, Ari; Kilin, Juri) 23rd Army's 6th Corps had 7 905 casualties between June 21 - June 30 (of which 1458 KIA, 288 MIA). - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested citations...

To date, it is the largest battle in the history of the Nordic countries.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice: p.306: "The fighting which had taken place in the Tali-Ihantala area northeast of Viipuri over a three-week period, is referred to as the largest battle in Nordic history. It ended in a Finnish defensive victory which undoubtedly had its impact on later political developments. The fighting had been carried out successfully against vastly superior enemy and the margin between success and failure had often been razor-thin."

One of the reasons leading to the Soviet failure was that the Finns were able to intercept the Soviet radio messages and to forewarn and prompt the Finnish Army to put up a firmly resolved defense.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice: p. 306: "A Finnish intercept of Soviet radio traffic indicated that several elite guard and tank units were a decisive attack in the direction of Ihantala. The concentrated all the artillery they could lay their hands on - about 250 pieces." .. "The planned Soviet attack was completely frustrated."

At the same time, the Soviet 59th Army attacked across the islands of the Bay of Viipuri from July 4 on, but the attack on the mainland was thrown back to the sea by the 122nd Division of the V AK on July 10.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice, p. 307: "The Soviets successively captured the small islands in the Gulf of Viipuri. The two islands of Teikarinsaari and Melansaari were defended tenaciously by the 22nd Coastal Artillery Regiment beween July 3 and 5, but Soviet' vast superiority eventually prevailed." .. "The Soviet operation was a complete failure as the Germans attacked and repelled the landing force"

Further defensive victories were achieved at the Bay of Viipuri and on the northeast side of Lake Ladoga, and in the Battle of Ilomantsi the Finns were able to encircle two Soviet divisions

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice, p. 299: "General Raappana commenced operations on July 30 and the Finns were able to encircle the two attacking Soviet divisions - the 176th and 289th. The Soviets brought in reinforcements but these were also encircled. Most of the encircled Soviet troops managed to slip out of the trap but had to abandon much of their equipment. General Erfurt claims that four Soviet regiments were destroyed in this action.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice, p. 307: as above regarding the Bay of Viipuri.

On July 12, the Soviet troops received an order to stop their attempts to advance and to dig in. Soon, the Finnish scouts noticed trains with empty trucks advancing towards the city of Viipuri to take troops away from the Finnish front. They were needed for the great push towards Berlin.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice: p. 306 - 307: "On July 13 Marshal Govorov was ordered to transfer five fully equipped divisions to Leningrad because they were needed in southern Russia. Govorov ordered his troops to end their attacks in the Ihantala sector. Finnish intelligence noted that although Soviet strength on the Karelian Isthmus had grown to 26 infantry divisions and 12 to 14 tank brigades, some of the best guard units had begun withdrawing and were being replaced by garrison troops. While Soviet attacks ended northeast of Viipuri, operations in the Bay of Viipuri and at Vuosalmi continued.

In addition to the defensive victory gained at Tali-Ihantala, the Finnish front line held fast at Kivisilta and Tienhaara to the north of the Bay of Viipuri, and at Vuosalmi on the shores of the River Vuoksi.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice: p. 289: The 61st Infantry Regiment, under Lieutenant Colonel Alpo Kullervo Marttinen, arrived at Tienhaara in the afternoon of June 22 and established itself along the shore. German aircraft from Group Kuhlmey carried out bombing attack against the amphibious craft assembled by the Soviets on the other side of the bay. Troops from two Soviets divisions attacked across the bay in the evening of June 22 following a heavy artillery barrage. The attack was repelled but new attempts were made throughout the night.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

POV

The POV tag should remain until this article is more balanced. -YMB29 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also some other issues:

However, Russian histography states the Soviet command never intended to conquer Finland with this offensive. According to Marshall Vasilevsky, already on June 17 it was decided that after taking Vyborg and the Vyborg Bay islands, the offensive would stop at the line Elisenvaara-Imatra-Virojoki (or at most at the Kymi River which was located far beyond the 1940 border), Soviet forces would switch to defense, and the main forces of the Leningrad Front would be concentrated on reconquering Estonia. The goal was to create a threat to Helsinki and other major political and economic centers in Finland. After transferring most of its available forces to the Karelian Isthmus and receiving significant aid from Germany, the Finns managed to slow down and stop the Soviet offensive on the Isthmus before it reached the Finnish border. This boosted the morale of the Finnish troops, who were previously constantly retreating. Some Russian historians claim that Finnish propaganda turned battle into a victory, and that after the war this claim of achieving a victory in stopping the Soviets from conquering Finland became the official theme in Finnish historiography, however this view is not widely supported.

The goals of the offensive are well known and written about by historians outside Russia, like you don't know that...

It is equally known that that the offensive failed by historians outside Russia and Finland - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Like who? We have been through this countless times... -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

For starters... Lunde is neither Finnish or Russian. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Where does he say that the offensive failed? He is not Finnish but he does stick to Finnish sources. -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read through his bibliography section before you make such claims. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok quote the bibliography then... Of course he probably uses sources other than Finnish but to make the conclusions he does he uses Finnish sources (what others can he use? Soviet/Russian or German?). -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are so interested then perhaps you need to actually buy the book, i can't copy all the book here. Lunde uses primarily German sources (such as Ziemke and Erfurt). He does use some Finnish and Russian sources as well but only those translated to English. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This still does not mean that he does not parrot Finnish historiography for his conclusions about the offensive... In the preface section he clearly says that he uses mostly Finnish and German sources, and his use of Russian sources is limited.

And again where does he say that the offensive failed? -YMB29 (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

He actually states that his usage of both Finnish and Russian sources is limited. In the very same section you refer to. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No his use of Finnish sources is not nearly as limited. He mentions books by Finnish authors that are available in English. He also writes that a certain Finn helped him translate Finnish sources that are not available in English and understand the Finnish views on the war. -YMB29 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That is only your deduction and also it happens to be original research on your part. The listed sources include few Finnish and Soviet or Russian sources but are predominantly from elsewhere. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No it is not my deduction. Read the preface section... -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

In preface he states quite clearly that his usage of both Finnish and Russian sources is limited because of the language barrier. You did read the whole of the preface and not just single paragraph? - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No unlike you I read more than that...

Two books by Finnish-Americans, John H. Wuorinen, and Leonard C. Lundin, deserve mention... The most recent work translated into English of which I am aware is that written by the Finnish historian Olli Vehvilainen in 2002... Jukka Juutinen, a Finnish national, has helped with the translation of passages from Finnish sources and answered numerous questions that I had over the past year. By making available Finnish views on various aspects of the war he has made a valuable contribution.

So you still going to deny the obvious? -YMB29 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That still does not mean in way - other than your OR - that he would be writing according to Finnish historiography.

My own difficulty in reading Finnish has served as a limitation on the use of Finnish sources. ... My use of Russian sources has basically been limited to works that have been translate to English.

Clearly he has been limited in using either of Finnish or Russian sources. But again, regardless of those mentions it does not turn his book into Finnish historiography - that part is your OR still. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you have the book... Look at the sources he uses for this battle. Again, him using non-Finnish sources in his book does not make him represent a non-Finnish historiography when it comes to views about this battles or the war. -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And from the citations of the chapter which handles the Soviet summer offensive 1944 we can see he used primarily Ziemke and Erfurt as his sources for that chapter. Non-Finnish sources in other words, your claim of him representing Finnish historiography still remain your own OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No denying that he represents Finnish views when there is a source that states that such views are Finnish is your OR. -YMB29 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-Finnish author using primarily non-Finnish sources and you state he represents Finnish historiography. That is - to say the least - very interesting point of view. I suppose by that logic any sources which contradict the ones you provide are Finnish historiography then? - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok so Lunde represents German historiography when he says that this battle was a Finnish victory, even though he most likely bases this on Finnish sources?? The concept of a Finnish victory is not from Finnish historiography? -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'most likely bases this' part is already your OR as are rest of your conclusions based on that assumption. Unless you have source for it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So the concept of a Finnish victory is from German historiography? You need to prove that. -YMB29 (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually i do not. The proof of burden lies on the one who makes the allegation. You made the allegation that Lunde's work is of Finnish historiography, now you need to prove it, no one else does. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No you are making the claim that he is independent of Finnish historiography and therefore proves Baryshnikov wrong, so you need to find proof of this. -YMB29 (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are claiming that if an non-Finnish historian comes to the same conclusion as Finns then he must be following Finnish historiography even when his list of references (proof against your point) shows that he was using primarily non-Finnish sources. Besides you started with the allegations of him being of Finnish historiography so now you need to provide sources to support that claim. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Read what I wrote again; you are making the claim about him not using Finnish sources for his conclusions. I did prove my point using the preface section. -YMB29 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So far you have not been able to show that he would have been part of Finnish historiography - his preface section clearly states that he had difficulty in using both Finnish and Russian sources so he ended up using mainly other sources. It is all there. The fact that you rely on - a single paragraph which only states that he had some help with Finnish sources - does not mean that his conclusions would have based on the Finnish data. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

He not only got help by getting translations but he also got to know Finnish views. Furthermore, he names specific books by Finnish authors. So your claim that he looked at both Russian and Finnish sources equally and came to his own conclusions is very weak... -YMB29 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not say he looked at them both equally just that he states that his usage of Finnish and Russian sources were both limited. However that does not change the matter, it still does in no way show that he would be using Finnish conclusions. That is your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You are making the claim that he can't represent Finnish views just because he is not Finnish and uses a lot of German sources in his book, so this is your OR. -YMB29 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying he would represent any views. All I'm am saying is that from the book there is no case to claim him to use Finnish historiography for his conclusions. Any such claims are OR and nothing else. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It is OR for you to claim that Baryshnikov is wrong based on that. -YMB29 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can establish a source which proves that those non-Finnish authors used Finnish conclusions without making their own conclusion (regardless if they reach the same conclusion or not) you have nothing but OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Establishing a source is your problem since you try to insert your OR into the article. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No since it was your claim that he would be non-Finnish author(s) had been following Finnish conclusions. Your claim and your burden of proof. You can't set that task for some one else. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You insert your claim into the article so the burden of proof is on you. -YMB29 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You stated that the claim is used by Finnish historians (according to Baryshnikov) - so far nothing wrong - but then you extend it to non-Finnish historians which reach the same conclusion by claiming that they either 'follow Finnish historiography' or 'use Finnish conclusions' - depending on how you got to the result it is OR or SYN in both cases. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Again I only added that after you inserted your OR about Lunde proving Baryshnikov wrong. And Baryshnikov never talks about Finnish historians only. -YMB29 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Lundes work was published after Baryshnikov so it is impossible for Baryshnikov to refer to him. Neither has been there been any proof - apart from your original research - that Lunde would be using Finnish conclusions or making use of solely Finnish sources to reach his conclusions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Again pure OR by you. -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Which part in above? Just because you don't like it is not reason enough for it to be OR - so far all the claims have been yours so also the burden of proof (and seemingly OR) goes with it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You claim that Baryshnikov is wrong based on Lunde. This is your OR and you have to source it. You have to find a source that concludes that Lunde does not follow Finnish historiography and that Baryshnikov is wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

First you haven't found a single source which would state that he would follow Finnish historiography. Second, Baryshnikov's books were published well before Lunde's book so there is no possible way he could be referencing Lunde or his conclusions in any way. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You think Lunde represents something new? He just repeats what was written before... Anyway it is up to you to find a source for your analysis of Baryshnikov, if you want to include it in the article. -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That already is your OR. You depict as if he did not make his own conclusions of what happened - which is OR from your part. You have nothing but original research and original synthesis to prove that his viewpoints would have been influenced by Finnish views. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again you are the one making claims about his views proving Baryshnikov wrong, so stop sounding like a broken record and find some sources. -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not my place to state if Baryshnikov is right or wrong. It is still your original research that Lunde would be using Finnish conclusions - or, when you base it on Baryshnikov's & Lunde's text, original synthesis. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So all you can do is deny your OR and blame me... -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually only OR there is from you so far you haven't been able to show single instance where there would have been OR from my part. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How many times can I quote you? When you are proven wrong, you never admit it...

So where is my OR from the article? -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So far you have proved nothing apart from your 'OR evidence'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OK so again tell me where you see that? -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Every time you imply Lunde would be following Finnish historiography. Or that he would be alone in his views. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting... so when do I do that in the article? -YMB29 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be that difficult for you to locate - given that you have done so repeatedly. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So I take it that you can't find anything... -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In earlier diffs you did so several times. But if its no longer in the article this can be put to rest. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You just noticed that... -YMB29 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually long time ago, but wanted to make clear what was wrong with it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes sure... -YMB29 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Estonia was part of the USSR so reconquering is the wrong word.

Estonia_in_World_War_II#Soviet_return This states is is reconquering. Same as this, Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Attempts_to_restore_independence_and_the_Soviet_offensive_of_1944. Please do face the fact that Soviet occupation of Baltic states was not accepted elsewhere de jure - there still existed legal Estonian government in exile. By pressing that you are already making the article NPOV. Please do not use the term liberated since that is not generally accepted outside Russia (or Soviet propaganda). - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No the claim is Baltic nationalist propaganda... Don't create an offtopic discussion here with your POV. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not propaganda. Term liberated is not used outside Soviet/Russian sources. Since this is English language wiki we should stick with generally accepted term which is 'reconquered'. Neither was Soviet rule of the Baltics accepted de jure. -

And of course you did your own research on this... Offtopic, but this is propaganda. -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The matter has been discussed in quite a depth in the pages related to occupation of the Baltic states. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That means Talk:Occupation of the Baltic States --Whiskey (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that article has been part of many edit wars and arbitration cases. There is so much biased views there... There is no need to bring that into this article. -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Saying "turned battle into a victory" is wrong since the source is not talking only about this battle.

And this is relevant to Battle of Tali-Ihantala in exactly what manner? If you need to state something of the Soviet offensive please stick to the article where such comments belong to. -Wanderer602 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant since it talks about all Finnish claims of "decisive victories", including this battle. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Then it discusses the Fourth Strategic Offensive and not this battle. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No it refers to battles such as this. -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So first you state its not talking of about this battle but now you are saying it is talking of this battle? Could you please make up your mind? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is talking about this and other battles in which the Finns claim "decisive victories". -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Same statement (defensive victory) is provided amongst other by Lunde who is clearly not Finnish. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So what, if he simply repeats Finnish historiography? But what does this have to do with what Baryshnikov writes? -YMB29 (talk)

Since it contradicts what Baryshnikov writes. And is not written by a Finn. It shows that Baryshnikov's comment of the view being limited to Finnish histography alone is false. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No, an author does not have to be a Finn to use Finnish historiography... Or are you suggesting that Lunde represents US historiography? -YMB29 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As discussed above Lunde mainly uses other than Finnish sources. You may not like it but that is how it is. Without reliable sources on your part to state that he follows Finnish historiography that remains your original research. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is your source that he follows US historiography? It does not matter that he uses sources other than Finnish in his book. You saying that his claim of victory in this battle is not based on a Finnish source? I have a reliable source that states that such claims come from Finnish historiography, and that is enough. -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It is only your OR that it would be Finnish historiography. Lunde is not Finnish and according to citations he primarily uses German sources (especially for the section in question). Baryshnikov may state that Finnish historians generally phrase it like that but that does not turn what Lunde wrote into Finnish historiography - that part is 100% your OR, nothing more. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that he does not present Finnish views and that this proves Baryshnikov wrong is OR. -YMB29 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-Finnish historian using predominantly non-Finnish sources. You'll find it rather difficult to prove that it would OR and so far your allegations of it have been nothing but OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

To disprove a reliable source you need another reliable source that explicitly mentions what you are saying. -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point, so Lunde then can not be part of Finnish historiography since he is not Finnish. Unless you have source which explicitly states that Lunde is writing in Finnish historiography, otherwise that claim remains your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is OR by you to claim that he represents a non-Finnish historiography when there is evidence that he does. -YMB29 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And what evidence would that be? That he uses mainly non-Finnish sources makes him a representative of Finnish historiography? - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

See above. -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "not widely supported" is OR because that is your own conclusion; no source explicitly says that. -YMB29 (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Only certain Russian historians support that point of view - such opinions are not shared in other sources. So it can be said that Baryshnikov's ideas are not widely supported. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok so where is the source for this statement or is this your own private conclusion again? -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That there are severa other researches who have come with totally different conclusion which shows which clearly show that Baryshnikov's ideas are not widely supported. Provide other Russian (and non-Russian sources) that support that statement then i have no complaints of it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No you need to provide sources for your claims. You have to learn and follow the rules... -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I provided sources. Several sources which directly disagree with Baryshnikov. While you have provided none which would actually support the statement that the opinion would not be Baryshnikov's alone. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No you have to provide sources for your claim. As if you read all the sources in the world to know that this is not widely supported. Even then it would still be your OR... -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I did, you are just in denial. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So again where are the sources that make this analysis? You are denying your OR again... -YMB29 (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So far you have only Baryshnikov's view of the matter while there several opposing sources. Which clearly shows that Baryshnikov's ideas were not widely supported. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That is your own false conclusion. No source you presented makes this kind of analysis. Please learn to follow the rules...

Baryshnikov's views are confirmed by Glantz and Erickson, who clearly state the goals of the Soviet offensive, and conquering Finland was not one of them. -YMB29 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Baryshnikov's comment is now reflected in the article. However as discussed it is opposed by other sources so i moved it to end of the paragraph as it is clearly not a dominant view of anything. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Who are you to say that it is dominant or not? Maybe not dominant in Finland... You need a source for that. -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several non connected sources which contradict his claims while Baryshnikov's claims remain supported by only Baryshnikov. Also had you read the text more closely it does not contradict the claim of not conquering Finland - which is supported also other writers than Baryshnikov. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Followers of Finnish historiography of course support your claims while ignoring obvious evidence against them. Baryshnikov analyzes these claims and the weak evidence used for them. You cannot analyze Baryshnikov here and claim that he is in the minority, just because he disproves the pro-Finnish sources you are used to reading... -YMB29 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As discussed below it is clear that Baryshnikov is a minority, even a fringe historian. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Clear according to who? Your opinion? -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

His books are published by the only person who endorses his views, i think that is saying enough of the matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Another case of OR by you... The first source was not even published by that "person". And you have to look at the historian and author, not the publisher. I suggest you stop reverting sourced information and using weak excuses like this as a reason. -YMB29 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of your claims Baryshnikov's views are not widely supported since there are abundance of contradictory sources in existence. So far i have not removed information you have provided into the article only rearranged it. If you insist of pushing NPOV phrasings then what else is there than to revert them. You do not discuss your changes, you do not seek consensus on your changes, you just apply them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You just revert the changes you don't like, manipulate sources, and claim an author is fringe because he is not inline with what you are used to reading. Once again, him not being widely supported is your OR. -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There are very few sources in line with Baryshnikov's claims while there are plenty of sources which directly contradict him - which makes it quite clear that his views are not generally accepted, and which also happens to mean that his views are not widely supported. Problem is not that he is not inline but that his claims have been repeatedly contradicted by several other authors. Besides he is known for his wild allegations (such as that the Mainila shelling never took place or that it was a Finnish sham). - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he contradicts some Finnish historians or those that express the Finnish POV does not make him "not widely supported." He analyzes the Finnish claims fairly. You might not like it but that is your problem. What authors address and refute his analysis? Don't censor this article by trying to keep only the Finnish views. -YMB29 (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

He did not contradict only Finnish historians. Also the fact that there are no supporting arguments for his theories does make the statement 'not widely supported' an accurate one. Baryshnikov has been claimed of misrepresenting of Finnish archival information and instead of fixing his reports he threatened to sue the person who had reported him. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that is what a person does when he considers himself right... What do you mean that there are no supporting arguments? -YMB29 (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, if a scientist's view is challenged then that calls for re-examination of the proof. Not for judicial procedures. So far Baryshnikov's views have not been supported by any one and opposed by several authors. If that is not lack of support then i am not aware what would be. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So you read all the sources in the world about this? Even if you did that is still OR... And if someone thinks he is falsely accused of lying then he can sue. -YMB29 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not all, certainly not. But so far there has been plenty of sources opposing his view and none supporting him. Which makes the claim that his opinion is not a majority view truthful. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You have no sources that criticize him. You have sources that have different views (represent the Finnish views), which he directly criticizes. You also looked at a limited number of sources and so you can't claim that a view is a majority view or not. -YMB29 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several which directly oppose him and none so far which would support him. At least so far you have failed to provide any other sources supporting his views. Given the abundance of opposing evidence it is quite clear that Baryshnikov's views are not generally accepted. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That is your OR... And quote a source that mentions Baryshnikov and criticizes him. -YMB29 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The several opposing sources still exists and directly contradict what Baryshnikov claims. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

But no sources that criticize him... -YMB29 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the original statement - As per Baryshnikov himself his views represent a minority point of view - which also stands for 'not widely supported', especially since there are plenty of contradicting sources in existence. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Again your OR; Baryshnikov never said that he is in the minority in regard to this issue. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

According to what Whishkey posted he did. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know where he got that from... Baryshnikov in the preface of his book says something else entirely. -YMB29 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Finnish historiography claims

So far 'Finnish historiography' claim is attached to all statements supported even by non-Finnish authors (using primarily non-Finnish sources). As the claims are clearly not accurate they should be removed from the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, just because the sources don't use only Finnish sources does not mean they don't follow Finnish historiography when it comes to certain views on the war. -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

So only 'politically correct' - ie. which do not endorse Finnish victory - sources are not 'Finnish historiography', is that it? Writer is non-Finnish and uses primarily non-Finnish sources. If he comes to same conclusion as the Finns do that does not mean at any level that he would follow Finnish historiography. Such a claim is pure speculation and as such also OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is OR saying that he does not use Finnish sources for the claims that come from Finnish literature and that he represents a non-Finnish historiography when he mentions those claims. -YMB29 (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And you have proof of this? Because the claim you are making is OR. Do you have proof that he did or did not use Finnish source for his statements? Either way you need proof not wild guesses and speculations (ie. OR). You made the allegation that he follows the Finnish historiography so the proof of burden on the matter rests on you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No you made the allegation that he does not, so prove it. -YMB29 (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read the preface of his work. And then please read the citations or references related to the chapters in question. You will find out that Lunde primarily uses non-Finnish sources. Also you made the claim and so the proof of burden still relies on you. You can not make an allegation and then assume your opinion needs to be dis-proven for it to be wrong. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No you are the one claiming that Lunde did not use and is not influenced by Finnish sources for his conclusions, when the preface section suggests otherwise. You have failed to prove your claim. Saying that he lists mostly German sources is not a good argument since we are talking about specific conclusions. -YMB29 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Preface only states he had some help in translating Finnish sources but it also makes very clear note that could have proper access to neither Finnish or Russian sources. Please read the preface again, it is all there. There is not even a slightest hint that he would be stating that his conclusions were based on the Finnish conclusions. So far you have got nothing but OR to prove that he would have used Finnish sources for his conclusions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No you once again fail to read carefully the part that I quoted. See on top. -YMB29 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you state that Lunde is somehow related to Finnish historiography that alone is OR. There is no evidence supporting that in his book and you have provided no other evidence at all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I provided evidence but you choose to ignore it. -YMB29 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So far I seen nothing but your own OR or synth. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I just point out that your OR is wrong based on the book's preface. -YMB29 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Book's preface does not at any point state that he would be using Finnish conclusions instead of forming his own. That claim is already your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It proves that he is influenced by Finnish views, and that is enough to disprove your OR about him not basing his conclusions on Finnish sources. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Now here you have a problem since your claim that he would be influenced of Finnish views is already your OR. Furthermore i was not saying that he was or was not basing his conclusions on Finnish sources, you however claimed that he was, which again was OR for your part. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What I conclude is good enough for the talk page, but you insert your conclusions into the article... -YMB29 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again, you made the conclusion that his view is influenced by Finnish views or that he would be using Finnish conclusions. That is not supported by any sources which makes it OR (or when you link it to Baryshnikov's claims it becomes SYN - if for nothing else then because Lunde's book was published after Baryshnikov making it impossible for him to analyze or comment it). - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is your OR... Like I said I only inserted the part about Lunde to counter the OR you inserted about him. -YMB29 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have made no such claims. You however have repeatedly made the claim that Lunde would be following Finnish sources or using Finnish conclusions. You have however provided nothing to support your claims which makes those original research (or original synthesis - when you linked them with Baryshnikov). - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

These were simply arguments against your OR about Lunde proving Baryshnikov wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And what would that OR be? So far there hasn't been anything else but your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

When you do something wrong you ignore it... I already explained it above. -YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So far the claims have been yours and you have been unable to show them to be anything else than your own original research or original synthesis. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who tries to add personal claims into the article, not me... -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And what would that be? So far the claim i made can be sourced into Lunde's book while the claim you made has been nothing but your original research and/or original synthesis. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So show me my OR from the article...

Your OR: however contrary to the Baryshnikov's claim several non Finnish historians also hold contradictory views to the one held by Baryshnikov. - so this is not OR according to you? Well what am I asking, of course you are going to say that it is not OR since you wrote it... -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Every time you show or refer or even imply to Lunde as Finnish or following Finnish historiography you are introducing your OR in to the article. And what would be OR in that? Lunde's (and others references to whom you deleted) comments contradict what Baryshnikov states - ie. that the view would be limited to Finnish historians - since they are non-Finnish historians who have come up with similar conclusions as the Finnish historians. It is there only to mark that Baryshnikov's claim that a certain view would be limited to Finns alone is not universal truth. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So basically this is your own interpretation...

Baryshnikov does not say that these views are limited to Finnish historians only. Where did you get that? And it is up to you to prove that Lunde is not influenced by Finnish sources for the conclusions he makes, but even if you somehow do prove it and then claim that Baryshnikov is wrong, that will still be synthesis... -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it is up to you to prove Lunde would be influenced by Finnish sources, that is your claim and so the burden of proof falls to you. So far there has been nothing but your original research and/or original synthesis as 'evidence' of it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well his preface speaks for itself, but where do you see me putting that into the article? I only used it as an argument against your OR.

Once again, where is your source for your analysis on Baryshnikov and Lunde? I am waiting... -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Preface discusses his lack of use of both Russian and Finnish sources. In no point in the preface does it state - apart from your OR evidence - that he would be using solely Finnish sources instead of making his own conclusions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say that he is using solely Finnish source? Why can't you read carefully? You still did not give me a source for your claim... -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

But you imply that - which is the same thing as per discussed in the Continuation War article talk page. And again, it is only you who has been claiming that he would be following some specific historiography, so the claim and burden of proof is still yours. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Where am I implying that? You are claiming that he is not following Finnish historiography, so where is your proof? You again fail to provide sources for your claims. -YMB29 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming he would be following any historiography, claims that he would are yours and so is the burden of proof. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are not claiming anything?? Your last phrase in the Impact section proves otherwise... -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Now its reworded. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That is still OR... -YMB29 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No point discussing this in two separate topics - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)