Talk:Continuation War/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Balanced pics needed

Can there be some more balance by the choice of pics? This is not a Finnish school book. --Voyevoda (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly if any would have any related pics from the Soviet side. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Using image of war dead is hardly balancing. If you have images from the Soviet side please add them to the article but try to follow some good taste and common sense as per Wikipedia talk:Image use policy - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents

What does "nominally belligerent" mean? The only reason for Italy beeing in the list was that, that there was indeed an actual participation of Italy in the Lake Ladoga flotilla including combat action. This isnt a nominal participation, this is an actual participation. For example nominally also Romania or Bulgaria were belligerents, but actually they werent involved in any fighting (Bulgaria for the whole eastern front). Regarding Britain "nominally" doesnt fit too. The Continuation war lasted from 25 June 1941 to 19 September 1944 between Nazi Germany/Finland against the Soviet Union and in this timespan there was at least one major British action (carrier strike) and several minor actions (attack on German shipping, aerial support missions for the Soviets etc.). The fact that the British declaration of war happened after those incidents doesnt matter, because the war already started on 25 June. Those attacks may have been targeted more against Germany, but Germany was also a major player in the Continuation War. Countries have been added for lesser particiation than what the UK did here, so Italy and the UK should be just added as normal belligerents which they were, because "nominally" is just misleading in this case. StoneProphet (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuation War is not synonymous with Eastern Front. It handles only the Finnish area. Italian participation lasted from summer 1942 to winter of 1942. And it consisted of total of 4 motor torpedo boats and their crews. British participation consisted outside of the declared state of war between Finland and Britain and consisted of single minor air raid on German controlled port. Neither were 'normal' belligerents in Continuation War. By same logic they are listed then i suppose Sweden is belligerent too since there were Swedish volunteers fighting against the Soviets in Continuation War. I can't even fathom what you are after with your references to Bulgaria and the lot. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Besides British activities against Germans may have been a problem to Germans but they are not generally accepted (unless you have a source) as part of the continuation war so i fail to any relevance to that point either. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So you want to suggest that all action preceeding 10 July are not part of the continuation war? That all actions in the northern part of Finland involving only Germany are not part of the continuation war? We therefore should chop out all actions involving Germans? Ofc Sweden is not a belligerent because Sweden was a neutral country and those volunteers fought in German/Finnish units. There was no combat action involving units from the Swedish state. For the same reason we dont list Spain as belligerent on the eastern front, because their volunteers were organzised as a normal German infantry division. I mentioned Bulgaria because Bulgaria is listed iat the eastern front, despite there wasn a single Bulgarian unit fighting on it for the whole war. Thats far less what e.g. Britain or Italy did at the continuation war. Germany was part of the Finnish theatre, for the same as reason as Britain. I dont know why you are pressing to make an exception for Britain/Italy, where no exception i needed. StoneProphet (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuation War traditionally handles events related to Finland and WW II. Not of events of the whole Eastern Front. What i was referring to was that Italian participation to the Continuation War was marginal at best. Just like the British participation was - which in addition to being marginal took place outside of the declared state of war (against Finland that is). The main belligerents of the Continuation War were Finland & Germany opposing Soviet Union. And that should be reflected in the infobox. Trying to place Italy or Britain there 'at equal level' is highly misleading - which is why i oppose it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Soviet strenght

Currently listed as

From:

In June 1941: 450,390 (Northern Front and Baltic Fleet)

in June 1944: 451,500^[3]

Though these values, at least according to source criticism do not seem to be truly valid, note earlier criticism in Talk:Continuation_War/Archive_13#1.2C500.2C0000_from_Manninen. Second issue is that the citation is a reference to Krivisheyev's data from which the value of 451,500 is only the incomplete data for the offensive against the Finns. It does not include all the forced actually involved in that offensive nor does it include any of the forces facing the German AOK Norwegen nor does it include forces facing Finnish 14th Division (to my knowledge). - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As per previously discussed Krivosheyev's data is lacking sizable portion of the formations that actually were involved in the offensive (at least for LF - Rifle Divisions: Krivosheyev, 16; other researchers roughly 25 - armored formations: Krivosheyev, 1 brigade; other researchers, 1-3 brigades, 14-15 regiments, and so on). Though the value might be accurate reference to the number of infantry units involved at the start of the offensive it is not accurate representation of actual Soviet strength involved in the summer offensive of 1944 nor it is in any way accurate representation of the full Soviet strength facing Finland either. Either the information must be qualified in the data box or replaced with more representative value. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Data on the 1944 should be removed from the template and place in the article, as in other article. It's the accurate data on a certain date. On July 10 and on July 30, the values will be different even if the USSR had not introduced the reinforcements. Write in the article, that the USSR after July 10, added another divisions. Krivosheev's data for Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive operation, where 14th army was not involved (not calculated). For the 14th army there is data for October 1944.--Germash19 (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be probably the best solution. Though - as far as i am aware - the problem is more with LF forces (due to the arbitrary 'cutoff point') and not with KF forces. Also LF strength was increased - or more formations took part into the battle, depends your point of view - already after 20 June, not after 10 July. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Manninen's information on the matter - he reports that according to Soviet archives Soviet strengths (front line) were as follows:

Northern Armies: 165,000 (ie. ones not taking part in the offensive)

North of Lake Ladoga: 180,000

Isthmus: 260,000

Sum: 605,000

He concludes that when the forces directly subordinated to Karelian Front are added to the number (ie. reservers and certain NKVD forces, total of nearly 60,000) sum would be roughly 650,000 men, without taking any aviation or naval assets or the reserves (or reinforcements) of Leningrad Front into account at the start of the offensive(s) (9/20.6.1944). - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate if some one could point out how the first value (450,390) is derived (either from the book or elsewhere), thank you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

358,390 (Northern Front) + 92,000 (Baltic Fleet) = 450,390 --Germash19 (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you take the values from Krivosheyev. Who lists Northern Front as having 9 divisions, 1 brigade and 7 fortified zones. While victory.mil.ru lists on 1 July 1941 as Northern Front's composition (7th, 14th and 23rd Armies) a bit different (16 divisions, 3 brigades, 7 fortified zones, and an assortment of support units). Not saying that the value would be wrong - after all it is known that at the time Finnish and German troops in the front had numerical superiority - just that the discrepancies with the other listed number of units (ones from victory.mil.ru seem to be quite close to what Finnish sources reported) is rather surprising. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotes for YMB29

Manninen (1994), p.306-313 (translated)

Originally published in Sotilasaikakauslehti 4/1993

For the time being the clear calculation errors in statistics forces us to use the somewhat rough approximation on Red Army losses during 1941-1944 at the front facing Finnish. It lost - both against Finns and Germans - roughly 265 000 men KIA or otherwise dead and missing, roughly 385 000 men WIA and 190 000 men hospitalized due sickness.

Table from Manninen (1994), p.312 (translated)

year	KIA/MIA	Died	WIA	Sickness	Sum
1941	138 000	3 000	121 000	13 500	275 500
1942	46 000	3 500	82 000	61 000	192 000
1943	12 000	1 000	22 000	47 000	82 000
1944	57 500	2 000	157 500	68 000	126 000
	253 500	9 500	382 500	188 500	835 000

bold 192 000 should be 192 500, bold 126 000 should be 285 000. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

For those new to this page, the disputes here have entered mediation at the Mediation Cabal. The mediation page can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala. For the involved parties, Wanderer602 and YMB29, I think it would be best if all discussion on this talk page stops until the mediation starts properly. You have both agreed to the ground rules, one of which was this: "Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature." Note that this does extend to the talk page as well - it wouldn't make any sense to refactor incivility on the mediation page but to ignore it on the talk page, for example. I can see that there has been some animosity between both of you, and this really has to stop if we are going to make progress in resolving this dispute. For now, the best way to do that is to stop discussion here and wait for the mediation to start properly. To this end, I will archive the discussion on this page to remove the temptation to reply to previous threads. Please bear with me while I review the dispute and decide the mediation agenda. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If i did violate the ground rules i do apologize for that. Same goes with talk page edits at Battle of Tali-Ihantala article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It wasn't stated explicitly, so I can't really call it a "violation" as such. It's definitely more in the spirit of the ground rules to wait until we start the mediation proper, though. Don't worry, there will be plenty of time to discuss everything in due course. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested quotes

Lunde (2011), p.9

...earlier pro-German orientation ended with Germany's defeat in World War I

There followed a period of Western orientation along with enthusiastic support for the League of Nations. Even as late as August 2, 1937 Joseph E. Davies, the Unites States ambassador to the Soviet Union, reported from Helsinki that in European politics Finland followed England's signals because England was Finland's best customer.

The Finns were dismayed by the inability of the League to do anything to hinder the conflicts that broke out in the 1930s and this resulted in a security policy based on neutrality. At the end of 1935 Finland joined the Scandinavian neutrality block...

Relations between Finland and Germany cooled in the 1930s. In Finland, as in the other Scandinavian countries, the Nazi regime was sharply criticized...

- Wanderer602 (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Start of the offensive

Collapsed comment

I went quickly through Mannerheim's memoirs, Finnish HQ War diaries and couple of other sources in addition to Internet sources. All agree that Finnish offensive into Ladoga Karelia did not start until 10 July. First Finnish led unit (ie. south of the operational boundary) to start its offensive was Finnish 14th Division which crossed the border on July 4 (but to East Karelia, not to Ladoga Karelia). Finnish war diaries do mention repeated Soviet attacks against Finns before 10 July - even makes note of capturing anti-tank guns after beating Soviets back - in addition to sort of artillery duels. What happened on the stated 29 June was that German led AOK Norwegen started its offensive - even then it was only the German Platinfuchs operation (which included a regiment of Finnish troops) aimed at Murmansk which started at that time. German operation Polarfuchs (first offensive to actually have Finnish divisions) started on 1 July. If Baryshnikov can't get even such a simple fact regarding the time when the offensive started right how do you consider what he reports as reliable? - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wanderer602 - I'm sorry, but this kind of comment is not ok. Firstly, it is part of the topic we will be covering in the mediation, and discussing it before the time is right disrupts the mediation process. The reason this has come to mediation is that you have not been able to work out your differences from discussion on the talk page; more discussion on the talk page while mediation is going on is obviously not a good idea. Secondly, your comment is critical of another editor - whoever it is aimed at - and that is simply not on. A lot of people reading a comment like "If Baryshnikov can't get even such a simple fact regarding the time when the offensive started right how do you consider what he reports as reliable?" will treat it as a personal accusation. It sounds like you are saying the other person is not even capable of making simple editorial judgements. This is incivility, and you expressly agreed to avoid comments like that when you agreed to the ground rules. I ask you to please, respect the mediation process, and wait for YMB29 to file his statement. We will get round to this issue - and all the others - soon enough in the mediation process. Let's be patient and see this thing through. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware that what Germash19 (not YMB29) edited was part or covered within the mediation - as far as i am aware Germash19 has not joined into mediation nor has he agreed to be bound by it - at least yet. And actually it was not so much critical to the editor as it was to the source in question. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so you were addressing this to Germash19. That makes things a lot clearer - thanks for pointing it out. I agree that events you discuss in the first half of your comment don't seem to cover any of the mediation areas. I was more concerned with the comment about the reliability of Baryshnikov, which is part of mediation step number two and all of step number three. Also, I can appreciate that you probably didn't intend your comment to be critical of the other editor. I was just pointing out that this can easily be mistaken for a personal attack by the editor you are addressing. Given the different cultures and nuances of language of the editors on this page (and in Wikipedia as a whole), I think we should be very careful to let others know we are commenting on the content, and not on them. It can be a surprisingly thin line between what someone thinks is a comment about their edit and what someone thinks is a personal attack, so it definitely pays to be careful. Yours — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wanderer602, such manipulations [1][2] with the sources (about June 29 ↔ July 10) can lead to your blocked.--Germash19 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

July 10 date is verified from multiple sources, from Finnish and abroad. When you make your claims you need to specific what exactly you are claiming. As said in the initial post, Finnish troops, as part of German AOK Norwegen crossed the border on 29 June. However they did not do so in Ladoga Karelia nor did they do so in Karelian Isthmus, neither did they do so under Finnish leadership. As stated above First Finnish led unit to cross the border was the northernmost unit, 14th Division, which crossed the border on July 4 and started advancing towards Rukajärvi (Rugozero?). First Finnish units to cross into Ladoga Karelia did so on July 10 after several Soviet attacks across the border. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Battles were there, where indicated. All in accordance with the reliable sources.--Germash19 (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i do not follow you. Finnish offensive to Ladoga Karelia started on July 10 - this is stated both on secondary sources as well as on primary sources (at very least) - and as it happens that is what the section of the text is discussing. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Germash19, it is always good to have more information than less. If you have information about the battles of the offensive before July 10 at Ladoga Karelia and before July 29 at the Karelian Isthmus, could you please inform us about the locations and forces included (at least the Soviet side, we could dig out the Finnish participants). You do have that information, don't you? --Whiskey (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The start of the offensive on July 10 does not exclude military action against the USSR earlier.--Germash19 (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it does exclude them as the section you edited refers to exclusively to the Finnish advance to Ladoga Karelia (or Karelian Isthmus in the latter section) not the whole scope of the war. The start date of the German advance from Northern Finland (29 June) was however already in the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wanderer602 We are not engaged in the research of what event is true or not. We share the position of sources. Your sources say one thing, my other. I'm not removed your sources, although I think that you conclusions are not correct. Why did you delete my sources? I do not understand. If they are not true give a refutation. If some source said of the military operations on June 29, and the other 10 July, in my understanding, one does not cancel the position of the other. You need to lead a source saying that on 29 June the finns have not begun military actions against the USSR.--Germash19 (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Because the sources (Finnish & English sources, using Finnish, German and Soviet archival information) state that Finnish offensive into Ladoga Karelia started on July 10. It already includes claim that it did not start before that date. If you are very careful in the use of the 29 June you can use it however it applies only to certain operations under AOK Norwegen. First Finnish unit (under Finnish leadership), still distant from either of Ladoga Karelia or Karelian Isthmus, to move was the solitary 14th Division on July 4. In other words placing the claim regarding June 29 into either of Ladoga Karelia section or anything related to Karelian Isthmus is factually wrong - as is placing claim regarding July 4. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To Germash19: It is stupid to say that Finns began military actions against USSR at June 29, as we both know that both countries, Finland and USSR began open military actions against each other at June 25, as has been established in numerous sources, Finnish, Russian, German, Swedish, British, American. It is also established that Finnish offensive to Ladoga Karelia started at July 10, also in several independent secondary sources. So, you are presenting a view which contradicts established views about timeline of the events. Please, provide some reasoning for the selection of this new date. Otherwise presenting it in the text where it is contradicted by numerous established sources only discredits your source not only in this occasion but also in other places where it could be used to provide relevant information to the article. --Whiskey (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Civilian casualties in Leningrad

835,000 casualties from Manninen includes of the civilian population? If so, please specify where he says that Finland has not participated in the siege of Leningrad.--Germash19 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

They do not include any civilian losses. Those are just the military losses according to official Soviet reports in Russian archives. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Then there is no sense to write it in all of the casualties.--Germash19 (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Far more sense than to include civilian casualties from Leningrad into the number or to the Continuation War. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

About the non-inclusion of casualties of the siege in the article. You have not brought a single source saying that Finland did not took part in the siege of Leningrad. So while there is no subject for conversation.--Germash19 (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There is already a separate article for the Siege of Leningrad. Most of the combat or losses happened outside of the scope of the Continuation War. Finnish troops did not actively participate into it. I just totally fail to see why you are so intent on including the casualties of the Leningrad siege into the article? If you are including those casualties then wouldn't it be warranted to include all the losses of the Siege of Leningrad instead of just civilians? If you do that shouldn't you be including also the military losses of German Army Group North as well? All those make same amount of sense as there is in including the civilian losses of the siege of Leningrad to the Continuation War article, which in other words is none what-so-ever as there already is a perfectly good separate article for the Siege of Leningrad.

If you want my opinion, the best way would be to exclude those losses from the infobox and either (or both) include clear text regarding it to the article itself (into /1942–1943: Trench warfare/Military operations section) - though there already is a link to it - or then add a note to the infobox (notes entry) to point to the siege of Leningrad article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I Repeat. Civilian casualties have occurred as a result of military actions (the siege), military actions were conducted by Germany and Finland, this is part of the war (the sources are presented in the article ), so should be included in the infobox as included prisoners of war and the wounded. The military losses of the siege of Leningrad was already included in article: 23 army and the Baltic fleet.--Germash19 (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Was the siege an operation that belongs solely to the scope of the Continuation War? As it happens it is not, so placing the losses of the whole of the Siege of Leningrad in to the article only partially related to is just not the way. There is a separate article for the siege. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

1944 in the template

Removed from the template strength in 1944, the user Wanderer602 was agree with it.--Germash19 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the number from Manninen includes the values from Krivosheyev and adds the rest of the units located in the front the sum. Again according to Soviet reports. Agreement to remove the 1944 strength was solely towards Krivosheyev's values which were known to be incomplete. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In the template usually write down the number of troops in the beginning of the war. A large number of data about the number of forces at different times, it makes no sense - it may be determined in article.--Germash19 (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it generally is used to represent the number of troops committed to the conflict in total. Not strength at the start of the conflict, especially if it varies. There is no references to the beginning of the conflict (only "the numerical strength of the units involved.") in Template:Infobox_military_conflict.

It just like counting apples and oranges: Finnish count has a different criteria than the Soviet count. Basically Finnish number should be reduced almost to half if it includes the same personnel as the Soviet count. --Whiskey (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

True, Finnish & German number include all the manpower in military related duties, actual combat strength (the one used in Soviet sources) was much lower. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to show the change in the number of troops by months (days) - create a section in the article. It is unnecessary to fill with the template. The total strength in the template only confuse the readers.--Germash19 (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Then it seems it would be proper to use the highest amount of troops committed, not only initial amount. However in other article where combatants strength varies it is common so include several strengths as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

More data on the number of combatants is good. But don't overload their infobox as it is now. I think in infobox should be written number of troops at the beginning of the war, but changes in a separate section.--Germash19 (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Highest number of troops give far better view into the issue than potentially biased setting of representing only a very limited portion of the actual number of troops involved. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Chapter «Analysis»

Deleted information is not relevant to the article. Removed a great piece about the USSR - the text is not associated with the topic of the article, it does not show the reasons for the entry of the USSR into the war, the analysis of the actions in the war.--Germash19 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant to the article, it discusses the Soviet policies and goals leading up to and including the Continuation War. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Previous war between the USSR and Finland ended in 1940. About the time between the two wars and a time of war should be a description of the section. But nothing said about it. Remote part of analyzed the situation before the «winter war», this can be written in this article , but not in the article about the war 41-44.--Germash19 (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Germash19, your writing is poor and your deletion of a detailed section about Soviet accounts is particularly egregious. All across the Baltics (as described post-independence, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the account of Soviet military actions in Soviet historiography is completely the opposite of non-Soviet accounts, whether those are Baltic or Western. That difference is in everything from strategic value, to strategy, to portrayal of events, to casualties suffered. Your changes reflect neither appropriate discussion nor appropriate representation of reputable sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you feel like the paragraph in the analysis section is wrong place for then where would you place it on the article? And please use talk page, not article edits. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Remote part of Finland: this can be seen in the section of history but not here - the reasons for Finland's membership in WWII or the "winter war" the subject of other articles. The USSR: Wanderer602, explain how the written connected with the entry of the soviet union in this war?--Germash19 (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Germash19, sorry, but I reverted your latest edits to the article. First, it looks like they are opposed by other editors here, but more importantly from my viewpoint, it could also be getting in the way of the mediation, as it looks like some of the issues might overlap. Maybe you might like to join the mediation as well? If you would like to join but you are not all that bothered about the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, then maybe we could start a new mediation and have one for each article. That might require some slight swapping round of issues on the mediation in progress already, but that wouldn't be too hard to do. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your use of the Twinkle instrument in the cancellation of my edits seems to me not a neutral action for the mediator. Therefore, forced to abandon your mediation. Anyway thanks for the offer.--Germash19 (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(Answer to Germash19) Perhaps, but it is also relevant the article at hand, matter could be explored more in-depth in other articles but it is also relevant to the Continuation War as well. As for the second section, I'm not sure what you are after, could you please explain in more detail? - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Remote part of the section of "Analysis" does not apply to this article, there were analyzed the reasons for the beginning of the Winter War, not a Continuation War, and the described events already written in the section "Background".--Germash19 (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Naming of Vyborg/Viipuri

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is an ongoing dispute at Continuation War and related articles about the name we should use for the town of Viipuri/Vyborg during World War II. Viipuri is the Finnish name for this town, and Vyborg is the Russian name.

Today, the town is known as Vyborg, but it has changed hands several times during the course of history, including three times in World War II. The town was part of Finland until the Peace of Moscow, and was handed to Russia in March, 1940; it became part of the Karelo-Finnish SSR. Finnish troops recaptured the town on August 29, 1941 and claimed it as part of Finland soon afterwards, although it was still laid claim to by Russia throughout the rest of the war. Russian troops captured it again in June 1944, and on September 19 the Moscow Armistice was signed, in which Finland agreed to recognize it as part of the USSR again. Also at this time, it was transferred from the Karelo-Finnish SSR to the Russian SSR. Finland formally relinquished all claim to the town in 1947. (For more details see Vyborg#History.) In this RfC we are concerned with what name should be used for the town from the start of World War II in 1939 to the Moscow Armistice in September 1944. This affects articles involving the Winter War and the Continuation War, which include Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945), and others.

This issue is one of the issues being debated in the Continuation War MedCab mediation, and before filing this RfC we have gone through some of the steps in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) in a fairly systematic fashion, to try and determine if there is a widely-accepted English name for Vyborg/Viipuri during the time period in question. After some decent discussion, which can be found here, we came to the conclusion that there was no such name. However, there is disagreement among the mediation participants as to what exactly the guideline specifies we should do in this event. Through this RfC we would like both clarification on how to interpret the guideline in this case, and also to build a lasting consensus about what name should be used in the articles involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Please include either Viipuri or Vyborg in bold to indicate which name you think should be used in the article, along with your rationale. If you would like to make a general comment you can indicate that by prefacing it with Comment if you like. General discussion of the issues should go in the "threaded discussion" section below. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• No Name it "the disputed town" or something. There is no solution that could possibly reach consensus. If forced to chose, I will flip a coin - heads = Viipuri, tails = Vyborg. Vyborg it is. Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Vyborg. As a rule I always go for the name used in the relevant WP article, which should normally be the English name for the locality (Florence, not Firenze, etc.). The mayor of Yurp (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• 1939-March 13, 1940 Viipuri, 13 March, 1940-19 September 1944 Viipuri (Vyborg), 19 September 1944- Vyborg, following the Talk:Gdansk/Vote ruling. (Do I qualify?)--Whiskey (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Viipuri per LIFE magazine's coverage at the time, e.g. here. Only Vyborg once in Soviet possession by Finnish agreement (post-treaty). (Whiskey's, while more complex, is likely also a more proper solution.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Vyborg, since it is the widely accepted modern English name and there is no widely accepted historical English name established for that period. The guidelines state that a local name has to be used only if neither of the English names (modern and historical) exist, but that is not the case here. Even if we try to establish the local historical name during that period, it will still most likely be Vyborg, at least after the Winter War in 1940 (a peace treaty gave the city to the Soviet Union and most of the local Finns left). -YMB29 (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Viipuri as per stated question however i would prefer Whiskey's solution over it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Vyborg + redirect: I suggest Vyborg for the simple reason that (as a relatively uninformed reader in this area) Vyborg is a name I recognize; Vilpuri isn't. Someone seeking information on Vilpuri is likely to be aware of the of the name confusion; someone seeking information about Vyborg may not be, and may be confused ending up at a page called Vilpuri.--Ludwigs2 13:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: To clarify, this is not about the name of the article describing the town but rather how the town is supposed to be referred to in the articles (none of which handle present day but instead events that took place during World War II) in question, in essence Viipuri (now Vyborg, Russia) (with later referrals being just Viipuri) or Vyborg while both would actually link to Vyborg article - its more about using historically accurate/acceptable name for the town in a specific era than anything else. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Viipuri: according to the first official language of the Karelo-Finnish SSR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: There were two official languages in the Karelo-Finnish SSR, Russian and Finnish. Also the Finnish population was the minority. See discussion below. -YMB29 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm coming in at the tail end of this, so (at the risk of completely misreading the problem) this looks like a similar issue to that of naming articles on Danzig/Gdansk. Have you looked at the solution there? Their remedy was, basically, to use the name that was current for the period in question. Just my three pennies worth... Xyl 54 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  But which "current" name do you mean? Both countries officially claimed the town as their own at various points in WW2, and both of them also occupied it at one time or another. I don't think I could pick one name that was definitively "official" between 1940 and 1944. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I see now you’re all way ahead of me. I thought at first sight it was just a vote on one name or the other. And by “currently”, I’d concur with Whiskey’s solution. Xyl 54 (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? Do you mean you agree with Whiskey that Viipuri should be used. If so why? -YMB29 (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Whiskey's solution - Use the official name that was in effect at the time frame being discussed. Use both (parenthesized) during WW II. --Noleander (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  

• Viipuri only until the start of the current Russian occupation/annexation that began in ’44 and continues unto the present day.. For clarity introduce it as Viipuri (Vyborg)only the *first* time it is referred to during that period in an article or article *section. Thereafter, until the day Finland finally liberates the city, Vyborg, introduced only the first time it is referred to in the latter period as Vyborg (Viipuri). Rationale less complete and precise than Whiskey's (e.g., no treatment of short Soviet annexation after Winter War) but still using the basic idea of Gdansk/Danzig vote *Comment: I think it will annoy and even distract readers if there is a lot of switching around. Paavo273 (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC) (amended by voter to clarify) Paavo273 (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Vyborg - That's how it's known, that's how I know the town, and that's how people today reading the article are likely to know the town. There's no need to be distracting. Aequo (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Viipuri per Whiskey. Viipuri (and the Finnish Karelia, not East Karelia) was a part of Finland 1941-1944, NOT occupied territory. Peltimikko (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think the correct name should be used, and that would be Viipuri until 1944 (using Viipuri(Vyborg) for the first time the city is mentioned in the article for clarification). Ofc people today know it as Vyborg, but that wasn the name of the town back then. This is backed up by the Gdansk/Danzig vote. StoneProphet (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I think many here are misunderstanding the issue. It is not established that Viipuri is the name that was used back then (until 1944). We are trying to establish that name. We already know that we have to use the name that was most used at the time. We could not find a widely accepted historical English name using the guidelines, so the question is what name should we use now (based on the rest of the guidelines)? -YMB29 (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Vyborg - if the preferred naming at the period is unclear, we should prefer modern one. GreyHood ^Talk 00:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Viborg, as the name which appears to have been marginally most common during the war itself; Vyborg as second choice, since they are almost indistinguishable in English. It would help if those who are treating this as a nationalist question would consider that Vyborg is not Russian, it's a slightly archaic form of this name, which is after all native to Finland; Viipuri is another form of the same name. It would be perfectly reasonable, having once established that the town has several variants of the same name, to use Viipuri in references to the period before the Winter War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• RESPONDING TO YMB29's AND WHISKEY'S 17 NOVEMBER REMARKS (the ones the mediator hasn't deleted): The city really was *not* known all along or really *ever* known in Russian as Vyborg, despite assertions, assumptions, or beliefs that it was. The Russian name is and has been Выборг. I'd be willing to bet that about 95-percent of native English speakers who have mastered a second grade (seven-year-old) level of English phonology will correctly pronounce the English word Vyborg so that the first syllable rhymes with, for examples, *sky, rye, and pie*. In actual fact, it is not so much a poor transliteration of the Russian name as a *non-transliteration*. (Also, there are not "*gobs* of Russian i-like sounds," rather really only about four.) If you insist Vyborg is a Russian name, then you must admit, just for examples the name Cologne must be the German, rather than the English name for Köln; and Vienna the German name, not the English name, for Wien. How can you change the lettering system AND the *pronunciation* to your own language, yet still call it a foreign name? Paavo273 (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC) when it has its own foreign name Paavo273 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(deleted my own prior remarks on topic--can still be viewed like all deletions in View History section) Paavo273 (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't delete the comments, I just collapsed them - you can still see them if you click "show" on the blue bars. You don't really need to delete your own comments in response, but if that's what you choose to do, then that's perfectly fine. I hope this clears things up. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius: Thanks for pointing out the easy way to access those hidden remarks. Rel my deletion, once I posted what I think is an even more compelling argument, I thought the prior one was redundant. Regards. Paavo273 (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

So as such, I think this RfC contains a false premise: that Vyborg is the Russian name. Paavo273 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So how would you transliterate Выборг? The Russian letter Ы (reads like the i in win) is usually transliterated as Y.

It does not even matter if it is a wrong transliteration or not; Vyborg is how it was transliterated and that is the widely accepted English name now. -YMB29 (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Vyborg is current usage per the non-aligned and neutral BGN database. Most of us here are aware of the issues in transliterating the gobs of i-like sounds in Russian into (restrictive) English. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi YMB29 and thanks for the response/feedback to my comments.

My main point, which is a lot different from why I originally raised the mis-transcription, is that Vyborg is an English name, one that has come into wide usage not because it is an accurate transcription, but just because someone named it that and that's what English users started using. It's *not* in my opinion for the reasons I've stated, a Russian name, contrary to what Wanderer602 and others allege. I don't think evidence supports that it is an accurate transcription, and since I think all would agree it is and has been in wide usage, Vyborg must be for lack of a third explanation, the adopted English name.

In fact, based on what I'm reading, Russian ы is probably untranslatable to English, but I would try to approximate Выборг in English with a V, then a miniature subscript or base-script w (similar to a miniature Russian y or a Finnish y for that matter), and then -iborg. As between y and i as the second English letter, i would be far better. The *written* IPA isn't much help on this because ы has its own unique symbol.

*** But I did find a really cool Wikipedia site, IPA vowels chart with audio at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowels_chart_with_audio, where you can listen to the "official" ы sound, based I think on the Moscow dialect, which is very similar to the ы sound I learned. BTW, it's the third symbol from the right on the top line, the i with the dash or hyphen (horizontal line) through it. This is the IPA symbol for ы. If you check that out, you can make your own judgment as to how accurate a transliteration Vyborg is from Russian Выборг. Note if you do check out that website, the IPA y sound is somewhat similar to ы, but I think we'd agree that y is not a sound made by an English y or any other English letter оr letter combination. Paavo273 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes but Ы has to be represented by English letters somehow. Transliterations are not always accurate and phonetic. Anyway, this is too off topic... -YMB29 (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult for Vyborg to be Russian, when it's Swedish. It is true that Russian, like English, has accepted it as a loan word; but consider St. Petersburg, which, as a word, is German (and was accordingly Russified in 1914). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so users taking part in the mediation are allowed to comment/vote? -YMB29 (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to take part. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫ 05:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

With regard to Whiskey's solution, I think even before the Soviets laid any claim to the town, we should use "Viipuri (Vyborg)" rather than just "Viipuri", as per point three of WP:PLACE#General guidelines. This doesn't really have anything to do with who the town belonged to, but is more for the benefit of readers who don't know that Viipuri and Vyborg are the same town. But that, of course, leaves us with the original problem of which name(s) we should use for the period of 1940-1944. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that the first instance of the name, be it Viborg, Wiborg or Viipuri, should always be accompanied with Vyborg, as a modern name of the town. All subsequent instances could use only the first name. --Whiskey (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29, The only reason I pursued this point is that Wanderer602, unlike you, seems to put stock in the idea that Vyborg is merely a transliteration, merely the Russian name (See your and his discussion in the Tali-Ihantala mediation page for 8-9 November) analogous to English use of Helsinki. I don't want to misconstrue anyone's words, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand W602's argument, Vyborg, because it is the "accepted" Russian name as transliterated from Cyrillic, doesn't have standing as an *English* name. My point is Vyborg is *not* the same name as Выборг, *not* the Russian name, *not* like the use of the Finnish Helsinki by English users, not at all. I think you may be right that it's off-topic, at least rel the historical uses of the names, but I think according to W602, based on W602's comments, it's still a significant factor in what to do. Personally, I can't see how this naming matter as a whole is something to go to the mattresses over. In an encyclopedia article (isn't the purpose of which to inform readers seeking to educate themselves?) I think the first priority needs to be *clarity*. It could be laid out the first time the word is used in the article the way the current Wikipedia entry for Vyborg is introduced. From that standpoint, I think Whiskey's remarks on point here and in the T-I mediation page are helpful. Paavo273 (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A comment: After the Winter War Vyborg become part Karelo-Finnish SSR, and the official languages of the republic was Finnish and Russian. Contemporary Soviet maps refer city as Viipuri (although in cyrilic)/Vyborg in a same way as modern Finnish maps refer two-language cities (like Helsinki/Helsingfors, Turku/Åbo). My solution has nothing to do with occupation of the city.--Whiskey (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you know if a map is contemporary? Based on a map you found you claim that the Soviets referred to it as Viipuri? -YMB29 (talk)

• Comment: I don't understand why Whiskey is suggesting that Viipuri should be the main name during the period of 1940-1944 (when the city was part of the USSR), as if that is the name the Soviets used. It was always known as Vyborg in Russian. One could look at Soviet documents of that period, like the Moscow Peace Treaty of 1940[3] or Stavka Order # 117[4], and see that the name Vyborg (Выборг) is used. -YMB29 (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  Of course it's name has been all the time Vyborg in Russian. The fact is that the town was not part of Russian SSR after the Winter War but part of Karelo-Finnish SSR, where the official languages were Finnish and Russian. It is not a question how the town is named in Russian, the question is how the town was officially named. It was not part of Russian SSR, but Karelo-Finnish SSR, where it came from the union of Finnish Democratic Republic and Karelian ASSR. The defining point is how the town was named in the documents of Karelo-Finnish SSR. --Whiskey (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed comments by mediation participants

If the mediation participants would like to make other editors aware of these comments, the information in them should be added to the statement sections below. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Says who? The Karelo-Finnish SSR was part of the USSR. Or are you going to dispute that? If the city is referred to as Vyborg in official Soviet documents then the name is official. -YMB29 (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting times that if YMB29's view persists, we start to change names of Åland to their Finnish counterparts, or all instances of Constantinopole to Istambul... --Whiskey (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, now, remember, comment on the content, not the contributor... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have written as "...if the view that the town should use name Vyborg through the whole period and this makes the rule to follow, then..." --Whiskey (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say... What do the Alands or Istanbul have to do with this? It is the same when you constantly bring up the Gdansk/Danzig dispute... Each naming dispute is usually a different issue, so don't try to mix everything up together. -YMB29 (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are not. We are creating a policy, precedent which are used to solve other similar problems. Concistency, you understand. If we are going to make WP even a little reliable source, then the least we have to be is to be concistent. If we move one way once and another way to next, there will be no hope to WP.--Whiskey (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not about consistency, but about making different cases look the same. In the cases of Danzig vs. Gdansk and Constantinople vs. Istanbul the historical and modern city names are obvious. This is not the case here, so what is the point of referring to them? -YMB29 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Because of the ambiguity - "just when does it become obvious?". Case is similar it is only the perception of when the difference is obvious. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok so do you see anyone arguing that Constantinople was called Istanbul in 700 AD? -YMB29 (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not the point and you are perfectly aware of it. Issue revolves on the ambiguity of expression "difference is obvious". However this should be left for RfC. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is that not all naming disputes are the same, so no need to make unnecessary comparisons to this case. -YMB29 (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you base the claim that Danzig/Gdansk case doesn't hold here? I think this is exactly similar situation: Two countries having their own name to the same town, exchanging control of it, sometimes offering it autonomy. --Whiskey (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Whiskey, Your point is well taken. I absolutely 100-percent own my words about Russian "occupation" and my understanding and interpretation of this history. I apologize if it seemed to you I was trying to attribute those to you. Rel my rationale (which the mediator asked voters to provide in his instruction), when I mentioned you, I only meant in general terms of who was in control of the territory. You clearly have a much broader and more detailed understanding of the the exact series of events and obviously of the dates. I *did* read and understand the Wikipedia section about the Gdansk/Danzig vote after reading your mention of it.
  That's fascinating that Soviet maps include a Cyrillic version of Viipuri. QUERY: How were they spelling that one: Выпури? Випори? оr how? When you say contemporary, you mean contemporary to the time that Viipuri was part of the Karelo-Finnish SSR, correct?
  I'm sure, as some other voters have opined, that your approach is probably the most fair and rationale offered so far. QUERY: Would I be correctly interpreting your view if I said it's based on the official scheme of the government in control at the time? (My personal decision is to not recognize Soviet annexation in the same way that for example, some governments never recognized Soviet annexation of the Baltic states.)
  I'm just worried that too many name changes like this in a single article are going to frustrate readers and they're gonna' be asking themselves, wtf? That's where I was going with my vote, to try reduce changes, admittedly sacrificing the technical accuracy of your model, which I understand better from your most recent comment. Thanks. Paavo273 (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  For example, see File:Karelo-Finnish_SSR_1940.jpg. It is spelled there as Виипури. From Pocket Atlas of the USSR. 11th ed. Leningrad: Chief Administration of Geodesy and Cartography under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, 1940. Page 52. --Whiskey (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed comments by mediation participants

If the mediation participants would like to make other editors aware of these comments, the information in them should be added to the statement sections below. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You have the book?

Sorry but even if the map is from 1940, you can't claim that it proves that the Soviets used Viipuri when there are many documents that prove they used Vyborg. -YMB29 (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't. The source information comes from the person who uploaded the picture to WP. From the same book comes a second picture File:Leningrad_Oblast_and_Leningrad_1940.jpg, where the name can be read even more clearly: Виипури (Выборг). --Whiskey (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And so what? That does not negate the fact that official Soviet documents of that period used Vyborg. -YMB29 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In a similar ways in modern Finland documents written in Helsinki in Finnish refer Aland as Ahvenanmaa and Maariehamn as Maarianhamina. That doesn't change the fact that their official local names are Aland and Maariehamn. And Aland is only autonomous region, Karelo-Finnish SSR was a republic. Naturally documents written in Russian use the Russian name of the town. In a similar way as they use name "Gangut" for Finnish "Hanko". Or Finns use "Pietari" instead of "St. Petersburg". --Whiskey (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok so the Russians/Soviets used the Russian name Vyborg and the city was part of the USSR, so then why should it be called by its Finnish name? Just because it was part of the Karelo-Finnish Republic, where one of the two official languages was Finnish (formally)? -YMB29 (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Documents written in Russian did use 'Vyborg', however as stated the town did not actually belong to Russian SFSR until September 1944. Local documents - ie. those of Karelo-Finnish SSR (as shown by Whiskey) - still referred to the town as 'Viipuri' (albeit in Cyrillic letters) before that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A map is not a document... It does not matter if the city was not part of the Russian SFSR. It was still part of the USSR where everyone referred to it as Vyborg. -YMB29 (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Except it belonged to a part of USSR in which Finnish/Karelian was one of the official languages and which referred to it (locally) as 'Viipuri' (at least partially) - enough to make it noted in maps. Just because it was referred to as 'Vyborg' in Russian does not mean it would have been referred to as such locally (as per map). But this has very little to do with the RfC. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So then why bring it up?

You are saying that in the city itself the people referred to it as Viipuri? What percentage of the population was Finnish after the Winter War? I don't think it was much, considering that the city was abandoned before it was given to the Soviets... -YMB29 (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As being a part of Karelo-Finnish SSR, the local government goes to Petrozavosk, which is the lowest level of autonomous government in the area. And we can go down to look the documents for KFSSR internal use which name they have used there...--Whiskey (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

IN RESPONSE TO REMARK IN PELTIMIKKO'S VOTE ABOVE WHICH WAS A RESPONSE TO PAAVO273'S REMARK ABOUT OCCUPATION/OCCUPYING TERRITORY IN P273'S VOTE

• Comment: Hi Peltimikko, You're misreading my words: I said ***until***...'44. As far as I'm concerned, it's still occupied territory today! Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Peltimikko, that is not true. Vyborg was part of the USSR after the Moscow treaty of 1940 and was occupied territory when the Finns captured it in 1941, as no treaty gave it back to Finland. -YMB29 (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi YMB29: I think the meaning of "occupy" kind of depends on *whose* point of view, kind of like who's a patriot and who's a terrorist. To speak of treaties and such is pretty academic, not real' dispositive of actual rights, when one of the parties to the treaty is taking by force, is the government of a warring culture of bullies (just e.g., the Soviet empire, American empire, British empire, Roman empire) Whiskey, I never understood until you pointed it out that the "official languages of the [Karelo-Finnish SSR] republic was Finnish and Russian." That seems pretty straightforward to me. Paavo273 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What is occupation and what is not is arguable, so we have to go by the official status as given by peace treaties or other agreements. -YMB29 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

YMB29: You are correct, that no treaty gave Viipuri back to Finland. After the Finns conquested most of (Finnish and Soviet) Karelia, they immediately incorporated the Finnish Karelia (just lost over a year earlier) back to motherland. For the conquested part of Karelia, so called East Karelia, was established a separated (and temporary) military administration. Peltimikko (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So if there was no treaty signed how can you say that it was part of Finland and not occupied territory? -YMB29 (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed comments by mediation participants

If the mediation participants would like to make other editors aware of these comments, the information in them should be added to the statement sections below. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Joining (annexing/incorporating) (occupied) lands into a state does not require outside approval - making sure they are not contested/disputed does. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A country can annex lands but this won't be official and most likely not internationally recognized, unless there is an agreement signed. -YMB29 (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I refer this in the discussion in the Occupation of the Baltic states? General Russian views seems to be quite contrary... --Whiskey (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To the mediation participants, Wanderer602, YMB29, and Whiskey: please stop arguing about who occupied who, and who Vyborg/Viipuri might have "officially" belonged to during 1940-1944. This is already covered in the text of the RfC itself, and in a version to which you all agreed, no less. All this back-and-forth arguing is getting in the way of thoughtful debate, and is likely off-putting to outside editors coming in to comment on this RfC. Please don't forget that the precise reason we are having an RfC is to get outside input; if we could have solved this by agreement among ourselves then we would have done that already. I think I shall instigate a new rule - from now on, you can't reply directly to other mediation participants in this RfC thread. Instead, you should put your comments in a section which I will create below, and you are only allowed to edit your own sections. Also, if the statements become too long, I may require you to reduce their size, so please be concise. Thanks for your cooperation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. In the article on the Karelo-Finnish SSR it says in the infobox that the official languages were Finnish and Russian, but this isn't clarified any further. Whiskey's map source above would appear to be a good source for the official name of the town at the time, but it is still only one source. Are there any other sources that can shed light on the official languages, and whether Finnish was the "first" official language, and Russian the "second"? Are there any other sources that can confirm whether or not Viipuri was the name used by the Karelo-Finnish SSR? And are there any sources specifically from the Karelo-Finnish SSR that use Vyborg instead? Whiskey's suggestion of basing a solution on the Danzig/Gdansk vote solution seems popular among the RfC participants, but to me there seems a lack of hard data that we can use to base a decision on. Finding a few more sources would make the picture much clearer, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Comment: Probably data will be scarce on the short-lived republic, but if you take the experience of any other SSR, you will see that the first administrative language was the one spoken by the locals. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And how many Finns actually lived there? All or most of them left when Vyborg was handed to the Soviets. -YMB29 (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In October 1339, the whole population of the Viipuri province was evacuated. However, after the reconquest of the area in the summer of 1941, most of them returned, to be evacuated again in the summer of 1944. So during most of the war, the majority of the population was Finnish and Karelian. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

During that time the city still belonged to the USSR as there was no treaty signed that gave it back to Finland. So we are talking about the naming of the city when it was part of the USSR. Saying that the city should be known by its Finnish name just because Finnish was (formally) an official language of the Soviet republic in which the city was in is not very convincing...

Why did you say that only Finnish was the official language of the republic when Russian was an official language too (see below)? -YMB29 (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Both the Finnish and Russian languages were official:

Finnish reactionary papers slander the new Republic, asservating that the Finns and the Finnish language are being suppressed there. The Constitution of the Karelo-Finnish SSR exposes this base slander, showing that the Finnish language is, on a par with Russian, an official language of the Republic, although the Finnish population of the Republic is only a minority.

From The Saga of the Karelo-Finnish Republic, by I. Sergeyev (p. 46) [5]

Regarding maps, here is a map from 1940 that has Vyborg (Выборг), although it is hard to see: [6]

So if we are trying to establish the local historical name, what is meant by local? Do we look at how the city was called within the Karelo-Finnish SSR or in the USSR in general?

It is difficult to find documents on the level of the republic, but, as I mentioned before, there are plenty of official Soviet documents from that period that use the name Vyborg (Выборг). [7][8][9][10] -YMB29 (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Statements by Wanderer602, YMB29, and Whiskey

This section is for participants in the MedCab mediation on the Battle of Tali-Ihantala and the Continuation War; namely, Wanderer602, YMB29, and Whiskey. Instead of replying directly to each other on this talk page, they should write in their own sections here, and should not edit each other's sections. Statements here should also be kept as concise as possible. Please note that other editors are still free to ask them questions in the "comment" section and the "threaded discussion" section, and they are free to reply, but if continuing the conversation involves one mediation participant replying to another, then the statements here should be updated instead. I would also like to politely ask other editors to refrain from commenting in this section or from adding their own statements here, and instead direct them to either the "comments" or "threaded discussion" sections above. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Wanderer602

Statement by YMB29

From Danzig vs. Gdansk we know that we have to use the historical name (English or local). We already know this so there is no need to constantly refer to it or to other cases. We have to establish a historical name for this case. Saying that Viipuri has to be used until 1944 "following the Talk:Gdansk/Vote ruling" or because Istanbul was known as Constantinople is not helping to resolve this dispute...

Comparing the Finnish annexation of the city during the war to the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in general is also not helping. -YMB29 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So I guess if Vyborg was still Finnish after the Winter War, we must accept the legitimacy of the Karelo-Finnish SSR as a truly Finnish republic... Just because the city was not part of the Russian SFSR does not mean that it was not known by its Russian name in the USSR. -YMB29 (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Whiskey

According to Danzig/Gdansk vote, the local historical name should be used in the situations when the town changes ownership. This is a good, diplomatic solution which recognizes the value of the town to both countries, and offers a simple, concise policy to follow in similar cases. Like this one.

I think we all agree, that the town should be called Viipuri until March 13 1940, when the Winter War ended and the town with the surrounding area was ceded to Soviet Union. Also, I think we all agree, that the town should be called Vyborg after the November 1944, when the area was incorporated to Russian SSR and Leningrad Oblast.

To decide what was the local historical name of the town between those two dates, one should know a little bit about the history: According to contemporary Soviet history writing, the Finnish Democratic Republic, the Soviet minded puppet government Stalin created in the beginning of the Winter War, consisted after the Moscow Peace Treaty only those areas Finland ceded to Soviet Union. Immediately after the war Finnish Democratic Republic formed an union with Karelian Autonomic SSR, and formed a Karelo-Finnish SSR, where Finnish was a first official language and Russian the second. Even the national anthem was a Finnish song! At that time the official name of the town was Viipuri, although written in Cyrilic alphabet: Виипури. It was only after November 1944, when the local governance of the town was changed from Karelo-Finnish SSR to Russian SSR, and the official name was changed to Vyborg (Выборг). --Whiskey (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commonwealth countries

The article says that the United Kingdom followed Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India in declaring war on Finland. Just one problem: only Canada was in the Commonwealth or had the power to declare war at the time (along with South Africa and Ireland: the two other members of the Commonwealth). Australia acquired control of foreign policy with the passage of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, New Zealand with the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947, and India with independence in 1947. They all joined the war automatically when the United Kingdom declared war. Indeed, Australia symbolically back-dated the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 so that it took effect on 3 September 1939 - allowing Australia's legally-redundant 'declaration of war' to be effective (and thus convey their willingness to fight, rather than obligation to do so). Bastin 13:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this should be rephrased as "the Commonwealth member states" and add a footnote "See also the Statute of Westminster 1931." ? Peltimikko (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File:DefenceOfTheSovietTransarcticMedal.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DefenceOfTheSovietTransarcticMedal.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

KIA

There is edit warring going on over KIA, so I have blocked the page for three days to allow those editors who are interested time to present their evidence and come to some sort of consensus. -- PBS (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@Wanderer602: With regards to your request on my talk page please read The Wrong Version. Alexander Pastukh must engage in constructive dialogue on this page, as more war war without jaw jaw (to paraphrase Winston Churchill) will be taken to be disruptive behaviour. -- PBS (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So far the user in question has refused to so and instead altered sourced information (without altering or attributing new sources) on several wikipages. And when i reverted some of the said edits (as they altered values without any regards to the used sources or even removed sources from article altogether) with notes encouraging for taking the discussion into relevant articles talk page all i got was another revert from the user in question. If that is not disruptive editing/behavior i do not know what is. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Krivosheev's tables contain information only from limited time frames and operating areas. For example as Karelian Isthmus was part of Leningrad front operating area, the casualties suffered there 1941 were included to the same table as casualties Leningrad front suffered south of the city against Germans. Also Karelian Front and 7th Army conducted several operations between December 1941 and May 1944 and there is no table containing their losses from those operations. Also, Krivosheev cuts Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive short at Karelian Isthmus to June 20, while in reality, according to Army level casualty reports, Soviets suffered heavier casualties after that date than before. That's why summing up Soviet casualties from two Krivosheev tables doesn't produce valid Soviet casualty count to the whole war. --Whiskey (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Krivosheev doesn't exclude Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive, I have his book in original. Everything included. I do not know to which reports you refer to, but Krivosheev actually is one who was working with these reports.Alexander Pastukh (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, he does not exclude the whole of the offensive. Instead he arbitrarily sets an ending date for Leningrad Fronts offensive at June 20 which does not correspond with reality, essentially he appears to be cherry picking the facts he wants to present - which is even worse than omitting the offensive altogether. In addition to the date issue he omits mentioning most of armored formations, misses nearly half of infantry formations, one whole army etc. from his listing for Leningrad Fronts offensive. Interestingly enough the omissions for the Karelian Fronts offensive are much smaller, only several infantry brigades (1 x marine & 2 x naval infantry) and 10 tank or assault gun regiments but then again its ending date seems to be quite properly set, perhaps a day or two short. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Frozen at the Wrong Version, of course. --illythr (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Krivosheyev's data is not in any way valid for handling the losses suffered during the war. It manages to be inaccurate even with regards to specific operations it should be covering. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to say that the only clear data which can show the Soviet losses is the Russian archives. Krivosheev worked with the archives of the Russian defence ministry and his numbers are officially adopted in Russia, they also recognized by David Glantz who on the West considered as the best military historian on the USSR. So I insist on keeping his numbers, otherwise it is a double standard policy where Wiki shows the numbers of Axis from the Axis sources (in Russia they are accepted) yet they refuse to accept the Russian numbers on the Russian casualties. This is not concensus whatsoever. Russian historians also give higher casualties of Axis however I do not insist on putting them here. The most fair solution is to put Finnish/German data on the Finnish/German losses and Russian data on the Russian losses. Both sides know better how many they lost, let's omit revisionism and stick to the facts. The numbers of Russian casualties taken from foreign historians do not depict the reality, cos those historians have never seen Russian records.

Alexander Pastukh (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Krivosheyev did work with information from Soviet/Russian archives, however for example Finnish historian Manninen got his information from the Soviet archives as well so your claim that 'those historians have never seen Russian records' is already false. Even though the numbers might be officially adopted that does not make then valid or even truthful if they fail when they are being investigated. Also Glantz has stated that Krivosheyev's values are not correct and lack quite a bit of Soviet losses. Problem with Krivosheyev - with regards to Finnish front as to several other areas - is that it is very far from being a complete data. It is lacking which can be noted even with mere superficial observation.

For example the ВЫБОРГСКО-ПЕТРОЗАВОДСКАЯ СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКАЯ НАСТУПАТЕЛЬНАЯ ОПЕРАЦИЯ entry in Krivosheyev's work, it contains several errors which cast considerable doubt over the reported numbers. First the Leningrad fronts offensive is marked as having ended on June 20, while in reality that was merely the day the offensive stalled, LF attempted to advance all the way until mid July, but Krivosheyev disregards theses losses from his table - and those losses were much heavier than what preceded them. Second, the number of units in the tables, even cursory glance on Soviet TOE (БОЕВОЙ СОСТАВ СОВЕТСКОЙ АРМИИ - ЧАСТЬ IV -(Январь – декабрь 1944 г.) - МОСКВА, ВОЕННОЕ ИЗДАТЕЛЬСТВО, 1988) shows that Krivosheyev's numbers for the units involved in the fighting are wildly misleading - Krivosheyev: (LF) 15 rifle div, 1 armored brigade, 2 fortified regions, official TOE (for 21st & 23rd armies, July 1) 24 rifle divisions, 1 armored brigade (+10 armored battalions), without even taking into account front reserves of which a lot are known to have been involved in the fighting - again casting doubt on how the casualty numbers reported by Krivosheyev could ever be complete. These are exactly the issues which the Manninen and other researchers have addressed. Hence their numbers have more validity than what Krivosheyev's does.

Looking at СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКАЯ ОБОРОНИТЕЛЬНАЯ ОПЕРАЦИЯ в Заполярье и Карелии we can see that Krivosheyev arbitrarily assigns the end date of the operation on October 1 while Finnish offensive continued all the way until December. Also the Leningrad fronts losses are totally absent from the list.

When full front is missing from one entry and another omits a full army from its listing (59th Army at Viborg area in 1944) and when the end dates of the operations do not correspond with the actual events that took place during the war the numbers provided by Krivosheyev are not the full truth, far from it. Furthermore instead of following casualties formation by formation throughout the war Krivosheyev divides these to 'operations' which conveniently omits the time between the operations (with Finnish front that means Krivosheyev's data omits the losses from the utterly failed offensives by the Karelian Front (x2) and the 7th Separate Army during 1942). Other authors have merely worked to address these deficiencies of Krivosheyev's data. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

For your information the access to the Russian archives is restricted because they are possesed by the defence ministry and access for foreigners is highly restricted, so Mannien couldn't work with any serious Soviet records on its casualties. Krivosheev is an ex-colonel of the Russian army, that's why he had access and he was working not alone with them, he had a team who elaborated everything. Leningard front losses? Well then we should include all Germans Leningrad losses, they are not included here whatsoever. So do not mix different events. Here there is a Soviet-Finnish war, if you want to include total Lenigrad losses German losses should be presented as well, cos it was not Finns who inflicted most of the casualties to the USSR on the Lenigard front. Also I'd like to see the pages where Krivosheev misses something and evidences of that, cos in his tables he gives general numbers, so you can't say that he misses something, if you have read the book you should probably know the places, show them if you not mind. МОСКВА, ВОЕННОЕ ИЗДАТЕЛЬСТВО, 1988) couldn't show that Krivosheev is wrong, cos Krivosheev wrote his book 5 years later and his data is regulary updated, current numbers are from the up-to-date researches. СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКАЯ ОБОРОНИТЕЛЬНАЯ ОПЕРАЦИЯ в Заполярье и Карелии first of all Krivosheev writes that the end of the operation is 10th of October not 1st as u said, secondly I see no sources from you that it ended in December. 10th of October is not only Krivosheev's date. Alexander Pastukh (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Access to the archives was allowed in 1990s which is when Manninen did his research, access to Soviet/Russian archives became more restricted for some weird reason once again during current Putin/Medjedev era. Regardless of your opinion or stance, Manninen explicitly states that he had access in Soviet archives to Soviet casualty reports. Some of the Leningrad fronts losses are valid, since the 23rd Army of the Leningrad Front (after it was formed late August 1941) did take part in the fighting against the Finns - for that matter 23rd Army did not take part into the fighting against the Germans.

Find me evidence and numbers of Soviet losses suffered by the Karelian front and 7th Separate Army against the Finns in spring 1942 and those suffered by Karelian front in autumn 1942? Find me the numbers of Soviet losses suffered by Karelian front and 7th Separate Army both after 1 October to the end of Finnish offensive phase? Soviet losses during the trench warfare (incl. 1st Partisan Brigade)? Find me evidence and numbers of Leningrad Fronts losses in the Karelian Isthmus (against the Finns) after 20 June 1944? Find me the numbers of the losses suffered by the Soviet 59th Army in Bay of Viborg from June 30 to July 10? All those are relevant and absent from the data you offered.

Units identified in the TOE are the same as identified in joint Finnish-Russian books regarding the war by Ari Raunio & Juri Kilin, published 2007 & 2008, who used both Finnish and Russian archival data - only contradictory source is Krivosheyev, others (both Finnish and Russian historians) agree that number of formations was much higher.

And you still have not addressed the issue that the scope of the Krivosheyev's numbers does not fit into that which is the scope of the war or even the articles of individual battles - which alone invalidates the use of his numbers. For example for the Leningrad Front after 20 June 1944 there exists Stavka orders for attack to continue, Finnish & German & Soviet war diaries, casualty reports the works which other researchers have used, however these all are omitted by Krivosheyev.

Finnish offensive phase ended in Karelian Isthmus on early September after receiving orders in late August to form a defensive line (at the time facing 23rd Army of the Leningrad Front), in Svir area on mid September after reaching per orders the roads running parallel to the river on the south shore of Svir, in Maaselkä/Povonets area in December 5 when Finns captured Povonets. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So non-Russian speaker Mannien found in that archives some extra lossess which the native speaker Krivosheev didn't notice? Are you kidding or it's some kind of a trolling? I shouldn't find you anything since Krivosheev gives overall casualties, check his book and u will see everything in the tables, don't speculate please on naming some extras which allegedly do not mentioned in his book, everything considered. So all what u have named included in Krivosheev studies. End of the story. I can say about Finnes the same, who told you that Mannien numbers include everything? I guess no-one, cos you can't prove that Mannien numbers are valid but we have to accept them, same as we have to accept Krivosheev's numbers. Alexander Pastukh (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Manninen does read Russian and his research is valid. Anything else? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually Manninen tries to use Krivosheyev's values as far as he can. However as per the notes in Krivosheyev's work (several missing formations, wrong ending date) the loss reports by Krivosheyev with regards to fighting at Karelian Isthmus in summer 1944 is not complete (and given the notes, the author is aware of this). So Manninen appended the loss reports since it clearly omitted sizable portion of the Soviet losses. Also I presented to you several questions regarding losses in the Finnish front (especially with Krivosheyev in mind), can you provide answers for those?

Manninen actually does not include everything - which he openly admits - as the loss reports he used were from rather low level, which as per Manninen and others means that number of 'non-irreplaceable' losses (wounded) actually ended up being 'irreplaceable' (dead) as some wounded soldiers died after they had left from the bookkeeping of front line units - so his numbers are slightly biased into having elevated numbers of wounded and diminished number of 'irreplaceable' losses. However since the scope of his study and the numbers actually cover the whole operation and not just certain portion of it is far more representative than what Krivosheyev has. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If the Soviet extra casualties u assert here do not included in Krivosheev book (which is lie of course cos in fact they are included) means they are not in the archives. So where does Mannien took them? Out of his mind? Or counted each soldier personally? Secondly there is no evidence that his numbers on KIA + WIA are correct they maybe higher but I do not say that it's unreliable. It is well known fact that each side always tries to diminish its own casualties and elevate the casualties of the enemy, so if you want to get at least correct ratio you need to take the numbers from both sides. Otherwise it is a revisionism and bias cos u take Finnish casualties from a Finnish writer and u take Soviet casualties again from a Finnish writer. Ridiculous. Why should we take both sides casualties from the Russian historians then? I simply call for objectivity whereas you try to impose biased position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Pastukh (talk • contribs) 13:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Nationality itself is not a bias, the research may be, but you have not proven that so far. Manninen took his numbers from the Soviet archives, and that's what the article will present. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

With regards to the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk it appears that Krivosheyev follows the 'traditional' Soviet/Russian liturgy of the Summer offensive of 1944 that it would have ended already on June 20 (ie. 'the polished historiography' as the Leningrad Front's offensive was relatively successful between 9-20 June and an abysmal failure between 21 June - 15 July). However the old Soviet view does not correspond which what took place. According to Soviet, Finnish and German war diaries and even according to STAVKA orders Leningrad Fronts offensive continued until mid July. The numbers for the losses for the rest of the period are in the Soviet archives but Krivosheyev apparently chose to disregard them. Juri Kilin (Russian historian) also found loss reports after June 20 for Leningrad Front so they do not appear to be have been any difficult to find if any effort to accomplish that goal was made. "Taking numbers from both sides" - is exactly why we are using Manninen's numbers - he used numbers from Soviet archives when he came up with his result, not any Finnish values. Finnish estimates for Soviet losses were totally different and not in any way relevant to what Manninen found. Problems with Krivosheyev are many and with Vyborg-Petrozavodsk they are even more pronounced since the author omits (openly) so much from his numbers ('traditional' if wrong dates, huge number of formations missing, whole army missing...). In other words Krivosheyev's value for the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk does not fit into the scope (as the timeframe of the offensive was in reality wider than what Krivosheyev's listing is) of the article regarding the offensive - let alone to one handling the whole of the Continuation War.

Or can you explain why does Krivosheyev's table have an explicit cut off date of June 20 for the Leningrad Fronts offensive (which in reality continued until mid July)? Or can you explain how there are so many formations (including whole army, the 59th Army) missing from his listing that other lists - like official TOE have? - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You complaining about polished historiography...

Krivosheev's book does not try to hide anything and does not have wrong data. It is just that the list of casualties by operation cannot be used for accurately getting the total Soviet casualties against the Finns for this war. Also, the Soviet and Finnish definitions of each operation are not always the same. -YMB29 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You have several times in the past made similar insinuations regarding me in our discussions, could you now finally either get to the point or then stop these personal attacks? It is not befitting the articles or even their talk pages - not to mention being clear violation of wiki protocols. Either discuss the matter at hand or then be quiet if you nothing constructive to say. So far the only thing that has suffered from those claims is your own reputation.

It is accepted by studies from Finnish, German and Russian (Soviet) archive materials that Soviet Leningrad Front's offensive continued without any real gains nearly a month after the deadline listed by Krivosheyev had been reached. Trying to wipe the inconvenient facts of the history under the carpet, or in this case trying to hide the total failure of the Leningrad Front after June 20 is nothing but writing polished historiography (remember STAVKA orders which explicitly ordered LF to keep attacking after June 20). Then answer the questions i asked earlier with regards of Krivosheyev... (repeated here for sake of clarity)

Find me evidence and numbers of Soviet losses suffered by the Karelian front and 7th Separate Army against the Finns in spring 1942 and those suffered by Karelian front in autumn 1942? Find me the numbers of Soviet losses suffered by Karelian front and 7th Separate Army both after 1 October to the end of Finnish offensive phase? Soviet losses during the trench warfare (incl. 1st Partisan Brigade)? Find me evidence and numbers of Leningrad Fronts losses in the Karelian Isthmus (against the Finns) after 20 June 1944? Find me the numbers of the losses suffered by the Soviet 59th Army in Bay of Viborg from June 30 to July 10?

Granted some are only relevant to the Continuation War topic but others are relevant solely to the 'Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offensive'. None of which are answered by Krivosheyev. And this is even without going into the clear errors in the data with regards to actual units which saw combat as Krivosheyev's numbers are considerably different from other existing values. And for that matter, with little sarcasm, currently the omission in Krivosheyev's data is roughly akin to presenting Finnish losses only from 1941 as total war losses conveniently ignoring the losses of 1944 altogether, after all who would want to remember those... - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Read what I wrote carefully... I was actually agreeing with you that the data in Krivosheev's book cannot be used to get the total Soviet casualties against the Finns. However, you start talking about some conspiracy to hide Soviet losses... The casualties by operations data was not meant to be used to get the total for the whole war or for different fronts; it clearly says in the book that this data includes only the casualties during the operations and not in between them (показано число потерь, понесенных войсками только в ходе стратегических операций).

Also, the book defines the end of the Vyborg part of the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offensive as June 20th, so it is a difference in the definition (compared to your understanding of the offensive) and not an attempt to cover up "failures."

As for units, the tables in the book list only the units that started the operation (Боевой состав и численность войск к началу операции).

And what personal attacks are you talking about? -YMB29 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is that selective in its information how can it be considered to be reliable source at any level - such cherry picking of dates & unit compositions is nothing but polishing the historiography - as per what you are saying it is not reliable source at any level, especially since it is accepted fact that LF offensive continued well until the mid July. Personal attack includes insults and even snide remarks, even when they may not have been intended as such. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So in your opinion it is acceptable to hide casualties suffered in the fighting by altering the scope of the event or my ignoring certain less glorious parts of the campaign. Because either of those is what Krivosheyev is doing. If that is not 'hiding' then what is it? - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be not understanding what I am saying...

Yes, that data alone cannot be used here, but don't blame Krivosheev for that. Again, that data has one purpose - to show the casualties during strategic operations, not casualties before or after any of them.

As far as the book is concerned, the strategic operation for the Leningrad Front ended on June 20th. The scope of an operation or battle is often different for each side (see Battle of Kursk for example).

So no, the book's authors did not try to hide casualties. Your accusation of polished historiography is inappropriate, especially considering your editing here. -YMB29 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really, I never said Krivosheyev would have invented the limited scope of the offensive. That quite clearly comes from Soviet era history writing - which sadly said was at times polished. Krivosheyev however follows it and henceforth carries the error/mistake with it (knowingly or not). Especially when it is known that advance further into Finland by LF was part of the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive's plan and that the attacks related to it even took place - yet such information seems to be curiously missing from Soviet/Russian historiography. As it happened LF offensive continued all the time after the capture of Viborg. To summarily cut off the casualties according to own forces successes, that is to ignore those which were suffered from failed parts of the offensive, is nothing but polishing the historiography. And please, could you now finally state what exactly do you mean with your insinuations? - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You think the Finnish historiography you present here is not often polished?

The fighting after the taking of Vyborg is talked about in Soviet historiography; it is just a matter if it was part of the strategic offensive or not. If you think that there was some Soviet conspiracy to hide casualties and failures, that is only your speculation... -YMB29 (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not know, can you point to any such event that you are talking about?

So despite the fact that initial plans called for longer advance and that STAVKA itself ordered the LF's offensive to continue far deeper than it had it is by all rights valid to agree that the offensive ended on 20 June? Besides hiding matters would not exactly be a surprise from the former Soviet Union, it took long enough from it or its successor to start admissions regarding the Winter War (some 50 years). - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, you should look at yourself first before criticizing others. Finnish historiography is such that people there have trouble admitting that they lost the war and think that it was nothing but a series of "defensive victories"...

I don't know what exactly the initial plans of the offensive said, but the Leningrad Front was given a new order to continue on June 21st. -YMB29 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Here you are making the mistake of believing that different countries goals in WW II would have been similar. For Finnish part it is to stay out of the war, and failing that, to survive it. Which it did through the force of arms. Which is why it can be viewed as (sort of) success or victory. Sure there was more to the war than the Finnish defensive successes (again victory?) but regardless those defensive victories still happened. I fail to see your point, if there was one. However on the Soviet case like you yourself stated the offensive continued on 21 June. Which makes it rather dubious practice to call that it would have ended on 20 June does it not? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The initial offensive ended. There are different views on whether the next offensive was part of the overall strategic operation or not. There is no conspiracy to hide anything.

It takes a lot of polishing to make the result of the war look like a victory for Finland... Every time the Finns did not retreat in panic and/or held their lines, often with German help, it is called a brilliant defensive victory that helped stop the Soviet conquest of Finland... -YMB29 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop twisting the words, i only said that because Finland survived despite being drawn into the WW II by the Soviet Union it could be viewed as a success. Not that war would have been a Finnish victory. There is big difference between the expressions.

So despite that the offensive of the Karelian Front started in adjacent sector it is perfectly ok to forget that inconvenient fact that the LF also attempted to to keep advancing all the way until mid July, or at least its ok to forget the casualties it suffered, time when losses easily surpassed those suffered between 9-20 June? I'm afraid i do not quite follow your insinuations, could you please state (and answer the question) the issue plainly instead of avoiding it? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this so hard to follow? This is how the Vyborg operation is defined in the book. You may not agree with it, but don't make accusations about purposely hiding casualties.

I did not twist anything; you yourself said that the result could be viewed as a victory. -YMB29 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's conveniently defined so that it ignores most of the operation by the Leningrad Front. Is that definition which is the problem. And that is hiding casualties which are known to be part of the Soviet losses in the offensive since LF offensive is known to have continued until mid July. Just because post WWII Soviet history writing tries to claim the offensive ended by LF on 20 June it does not make it so. Sources should not be accepted without criticism - regardless of their reputation.

Yes it could be viewed as a success - or a victory - since Finland survived WWII, into which Soviets forced Finns to take part, without being overrun or taken over unlike most of the countries in the Baltics or in the Eastern Europe. But is not saying it was a victory in generic terms. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

So you are not saying that it was a victory, but that it was a victory... Yes poor Finland was forced into WWII but was not overrun... This is just polishing without shame.

You can speculate about conspiracies to cover up losses all you want, but again you are really not the one to complain about polishing historiography... -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Shame, what shame, from being forced into war that no one in the country wanted, or from something else? Could you please be a any less vague, these insinuations you seem to apply to nearly every message are really getting tiresome, if you have something to say then say it and be done with it. Finland survived the WWII which is the reason why it is at times considered to be a victory. It was something a small nation was not expected to achieve. I'm not speculating conspiracies, I merely noted how the matters are. Using sources known to contain inaccurate information does not benefit quality of the article at all - it only degrades it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's remove Krivosheev's book from all articles because you think it contains inaccurate information...

I meant that there should be shame felt for trying to manipulate history like that. Finland made its own choice when it decided to join the Nazi invasion. It survived the war just like the other allies of Nazi Germany. Its existence, however, was never threatened, but you say that it was to make the result look like a victory. -YMB29 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Again these mysterious insinuations, Krivosheyev is known to contain inaccurate information especially, but not exclusively limited to, war(s) with Finland. Which has been discussed several already. Which is the reason why it is used in the manner it is. Reading from Lunde it appears Finland did not have much of a choice - again thanks to actions and activities of the Soviet Union. 'Just like the other allies of Nazi Germany'? Really, and you have actually read about the war and what took place after them (also calling Finland an ally is dubious)? Of the countries that took part to the WWII in Europe only three were not occupied. UK, SU and Finland. Of the countries facing the Soviet Union only Finland was able to retain democrat form of government after the war. It is vastly different from what took place in the countries you referred to. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well here again you start making dubious and laughable claims that make things look better (more "polished") for Finland... You just keep proving my point about your objectivity.

Again, the problem with using Krivosheev's book is not inaccurate data, but that the data cannot be used to get the total casualties for the articles here; that was not the purpose of the book. You, however, fail to understand this. -YMB29 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious claims you say? Lunde (2011) p. 378-379 "Nevertheless, the fact that they did not have formal alliance with Germany eventually served Finland well and gave them a special status among the nations that fought on the Germany's side. .. There are no doubts the Soviets followed a policy that made Finland fear for its safety. This short-sighted policy helped to propel isolated Finland into the arms of Germany. .. Finland unlike many of the Germany's allies retained it's independence after the war...". In other words, clumping it with 'German allies' is inaccurate and also its fate was different than most of them. Again not so not so "dubious and laughable" claims. Also the notation regarding as not being occupied is accurate.

Problem with Krivosheyev is how it is portrayed. It is not a book about Soviet losses, it is a book about Soviet losses suffered in operations as they are defined in Soviet historiography (well, that section of the book anyway). That there lies the problem. Russian historians admit that LF continued it's offensive until nearly mid-July but the Soviet/Russian historiography does not. And instead of actually following through or even noting that heavy fighting continued Krivosheyev does not even acknowledge that there was anything going on after 20 June at Karelian Isthmus. It does not mean that it is worthless but it means that the values from the book can not be used unless very specific conditions are fulfilled. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You think the book should have followed Finnish historiography? It was not the authors' job to redefine the offensives. Soviet historiography does not admit that there was heavy fighting after June 20? Well I guess then the Platonov book you like to quote was not published in the USSR...

What country lost its independence after the war? What difference does it make if a country was occupied or not? Finland was not occupied (no one wanted nor needed to do that), but it still fell into the Soviet sphere of influence.

No formal alliance does not mean no alliance in practice. Most sources about the war that mention Finland consider it to be a German ally; it is dubious to deny this.

Also, Lunde does not say that Finland had no choice; that is your interpretation. -YMB29 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Book could have followed the actual events - like modern research does - instead of sticking to Soviet liturgy. Soviet historiography may admit there was fighting but denies that it would have been part of the offensive which is already proven false with the STAVKA orders and by modern research. Umh.. Most of eastern Europe lost their independence and were transformed into Soviet led "People's Democracy" (Poland, Hungary, Romania...) satellite states or directly incorporated into USSR (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Eastern Poland...) which is a known fact. And this was often due to the still lingering Soviet presence in the countries (for example Czechoslovak coup d'état of 1948 where Soviet ambassador orchestrated coup d'etat or Soviet occupation of Hungary...). Generic Russian denial of which is actually one of the reasons why they do not view Russia or Russians so well. So being occupied has its effect in post-war time in addition to setting Finland apart from other countries aligned with the Axis. Actually the formal part matters quite a bit. It is the difference between being co-belligerent and actual ally in its more strict sense. But it really does not matter however your phrasing would also mean that the Soviet Union was German ally during the invasion of Poland 1939 so it pays off to use more accurate terms. Also could you finally stop twisting the words, i stated quite clearly 'much of a choice' which is exactly what Lunde is saying in far more elaborate way. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No that is not what he is saying; that is your twist on it...

Finland was Nazi Germany's ally, not the USSR; there is no way around that. You may not like it, but it is not about what you think.

The Soviet "satellites" were independent states; you are just repeating the silly claims often coming out of these countries now. They were influenced by the USSR just like Finland, which was probably more cooperative than some of them, so I don't see your point...

What modern research are you talking about? Why would Soviet historiography admit it but try so hard to deny that it was part of the offensive? To make the offensive look better? That is just silly...

If there is any liturgy to talk about here, it is the Finnish one. You follow it without question and ignore all arguments against anything it states. -YMB29 (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As discussed that depends on the time frame, during invasion of Poland there is nothing to indicate that the Soviet Union would not have been Nazi ally, you may not like it, but it is not about what you think. Please read their history, those are not silly claims. The Soviet Union imposed itself over the Eastern Europe and as seen from the attempts to breakaway from it they countries in 'Eastern Block' were not independent - see for example Prague Spring and Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia. Soviet influence in Finland was quite a bit different.

Soviet historiography tried to hide the whole Winter War ever took place to make the Soviet Union look better for more than 50 years. Given the extent of that attempt it is not exactly far fetched to apply some criticism on 'traditional Soviet historiography' with regards of other failures at the front lines.

And what would i be ignoring? That Krivosheyev uses wrong dates to describe the offensive? Mind you, even though the 'Vyborg operation' would have ended on 20 June, the offensive in which LF continued from Viipuri towards Lappeenranta after 20 June was still part of the overall offensive and that phase is totally absent from Krivosheyev's work. It is not mentioned, it is not hinted, there is nothing about it. Even though STAVKA orders make it crystal clear that it was part of the offensive. Please provide something concrete should you have anything. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You just keep repeating the same thing over and over... How many times must I point out to you that the data and dates are not wrong and it is a matter of interpretation? Actually, it is a Soviet offensive so really we have to go by how it was defined in the USSR...

So now you claim that the USSR tried to hide the Winter War... Keep your conspiracies to yourself.

Claiming that the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany, that Eastern European countries were not independent, and ignoring Finlandization is silly...

You are going way off-topic here. None of what is being discussed has anything to do with edits here, see WP:NOTAFORUM. -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In other words in your opinion what is written about history does not need to match actual events, just the preferred version of historiography? Because that is what seem to be stating with regards to the dates of the offensive. Furthermore it is known that attack past 20 June or Viipuri was part of the original (plan of) operation for LF.

It took until 1988 for the Soviet Union to admit that it had attacked in the Winter War. And some circle's still seem to be refuting the Mainila shelling.

Finnish independence was somewhat repressed by Finlandization (avoiding antagonizing the Soviet Union), that is true, however all the same it still remained free from the Soviet Union's control, also Finland maintained democratically elected government throughout and after the war. Same was not true with the Eastern European countries. They were nothing more than satellite states of the Soviet Union. Only formally independent, however not in practice.

I would be happy to stick with the topic but last i checked you inquired several times for more information which i seemed obliged to provide. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The only thing you provide is more claims, excuses and speculation, which make the discussion go off-topic more and more.

As always you make very questionable claims, but fail to provide sources supporting them when asked; I am not even going to ask you to provide them since you probably won't and this is way off-topic.

Again, if you claim that Eastern Europe was not independent then you have to admit that Finland was not also, since it was more obedient than many of the satellites.

I don't know where you got that Soviet historiography denied that the USSR attacked Finland in the Winter War... You must have confused it with Finnish historiography and the Continuation War...

It is not about my opinion or your opinion but what reliable sources say. The end of an operation does not mean an end to active combat. The Soviets had the right to define their operation the way they wanted to, and it does not mean they intended to falsify something. -YMB29 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Provide any evidence for your claims first and then we might have a look at them. Eastern European countries being satellite states is an acknowledged fact, as it the fact that they did only have formal independence, see Eastern Block & Satellite state. Finland's situation was different, there did not exists any kind of binding military agreements (FCMA had certain loopholes) with the Soviet Union unlike in Eastern Block countries and it was also acknowledged by both sides in the Cold War as a neutral country. Soviet/Russian historiography maintained until 1990s that Finns initiated the Winter War with the Shelling of Mainila. That in itself is already an outright denial of the matter. So despite that the STAVKA separately ordered the offensive to continue clearly as part of the overall operation with the Karelian Front (as indicated by defined operational boundaries with KF) on 21 June it is perfectly valid to state that it ended when it in reality failed after that? That is in itself hiding facts, and polishing the historiography, nothing else. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well again polishing is something you know all about, like denying that Finland was an ally of Nazi Germany...

What is so special about this offensive (of secondary importance for the war) that made the Soviets want to hide facts about it?

Soviet historiography did not deny that the USSR attacked Finland; it only said that the USSR was provoked and not only by the Mainila incident.

You are the one who has to provide evidence that those countries were not independent. If they were puppet states then Finland was a Soviet vassal... -YMB29 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

We have been through that several times, please re-read the discussions from there, thank you (term even in literature is co-belligerent given the lack of formal agreements). Fact that it failed militarily even though it is marked as a Soviet success could be one such thing we it could be hidden, perhaps? That the offensive turned after promising start into costly fiasco.

Assuming you actually read the posts i mentioned several times that they were merely formally independent, please read about that from Eastern Block and related pages - it is discussed there. Also Finland does not fit under vassal state by any definition. And again, could you please stop with the insinuations, if you have something to say, say it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well Finland fits the vassal state definition more than Eastern Europe being a set of puppet states...

Ok so after the "fiasco" Finland accepted Soviet terms and began fighting their allies... -YMB29 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Puppet state and Satellite state are two quite a different things. It would make this discussion easier if you would check the terms before you use them since you do not seem to be grasping the difference between the definitions. And Finland yet fits under none of the categories, it was not puppet, satellite or vassal state. Ironically going strictly by the common definition of vassal state, ie. weaker is to provide support for the dominant one, the Soviet Union was vassal to Finland, after all the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 explicitly stated that the Soviets would come in support of the Finns IF separately requested by the Finns, and nothing vice versa.

After the offensive Soviets changed their demands to address the terms in the previous demand that Finns had found impossible to accept - judging from the treaty texts the offensive was a net loss to the Soviets regardless of the perspective. Do not forget that Finns had been willing to seek a way out of war since 1943 and only the few sticking points (which Soviets reduced after the offensive) mentioned with regards to spring 1944 negotiations caused them to fail. Democratic system works in different manner than a dictatorship. Also, once again, Germans had never been Finnish allies in any formal sense. Neither were they referred to as such by Finns (or AFAIK even by Germans). Again, keeping the facts clear makes it easier to reach a conclusion. And yes they did start a war against the Germans, after first jointly evacuating the area which was expected to be fought upon and by leasing more transportation equipment to Germans in order to facilitate smoother evacuation (since Germans were leaving even without a war). - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well you live in your own world, where Finland was not an ally of Germany and where the Soviets made concessions to the Finns in order to make peace.

Yes, it would be better to check the terms, then maybe you would not be calling independent countries puppet states...

So I guess if the Soviet Union was a vassal of Finland and Eastern European countries were puppet states of the Soviet Union, that means little Finland was king of half of Europe and half of Asia... Forget Greater Finland, this was Mega Finland... -YMB29 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Formally it was not an ally of Germany. Hence it is in literature referred to as co-belligerent or at the time as 'brother in arms' (akin to adage the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Soviet terms included concessions when compared to the ones made before the offensive, which happens to be a fact so once again i fail to see your point.

It would be beneficial to all involved if you would avoid making false claims. Only you have stated that they were puppet states, only you have insisted on that discussion. I merely pointed out, with several references that they were 'satellite states' (hence as per definition only formally independent).

I think you missed the word 'ironically' which meant that rest were there only to point out the folly of calling Finland as a vassal state. While Finnish politics took the Soviet Union union into account (ie. Finlandization) it still remained fully independent, something which did not held true with regards to the Eastern European Soviet satellite states. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that is what you like to think...

You said that Eastern European countries were not independent, then said they were only formally independent, which is saying that they were not independent in reality, and this means they were puppet states. This is a false claim. If you are going to get information from a wiki article, make sure it is well sourced first. So if you want others to be accurate, look at yourself first.

The Soviet "concessions" were explained to you in the other article's talk page.

I don't know what literature exists in your universe, but in reality literature about the war refers to Finland as an ally of Nazi Germany.[11] -YMB29 (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Satellite state is known definition so fail to see what exactly is your point here. Please read again what is stated in (referenced articles) satellite state, Eastern Block. It is actually explained there. But that does not change the fact that you were the one dragging the puppet state definition into this discussion. Google search is not exactly something you can use to base a claim on and you are perfectly aware of this. Also we have discussed the matter previously. For example [12] which clearly shows (as per your example) that Soviet Union was German ally. If you want to keep the discussion relevant to the article then would it be possible to actually discuss about the article instead of repeatedly dragging the discussion into somewhere else? - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Tell yourself that as you started this off-topic discussion.

The mention of the USSR being an ally of Nazi Germany is very rare in literature, and your search link actually shows this...

I did not just give a link; the sources in the link actually mention Finland being a German ally.

A puppet state has formal independence only, but a satellite has actual independence. That article has many uncited statements. -YMB29 (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually checking through the discussions you drew the Eastern European countries into the discussion, please do not try to hide it, it is in the page history as well as in the log. All the same the statement that the Soviet Union was Nazi Germany's ally exists in the literature so by your own conjecture it must then be true, determining popularity of some expression using google search terms and what hits it picked up first is not exactly valid method. All the statements in the articles regarding puppet state or satellite state actually related as to what they were has been cited - and it clearly notes that they have formal independence but were under heavy political and economic influence or control by another country. Puppet state is the exact same but with full foreign control over matters. The terms are actually explained there if you bothered to read them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well obviously you only bothered to read that wiki article. There are better sources to find out the exact meaning of the terms. Influence is not the same as full control.

You dragged Eastern European countries into this by claiming that Finland won some sort of victory since it was not like them after the war.

Google search could be used to tell how often something comes up in publications, and Finland being a German ally is very common. -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So now again you run out of arguments and start making personal attacks on me (ie. claims that i would not have checked beyond wiki), either stick to the issue or then be politely quiet if you have nothing to say. Also as a note, you still seem to be mixing puppet state with satellite state which is apparent from your statement with regards to 'full control'. Claim regarding Finland having better fate than Eastern Europeans is not mine, it is quite common in history books. Google search then also proves that the Soviet Union was German ally. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it proves that the statement rarely shows up.

You are the one mixing things here. Yes, Finland being better off is a common opinion, just like the opinion that Germany and Japan were soon better off after the war than the winners... However, you claimed that it can be said that Finland won a victory because of this.

Also, I don't know where you see insults... -YMB29 (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, as per your statements it only proves that the Soviet Union was German ally. Finland did not end up being occupied - act which invariably led to conversion into a Soviet satellite state in other countries - so it ended better off than rest of the Eastern Europe, this statement is repeated by several authors. I said it 'can be viewed as such' not that it actually was one - there is still an important difference between the two expressions. Such a view often includes the note of the disparity of the power and size between Finland and the Soviet Union - and how Finland yet managed to retain independence. By mocking opposing statements or the opponent you are already making insults. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about.

"It can be viewed" is still dubious. You can think if you want that Finland not being occupied, when there is no evidence that anyone wanted to occupy it, is an accomplishment; that is your opinion...

And your link does not prove that the USSR was a German ally. Did you even look at it? -YMB29 (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did look at it, and according to the same deduction chain you used with your example it proves that the Soviet Union was Germany ally. It is not exactly my fault if your method of deduction is faulty. You only need to read say Lunde to see that what it was an accomplishment. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an accomplishment if you think that the Soviets wanted to conquer it, but there is no evidence of that.

Your understanding of the method is faulty. The point was not to just post a link to the results, but to actually look at how much of them support you. Your link proves my point, that there is hardly any mention of the USSR being an ally of Nazi Germany. -YMB29 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Soviets were not - technically according to the Soviet parlance - conquering Eastern Europe either, yet the end result had huge differences with Soviet sponsored or forced communist take-overs which resulted in satellite states. Lack of stated Soviet goal in this regard does not diminish accomplishment in any way. However there still were sources stating that USSR was ally of Nazi Germany, just because they may have been fewer in number does not mean they could not have similar validity. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does mean that, especially when the number is much smaller.

Well there are most likely documents about establishing pro-Soviet states in Eastern Europe after they were liberated from Nazi control. Such claims as conquering Finland require evidence, otherwise it is only speculation. -YMB29 (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Numbers had no relevance to your original statement and actually by the nature of the claim they do not have any at all. So the claim in that regard is rather pointless. There are, as shown in this discussion, several sources which state that Finns managed to end the war better off than Eastern European countries (ie. of those aligned with Germany). Again, if you want sources or more throughout explanations, see Eastern Bloc article regarding the formation of the Eastern Bloc. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well that is disputable, but using that as an argument for some sort of victory, especially when the known Soviet intentions are taken into account, is weak.

Numbers do matter. You should remember from the Vyborg/Viipuri RfC that google results counts can be used in disputes here. -YMB29 (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually the statement that Finland was better off is not disputable, it is sourced. Vyborg/Viipuri/Viborg RfC was about specific use of a name, not about existence of something which is totally difference matter which is not relevant to the discussion at hand in any manner. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You started all the off-topic discussions. Google results can be used for this too.

Who was better off and how after a war is always disputable. Anyway, as I said, attributing any differences between Finland and Eastern Europe to success in the war is dubious. -YMB29 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You have sources for that? Because until you do it is not disputable. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is your source that WWII was a success or some kind of a victory for Finland?

This has nothing to do with editing the article so I won't waste my time quoting sources for you. -YMB29 (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read Lunde once again, it is stated even there. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Lunde writes about a Finnish victory? -YMB29 (talk)

Please stop twisting the words again, such a behavior is not befitting to wiki. Just read what Lunde wrote, that is all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I read it, and so what? -YMB29 (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The way I see the Finno-German relations in 1941-1944, there is no simple definition for them, in 1941 Finland was preparing for a war with Soviet Union, that's the reason we allowed the German presence in Lapland, but we (I am a Finn-) did not want to be the ones to start the war, and once the Operation Barbarossa started Finland, while mining the Gulf of Finland in cooperation with Germany, did not attack Soviet Union until the Soviet Union started bombing Finnish civilian population, while the casus belli of the Continuation war can be disputed the fact remains that Finland attacked to retake the lost territories and after that secured a buffer zone, we could have helped the Germany to crush the siege of Leningrad but we didn't (in fact the buffer on the Karelian isthmus was non-existent), so I'd say that after the war started the Finno-German relationship regarding Soviet Union was that of co-belligerence, and in 1944 when the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement was signed Finland became de facto ally of Germany, what was the case in between is open for dispute. Ape89 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

YMB29 in Spring 1944 Finland started discussions with Soviet Union about ending the war, and the Soviet Union demanded unconditional surrender, the same demand was repeated after the Summer offensive started, but after battle of Tali-Ihantala Soviets denied ever having demanded unconditional surrender and the peace talks began. As per my policy of citing only sources available online I am currently unable to provide sources for this.

However, I do have a source that supports the above; The Moscow Declaration: "Joined Four-Nations Declaration

The governments of the United States of America, United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China;

United in their determination, in accordance with the declaration by the United Nations of January, 1942, and subsequent declarations, to continue hostilities against those Axis powers with which they respectively are at war until such powers have laid down their arms on the basis of unconditional surrender;..." Ape89 (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This was already talked about many times. The unconditional surrender requirements for Germany's allies were dropped later in 1943. -YMB29 (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually with regards to this topic, does there exist any other source for summaries of Soviet losses than Krivosheyev? Either at Army or even lower level summaries (10-day reports perhaps)? Thing is we do know which Soviet units were facing the Finns, or at least which larger formations were, so it could be possible to go around that route - even if it is slightly OR-ish. If the reports are accurate enough then it might even be possible to split losses according to Finnish/German operational boundary if desired. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

So far I did not find any sources in Russian that separate or can be used to separate Soviet causalities from fighting the Finns. -YMB29 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Manninen did not separate them, according to the quote you provided. [13] -YMB29 (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Viborg

What would people think about using "Viborg" for the name of the disputed town between 1939-1944? I personally found this suggestion the most persuasive of all the arguments put forward during the RfC, and I heartily thank PMAnderson for posting this Google NGram link showing how popular the different names have been in books over time. I also hope that Viborg could be a compromise of sorts, and that it might be possible for all the editors involved to learn to live with it. I think it is worth discussing this now, as I don't think this issue was discussed in any depth in the RfC, and it seems to me like it could be an acceptable solution. All opinions are welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Has anybody counted how many of those hits comes from the Danish town Viborg instead of the Finnish/Swedish/Russian town? --Whiskey (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now that is a good point. Although I'm not exactly sure about the details of the algorithm, I don't think there's any way that the NGram search could pick that up. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

From the first page of the google results, it seemed to be 9 to 1 in favour of Denmark... --Whiskey (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You can find the actual data the NGram uses using this Google Books search limited from 1939 to 1944. There seem to be less false positives in this time range, although there are still quite a few results for the Danish town. (I haven't done a proper count yet though - anyone want to do the honours?) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and when I say "a proper count", I mean a decent-sized sample, not counting all 7200 results... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not against using Viborg. I was actually suggesting it in the beginning of the dispute, after I noticed that the NY Times used that name during the period.[14] If we go by what was the most used name in English at that time, then yes it is Viborg. However, how different are the two names? In English i and y are usually pronounced the same way. Viborg is a Swedish name and Vyborg is a transliteration into English from a Russian transliteration of Viborg... -YMB29 (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not so different - but then, you could also say the same for Viipuri, as it's also derived from the Swedish. I think in the end, use in English-language sources at the time may be as good a criterion as we are going to get here. Let me see if I can't refine the results a little with some more Google Books searches. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Results of the Google Books searches are in. These searches are all limited to between November 1939 and September 1944:

• Viborg Finland - about 1830 hits
• Viborg Russia - about 525 hits
• Viborg Denmark - about 687 hits
• Vyborg Finland - about 39 hits
• Vyborg Russia - about 80 hits
• Vyborg Denmark - 4 hits
• Viipuri Finland - about 1510 hits
• Viipuri Russia - about 865 hits
• Viipuri Denmark - about 85 hits

Note that many of these results overlap - any source that talks about Viborg and Finland at the time is quite likely to talk about Russia as well, for example. For our purposes, the most obvious result is that Viborg was much more common in relation to Finland than it was to Denmark. Whether "Viborg" or "Viipuri" was more common is less clear. We have slightly more results for Viborg Finland than for Viipuri Finland, but this is reversed for Viborg Russia and Viipuri Russia. More analysis is welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the RfC results only two neutral users voted for Viipuri, and those two were confused about how the naming guidelines apply to this case (like Jaan thought that Finnish was the only official language of the Karelo-Finnish SSR). However, Viborg can be used as a compromise. -YMB29 (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not think that and it is rather offensive to imply some users are partial. Therefore your comment is inadeaquate. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

...if you take the experience of any other SSR, you will see that the first administrative language was the one spoken by the locals. So you did not write this? -YMB29 (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still at it. Per my original statement, based on common English language usage reflected in accounts at the time--which appears to be the most neutral manner of approaching the issue--"Viipuri per LIFE magazine's coverage at the time, e.g. here. Only Vyborg [Viborg being the common English for that at the time, so that usage is fine as well] once in Soviet possession by Finnish agreement (post-treaty). (Whiskey's, while more complex, is likely also a more proper solution.)" No one would argue that LIFE magazine is not as mainstream English language as one could get, this is how everyone was following the war. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. When doing Google ngrams, if you do them for a very restricted range, clicking on the sources by year usually offers useful sources/data regarding usage. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. @ YMB29, please retract your innuendo about biased editors (only two "neutral" editors voted for Viipuri). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't pretend that it is not true...

LIFE magazine is only one English language publication. It is not any better as an indicator for what name should be used than publications like the NY Times. -YMB29 (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretend that what isn't true?

On the contrary, LIFE magazine was mainstream media on current events for the proverbial "middle America." Really, if LIFE had used Viborg, I would have just as eagerly supported that as the appropriate place name to use. You obviously mistake me for someone who searches out sources to support their pre-determined POV as opposed to someone who searches out sources to see what they state. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

So I guess the NY Times was not a "mainstream media on current events" back then? -YMB29 (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So should it be changed to Viborg? -YMB29 (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There was no clear resolution on the matter but that does seem to be the preferred one. Not the least for being the 'most ancient' name for the locality - ie. one from which other names are (seem to be) derived from. Though the changes needs to be made to the whole group of related articles with the exception of instances referring to 'Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offensive' (as that it is proper name). Slight problems arise from article names like 'Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944)' (as it could just as well be 'Battle of Viborg Bay (1944)'). Matter which should be agreed upon before making the changes. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of Vyborg Bay seems like a general name, so it can be changed to have Viborg. I don't think it is going to be hard to decide on what to do with such names. -YMB29 (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Not hard, no but it would be beneficial to all involved if the matter would be agreed upon first. If not for anyhing else then to avoid edit wars. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

What other articles besides Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944) need to be changed? I don't see any other ones that deal with the period after the Winter War and until the end of WWII, at least going by article names. -YMB29 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to change it to Viborg. -YMB29 (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Have we all agreed to use Viborg regardless of time period? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Technically the discussion did not involve other time periods. It only handled the WWII era. I'm not sure you can use it to draw up further conclusions because at other time periods the ownership of the locality was not disputed. That is the other rules of setting the name of the locality should take precedence. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)