Talk:Continuation War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A maximalist approach

Great work, Bryan! I thought I would have time to do the same (and more), but my time was too limited and I only managed to do some background checking and writing a little. So, I don't dare to touch the article directly, so I like to present ideas I had for developing this article here.

First, could it be useful for discussion if all above Bryan's text were removed/archived from this Talk-page (the length of this page is growing, and if we plan to discuss here, it will do so even more)? What is the standard procedure in Wiki?

Second, what will be the scope of this article? Do we want to have "definition" (CW was war between F and SU) or a detailed description of the war?

What I had in mind for contents was something like:

• Introduction
• Background
  • Before the World War II
  • Molotov-Ribbendrop Pact
  • Winter War
  • After the Moscow Peace Treaty
• To the Opening of Hostilities
  • Diplomatic Activities
  • Cooperation with Germany
  • Start of Hostilities
• Finnish Offensive (1941)
  • Reconquest of Karelia of Lake Ladoga
  • Reconquest of Karelian Isthmus
  • Occupation of Eastern Karelia
  • Advancement from Northern Finland
  • Political Situation
• War in Trenches (1942-1943)
  • Military Situation
  • Political Activities
• Soviet Offensive (1944)
  • Military Buildup
  • Political Buildup
  • the 4th Strategic Offensive
  • Political Maneuvres
  • Finnish Resistance Stiffens
• Final Months and Armstice
  • Military Situation
  • Towards Armstice
• Conclusion

As you see, I'm favoring a somewhat maximalist approach here, which is perhaps not suitable for Wiki. It would also make page a little... eh... a lot longer. The positive side is that it separates military stuff, which are clearly documented and where NPOV are easily reached from political stuff, where NPOV are harder to achieve. Also it forms a clear arch from the beginning to the end of the war, better than the current structure, which suffers from simplification making it hard to put things to their context. (Example: Background: Moscow Peace Treaty -> 20's -> WWI -> Time after Winter War -> End of Winter War ->...)--Whiskey 13:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think there are plenty of WWW sites dedicated to WWII and the Continuation War. The approach outlined above has, in my humble opinion, exceeded the dept suitable for an international English language encyclopedia.

/ML

I think it's really hard to have too much information in Wikipedia; if necessary, some of those sections could be split off into their own articles (there are many existing examples of wars where individual battles within it have their own articles). This is interesting stuff and especially for complex matters like this it's important to be detailed. As a side bonus, that also allows us to avoid having to summarize events with potentially biased descriptions when we can just lay out the facts of what happened. Bryan 00:48, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To /ML: With a quick search with google (first 100) I found 2 sites with more depth than _current_ version of CW and about a dozen with text copied from Wiki. ;-) Most of the others fell to the half page description, propaganda or very detailed information about specific aspect of the war (like plane types used by FAF).

Even using the index I gave it is not likely that CW would grow much bigger than Operation Market Garden. With the given index it is not possible to include whole history of Finland in context of CW, but more like telling the story what happened and why, which would be the explanation of that historic irony you worded. Naturally we should use separate articles where possible, but the sructure will still be the same, as political environment changed so much during the four years of war that current structure cannot handle it properly.

For example, what I thought would be relevant for first subchapter, Before the WWII: Finnish Jäger batallion, German defeat in WWI, nationalism in Civil War, Aunus trek, referendum demands in League of Nations for East-Karelians, Lapua movement and IKL, Academic Karelia Society (AKS). Some of these are already in the article, but taken out from their contexts. This chapter would show the general connection of Finland to Germany, her interest to East-Karelia, but also how right extremism failed to root down during that period in Finland. --User:Whiskey 21:10, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

And if it does get too big, those subchapters can become independant articles with only summary paragraphs remaining here on this as the main page. Bryan 23:30, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, many of these topics already have wikipedia articles, and I believe it would be much more in accordance with wikipedia customs to put most of the text in these separate articles, and refer to them (briefly) in this article.

/ML

Taking the bull by the horn:
Was Finland a Nazi country, a pro-Nazi country, a Nazi allied, or what?

If the article has any major weakness, be it then that it does not properly address the issue which is the most interesting and hardest to understand intuitively for an international reader, namely Finland's affinity to fascism. Wikipedia's NPOV policy ought to be a suitable framework.

/ML

It isn't that simple. Oswald Mosleys existence did not make Britain a fascist country.. I think it was put best by one leading statesman at the time that Finland was stuck between huliganism and vandalism. The Nazies here were the huligans referred to (at the time the concentration camps did not yet exist), and the vandals referred were the communist revolutionaries in Russia. There were fascists in Finland, but Finland was not a fascist country. For instance Lapuan liike failed in the end to effect extraparlamentary power. This may have been acheived through accomodating those of their demands which gave them broader support, but that is what happens in a democracy anyway. Their populist demands were co-opted, not fulfilled by the government of the day. This is a subtle but legitimate distinction.

-- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 22:33, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

It's hard to believe it would be too complicated to set the record straight in this article. Alluding and hinting, as I would say the article does now, don't contribute to clarity or understanding. Why not spell out, that there existed different perceptions before, during and after the war: In Russia, in Britain, in the US and of course also in Finland. On the other hand, when possible, the article must link to more appropriate articles for in-dept coverage. It's no good to make an article on the Continuation War into an article on The History of Finland in the Light of the Continuation War. :-)

May I remind about the wording I pointed out above:

Finland's survival as an independent democratic and capitalist country was made possible chiefly through Nazi-Germany's support, while the aggressor was allied to the United Kingdom and, for most of the war, the United States.

This might seem self-evident for Finns, but for non-Finns I think it is one important key to understanding Finland's position between Russia and the Baltic.

BTW, another thing I miss in the article, and in the wikipedia as a whole, is references to preventive war and pre-emptive strikes. (However, Just war is included.) In particular in the light of the last years' parallells in international politics, the picture of inter-war Finland as an aggressive expansionist country who's rulers killed thousands of workers in concentration camps and threatened millions of civilians in Leningrad is of some relevance.

/ML

Do you have a source or attribution for the perception? Please provide references. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 00:26, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

I would say ANY book on Europe's 1930s (including auto-biographies by French and British (Churchill) statesmen) I've ever read has reflected that Soviet propaganda had been successfully exploiting this alleged fear of the mothers in Leningrad's suburbs, and that a "sensitive" solution to the problem with Finland's border running too close to Leningrad was expected from Finland's government by both Germany and other friendly countries. A perception which clearly did not resonate in Helsinki.

Also Finnish auto-biographies have been quite obvious. Fagerholm, Linkomies, Mannerheim and Paasikivi represented different perceptions, and assessed for instance the possibility to survive inside the Moscow Peace borders quite differently before the Continuation War.

And you can't, reasonably, be ignorant of the subtext in English language books on World War II, and also in most English books on Finland, at least them written in the 1950s-1970s, favoring the interpretation of WWII as a war against Fascism - with Finland on the Fascist side.

Mannerheim, Ryyti and Paasikivi (to mention only a few) are not depictured as democrats but as monarchists or opportunist pro-fascists with little regard for parliamentarism.

To put it bluntly: In a EU with 25 members, little-known Finland is easy to associate with the former WP countries. Gaining independence in 1918, with failing democracies and authoritarian/semi-fascist traditions from the inter-war years, with native quislings supporting the Nazis and then the Communists. Ambiguous wordings are easy to interpret as courtesy intended not to hurt the national self-esteem of the Finns.

However, if you with your request intended to have me to do real research, then I feel to have been treated more like CIA was treated by Cheney and Rumsfeld. I'm not going to write a mid-term paper on the subject, neither to research contemporary news papers for my thesis. :-)

/ML

My I suggest a new arctle Finland and the Axis, or something like that, so that Finland's relationship with the Nazi's can be fully explored? Seems like a topic quite in-depth enough to merit its own page. Oberiko 23:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand this article at all. The war is straightforward enough, but it's perception seems to be the subject of a lot of axe-grinding. Neither the US nor the UK declared war on Finland.

Britain did declare war, and to make matters worse, on Finland's most important national holiday, on the Independence day — in a war that according to the contemporary observers aswell as to later analysists was critical for the Finns' survival as a nation and for Finland's survival as an independent country. /Tuomas 18:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have never read any American histories that ever suggested that Finland didn't declare war, and ally themselves with Nazi Germany, out of sheer, and understandable, revenge on the CCCP; nor have I ever heard any suggestion that Finland was associated with or in the Warsaw Pact. I also do not understand the comment in the Intro that this war shows that democracies do declare war on each other. Since when was Stalinist totalitarianism and single-party rule considered representative democracy? Somercet 18:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just to make this clear:

- Finland was never allied, as such, with Nazi Germany. - Finland cannot be pro-Nazi, at least not in the way the word is used today. There is no evidence of any discrimination of minorities, etc, that is nowadays associated with "pro-nazism". - Finland clearly was not a Nazi country (there wasnt a national socialist goverment. Period.

If Finland was pro-Nazi, then we must start calling the United States and Britain both communist and fascist, as they have been helping/allied with both types of countries.

I think the best way to put it would be to say Finland allowed to existance of Nazi troops on its territory as a defence against a Soviet offensive. Yes, I clearly have a point of view to this, but prove the above statements wrong (you can't). :)

--HJV 23:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Motto: "...the picture of inter-war Finland as an aggressive expansionist country who's rulers killed thousands of workers in concentration camps and threatened millions of civilians in Leningrad is of some relevance."

Perhaps naming and locating such concentration camps and providing data on their victims and elaborating further on the ways of Finland threatening Leningrad from beyond the border of the Moscow peace of 1940 might serve to improve the awareness of Wikipedia readers on the thoroughly evil character of those Finnish Nazi leaders.

If English language books on World War II, and also most English books on Finland, at least them written in the 1950s-1970s, favored the interpretation of WWII as a war against Fascism - with Finland on the Fascist side - it must then be conclusive evidence of the ultimate truth on the matter. It is simply unthinkable to consider it having anything to do with buying at face value the narrative provided by that crucially important ally of the Anglo-Saxons, the USSR. Naturally, all literature in Finnish language (except leftist auto-biographies, of course) must be disregarded as culturally inferior and non-scientific material; only Soviet, and thus Allied views may represent anything credible.

The Nazi troops on Finnish territory must necessarily be thus called and their membership prevalence of the German National Socialist Party published, otherwise readers might expect them being called German or III Reich troops, and to have been granted entry to Finland for military rather than for political purposes.

Besides sheer, and understandable, revenge on the CCCP, could a luxury like survival as a nation and as individuals perhaps be considered as a motivating factor on the Finnish side? In Wikipedia, the alleged fear of the mothers in Leningrad's suburbs must nevertheless outweigh such minor considerations as Finns sharing the fate of the Balts, and the thoroughly aggressive nature of the Finnish leadership prevail as an explanation sine qua non - sheer revenge must have been their highest level of mental activity, but being morally superior, Allies can well afford to show them understanding with a gently patronizing attitude. While it is known that in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, Finland had been included in the Soviet sphere of influence, there are also indications of the willingness of the Soviet regime to bring to completion what they had left unfinished in the Winter War, as is evident from the link:

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Hitler-Molotov%20Meetings.htm#THIRD%20MEETING:%20NOVEMBER%2018,%201940

For the lofty purposes of Wikipedia history writing, Molotov's attitude shown in the source under the subtitle MOLOTOV THREATENS WAR WITH FINLAND should certainly be disregarded, lest the picture mentioned in the Motto be jeopardized.

-HM 17 December 2005

They were at least nominally (maybe not officially, but clearly they were) allied with Nazi Germany, just as the US was allied with the USSR. With the US/USSR alliance neither country supported each others government form, but they were allied due mainly to a common enemy, in other words had to work together due to circumstances. In Europe Finland had to get support of someone and they were receiving support of Germany, so when war broke out between Germany and Russia, Finland is stuck in the middle and obviously they would chose Germany over the USSR, their enemy from the recent Winter War. So though Finland was Allied with Nazi Germany, their alliance had nothing to do with nazism.

Just as a note, if one says that Finland was nazi because it fought on the same side as Nazi Germany, then UK, France and USA must've been communist as they fought on the same side as Soviet Russia. --HJV 22:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll give my view on this as a scandinavian. Finland fought against Soviet troops, with German aid, which technically put them on the axis side. But Finland didn't see themselves as engaged in the WW2, but as having an own war for independence. My grandfather was a voulenteer in both the Winter and the Continuation war, and he did surely not see it as he was a nazi solidier fighting on the axis side of WW2. Really Finland was fighting Soviet forces, and since "your enemys enemy is your friend", they fought with Germany. 217.211.170.175 16:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm taking the previous post out of context, but if Finlnad didn't see itself involved with WW2, then would every history book, map, etc. on WW2 (which lists Finland as a belligerent nation) be incorrect? repdetect117 18:29, 14 May 2006

US-Finnish compensation treaties

Earlier I had included the fact that Finland paid millions of dollars to the United States after the war in compensation for attacks on Lend-Lease ships. The American magazines of the time (TIME and NEWSWEEK) raised an outcry over "our boys drowning in the frigid arctic waters" because of Finland. Consequently, there was an outcry over Finland's alliance with Germany, its taking of Soviet territory beyond the 1939 border. The United States' expulsion of the Finnish Ambassador and cessation of relations played a big role in the press. Hence, that the United States actually took the step of breaking off relations, although it did not yet declare war should be mentioned.

Finland's post-war treaty with the United States and the payment of compensation are important facts. However, they were apparently removed from the article. My citation:

TITLE: Making the peace treaties, 1941-1947; a history of the making of the peace beginning with the Atlantic charter, the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, and culminating in the drafting of peace treaties with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, and Finland. AUTHOR: United States. Dept. of State. YEAR: 1947

Another useful resource, and one which could be added to the list of citations: "The origins of interventionism; the United States and the Russo-Finnish War." by Robert Sobel, 1961.

(Rakovsky 04:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

I removed it because it wasn't a peace treaty as claimed. It isn't also part of the Paris peace treaties which ended the state of war between Finland and Soviet Union/Commonwealth. There were some treaties considering nationalized/captured/destroyed properties of both sides (f.ex. Finnish ships in US and British harbours), I don't know if this belongs to these treaties. Anyway, if you could produce more information about these treaties it would be helpful. --Whiskey 10:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of edits

I take the bold step and make a couple of edits to the first sections. My main intention, beside a general wish to improve the article, of course, is to make it slightly less Finnocentric. The Soviet Union and the United Kingdom were parts in the conflict too, but the article as it stands at this moment, is maybe too much written from a purely Finnish perspective. By changes in the direction I propose, I hope to avoid major edits of the type Graculus and 172 contributed with last August.

In addition, I changed from typically British to American spelling.

However, I realize fully, that my edits might seem too controversial, and if so, I would propose that discussion is taken up here on the talk-page. In such a case, I have absolutely nothing against a revertion to User:Itai's version while the issues are under discussion.
--Ruhrjung 09:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Germany vs. Nazi Germany

People PLEASE!!!

Will you please stop that ridiculous reverting back and forth between Germany and Nazi Germany in the article!

If you don't like how it is now, please explain here why it should be changed. I, personally, think that it should be Germany unless the ideology is important in the context like when comparing democratic Finland and Nazi Germany. Otherwise we should talk Communist Soviet Union and Republican United States all the way.;-)
--Whiskey 23:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I, personally, think it should be Germany/Nazi Germany if it is the physical land or the people who are referred, and Third Reich/Nazi Germany if it's the government or its agencies. Particularly the foreign politics togled by the régime changes in 1871, 1918, 1933 and 1945/48.

You must remember that Germany looked a lot different -1806, 1871, 1918, 1940, 1989, or 1991-.

France, Britain or post-medieval Russia have been much more steady. There is not the same need, and nevertheless we often differentiate between Imperial Russia–(Bolshevist Russia)–Soviet Union–Russian Federation.

As a German I'm particularly concerned by what I perceive as a much increased tendency in English language mass media of the last 2-3 years to connect the (democratic) Federal German Republic with what's obviously considered as the pariah régimes of Hitler, Honecker and Kaiser Willhelm. I can't help to recognize this as unpleasant concious or unconcious anti-German propagandisms.
--Ruhrjung 23:03, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

It seems we are quite close each other in this issue. I write mostly 'Germany' as I use 4-and-helf finger system unless I explicitly mean government. Lazy me.
--Whiskey 07:49, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

"Germany looked a lot different -1806, 1871,". There was no Germany in -1806, and what you had in 1871 you can barely call Germany, as it did not have a common flag, a common currency or a national anthem. :) HJV 15:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen, listen. Stop being African. :P We dont go arround and call Iran "Theocratic Iran". We don't call Italy "Fascistic Italy". Germany has to stand for their actions and stop blaming in on an ideology.

Even more edits

I started putting material to background section. If you think they are not suitable here, you can revert back to what it was before. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. If this is ok, I'll add other edits in the future. (I'm going sloowwww....)
--Whiskey 12:26, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

That's fine!
I know that I wasn't too active when you proposed your maximalist approach, but by now I wonder why you don't consider to designate it to separate articles with relevant names (including already existing).

One article on Finland's inter-war history would surely be great. Not the least as your contributions are relevant also for the article on the Winter War, far as I can tell.

My proposal is to try to keep the background history as short as possible, but then I wonder why you removed the following paragraph:

Then there was a vociferous minority opinion which since the 1920s had advocated the extension of Finland's territory eastwards to incorporate ethnically akin Finnic peoples under Soviet oppression. To advocates of such expansion, Finland's security policy focusing on the League of Nations, the politically akin democratic Western countries, Scandinavia, and particularly Sweden had led to a total failure. In these expansionist circles was commemorated Imperial Germany's role in the "White" government's victory over rebellious Socialists during the Civil War in Finland. Seeing the contemporary brand of European democracy as too soft on Communism, similar to in the defeated Western European countries, made an alliance with the "New Germany" all the more appealing; since there were no longer Communists in Germany.

I don't know right now (well, it's relatively easy to check, but...) if I'm responsible for that text. The content seems familiar to me. But in any case, I do not only "like" it if it's my brainchild, I find it central to the understanding of why many Finns obviously considered the security policies of the previous 5-6 years failed, and why the mutual distrust both between Moscow–Helsinki as well as between Stockholm–Helsinki grew after the Moscow Peace. After all, the security policy was supported by a broad consensus, and could equally well have been declared victorious. Russia was expelled and Finland was supported in the League of Nations, in the international opinion, by military volunteers, and also by substantial support from the Scandinavian neighbour; and Finland came out of the Winter War far better than anyone could have hoped for.

A factual and stylistic objection is that I may disagree with your understanding expressed in the meaning:

Major events of World War II, and the tides of war in general, had significant impact on the course of the Continuation War:

• Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact enabled Soviet pressure against Finland before and after Winter War and pushed Finland to search help from Germany.

First of all, the intended effect of that pact was not to push Finland to get closer to Germany, quite the contrary, the pact meant that Hitler–Ribbentrop had given up Germany's old interest in using Finland as a bridgehead to Russia.

I would rather say that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact were (increasingly) dead letters after Operation Weserübung, although of course not formally reversed. It was rather the Moscow Peace than the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that enabled Soviet pressure on Finland after the Winter War, and the pressure before the Winter War is more relevant for the article on the Winter War.

I would be tempted to revert your change, but maybe you would like to consider to explain how you think.
--Ruhrjung 22:37, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed the chapter because most of it was described more extensively in new part. The disillusionment for LofN, Western democracies and Sweden came during Winter War (as described later and in Winter War) as their help was insufficient to stop Soviets. (I'll add more on that disillusionment next...). In non-socialist circles -not only in expansionist circles- there was fond feelings toward Germany because of help in Civil War, but they still considered Britain or Sweden as ideals for state (including state leadership: There hasn't been more anglophile president in Finland than Ryti, how unbelievable it is). This fondness made it more easy to change Finnish foreign policy more pro-German and do it without giving power to extreme right, which was kept outside government until December 1940 and even then had very marginal role (as their group in Finnish parliament was shrunken to 8 representatives (of 200 total). The lowest point in relations between Finland and Sweden was right before the end of Winter War, when Sweden refused right of passage of Western troops and King of Sweden recommended peace. After that there was constant efforts to improve the relations between the wars, included three times to propose alliance between Finland and Sweden, and each time Soviets trashed them. (And also more about that later...)

For major events... the Law of Unintended Consequences: M-R Pact was meant to be the division of Eastern Europe, but what both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union failed to see was that target countries had their own mind also. In summer of 1940 Finnish political leadership was in panic - mildly said. It would have done almost anything to scramble foreign support against Soviet Union. As France has surrendered and rumours of British surrender were afloat, that only left Nazi Germany as valid source when Soviet Union continuously shot down Swedish support. Moscow Peace Treaty didn't give Soviet Union the right to continue pressuring Finland after Winter War to the direction Baltic republics has gone, but M-R Pact did. I'm not happy of wording, it simplifies things a lot, but there's still a question why Finland aligned with Nazi Germany. The best answer I can find is Soviet pressure and it has roots in M-R Pact.

I'm not fully satisfied with my own text, and I'll most likely make some edits on the issue. You have a valid point for making it as a separate article, as it has some relevance to Winter War also. I plan to end the background part to November 12, when Hitler gave his refusal to Molotov's request of permission to finish Finnish question. Could we wait until I reach that before creating separate articles as we then have clearer picture of the whole thing? Naturally we have to discuss the contents of my edits before that.
--Whiskey 07:12, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Events of 1940

All right, now I'm starting the most difficult and controversial area of this issue: The time after the Moscow Peace Treaty. None of the players can be proud of their behaviour during the time, so this area is generally "forgotten" from every description of the event. If you have questions or comments please ask here, I try to answer why I wrote as I wrote. I plan to put this all in three parts.
--Whiskey 00:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am no expert of English, and surely I know less than you on the matter, but I am following the Wikipedia motto of boldness and propose a set of changes:

Although the peace treaty was signed, the state of war wasn't revoked. because of widening World War, difficult food supply situation and bad shape of Finnish military.

- Is there some source one can attribute that to? Was it debated at the time?

Censorship was not abolished but used to suppress critics for Moscow peace and most vocal anti-Soviet commentaries.

...but used to suppress critic of the Moscow peace treaty and the most blatantly anti-Soviet comments.

With increasing physical isolation from Western Countries, breaking the political isolation Finland suffered from Nazi Germany became major target of Finnish propaganda during summer of 1940.

After Nazi Germany's assault on Scandinavia in April (Operation Weserübung), Finland was physically isolated from her traditionally trade markets in the West. Sea routes to and from Finland were now controlled by the Kriegsmarine. The outlet of the Baltic sea was blockaded, and in the far north Finland's route to the world was an arctic dirt road from Rovaniemi to the ice-free harbour of Petsamo, from where the ships had to pass a long stretch of German-occupied Norwegian coast by the Arctic Ocean. Finland, like Sweden, was spared occupation but encircled by Nazi Germany and her Soviet ally.

Especially damaging was the loss of fertilizer imports, that together with the loss of arable land ceded in the Moscow Peace, the loss of cattle during the hasty evacuation after the Winter War, and the unfavourable weather in the summer of 1940 resulted in a drastic fall of foodstuff production to less than two thirds of what was Finland's estimated need. Some of the deficit could be purchased from Sweden, some from the Soviet Union, although delayed deliverances were then a means to exert pressure on Finland. In this situation, Finland had no alternative than to turn to Germany for help.

Finland put her hope in the fragility of the Nazi–Soviet bond, and in the many personal friendships between Finnish and German scientists, industrialists and military officers. From May 1940 Finland pursued a campaign to re-establish the good relations with Germany that had soured in the last year of the 1930s. Finnish mass media not only refrained from criticism of Nazi Germany, but also took active part in this campaign. Dissent was censored. Seen from Berlin, the contrast was stark to the annoyingly anti-Nazi press in Sweden.

From easing the coldness of Third Reich first it was easy to move later to promote closer relations with them. Propaganda in the censured press contributed to Finland's re-orientation with very measured means - both in Finland and in Nazi Germany.

From the campaign to ease the Third Reich's coldness towards Finland, it seemed a natural development to also promote closer relations and cooperation. Not the least since the much disliked Moscow Peace Treaty in clear language tried to persuade the Finns not to do exactly that. Propaganda in the censured press contributed to Finland's international re-orientation — although with very measured means.

President Kallio also asked Field Marshal Mannerheim to remain commander-in-chief and supervise reorganization of Finnish Armed Forces and fortification of new border.

The continued state of war made it possible for Field Marshal Mannerheim to remain commander-in-chief and supervise the reorganization of Finland's Armed Forces and the fortification of the new border; a task that was critically important in the unruly times.

And inside a week after the peace treaty was signed, the fortification works started along the 1200 km long Salpalinja ("Latch"-line), where focus was between Gulf of Finland and Lake Saimaa.

In less than a week after the peace treaty was signed, the fortification works started along the 1200 km long Salpalinja ("Latch line"), focused between Lake Saimaa and Gulf of Finland.

During the summer and autumn Finland received material purchased and donated during and right after the Winter War, but it took several months before Mannerheim was able to present somewhat positive assessment about the state of army.

...was able to present a somewhat positive assessment of the state of the army.

Military expenditures during 1940 rose to 45% of Finnish budget and military purchases were prioritised over civilian ones. Mannerheim's position enabled efficient management of military, but it created unfortunate "second government" which time to time clashed with civilian government during the war.

Military expenditures rose in 1940 to 45% of Finland's state budget. Military purchases were prioritised over civilian needs. Mannerheim's position and the continued state of war enabled an efficient management of the military, but it created an unfortunate parallel government that time to time clashed with the structures of civilian government.

The ongoing war between the Axis and the Western Allies had damaged Finland's import and export, blocking the main trade route via the Baltic Sea to Britain and the Commonwealth, the most important trading partners before the war. After the German occupation of Norway and Denmark the only route Finland had to world ran through one dirt road from Rovaniemi to Petsamo and through Arctic Ocean. Especially damaging was loss of fertilizer imports which together with loss of cattle and arable land and unfortunate weather of summer 1940 resulted Finnish foodstuff production fall to 60-65% of needed. Some of the deficit could be purchased from Sweden, but for rest Finland had to turn to Germany. Also Finnish industry had to search new markets and supply in and through Germany.

- chiefly duplicated above, can be removed

Then, of course, there is a need to put the different paragraphs in better order. Right now, it is obvious that your additions are put in at the top.
 :-))
Johan Magnus 14:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy if those with more skill in language check my writings. They are mostly done (very) late in the evenings and it truly is shown in the text. ;^)

For state of war, I don't have original sources with me, but at least five different sources refer this (starting from official presidental biografies in http://www.presidentti.fi/fin/henkilot/ryti.html (unfortunately only in Finnish)). (And like I said, nobody liked to dwell in this area longer than absolutely necessary, so all descriptions were as short as possible.) Kallio made the decision, but he most likely consulted Mannerheim, Prime minister Risto Ryti, Foreign minister Väinö Tanner and Minister without portfolio Juho Kusti Paasikivi. I have to check their full biografies when I visit library next time.

I like your versions and I'll modify text accordingly.

You are right that I insert my text to the top of section. As my writing progresses, I remove duplicate/obsolate paragraphs below, and hopefully we'll get consistent text as a result. --Whiskey 19:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy if those with more skill in language check my writings. They are mostly done (very) late in the evenings and it truly is shown in the text. ;^) [...] Johan Magnus 14:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In progress. ^_^ DocWatson42 19:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Doc, here comes the next patch. ;-) --Whiskey 01:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All right. Now all I intend to put into the background section is there. There has already been proposal for separate article for at least some of this, but we should consider putting all background stuff in a single article and refering it only with one chapter here. It would keep things focused on CW instead of general history and provide good background for those interested. For writing that chapter, I take suggestions, and volunteers to write it. (It would be better if somebody else try to write it from this text.)

There is still some missing links and dates, but they are minor fixes.

All comments are welcome. --Whiskey 21:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Concentration camps in East Karelia

Now, when we are talking about Finland in the Second World War, why aren't we talking about fascist measures committed by Finnish in East Karelia?

When Finns came to Soviet Karelia, troops were given orders by military command to round up Russian civilians (mostly children, women and old people) and take them to concentration camps. In those camps perished at least 2500-2600 Russian civilians because of disease and famine.

I'm just asking; what was won military and tactically by sealing helpless civilians in concentration camps? Why that act was done? My opinion is that in Finnish army were many "quislings", pro-nazi-minded people. This whole thing of Finnish guilty as occupator is thing which must be discussed.

sent by:(heikki)0:13, Jun 1, 2004 (as first-time user of this wikipedia encyclopedia).

I know I have seen such a paragraph somewhere. Maybe in this article, maybe in History of Finland; maybe it's edited away by someone, maybe it's been so for a long time — that I don't know. The issue surely merits to be covered. Depending on your energy and knowledge, the choise is between a few lines in this article or any number of lines in an article of its own. In any case: Go for it! /Tuomas 09:42, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Concentration camp has a paragraph about that. It could need more details, maybe even it's own article with links from here. -- Jniemenmaa 10:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--

And I'm just asking what the hell do your personal views of Finns as malicious people not letting the Russians staying in the homes owned by Finns, and moving them from there to camps? What do you think would have been the better option out of the ones below: - let the russian civilians (living in houses built and owned by finns) stay in their houses (did France let the Germans in France stay in the French people's houses after the terrotory had been returned to France? Or Poland?) - shoot them? - move them to temporary camps just like everyone else did in the war (I know this stuff. My grandfather got moved to a Russian concentration camp from Petsamo in November 1939). -leave them in the middle of the battlefield?

Please also explain why the fact that Russian civilians being transfered (from Finnish houses) to temporary camps make the country fascist? Was USA fascist by moving Japanese-Americans to camps? Is USA currently fascists, as similar operations have been done in Iraq?

"In those camps perished at least 2500-2600 Russian civilians because of disease and famine." -> source? How about those who perished in Russian camps? The ones that died in Russian camps were taken from homes their families had lived in for a long time (sometimes hundreds of years). In what happened in Continuation War, we're only talking of a time around 1 year of these people living in the area.

"This whole thing of Finnish guilty as occupator is thing which must be discussed." -> Are you an occupator if you take back land that belongs to you? Please get your facts straight. The land had been possessed by Finland for ages, it was merely taking its own back.

I do not get what is running through people's minds when thinking of Finland as an evil invader when taking back its own land. Was France also fascist as it took its own land back from Germany? And I doubt the French allowed the Germans that had moved to German occupied France stay there.--HJV 00:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• East Karelia was not, and has never been, "Finnish land". Please get your facts straight before swearing and ranting. The concentration camps existed, along with plans for ethnically cleansing East Karelia of its Slavic population by turning it over to the Germans, and some mention of them should be made in the article. When I have the spare time, I'll try to add some of this information, along with references. -Elrith, 14.8.05

Note: Allmost every country in WW2 had camps for enemy citizens who lived in their areas (invaded or not). Even the beloved heroes, UK and USA. These camps are no more Nazi-like consentration camps than USA's or UK's camps. Yes, people might have died on these camps, but that was not the main purpose of them. And people who died, might aswell been killed by soviets themselves. That wouldn't be the first time. You must remember, that unlike UK and USA or many other countries that had same kind of camps, we were running low on everything, like food, medicine. And still, there are no facts that would prove that 2500 russians perished(except Soviet propaganda).

HJV: "Please also explain why the fact that Russian civilians being transfered (from Finnish houses) to temporary camps make the country fascist?" Heikki was talking about facist measures. I don't know how do you define a fasistic country, but I think we can agree that concentration camps pretty much fit in.

Well, as all combatant countries (and even some neutrals) collected civilians to the concentration camps during the WWII (including Soviet Union), does it make all of them were fascist? I don't think any historians buy that line of reasoning. So, you better find more convincing argument.

"How about those who perished in Russian camps?" And two wrongs *does* make a right, right? If both sides committed bad things, they shouldn't be discussed at all?

On the contrary, they should be discussed. For the both sides.

"The land had been possessed by Finland for ages" If your "for ages" means the time after 1918, then we have a very different definition of "for ages". There didn't exists such thing as Finland before 1918, may I remind you.

One should clearly differentiate here between East Karelia and Karelian Isthmus and to lesser extent Ladoga Karelia. Everybody should be more careful when this kind of claims are given.

But yes, a reliable source for information about these camps would really be needed, while it is possible that there is none: those might be purely actions of extremist groups rather than direct orders from the government. 81.175.195.69 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be very useful to document fully all claims concerning the camps and happenings there. There are a lot of official information and research material available from both sides, and one should use them carefully instead of flailing around with propaganda material from both sides.--Whiskey 14:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Resarch on Finnish Concentration Camps

Helge Seppiala, "Finland as Occupier in 1941-1944," in the Journal "North," 1995, ISSN 0131-6222 Chapter "Concentration Camps". The Author describes being a witness to the cruel ways prisoners were treated in concentration camps. The article also mentions torture, extreme beatings, and starvation. Extreme beatings were written into the Finnish concentration camps' codes. This author puts forth the number of 18,318 POWs who perished.

Are you referring POWs or civilians here? The number you gave matches to the number of POWs who died in Finnish captivity. The number of civilians who died in Finnish camps were generally put to around 4000.

It's not quite clear to me. The article by Seppiala says literally, "18318 Soviet people died in camps for war prisoners. I guess that means in total. Thanks for making me clear it up!

Elina Sana, "Those Who Were Handed Over"

"Finland, which officially deported only eight Jews to Nazi Germany during World War II, also sent thousands of Soviet prisoners of war to Hitler's concentration camps, a new Finnish book claims." http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bi/Qfinland-germany-nazi.Rb4Y_DN3.html

http://www.htcricket.com/news/181_672498,00110004.htm

I have edited the "Diplomacy" section to give these numbers. Seppiala's article also says that, as in the German POW camps, punishments for such things as insubordination and running away included flogging, stays in solitary confinement, etc. These were the official rules. But what went on beyond the official rules was of course much worse.

Elina Sana gives in her book 2 829 which were given to Germans. Based on the namelist of the prisoners, she calculated that 74 of them were Jews. Finnish government started an investigation on the issue, and in a preliminary report, Prof. Heikki Ylikangas produced a memo (http://www.statsradetskansli.fi/tiedostot/pdf/fi/57413.pdf) where in his first opinion those 74 were given not because they were Jews but because they were officers or political officers in Soviet army. In total, 118 political officers, 74 Jews and 400-500 communists were given, but over 2000 of those given were given because they wanted to either join Vlasov's army, trained to be spies or joined army units of Soviet minorities in Wehrmacht to fight against Soviets.

In exchange Finns received over 2000 Karelian, Ingrian and Estonian POWs from Germany.--Whiskey 11:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There were also Finnish SS. - Rakovsky 1/31/06

You raised an important point that 74 Jews were handed over. Even if they wre not officially handed over because they were Jews, they were handed over to the Gestapo nevertheless.

According to the article "One Way Journey" by Hannu Marttila, the Germans had the lists of the prisoners by name, so they could pick the ones they wanted. Furthermore, even though the Finnish police, or "Valpo" burned their records at the end of the war, Sana learned of at least 129 civilians who were turned over to the Gestapo. 91 of them were classified as Soviet citizens, but that included Finns who had returned from the USSR. I believe there are many more figures such as these that should be worked into the text. Marttila's article was where I found out the information about the Belgian, French, and Swiss volunteers turned over to the Gestapo. http://dbgw.finlit.fi/fili/bff/104/marttila.html

An article of its own for the Interim Peace

This article is in its current shape very much focused on the pre-history of the war. This is not at all uninteresting, and not really irrelevant, but would it maybe be better to split off much of the Background material to articles with less misleading titles, as for instance Finland before World War II and the Interim Peace? --Johan Magnus 10:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article has always been focused on pre-history and foreign political developments of the war, never on the war itself. I have presented my idea of the contents of the article in the beginning of the current talk, and it should contain a lot more information about the war itself. I don't oppose splitting the article to separate ones, but they should be connected to the Continuation War somehow, like Finland before World War II (Continuation War) and Interim peace (Continuation War) as they concentrate exclusively on how those areas affect to Continuation War and miss all social and political development of the time, which are important if history is considered as whole, but which produce unnecessary noise for those interested about Continuation War. --Whiskey 18:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. But I think the articles should be written in such a way that they fit into the History of Finland-series. So, it shood look like this:

• Finland before World War II, about the events leading to the Winter War
• Winter War, about the actual war
• Interim Peace (not a good name obviously), about the events leading to the Continuation War
• Continuation War, about the war
• Finland after World War II, etc..

So the current chapters "After the Moscow Peace Treaty" and "Coordination with Germany" could be moved to Interim Peace and only a summary should be left here. The chapter "Before World War II" could be moved to Finland before World War II with corresponding text from Winter War. Is this acceptable? I do not really see why we need Finland before World War II (Continuation War)? -- Jniemenmaa 08:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that a good idea, because if we take for example Finland before World War II, it would include a lot of information not relevant to Continuation War, like torppari-legistature, prohibitionary liquor law, great depression, end of language strife, etc. just for what has happened between WWI and WWII. The end result will be too little focused that accidental reader could find relevant information if he is interested only about Continuation War. Which means that the summary has to pick and explain shortly relevant events, making the text same that is now in the article. --Whiskey 18:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All right, that is about what I intend to write about the interim peace between the Winter War and the Continuation War. I think it would be practical to put everything between "After the Moscow Peace" and "Conclusion" to the separate article, Interim Peace between Winter War and Continuation War (Could be used in History of Finland) and use "Conclusion" to hold summary about the issue (and rename it). I have tried to produce as neutral text as possible, but I guess my Finnishness is clear, so could someone non-Finn please check the text for NPOV in mind (Johan Magnus? Ruhrjung? ??) --Whiskey 00:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good Books on Continuation War

I'd like to introduce new chapter where those interested for Continuation War can find more information about good books on the issue. Feel free to add your own favorites!

Jatkosodan Historia I-VI (History of the Continuation War I-VI)-The definite source from the Finnish side.

Suomen Sota 1941-1945 I-XI (War of Finland 1941-1945)-The earlier version of previous

Jatkosodan synty (Birth of Continuation War), by Mauno Jokipii -Very detailed description of the activities between the Winter War and the Continuation War

need of headlines and structure

Please see Continuation War/temp for an idea how the last section under Background could be made easier to read on the screen. --Johan Magnus 00:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good! With wikipedia:boldness I move that to the article with a minor change (combining the two last sections). It can always be reverted if I've been too bold! /Tuomas 04:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It looks definitely better now. Thanks! I wasn't fully satisfied with Finnish-German rappoachment before, as Finland wasn't so eager to work with Germans right after Winter War, but only when other options failed, that is why I modified it a little. Also, someone should write a little bit in the History of Finland the problem newly independent state faced when independence was gained and secured from Bolshevist Russia and Imperial Germany, both at odds with victors of the war, Great Britain and France. Especially as Whites in the Russian Civil war refused to recognize Finnish independence. -- Whiskey 08:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I made the entire section "After the Moscow Peace Treaty" to be a section equally leveled with "Background" and "The Road to War". I hope I don't cause any confusion by this. Unfortunately, I made a minor reshuffling at the same time, and now it turns out that it is somewhat complicated to see my rather moderate changes of the text. I apologize for this! /Tuomas 10:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Too long!

I came to this page for a quick overview of the war and its context, and it's taken me about 20 minutes (I think) to read up to half of the article, and the war hasn't even started yet! The article is great, but it's more than twice the suggested maximum size (32k). Is there a possibility that someone can create detailed articles where the info on various subtopics should go? Junes 17:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right, and I think people are realizing this, but it was or remains prioritized to get a coherent article first, and to cut it up later... and, unfortunately, we are generally somewhat slow and rather few (and some have been scared away by ...well, let's not get too much into details). I would be happy if you could sit on your fingers for yet another year and resist your urge to split it up in parts.

:-) /Tuomas 18:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article has been one of the best reads I've head on Wikipedia. Before coming here I had no idea that Finnland had any participation in World War II. Great job to all who have worked on this. If anything, this article doesn't treat the Finnish story as a "side-note" of World War II.

I agree wholeheartedly, great article. Has it been nominated for Featured Article status yet? perhaps it should... Nicholas 19:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article is good, but definitely much, much too long. It has reached 100k even without a heavy use of pictures. My suggestion is to create Historical background of the War of Continuation, Political developments of the War of Continuation and the Military history of the War of Continuation and move much of the material there. Unless I hear objections, I will try to find time to begin implementing these changes. BTW, it's a pitty that Winter War has not attracted so much attention. --Chino 07:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I created an article with the title Interim Peace instead of "Historical Backround of the War of Continuation". I will now begin shortening the passages on this page which were moved to the new page. Help would be much appreciated! --Chino 10:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Blush* There seems to be a discussion going on concerning the Interrim Peace already --Chino 12:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Refutes democratic war theory?

The article states in the introduction that "Although the Continuation War was fought in the periphery of World War II, and the engaged troops were relatively few, the history of this war is intriguing as it challenges much of the conventional wisdom on the World War. Not the least, it refutes the popular theory that democratic countries don't wage war against each other.

I fail to see how the Continuation War refutes the democratic war theory (the theory that democracies don't war on each other). This would seem a severe exaggeration given that though the UK and Finland may have officially been at war with each other during World War II; it was a result of alliances with other nations and as far as I am aware they didn't actually engage each other. The most you could say is that is a minor exception to the theory; I suspect most historians would say it is an interesting though insignificant point with regard to the theory.

I previously amended this point myself and was reverted; so I've raised this here on the talk page. :ChrisG 16:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's a matter of interpretation, of course, and it may seem a minor exception for countries that weren't struck by the exception, but such an attitude may also have a ring of Great Power Arrogance to it. The exception might be small or big, but an exception it is nevertheless. It was hardly insignificant for the victim. --Johan Magnus 21:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Continuation War is commonly used as an example to refute the democratic war theory, and that's why it should be mentioned in an article. For Britain, Continuation War was war of choice, as there was no mandatory reason to declare war to Finland: the US didn't declare war. So blaming alliances doesn't work.

The alliance theory also shakes the very foundations of the whole theory, as in there the alliance with undemocratic nation is valued more than peace with other democratic nation and that democratic nation would be ready to sell other democratic nation to the mercy of undemocratic ally. --Whiskey 22:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is of course an exception; but it does not REFUTE the theory. Especially given the rather crucial distinction between Britain declaring war and actively waging war.  :ChrisG 21:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exceptio probat regulam The exception we talk here is big enough to hit dogmatism of democratic war theory: the theory has to be modified to fit this exception. The distinction you mention is not so crucial, as Britain (and US) provided open material support to Soviet Union to fight Finland, as many western made shot down planes made obvious. At the same time the declaration of war closed Finnish contacts, both commercial, military and political, to Britain and the Commonwealth. The criminal analogy would be providing guns and getaway car to bank robber while fully aware of his intentions. --Whiskey 21:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finnish naming conventions

In geographic locations Finnish names typically contain the type of the location. It means that as järvi means lake in Finnish, the names of the most lakes contain järvi as part of the name. Or rivers contain joki in their names. When I write "Lake Jänisjärvi", it feels like writing "Lake Lake Superior" or "River Aurajoki" (Flows through Turku) feels like using "River River Thames". You bet it makes me feel irritated... --Whiskey 12:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree!

There was a discussion on this in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers.

See Talk:River Vuoksi for a somewhat similar discussion.

/Tuomas 13:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could say "the Aurajoki (River Aura)" Nicholas 19:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Finnish-German staff talks, May 1941.

Please do not revert an edit I have made and cited an academic source for without providing at least some kind of reference for your own information. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. If you believe the date quoted in my source is incorrect, then give a source for your own information or refrain from making an edit.

Similarly, the same book states that on May 26, when Heinrichs returned from Germany, the Finnish general headquarters began issuing mobilization orders. If you want to dispute this, please cite a source that says my information is incorrect. -Elrith, 14.8.05

Sources, f.ex. Suomen Sota 1941-1945, Sotahistoriallisen tutkimuslaitoksen sotahistoriallisen toimiston julkaisuja IX, part 1/12 (1964) or Jatkosodan historia 1/6, Sotatieteen laitoksen sotahistorian toimisto (1988), which were both part of "official" analysis by Finnish Army to the war. It wasn't only soldiers who were writing articles to the books, but also civilians in their area of expertise, f.ex. professor (Ph.D) Ohto Manninen, who has participated actively to the historic discussion of the war. Also I have used professor Mauno Jokipii's Jatkosodan Synty (Birth of the Continuation War) (1987), also fulfilling academic standards.

At May 26, Heinrichs was having negotiations with OKH at Zossen, near Berlin. After that he had separate negotiations with air force and armaments, and before flying back to Finland May 28, he had discussions with Maj. Bürckner who was issued as a liason officer for the duration of his visit.

It is commonly cited, that Ryti made decision to the mobilization June 9, and the first orders were issued June 10. Naturally these orders were prepared beforehand, so it is quite doubtful that they would have been ready already at May 26, when you claimed Heinrichs came back. How could have they included all modifications to the existing orders when the details were still not decided until Helsinki negotiations at June 3-6? --Whiskey 12:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

War aims

Intelligence however indicated military control of all of Finland's territory as the immediate military goal in both the Winter War and the Continuation War.

Soviet documents published after the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, revealed that the Kremlin had been firmly determined to put all of Finland under Soviet rule.

Before you allege something like that, better make sure you can point me right to the published Soviet documents you are referring to. For now -- removed as pure speculation.

This is congruent with a (postulated) Russian long-term strategic goal of securing ice-free harbours at the Atlantic and the North Sea.

Another speculative (and irrelevant) statement removed. Why don't we add something like "conquering Saint Petersburg, the true, although secret, Finnish reason for entering the war, was perfectly in line with the long-term strategic goal of the Great Finland"? -- Guinness man 23:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

TOP SECRET GERMAN MATERIAL REVEALED IN NUREMBURG TRIAL

    "Top Secret. A long time before 22nd June, 1941, the
    German Government and the High Command of the German
    Armed Forces jointly carried out secret negotiations
    with the Finnish Government and the General Staff of
    the Finnish Army, and prepared the attack on the Soviet
    Union. I learned about the preparation for the attack
    on the Soviet Union by the German and Finnish Armies
    under the following circumstances. On my arrival at
    Helsinki in October, 1941, as acting German Military
    Attache, I had numerous conversations with Major von
    Albedill, the aide of the German Military Attache, who
    formerly served in the Military Attache's Department in
    the General Staff of the Army.
    
    Von Albedill acquainted me with the situation in
    Finland and its military and political background,
    since Major-General Rossing, the Military Attache, was
    seriously ill and receiving treatment at the health
    resort of Merano in the Tyrol. In the course of these
    conversations von Albedill told me that as early as
    September, 1940, Major-General Rossing, acting on an
    order of Hitler and of the German General Staff, had
    arranged the visit of Major-General Talwel, the
    Plenipotentiary of Marshal Mannerheim, to the Fuehrer's
    headquarters in Berlin. During this visit an agreement
    was reached between the German and Finnish General
    Staffs for joint preparations for a war of aggression,
    and its execution, against the Soviet Union. In this
    connection General Talwel told me, during a conference
    at his staff headquarters in Aunosa in November, 1941,
    that he, acting on Marshal Mannerheim's personal
    orders, had as far back as September, 1940 -- been one
    of the first to contact the German High Command with a
    view to joint preparation for a German and Finnish
    attack on the Soviet Union."

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/imt/tgmwc/ftp.py?imt/tgmwc//tgmwc-06/tgmwc-06-57.15 (Rakovsky 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

It is well known that Mannerheim had ordered Talvela to travel to Germany and try to buy as much military hardware as possible. That was made possible by troop transfer treaty between Germany and Finland, where Germany allowed Finland to purchase material from Germany in exchange of transfer rights. There is no documentary support to the presented claim, on the other hand, at December meeting Talvela was asked to arrange the visit of Gen. Heinrichs to "lecture about experiences of the Winter War". When Heinrichs visited at February, Halder asked his opinions about the "imaginary situation of war between Germany and Soviet Union". With Heinrichs May visit to Berlin these two dates are generally considered the dates when Finland become involved with the planning of operation Barbarossa. (See Interim Peace) --Whiskey 23:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian Partisans

Russian Partisan-troops are not mentioned at all? They did some terrible stuff under soviet command, like slayed entire finnish towns. There should be a lot information about them on books and internet.

Vyborg

There is some debate over at Talk:Vyborg about how the Finnish capture of the city in 1941 "contributed to the Siege of Leningrad, one of the deadliest in history". Some more oppinions would be appriciated. -- Jniemenmaa 07:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Partisan Article

Sorry guys, I respect all the job you made but this article is totally written under the finnish point of view. I understand that one always tries to move the water in the direction of his mill, as we say here in Italy, but frankly this article is far from being a neutral one. Just my opinion. Regards (Virgilio 00:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

It is so much easier to gather facts from Finland and Finnish point of view, as the most relevant documents and archives has been available for public and historians for decades with lots of sometimes heated and controversal discussion about the issue, which especially during 70s when pro-Soviet young historians were marching in trying to bust all icons of the war. Unfortunately the same cannot be said about the Russian archives, as many relevant archives are still closed from outside research and even some archives which were opened after the collapse of the Soviet Union were closed again.

I've tried to make this article as neutral as possible, so if you could point where the writing is not neutral, I'll correct it immediately, if it is a wording, or add reference, if is an issue. --Whiskey 01:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it is not a question of "points where the writing is not neutral", it is the entire article that it is not neutral, every statement is written in order to justify this or that beahviour of the finnish government, also using irrelevant info ( for example, why to underline until nausea that US didn't declared war to Finland in order to make her appear better? Just for talking, US recognized Vichy France and also sent there an ambassador and it is not a mystery that Roosevelt prefered them to De Gaulle. ) Another thing, there isn't a word about the fact that Finland was, after the german invasion of Ussr, a party of the Anti-comintern pact, together with Axis Powers and their puppies. This is a relavant info that, if I'm not mistaken ( excuse me in the case it is written and I haven't seen but for sure there isn't word "anti-comintern pact" ), it is absent from the article, and on the contrary there are a lot of irrelevant info that are there just to present Finland in the best possible way. Anyway don't misunderstand me, I appreciate and respect the work of resource you have done, but it is really one-sided. Frankly, I didn't know you Finns were so chauvinist :) eheh joking;)Regards. (Virgilio 03:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

The reason why Anti-Komintern Pact is not in the article is because Finland joined it November 25 1941, and I haven't reached that date yet in my rewrite. For the same reason US relationship to Finland is located in several places in the article. For a onesidedness, I hope this raises the interest of someone from Russia who would add more their viewpoints to the article to balance it.

The Internim Peace part of the article is much more suitable for an independent article, and I guess it will be before I have finished. If you think I have downplayed something on that area, pleace point the omissions and I'll try to fix it. --Whiskey 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So, if I understood well, you are rewriting the article, right? I think it is a good idea, but in the meanwhile the article remains like it is, without an important info like Anti-Comintern pact. I think you should add it now, at least a brief note. If I can permit to give u a suggestion for your rewriting, try to be more neutral, avoid to give always a justification for everything, good or bad, the Finns did, it is not necessary. It would be good if some Russian will partecipate in the article to balance it, but if they don't I don't think the article can remain written only under finn point of view. There are some parts of the article that are almost irritating, for example: It has been suggested that the execution of the prominent pacifist leader Arndt Pekurinen in November 1941 was due to fear of army demoralization being exacerbated by such activism. What is this chauvinistic bullshit, sorry? It should have been written In November 1941 the prominent pacifist leader X was executed STOP. Without writing "if", "but", "it has been suggested that..". And this is just 1 example, but all the article is full of stuff like that. Another thing which is given a lot of emphasys is the fact that Jews fought in finnish army. I think that this is of course a very important thing to say, no doubt about this. But Finland wasn't an exception in Axis or pro-Axis forces, Japan for example never had antisemitic laws and some european Jews found shelter there during WW2 and, about fighting, many italian Jews fought in the italian army during fascist regime in and also after Mussolini signed the antisemitic laws in 1938. You know antisemitic laws in Italy worked in a strange way, a lot of Jews were harshly persecuted, but there were also cases, like for example the one of historian Richard Pipes ( the father of Daniel Pipes) ' family, where jewish families found shelter in fascist Italy. It seems strange but it is like that. It must also been said that until armistice day, not a single italian jew was given to the Nazis. It changed all after the armistice when German troops occupied Italy building a puppet-state and many fascists collaborated with them in deporting the Jews. Aldo Finzi, a prominent jew who was also minister during fascist period ( before antisemitic law ) was in fact killed by the nazi in Fosse Ardeatine massacre. Regards (Virgilio 22:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

Dear friends, it's me again, I just want to advise that if Whiskey or other persons will write me here unfortunately I won't read nor answer again because I'm abandoning Wikipedia. I made this decision because working on other articles I discovered that there are also a lot of stupid persons who just try to impose their views without discussing it. Here me and Whiskey are discussing nicely about how to make more neutral this article and noone is imposing his view on the other, but there are some persons in Wikipedia who don't want to discuss, but just to put their favourite version in the article against everyone and everything, even if there are 10 persons who says not to do like this. In these conditions it's impossible to go on, it just makes me angry. I want to wish to Whiskey and to all of you a good work and all the best things. Regards. (Virgilio 03:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

Agreeing with most of what Virgilio writes, I would like to point out that this kind of one-sidedness, or lack thereof, sits totally in the eye of the observer. This article does, in its current state, challenge quite a few conventional wisdoms in the English speaking world. It does so in a very serious and responsible manner, but never-the-less it doesn't reasonate with what people expect to find here. It's obvious and impossible to avoid that a war that was a main issue for the Finns but nothing but a detail of the Great Patriotic War for the Russians is known in more detail to students of the history of Finland than to students of the history of Russia. In NATO countries like also in Russia, the understanding of history is no less moralist than in Finland, but the basal moral is different. The Russians praise their brave soldiers and depicture their enemies in as dark colours as possible. The Finns are quite different. They praise their brave soldiers and depicture their enemies in as dark colours as possible. And also the culture of NATO countries is very different. There one praises the Western Allies' brave soldiers and depicture all those who gave in to the later beaten enemy in the darkest possible colours. :-)

I do not know if Wikipedia is good or bad, ... if it will turn out to be yet another dead end, or if the disadvantages Virgilio so clearly demonstrates will get fixed, but this article is one of them that give hope for the better! Yes, it sounds as an apologia to people more used to seeing the WWII-history in the scheme of with-U.S. or against-U.S., but how can it answer the relevant questions without explaining how and why the Finnish government and the Finnish electorate made the choices they made? 81.236.184.210 14:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I only hope that everyone reads Virgilio's posts before editing this article any further. I hope also that people reading Virgilio's posts don't regard them as pro-something or anti-something, but realise that they represent — maybe as well as it's possible here — the neutral view on the matter. If an article written with serious intentions seems so ridiculous for a reader not related to the matter, there has to be some problem with it. 81.175.195.69 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi, this is a really good article and I enjoyed learning about something about which I knew almost nothing. I have one request, however, to help people like me. Because this article is so long, it would be helpful to subdivide it into more manageable chunks by using more of the titles inside the article. This would give more of an outline to get an overview of the scope. Thanks. 09:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, do you have any specific suggestions of where to subdivide it and what subtitles to add ? StuRat 23:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Suomi SMG & its use

I removed the following paragraph:

One aspect of the war that deserves note: It was the Finnish army that was the first in the world to equip front line combat units with submachine guns, these being the Finnish Lahti submachine gun. This weapon was so successful as a close range assault weapon, both offensively and defensively, that it was copied as quickly as possible by the Soviet Union and became their Ppshk, or "burp gun". Soviet soldiers as well copied the tactics of the Finnish army in the forests, and used both them and their "newly invented" submachine gun to devistating effect at Stalingrad, effectively turning the tide of war against Nazi Germany.

First of all, it was the Winter War that proved the impact the SMG can have in a modern battlefield. Second, I'd like to have sources for the claim that "Soviet soldiers as well copied the tactics of the Finnish army in the forests". Third, sarcastic remarks like "newly invented" have no place in Wikipedia. Fourth, again I'd like to see the sources for the Stalingrad claim - Mikko H. 11:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the first war in which SMG's played a prominent role is the Chaco War. RKKA had produced SMG's prior to the Winter War, but that particular design was too complicated and expensive, and was dropped. During the Great Patriotic War the Soviet Union had to rely on SMG's more than of semi-auto rifles because 1)most semi-auto rifles produced before the war were lost in 1941 2)SMG's are cheaper than semi-auto rifles, and can be produced in non-specialized facilities. Semi-auto rifles are more versatile on the battlefield than SMG, since the rifles have a much longer range (for example, the US army was armed with semi-auto rifles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:69.198.125.64 (talk • contribs)

Finland's alleged "alliance" with Nazi Germany

Contrary to what the wikipage says, Finland as a nation was never allied with Nazi-Germany. In the article, it is mentioned, that Finland had a five-week alliance with Nazi-Germany, but in fact it was only the president's personal promise to Germany that as long as he was in power, Finland would not disengage from the war with Soviet Union. All alliances of the state must run through the government and parliament. This was not the case in summer of 1944.

You might want to add that info. StuRat 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, how do you define an alliance? Was Stalin actually "allied" to Germany in 1940, or did they just have a "no-fighting" agreement? Certainly, there is no debating the USSR's alliance with America and Britain- it was even termed the "United Nations" at the time! But was there one single treaty that Germany had to sign with its partners to make them "allies," or were there many such agreements signed?

The Newsweek and Time articles on Finland from 1941-45 and a book called "Origins of Interventionism" are both interesting and fun to read. They denounce Finland of being a member of the "Anti-Comintern" Pact. Unfortunately I do not know the exact date Finland signed it, so I am not sure where exactly to put it in the text.

The two main American accusations against Finland are the attacks on American ships participating in the Lend-Lease agreement with the USSR and the fact that Finland continued to fight on the side of Germany. Schwartz's book documents the closening of German-Finnish relations up to the start of the war. Some articles criticized the Finnish administration, and hoped to see a prime minister take over who was more sympathetic to the Allies. Unfortunately, I don't remember the specific sum Finland had to pay the United States at the end of the war.

Right now Wikipedia is asking us to cite sources with footnotes in the text, but I am confused about how to do that. Do you have some advice? Thanks. (Rakovsky 08:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)).

I added some references to the text, you can use them as an example. Could you please check the spelling of Platonov's book name and publisher, I'm not so familiar with Cyrilic keyboards.

For an alliance issue, the Pact of Steel is the prime treaty between Germany and Italy, and then there was Tripartite Pact, where all signatories were at war with SU. For Finland there was Anti-Comintern Pact, but it was signed also f.ex. Spain and Denmark (although the latter was pressured...), so its importance as an alliance treaty is questionable. Unfortunately it is hard to find exact contents of these treaties. One should certainly improve their presentation in Wikipedia. --Whiskey 10:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey, the Russian transliteration of "Voenizdat Ministerstva oborony SSSR" is Воениздат министерства обороны СССР. The transliterated title of Platonov's book is "Bitva za Leningrad." Thanks for the info on references. How can I add in photos?

Rakovsky 07:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is one author on another forum who points to the high level of cooperation between the Finnish and German armies as evidence of an alliance. I am interested in potential rebuttals to his argument:

Finally, let's examine the level of military cooperation between Germany and Finland and compare it to the cooperation between the Allies. when the Germans broke through at Rostov in July '42 did the Americans send in their army to stop them and save the day for Russia? Nope--but the Germans did when the Russians broke through in the Isthmus in June '44. Did the Soviet Union perhaps hand over the Kola peninsula to British military administration so that the Brits could fight the Germans that way--nope. But Finland did do that with the northern half of their country. Perhaps there were Soviet units assisting theWestern Allies when they assaulted, say, Caen--nope. But there were Finnish units directly under German command assisting them in the planned offensives on Kandalaksha and Murmansk, and German units under Finnish command in Karelia. German-Finnish cooperation was far greater than inter-Allied cooperation, even between the Brits and Americans ("mixing" units was only practiced in a few circumstances, such as Market Garden or the Bulge). http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=57383&start=0&sid=d6f653c6a533bb2734f0c6bd8217862f

The issues raised have already been discussed in the thread you linked to. - Mikko H. 08:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

npov

the article has a very pro-finland bias. seems to go out of its way to obfuscate the fact that the "democratic" government was allied with nazi germany! i'm surprised the jewish factions here have allowed this to stand for so long, considering that finland's support of germany in the seige of leningrad certainly caused a considerable delay of the russian counter-offensive into poland - thereby allowing many thousands more jews to be murdered. but i guess maybe the zionists are too busy going after the palestinians to take note of this. oh well. and apparently that "democratic" nazi mannerheim has a monument still standing in helsinki. aint this a crazy fucked-up world!

Could you please specify your claims where npov is violated? (Because of offensive language and lack of specific issues and their sources I have strong feelings that this is a troll, but anyway...)--Whiskey 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems a troll to me too. I don't get how someone blames Mannerheim for indirectly killing jews by not letting another country invade his country. Just don't get it. Finland was the only axis country, btw, with not only field churches but also field synagogues in its army. I'm for removing the NPOV tag since a user who doesn't sign his messages, uses swearwords and insults respected figures, presents his information with irrelevant and factually inaccurate facts, hasn't heard of capital letters, put the tag there, and hasn't even specified what parts of the article he's talking about.--HJV 22:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As no coherent reasons have been given for the tag, I'm removing it. -Mikko H. 06:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, well...

"democratic" government was allied with nazi germany!"

Yes, Finland was a democracy, and Finland was never allied with Germany.

"i'm surprised the jewish factions here have allowed this to stand for so long,"

Well, I am not.

"considering that finland's support of germany in the seige of leningrad certainly caused a considerable delay of the russian counter-offensive into poland"

Finnish did not take part in the siege.

"- thereby allowing many thousands more jews to be murdered."

We did not murder jews.

"apparently that "democratic" nazi mannerheim has a monument still standing in helsinki."

Yes, he has. Nazi? Watch your words. Mannerheim is likely the most respected Finnish ever.

Just made som minor corrections, the previous version could be read in the way that the US declared war on Finland, which of course is not true. And about British Swordfish carrier planes attacking Petsamo...the source is my late father, who was there :-)

Firstly, what does this have to do with anything related to the article? United States was allied to the Soviet Union just as much as Finland was to Germany. The Soviet Union, in fact, killed more of its own citizens than Germany did. If one calls Mannerheim a nazi, he should look up the definition of nazism. Even George Bush would qualify better for a nazi. Please sign your comments, by the way, as the above is hard for anyone else to read... HJV 15:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The last part (about the British) does have relevance. The rest is just feeding the troll. Don't. ;-)

PS: Most of this stuff ought to be archived, methinks... --Illythr 17:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)