Talk:Continuation War/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Continuation War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Untitled

The user Illythr (Whiskey) has been asked several times to please move the very Stalinist POV below ("Request to move or delete article") to the archives, along with the much newer (opposing) messages, which he most recently archived.

However, he refuses to cooperate with the other Wikipedia users, or to respect the very nature and essense of Wikipedia, and its widely accepted "rules", as he continues fiercely fighting for this highly propagandist POV, which - since the end or the Cold War - has been given up by even the vast majority of the very most radical Russian ex-Stalinists, but still not by the user Illythr, apparently.

Molotov signs the German-Soviet "non-aggression" pact on August 23, 1939. Behind him are Ribbentrop and Stalin. The treaty included a secret protocol, in which the independent countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania were divided into spheres of interest of the parties. Others, but Finland, became occupied. Stalin "continued" the Winter War (1939-1940) with the Continuation War (1941-1944) - to no prevail. Finland did not agree to settle for an unconditional peace. However, Finland did agree to cede territories, only a fraction of which USSR had won by fighting.

Loyal to Josef Stalin's ways, the user Illythr wants to deny, that the Winter War (Stalin's first and unsuccessful attempt to conquer Finland, 1939-1940) ever took place (Sources; preparing to attack: [1], [2]). Thus - based of this outdated and distorted propaganda -, the Continuation War couldn't be a "continuation" for anything.

In the exact same manner, Josef Stalin indeed tried portraying Finland as the aggressor, and as Hitler's ally, and - thus - also the initiator of the Continuation War, and therefore the attacker as well, and - furthermore - the looser, based on the fact that Germany would loose. However, all the above points are wrong, of course.

Accordingly, there was no Soviet victory on the final battle fields, although - after the fighting had seized - Finland agreed to cede land, to mark the war's end and to achieve a lasting peace, after its successful defensive war.

Finland had indeed accepted military assistance from Germany - having had no other realistic alternative - for the protection against the continued aggression by USSR. However, Finland refused to cooperate in fulfilling any of Hitler's key demands/wishes in relation to Germany's own war against Stalin. The objectives of the two countries were very different, although the enemy happened to be the same.

Finland was fighting a defensive war against Josef Stalin's continued attempt to conquer Finland, which goal was reaffirmed by the Soviet Union's Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, on his visit to Berlin on November 12-13, 1940, in a follow up meeting for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939.

It is true, of course, that by 1941 the Germans happened to be conduction their own war against the same party, which continued trying to conquer Finland, the Red Army of Josef Stalin. 213.216.199.6 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear user Roobit/Illythr/Whiskey: As explained before, the above user prefers his/her comments not to be replied to between the paragraphs and/or sentences, as the paragraphs were not signed individually by the user. Therefore, to avoid any confusion (regarding the contributor), your related comments were carried below (from between the above paragraphs). Feel welcome to add clarification, as to what exactly you are referring to by each note, if you wish:

Why is that? There was a treaty of Paris signed, Finland was found to be guilty of aggression and paid reparations. It attacked Soviet Union simultaneously with the Nazi Germany (and not "joined in") and saved its skin only by stabbing its master in the back. (Roobit

Finland made its peace with USSR in 1944, and Germany made its peace with USSR in 1945, the same year when Germany waged war against Finland. 82.128.246.13 12:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly not what Finnish and German Nazis said at the time, not in print, not on film. (Roobit

There was no ally treaty signed between Finland and Germany. Such a thing simply did not exist, not in "print" or otherwise. Ahven is a fish 07:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, underneath the surface, Finland had actually been in war against Germany up to the summer of 1944, when USSR launched a massive attack against the Finnish fences. 82.128.246.13 12:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, the Finns just... wrenched those Panzerfausts from cold, dead hands of German soldiers. And the German fighter-bomber squadron just... happened to fly by, right? --Illythr 14:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true, that until the summer of 1944, Finns had assisted the allied war against Germany, in any way they could, i.e. by keeping away from Leningrad and the Murmansk railway - cooperating with the related messages from Roosevelt and Churchill - , etc., etc.

However, one can't blame the Finns for protecting themselves against the take-over attempt of Josef Stalin, unless you are Stalin himself. Ahven is a fish 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

They just happened to be conducting war against the same party, as by an accident? They just stumbled into it? I thought they actually invaded the Soviet Union and violated non-aggression pact and I thought that fascist Finland also violated the treaty it just signed? In fact the crime Nazi bosses were convicted for at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal was that of international aggression and treaty violation. All other charges came next. (Roobit

Both wars, the Winter War and the Continuation War, were started by massive Soviet attacks against Finland. Stalin's goal to conquer Finland is very well documented.

It is well known that in Russia these facts can't be taught or discussed openly as of yet. Those Russians interested, please, try digging out correct information from the internet, for instance.

The people in Russia, and people of Russian descend, must try doing something about this. For instance, join demonstrations condemning the murders of people who try teaching and talking about these matters in Russia. Write to your political leaders, demand democratic rights for your people in chat forums, etc. Join the third millennium with the rest of us. 82.128.246.13 13:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean someone was murdered because you preached about what? What is this propagandist nonesense (Roobit

~~Ooooookay...~~ Could you, perhaps, help such a development by providing reliable sources to the claims in the disputed section? --Illythr 14:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The text is full of links, built-in sources, and quotes. Besides, as you can see from the history notes [3], the text was just being worked on, when you so rudely - without notice - suggested for the text to be locked.

I did? First of all some scumbag declared me a sock puppet of a personage with pseudo Hispanic name because I wrote what I think is right: an encyclopedic article, unless it is a propaganada publication or showcase for injured national sentiments, must reflect both sides' views on the story or historic event. The name must be neutral or at least of the kind all parties can agree upon. I cannot possibly see how an article with a title like this can remain online while more neutral alternatives exist (what's next - Liberation of Russia from Judeo-Bolshevism as Barbarossa substitute?). You people substitute your version of history and deny history to others, and if it is not bad enough you slander others and declare them sock puppets or whatever - I guess that's very much in your Hitlerite tradition. Roobit

You know that the information is correct, factual and well supported. You do not like the truth, however. Like Josef Stalin, you've explained, that the information does not have to be true, for it to be presented, according to you.

What does Josef Stalin or Maria Theresa have to do with Finnish propaganda?! Propaganda, which this piece is saturated in, including its very title, is not truth. It is propaganda. Roobit

Several professors and researchers have been named, and related information has been linked, on this talk page's discussion, in support of different pieces of information discussed. More can and will be added, of course.

However, after the quite comprehensive history lesson provided to you already, with plenty of facts and sources, you still asking about reliable sources at this point can only be met with your own statements, which well describe your standard of reliability:

"...it doesn't need to provide the correct view to be present, only the mainstream view." --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"The funny (if sad) thing about Wikipedia and the world is that Whiskey is correct. Something need not be true to be accepted as true. It only needs to stick around long enough." --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahven is a fish 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

J don't know if it is trougth that jeltsin sed that but j have heard of it.J think that that the Sovjetunion framed Finland for the Shelling of Mainila to get a reason to declare war on and conquer Finland. and Finland did never want to side with the nazis but to keep it's independence they had to! and so it could be realy trought that jeltsin sed wath he sed. j don't think that this article should be deleted or removed!! and j think that you could write where this "propaganda" is that it is not neceserily the trought.

j hope that you understand what j mean in wath j have sed here, my English is not that perfect

--Kennet.mattfolk 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Query

I'd like the author to give me the source of their contention that Finnish public opinion views the Continuation War as inevitable. I can find plenty of evidence for this view about the Winter War but none from Turku's Library of Political Sciences for this view about the Continuation War, even from contemporaneous sources.

I'm not the author, but have you checked Ryti's and Paasikivi's diaries, Paasikivi's biography (sorry, don't remember the writer right away), Mannerheim's memoirs and Jokipii's "Jatkosodan synty"? All points out, that right after the Winter War there was no such feel of inevitability, but during the summer when Soviet Union pressured additional concessions and prevented closer co-operation with Sweden, the feeling of being on the Baltic road increased (Paasikivi,Mannerheim,Jokipii). According to Jokipii, it was the Petsamo crisis which made Mannerheim's and Ryti's mind that the second round is inevitable.

By default, the Continuation War is considered a war of choise, if we consider the situation from the end of the Winter War. But if we roll forward to June 22, then the war was already inevitable. It is interesting to look what happened between those two dates, so see Interim Peace. (Ok, its not a perfect name, but hopefully we find something better...)

I do believe that the articles are slightly skewed to an unflinchingly Finnish Nationalist pov and I say that as a long-term foreign resident of the country, which I hope qualifies me to pronounce on such things without fear of being insensitively blind to cultural pressures to conform to the state's view of history.

You are free to balance it, and I appreciate it greatly.

Can whoever wrote the article's introduction please insert some definite articles (THEs to English speakers) but that is a minor point.

As regards Nazism, there is a synagogue in Turku, which was closed down in 1943. A friend Antti has told me of a similar event in Naantali, but I have no dates for that. Also, the article skates around the thousands of Finns who joined the Viking Division of the SS to fight under the colours of Nazi Germany.

Thousands of Finns? 1,400 (1200 before Barbarossa and 200 replacements 1942)? At Naantali there wasn't Jewish parish, unlike at Helsinki, Turku, Viipuri and Tampere. If you have more sources on the issue, please insert those to the article.

Jatrius 08:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've refrained from editing until there may be a deeper consensus arrived at on the issue of inevitability.

The introduction needs rewriting, I agree. --Whiskey 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

(Roobit, do not post you messages above, but underneath. Your message was carried to below this note, from the top of the page. Someone appears to have given you a last warning about continuous mixing of messages, writing between the lines, not signing properly, etc. No anarchy, please.)

In response to the un-archived propagandist POV presented right below this message

Outright falsehoods and propaganda. I have never attempted to edit this article but requested it to be renamed. I see new gems appearing (or wasn't I too careful at reading this propagandist pamphlet the first time?) Like this "The break up of the Soviet Union appeared to have brought a significant change in the policies and attitudes acquired by the new Russian leadership in this respect, when in 1991 President Boris Yeltsin publicly admitted that the Soviet Union had started the Continuation War.[citation needed]"

Tell me, when and where exactly did this scandal take place? How? Any reference to anything? Any media link? Did Yeltsin really call the war of aggression waged by Finland and Nazi Germany against Soviet Union "war of continuation?" as the article claims? I am quite certain that we have a case of presenting totally fabricated statements which attributed to person (president Yeltsin) who never made them and who, in all likelihood, is not even aware of the term Continuation War. Roobit

Request to move or delete article

This article violates the Wikipedia neutrality policy in and by its very name (not to mention its contents). To be included in an encyclopedia, free or otherwise, especially in a multilingual encyclopedia, the subject of each entry must at least be a valid concept recognized by all, that actually exists at least as an abstraction. For instance, an article on water can be clearly translated from English into French and into Russian, and so and on, and the water can be defined as H2O. Likewise, an article on the US Civil War is a valid concept even though it can be mentioned that the war is also called the War of Southern Independence, the War between the States, and mention and create referral pages for whatever other name no matter how fanciful or marginal exists. But the American Civil War (the Civil War) is a concept univerally recognized; it would be recognized (in a translated form) by speakers of most languages without any disclaimer. It is an accepted historic term.

In the case of the Continuation War or of the War of Continuation we are confronting a concept that is not universally recognized and which also bears politically charged name. It is as if the Civil War article (which I had not seen) was wirtten solely from the Southern perspective and the article itself was titled the War of Southern Independence. In fact the author of the article would have made a disclaimer in the text that the other side knows it differently. In case of the Continuation War it is even worse than that - we have a monstrous violation of neutrality policy because the other side in question does not even recognize the validity of the term and is not aware it exists (since clearly it was not a separate war but a part of the WWII in which Finnish and German Nazis fought alongside, invaded the same country, espoused similar ideology and methods. I have a book here by Waldemar Erfurth, a Nazi general attached to the Finnish HQ during their war of aggression against the Soviet Union. The book, published in 1950, is titled Der Finnische Krieg - or the Finnish War. It is not titled the Continuation War since even the Nazi generals in Finland's own headquarters did not regard it or call it Continuation War.

Unfortunately, through Wikipedia and similar sources this preposterous name for the Finnish front operations gets currency in the English speaking world, at least online.

You should either delete this article entirely or rename it to something neutral as Finnish front or Finland's alliance with Germany, or Finland's war against USSR (which again would not be accurate because Finnish and German troops were together on Finnish territory, it was not "Finland's war") or move it to the WWII section. There is most certainly no place for any article titled the War of Continuation - at least if you intend or at the very least pretend to maintain Wikipedia's stated policy of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talk • contribs)

How come this worthless propagandist piece with its very name being total bunk was nominated for good article category? Where is the button to vote against it? Is any new war by party that lost previous one a war of continuation? Is Iraq America's War of Continuation (after Vietnam)? You cannot take a preposterous term used by nationalists and Nazis in a certain country and present it as if the term is acceptable to all because it is clearly not. In Russia no one calls joint Finnish-Nazi aggression a war of continuation, the term is unknown, so why would narrow and again utterly preposterous Finnish term be presented as is the only one. For example, World War Two or let's say the War of Austrian Succession are valid historic terms, the fact that they happened (and were not a part of something is else) is agreed by all and these terms exist in all written languages. An article like the War of Succession can be translated parallelly into —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talk • contribs)

This is total garbage - there should be no article called Continuation War as this episode of World War II when Finland attacked Soviet Union with the help of Nazi Germany and participated in what effectively became one of the worst war crimes in the history of humanity (blockade of Leningrad) is referred to as Continuation War only by modern Finnish Nazis. An war of aggression cannot be continuation of anything. Not even the German Nazis call WWII the "War of Continuation" merely because they lost WWI and decided to "continue" the affair on a later date.

Get rid off this article entirely. Move the topic to WWII section.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 November 2006

This same account appears to suggest that the history writing in the West in some way is based on Russophobia:

"The term Russophobia is an established term. a common name that exists in normal European languages such as Russian or English or French for far longer than ... let's take some inoffensive example -for longer than the entire history of written literary Finnish or Latvian?"

How is that "inoffensive"? Has the user ever heard about author Mikael Agricola - for instance -, who wrote in Finnish in the early 1500s, or Jöns Budde a writer from Naantali, Finland (at the time part of the Swedish Empire), who was active in 1400s, chiefly translating from Latin to Swedish (also wrote a few things of his own). Budde's works included the translation of whole books of the Bible into Swedish.

The user (Roobitcommented on the word Russophobia in historic English usage. The comments were not a part of this discussion. The term had nothing to do with this article (a politically charged name for a historic event that is not recognized in Russian historiography. If you want to have encyclopedic articles about historic events, then they should be at least of such nature that both sides to the story can agree on at least their name - like the Congress of Vienna or Franco-Prussian War, etc. As I wrote if you were to publish an article on US Civil War titled War of/for Southern Independence, you are going to generate controversy since most historians do not agree with that term even though it may have some currency in the US South. Now, regarding the term Russophobia - naturally Swedish is an established literary language (and so is modern Finnish) but in case of Finnish (though not of Swedish) it was not so at the time when the term Russophobia (1820s?) appeared in English usage. Reformation era translation of bible into vernacular or tribal dialects do not count. Furthermore, I find your "comments" that I ever claimed or wrote that historiography in the West revolved (or as you said "based on") Russophobia absolutely slanderous. I never said or wrote anything of the sort. I never used or mentioned the term West (to which Russia of course belongs - as it is an integral part of Christendom and became such a few centuries before lands which constitute today's Finland did) and I never claimed that Russophobia plays a role in historic writings in a larger group of nations from Iceland to Portugal. What I said was that the term is a valid English word, an actual word one can look up in a dictionary, that dates from the time when Britain had worries that Russia (through expansion into Asia Minor or later in the second half of 19th century through its activities in Central Asia) may threaten its routes to India. (Roobit

Mikael Agricola wrote in Finnish before William Shakespeare was born in 1564. Agricola's Finnish writing is very understandable even as we speak.

What is this nonsense? Who is William Shakespear and who is Agricola? Have some sense of proportion. Roobit

Many of those who speak both, English and Finnish, could tell you, that Agricola's Finnish is by no means a "tribal dialect", and that Acricola's Finnish is easier to understand than Shakespeare's English.

Shakespeare's English is perfectly fine and understandable, but of course the difference is that Shakespeare is a great playwright, immortal and widely translated, and I have no idea who was Agricola except that I know he was a clergyman at the time of reformation and translator of bible into tribal vernacular. These two are not comparable. Roobit

Which language has changed more? "There is the question."

That is the question - perhaps if you want to paraphrase Shakespeare but what is the point? Why did you drag all this stuff up into the open? Roobit

Before the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776, the news could be already read from a Finnish language newspaper in Finland.

What newspaper? What circulation? Any known writer writing in Finnish comparable to Swift/Defoe/Milton/even Johnson? Roobit

Due to the geographical isolation of the Finnic peoples, and the history of relatively little assimilation of the Finnic population, and due to the far reaching tradition of Finnish oral poetry and songwriting, the Finnish language is seen to have stayed its course, by not changing much, compared to many other languages.

So what does it have to do with the nationalist propaganada and offensive title of this "article"? Roobit

Thus, linguistic experts have been able to claim for instance, that the modern-day Finnish words tulla (come) and mennä (go) were in use in the Ural mountains already 8000 years ago, and perhaps before, and the word lähteä (to go) already 6000 years ago, and presumably before.

I have absolutely no idea what does it have to do with the subject matter. Roobit

The original language of at least some the southwestern parts of the modern-day Russia was the mother language of the modern-day Finnish. How much could the contemporary Finn understand of that language of their distant relatives, is debatable.

By descend, an average Russian today is said to be - to a large extend - an approximate three way mixture of Finnish tribes, Slavic tribes and Vikings, of whom many are said to have been Finnish as well.

What does this have to do with the title of the article that is offensive to many Russians, represents views of only one side and is unencyclopedic?

Thus user Robeet/Illythr/Whisky, your related remarks, comparisons and comments indeed do not seem "inoffensive", but very much offensive. One might even ask whose civilization should we really be concerned about. With comparisons like this, you may not reach very far in diminishing any resentments felt toward Russians in the west.

I am not aware that Finland is either West or that there is any great resentment toward Russia in countries like France or Spain or even Germany. The United States fares much worse in all public opinion surveys. In any case,

Due to some 44 known wars, which the Finns have participated in, Russophobia must have been present and discussed in Finland much before the term ever appeared in English usage, according to you around "1820s". For comparison, based on historic writings, the Finnish tribes were battling against Slavic peoples already during the Viking Age (and who knows how long before that). Ahven is a fish 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahven is a perch I think. Anyway, is it collection of Finnish nationalist propagandist statements and pamphlets online. Would it perhaps be more appropriate that you just dump this sort of wild stuff in a more appropriate place, like Finnish language version of Wikipedia where I am sure you'd establish a consensus fairly quickly. Besides you'd have the opportunity to practice writing in your ancient tongue instead of mutiliating the language of Shakespeare and Milton. Now - look here - I said that the title of this article does not meet Wikipedia's (or any normal human's) definition of objectivity. It is not recognized as the accurate description of the event by the second party in this story. Instead you bring up though skillful copy/paste artistry my opinion on the origin of the word Russophobia - a valid English word and not a recent invention - and claim that your fantasies of Finnish tribes were battling against Slavic peoples already during the Viking Age have anything to do with this WWII topic. Neither one of them, not the Russophobia as a noun in early 19th century's English usage, not the psychotic visions of wild Finnish tribes battling Slavic peoples in more ancient times - have anything to do with my request to change the name of the article to a more neutral one or to remove it entirely Roobit

Casualty figures?

Where do casualty figures and such come from? Any credible sources for anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talk • contribs) 03:12, 26 November 2006

Not surprisingly, the user Illythr (Whiskey) has also downplayed the related casualty figures, very Stalinist style. The writer does not seem to realize, that up till recently the casualty figures have been downplayed on both sides, not "exaggerated" (notice the similarities in the approach) :

Nah! This article is still full of juvenile exaggeration and sureness of those who don't know.;-) … --Whiskey 00:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Military aid? Nah … --Illythr 15:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"...it draws flak from left and right.;-) --Whiskey 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)"

"... noticed any Marxist statements in there? ;-) --Illythr 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)"

"Something need not be true to be accepted as true. It only needs to stick around long enough. --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)"

Loyal to this very Stalinist approach, the user account Whiskey has also protected - and reverts to - the dubious remark claiming the Finnish leaders to having committed "a series of political miscalculations".

Yet - in further referral to this statement -, the user Whiskey admits that "… totally different thing is then, does it provide the correct view."

Famously, in his memoirs, Josef Stalin's predecessor Nikita Khrushchev points out how the Soviet Union categorically lied about the facts - such as the reasons, results and casualties - related to the battles on the Finnish front.

Why, user Illythr/ Whiskey, do we any longer need to present any out-right lies regarding the Finnish-Soviet wars, which were fought during WW2?

Please - from here on -, join those spreading the truth to the world, rather than openly trying to protect lying, as you do for instance in your comments above (your approach strongly fights against the nature of Wikipedia, by the way). 213.216.199.6 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The section dealing with my assorted crimes against humanity is down there. Please, be consistent and stop polluting other sections with that. Besides, I intend to save this stuff on my subpage before some rouge admin finds and deletes it here, so, please, don't make my task of gathering it all any more dificult. ;-)

On topic, I will defer to Whiskey's judgement on Manninen. --Illythr 10:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, User:213.216.199.6, I failed to see which casualty figures presented in the article you consider untrustworthy. Could you please be a little bit more specific, how they are wrong and in what source could present better figures? --Whiskey 20:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

We are here to present facts, tools and information, in neutral manner

The talk page texts above and the offered ending for the conclusion part of the Continuation War article are tide with evidence, widely accepted facts, sources and exact quotes from both, the war-time leaders and the current leaders of USSR, Russia and Finland. Naturally, more can be added and sources can be included, and wordings can be altered. All suggestions are welcome.

Thus, what "facts" are you referring to, user Whiskey? Aren't there already plenty of facts on the table? Although asked, you have not pointed out anything wrong in the text or provided a single counter claim so far. Instead, without challenging a single offered fact, you have resorted only to the reverting of the article, or suggesting its removal to somewhere else (such move has been suggested only by you).

Others have shown their willingness to keep the entire article in the Continuation War as such, and yet others keeping at least parts of it there. Any attempt to simply revert away the text in question should be reasoned by at least a counter claim or a showing of any information challenged as incorrect. Valid sources for counter claims must be provided.

Let's check who want to keep it here: User:Andropov Andrej, User:... but a war broke out, User:213.216.199.6, User:Masa62, User:88.113.177.49, User:Swedish Speaker, User:Anno Domino,User:88.113.169.161, User:Ahven is a fish. Of those, Andropov Andrej, ... but a war broke out, Masa62, Swedish Speaker and Anno Domino are already known sockpu... alternate accounts of User:Love is all we need. Ahven is a fish has only few WWII related contributions, 88.113.*.* are Finnish ISP addresses... Really convincing support to your modifications.

The Finns - generally speaking - happen to be the most interested and knowledgeble people about things related to Finnish history and culture. That may explain the larger number of Finnish ISP addresses.

I do not find denying any of my contributions usefull. I appreciate and admire honesty in people. If you'd ask me whether or not memorizing passwords is high on my list, the answer propably would not start with y.

Would it, by any chance, start with "k" (kyllä)? :) If you're using the same computer all the time, then you can make that computer remember instead of you. You could also use a phrase that is always on your mind ("freekarelia" for instance ;)) for a password. --Illythr 21:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Above, you are providing some IP addresses and usernames, contributions of which can be credited to others than me. Also, many contributions from IP addresses/es which I have used, are from others than me. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The information about PM Hackzell above obviously refers to a study in progress. At this point, no definite conclusions should be made to one direction or another - of course -, before something concrete can be provided. In most democracies, no one is guilty before proven guilty. Thus, nothing about even a possible murder should be mentioned in actual Wikipedia articles, or anywhere else really, hereafter. Furthermore, if it makes anyone feel better, I'll take back this speculation at the time being, even if it is tempting, and even if it is only slightly touched on a talk page.

The PM Hackzell mentioning in this context plays no role with the current Continuation War article, even the ending of it.

At this point, user Whiskey, this is a non-issue, similar to your "cultivated land" dilemma. There too, you didn't appear to have gotten the point of the talk page comment, which correctly referred to the Finns not wanting to join the Battle of Leningrad, and not wanting to fully destroy Viipuri, Finland's second biggest city at the time.

The Finns rather took the fight to the "woods" - rhetorically speaking. There, tens of thousands of artillery shells could be targeted against the enemy, without having to destroy a city which took hundreds of years to build, and which - in case of Viipuri - was an important center of the Karelian and Finnish culture.

For all orders, from Mannerheim to all the way to battalion level, were written in a such way that Finns shall keep Viipuri, whatever it costs. Also in the Winter War, Finns were fighting each block in the suburbs of the city. Only Ruben Lagus recommended abandonment of the city, but he did it solely for tactical reasons, as the city was located at the wrong side of the Bay of Viipuri. So, now it is your turn to provide some sources that Finns willfully abandoned the city?

I have not - and I would not - use the term "willfully" in this context, for obvious reasons. That simply would not fit the reality. So please, do not expect me to try providing sources for that sort of view, which I do not approve. Please, let us try avoiding distorting anyone's viewpoints, including mine. Thank you.

The city of Viipuri was abandoned in the Continuation War. Why and how, are entirely different matters.

To abandon a city mean to leave by oneself, as opposed to being thrown out by attacking forces. --Illythr 21:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There was really not much fighting worth mentioning. I'll elaborate the issue further below, on Whiskey's charter (where he separates all paragraphs). Please take my answer there. 213.216.199.6 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Delaying tactics" were used in all sectors of war, at all times. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It really makes no difference whether or not there were "cultivated lands" around the battle areas of Tali and Ihantala. Neither "cultivated lands" nor "woods" compete with the cities in question, when it comes to the national and cultural wealth and heritage of the two countries. In terms of Helsinki - a capital - the situation might have been a bit different. More than delaying tactics most probably would have been used there.

Nevertheless, the majority of the land both in Tali and Ihantala were woods and forests. Tali and Ihantala happened to represent the areas where the Soviets had decided to march through. There, as anywhere, - if it could be avoided - no officer wanted to bring his troops to an open field, where his soldiers would make a clearly visible and easy target for the enemy. Thus, the men were mainly kept in the "woods" - even literally speaking - when ever possible, and when they were not traveling on the roads. For the cover, the men used fox holes, large rocks, trees and bushes, trenches, etc.

Lets look Jatkosodan historia 5, page 200... Between River Kilpeenjoki(Vakkila) and Lake Ihantalanjärvi, 1-2km to the both sides of where the front line stopped: 70% fields, 30% forests. Between Portinhoikka and Ihantala, there was a more forested area, but Finns didn't even try to stop Soviets there.

No officer puts his men in a middle of an open field - to be a clearly visible and an easy target for the enemy fire, if he can help it, even if there would be fields around or neaby, available for that sort of option. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Soviet spearhead was destroyed on and near the roads where the Red Army was advancing westbound (for the most time). Those roads went through woods and forests, sometimes also through "cultivated lands", of course. The war-time accounts and images from the battle scenes portray these roads, and the woods around them (see a typical related war time image attached).

Sorry, you are making little sense. The mass of the Soviet offensive was so high, that it couldn't be thwarted by simply clinically destroying the spearhead.

This was - to a large extend - done in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The recently added ending of the "conclusion" section of the Continuation War article is not meant to hurt anyone's feelings - yours including, user Whiskey. Perhaps you will feel somewhat better, if the heading will be changed. I just inserted a new one, for your review. Your suggestions are welcome, of course!

I have a simple suggestion: Put things there where they belong, and source them. You are trying to put things in "conclusions" which do not belong there, but in the other parts of the article, thus breaking the whole structure of the article. Also, you are pushing views which are not supported by military historians, the least you can do is to provide sources to your claim. Otherwise those claims cannot be entered here.

Sources are abundantly available. We can begin including more sources, as soon as you stop taking valuable time with pointless arguments. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You can start right now. --Illythr 21:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll continue giving sources, when the editing of the text becomes un-locked again. You had it locked, remember. Instead, you should have exercised some patience. You were too busy with your locking idea, and with talking about much of nonsense on the talk page, and with your reverting.

Now, at least you have heard how the information is reasoned. You have not been able to show a single point wrong. We now continue waiting for you to show any of the contested information wrong - valid and appropriate source information is needed from you. 213.216.199.6 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Whiskey requested only semi-protection. But you can start providing sources here, at the individual contested paragraphs before the protection is lifted. --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, until the recent times, a whole lot of people have been under the spell of the history writing of the overwhelming propaganda machine of the long time super power, USSR.

For instance, user Whiskey, your protection of - and reverting back - the following sentence in the Continuation War article, hopefully doesn't reflect your personal views, rather than "facts" which you claim to be after (when asked for you to reason your urge to hold on to the following sentence, you declined to respond):

"In retrospect the Continuation War can be seen as the result of a series of political miscalculations by the Finnish leadership in which Finland's martial abilities clearly outshone its diplomatic skills."

Yes, it is true that it can be seen so, and it is so presented in general history writing, also (or especially) in anglosaxon world. The totally different thing is then, does it provide the correct view.

You state that "totally different thing is then, does it provide the correct view." Yet - still after admitting this - you keep reverting the article to this incorrect view, without providing any source for it. Would you please already tell us specifically, which reliable source claims this. Is there one? Is it only you claiming this?

We are here to insert only correct - easily verifiable - information to Wikipedia, regardless whether or not there may you want, and call it the liepedia. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That is actually a personal attack. And you avoided a direct question. This behavior is puzzling. --Illythr 21:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Illythr/Whiskey: If the above statement hurts your feelings, I'll take it back. Your statement quite clearly reveals, however, that if a statement has been repeted a lot of times, that shoud make the stated message true, in your opinion (I am not quoting - go to see your own wording. I find that quite aphauling).

You state: "totally different thing is then, does it provide the correct view." My question is: Why present that sort of claim, if there is no evidence, that it is providing "the correct view" (if there is no support, sources presented, evidence, that the statement has anything to do with truth)? 213.216.199.6 01:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey and me are two different users, for starters. Next, it doesn't need to provide the correct view to be present, only the mainstream view. --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you a gemini? You pretended to be two, at this point. 213.216.199.6 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Most historians and researchers widely agree, that if Finland indeed would have done something very differently, it might have not received the same, quite favorable outcome. Thus, the Finnish policies hereby have received much praise from abroad.

Done what differently? And how? You should be much more specific in your claims.

That clearly means, that experts widely agree, that if Finland would have chosen very different route in any of its major decisions made, the final outcome probably would not have been as favorable for Finland in the end, as it turned out to be.

What part of the above do you find so hard to understand? I hope everyone else got the message. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So - once again -, what do you have to support you claim with, user Whiskey? If you indeed continue insisting something like this to be saved in the article, without any appropriate sources to back you up, it seems only fair, that the utmost experts, the actual key figures from the both sides, the people in charge then and now, have their say for the Wikipedians to review, as well.

What could be wrong about that? Is there anything that could be more right? Why do you wish to prevent the presenting of the non-Soviet sponsored facts? Please, let people make up their own minds about what happened, after the facts have been laid down. Wikipedia is here to present the neutral facts as the tools for all people to use, in search for the ultimate truth. We must try presenting the truth the best way we can, whether we like it or not. I assure you, I'm always trying my very best to achieve exactly that.

I, personally, am aginst it.

If we do that, we should allow inclusion of statements from people claiming otherwise, starting from numerous Soviet veterans and politicians and ending to Liddle-Hart and Churchill. Better to keep some kind of resemblance to academic criteria and leave political statements to what they really are telling: more about the speaker, the time of the speech, the situation of the speech than the factual contents of the speech.

Stop that nonsense, please. Not every veteran's statement need to be included. Those are only the utmost leaders from both sides of the border, from then and now, whose statements appropriately belong there in this context, to support the given facts.

Churchill indeed - perhaps - could be added into this text, of course, particularly the fact that he advised Mannerheim not to cut the Murmansk railroad (although Mannerheim apparently realized this without help from Churchill). 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

After all, this is not a KGB bulletin board, but the worldwide Wikipedia instead. Wikipedia represents the very electronic medias, which helped to destroy the totalitarian Soviet Union, and to bring democracy to large amounts of people in Eastern-Europe and to the prior protectorates of USSR, where presenting of real "facts" was not tolerated.

If you do believe that Finland should have realized to prepare itself much better before the Soviet-initiated Winter War, and that Finland should have accepted the western help offered during the Winter War, many would agree with you - because the Western help would have put the Soviets in a very difficult situation. Yet, others would not agree, because the offered Western help was not very substantial (although it might have turned bigger later, perhaps).

However, in the case of the Continuation War, what Finnish "series of political miscalculations" are you referring to, in the article? Why do you fiercely want to protect this claim in Wikipedia.

It has been presented for so long time, that it has become "a fact". Removing it from the text doesn't make it disappear, but will only make this article more POV, as it will look like a critical fact is omitted altogether. The proper way to handle it is to acknowledge that that kind of "fact" has been given before, and then start to counterargumenting it. If you manage to do it properly, then all the people who have read your text will remember it next time when they meet the same claim elsewhere.

Need we say more? Your following statement from above reveals the major difference in our approach to facts: "It has been presented for so long time, that it has become "a fact". 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The funny (if sad) thing about Wikipedia and the world is that Whiskey is correct. Something need not be true to be accepted as true. It only needs to stick around long enough. --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And that is why it cannot be omitted, once again. If we just omit it here, then we will be accused of partiality or not taking into account everything or whitewashing certain actions or... If we on the contrary, address it here and then provide the facts which discredit the misconception, then we can more efficiently cut the wings of the rumour. (I have a deja-vu feeling that I already wrote the thing above...) --Whiskey 10:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Is someone supposed to make some sense out of the above, user Whiskey/Illythr? I have "a deja-vu feeling" as well, that you speak out your opinions really fast, perhaps too fast for your own good.

Then, you soon find yourself having to explain things, that you now wish you wouldn't have said. Am I correct? Good thing is, that this way at least we quickly have discovered where your reasoning comes from, and what pushes you on.

Please, set a new keyword for yourself, for your future approach in contributing to Wikipedia: Honesty (as in contrary to your view, for a lie to have stuck around for a while, does not make the lie the truth. Period! 213.216.199.6 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't able to offer anything to back up your view of the said "series of political miscalculations", please do no longer revert back to that sentence, which already was moderated. Otherwise, you clearly aren't being neutral - and thus your continued non-sourced reverts would constitute vandalism.

Please - also -, do not revert away the ending part of the "conclusion" section of the Continuation War Article, unless you appropriately reason yourself, backing up your view by acceptable, appropriate and valid neutral sources.

Currently, the added text in the conclusion part clearly asks an extremely valid and important question, and then offers material for the answers. This is vitally important, and thus the very same conversation has - during the recent years - been going on strongly in Finland, and the topic has even been touched by the current Finnish and Russian Presidents, Putin and Halonen, and now the conversation has flamed up amongst the researchers in Sweden, … and so on.

The question is valid, but it cannot and shouldn't be answered in this article. The proper place is Military history of Finland during World War II.

The matter can be - and must be - further discussed elsewhere, in more depth and detail, of course. However, the issue must be brought up in this context. Links can be provided to more detailed information. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The added text offers some key facts and tools, and includes reasoning, sources and appropriate direct quotes from key figures from both sides of the border, people in charge, many of whom actually participated in the war itself, including the top leaders of USSR, Russia and Finland. The text also discusses the goals of both sides, based on facts, concrete agreements, or non-alliance. The exact dates for different main events are offered, such as the date of Molotov's meeting in Berlin, etc.

Although no one has suggested it, more detailed information, sources, dates, etc., will be added a.s.a.p. (lack of time is the problem, isn't it).

Just because a lie has been set forth, and because it has been repeated over and over again, it does not turn it into the truth. Thus, it is up to the pushers of a claimed "Finnish defeat" to concretely show what they have to support their claim with.

So far, only ceding of land has been offered for a support of this view/theory. It is often forgotten that there were many strange and unusual things about the Finnish wars. In retrospect, one of the strangest things indeed must have been the outcome, which - according to some - was necessary at the time, regardless how well Finland won its defensive war.

It appears that the opponents of the claimed "defeat" have presented their case fairly well now. Giving out land to achieve a lasting peace does not make Finland a loser of the war, which preceded the land ceding.

Making a virtue from necessity. Sounds familiar...yes! Soviet representatives have claimed that SU only wanted to annex border regions in the Winter War. Or is this self-delusion?

Are you not familiar with the very famous Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, existence and meaning of which was admitted and acknowledged already by Boris Yeltsin. Why and how did you think the Baltic Republics gained back their independence. What was claimed in 1939-1940 by the Soviets, is history, and must be revealed as such. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A defensive war could only be won by a defensive victory! In the battle field Finland reached the only goal it had, and in only way possible, by winning the war - and in doing so, it could not have performed better. How? Loosing the war would not have saved Finns from the treatment the peoples of the Baltic States had to face.

Finland had refused to participate in the encirclement of Leningrad and to concentrate large formations near Leningrad, or to proceed to the Soviet land on this area. Accordingly, the determining battle in this particular area could only be fought on the Finnish soil - and it was.

Finns did occupy Soviet areas also in Karelian Isthmus, where they captured Kirjasalo bending to straighten the frontline. --Whiskey 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

True. -- 213.216.199.6 13:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC). The Red Army which had attacked Finland, had to be pushed away from Finland, and the critical border areas as well - of course -, as from there the Red Army could have launched more severe attacks against Finland, perhaps even succeeding in its (clearly documented) take-over attempt of Finland. Finland could not be expected to fight against the Soviet attackers only inside Finland, in Finnish cities, etc. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thus, this Red Army spearhead was to be met on the Finnish territory, because the Finns themselves clearly had decided to take the fight of this particular front to the Finnish soil, for diplomatic reasons (as explained in the article and the talk comments). The advancement of the spearhead soon became stopped.

In Finland's case, the ceding of land - following the victorious defensive war - was not determined so much by the preceding battles and war themselves, but the foreseeable future instead. Finland wanted a lasting peace.

If a winner of a boxing match agrees to pay for the loser's broken nose (willingly or unwillingly) - and to even offer him a piece of land somewhere, for compensation -, this does not make the winner a loser of the boxing match!

Anno Domino 06:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A defensive victory is one achieved by not giving in. Finland's objective was the reclamation of the land lost in the Winter war. Not only did it fail that objective, but it had also lost more territory. If that's not a defeat, than I don't know what one is. Using a similar metaphor, if you enter a bear's den wanting to get a "bearsteak" and leave said den alive with only an arm and an eye lost instead - it may be considered a success to a certain degree, but certainly not a "victory". Had Finland been in any kind of position of power back then (which is quite common among victors in a war, you know), it would not have accepted a treaty that made it lose a large part of its territory along with a key economic center, lease a naval base near its capital, accept the difficult task of ousting the remaining German troops, quickly demobilize its army et cetera - just read the "To the Armstice" section.

Anyways, you present a Finnish "patriotic" view that, as even user:Swedish Speaker has admitted above, is not accepted by respectable historians throughout the world. It is also mentioned in the leading section twice (The Continuation War is widely perceived..., The Continuation War was so named in Finland...). Currently, the section is set to oppose the rest of the article above with an apparent goal of "wiping out Finlandization from the face of the earth."

On a somewhat more constructive note, I think that parts of that section may be reworked and reinserted into their respective sections within the main article. Perhaps even a "Finnish perspective" section may be created, if you provide information that the war is indeed seen as a victorious one in Finland (I'd like to get a hold of a (translated) Finnish history schoolbook for that one). Currently, even your own compatriots keep reverting you. --Illythr 07:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing some of the answers given to Whiskey below, due to lack of time. Yes, the Finnish school children largely share the same views with the elected officials of Finland, who are quoted in the text in question, and the generals also - to a large extend - share the same views.

I would like to see what's taught during history lessons in Finnish schools, though. If the view is indeed widespread in Finland, then it does warrant a Finnish point of view section. --Illythr 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The widespread Finnish view - which pretty much has already reached even the darkest corners of Finland - is the view of those who know and understand the truth, worlwide. However, the Soviet grip of the news, media and education in Finland during the Cold War period was effecting quite a worrysome number of people, and has effected some up till recently, even presently. 213.216.199.6 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thus, Mannerheim, Ryti, Halonen and Ehrnrooth (all soldiers and/or presidents mentioned in the Continuation War article) were recently voted the four most popular people of all times in Finland, in an internet competition (anyone, please correct me if I remember this wrong).

213.216.199.6 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to this discussion. --Illythr 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this is relevant, in relation to your question. This is also why these particular distinguished and knowledgable people are quoted. They provide quite a good over-view from the Finnish side, and the related statements of the Soviet and Russian leaders are presented for the comparison, to further back up the important points made. 213.216.199.6 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Now this is getting quite ridiculous, just look at the edit history.. Why does this person have over 10 aliases? If this continues semi-protection could be useful. This person has written some nice articles about the battles though, but I can't understand why he uses so many accounts. This is sock puppetry if used like that.. --Pudeo (Talk) 22:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This article can be made to a "nice" one too, user Pudeo. It is unfortunate, of course, that some of us find it just a bit hard to accept information which they have not - for one reason or another - got to consider and/or digest before.

213.216.199.6 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not the point of Pudeo's concern. Please, create a permanent account and use only it, will you? --Illythr 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Counterargumenting the contested text / + replies the counterarguments

First, please select select one of those half a dozen usernames you are using. Or do you try to show that several people agree with your modifications?

Several siding - or semi-siding - contributions have not come from this writer - including e.g. the ones from Masa62, 88.113.169.161, Kurt Leyman, Scoo ("Result Moscow armistice"), Stlemur (wants to save parts), etc.

The 1-2 time reverting users of the contested text have offered no reason for their reverts, nor counterclaims: Mikko H, Petri Krohn.

Second, you continue claiming that Finns won or at least stalemated the war. Winners or stalemated do not cede land or pay reparations.

USSR failed to meet its objective in each of the two consecutive wars - i.e. conquering Finland. Finland did not start either war, and it met its objective: Finnish armed forces prevented the take-over attempt of USSR.

Wrong, stalemating in war can be followed by ceding of land. It happened in the case of Finland, for example.

Excellent example. Please, provide a real one. That is, where the loser forced the victor to yield land, material and other services to the loser. --Illythr 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Example: In Vietnam, USA won all battles fought. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, winners do sometimes "pay reparations": For instance, USA paid and financed - to a large extend - the rebuilding of Europe, following WW1 and WW2. USA inflicted severe damage on Germany and Japan in World War II, and paid to rebuild those countries. Same trend has taken place in many other occasions.

USA was not obliged by a treaty to do this. The reasons were economic, and, perhaps, humanitarian. I am also not aware of any land ceded by USA to Germany or Japan as an outcome of WWII. --Illythr 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

USA won every single battle in Vietnam. The Vietnamese didn't win even just one battle. Which one? Still USA ceded the entire South-Vietnamese territory to the North-Vietnamese. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

USA conquered Panama City, in the war against Noriega, but ceded all of its Panama areas conquered soon (a bit bad example, however). Similarly, US army retreated from areas it was in charge of, during the previous Persian Gulf War - etc., etc.

USA never owned a single square meter of Vietnam or Panama. (Even the Canal Zone was rented.) The same fact goes with Persian Gulf war. About the US control of Vietnam or modern Iraq one can give some quite opposing views. --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that you will agree: We can drop this part - it's not leading us anywhere productive. Every war is unique 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that you failed to provide a single example of winners or stalemated ceding land or paying reparations, I expect you to stop claiming that Finland won or stalemated the war. --Illythr 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No one claimed USA to have "owned a single square meter of Vietnam or Panama". Nevertheless, USA won all battles fought in those instances, as well as in many similar cases. Yet, USA retreated. These may very different from Finland's war, but yet again, every war is different. There is no single war similar to each other. Thus your questioning here indeed leaves us nowhere.

Israel is known to have, in many cases, backed up from areas, which it did not loose on battle fields - and then ceded these areas to the enemy. Finland did not loose on battle fields the areas which it agreed to cede to USSR (except for a fraction of the territory).

Now, Israel is a better example, but it still doesn't cut it - Israel gave up only (some of) those areas it captured during its wars. There is a difference between relinquishing recently captured territories and ceding land that was an integral part of the country for centuries. Besides, Israel ended almost all of its wars with a net gain in land anyway. Finland, on the other hand, had lost its own land both times. --Illythr 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Finland did not settle for an unconditional peace, which Stalin kept demanding. Why would it have? It won all the final major battles fought, from the abandonment of Viipuri on. 213.216.199.6 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it had settled for peace with some minor concessions from the victorious party. It was a good and timely bargain. Not too early (early 1944, unconditional surrender) and not too late (May 1945, facing the most powerful army in Europe). --Illythr 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems fair to state that determining the winner/s of the Continuation War is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Finland had succeeded in her goal to save her independence and sovereignty. The Soviet Union - on the other hand - had fallen far from its objective, conquering Finland, although in the armistice it was to gain a little land, for a heavy price paid.

Includes POV as it fails to mention Finnish objective to recapture ceded areas. Also Soviet objective is not defined properly, and also the Soviets had other, lesser objects than conquering Finland. Also both should be sourced.

Holding on to the Finnish lands was naturally in the Finnish citizens' hopes in both wars - each started by USSR -, one ending in 1940, and then continuing with a new Soviet attack in 1941. The war was stopped for a moment, and then continued next year, by a massive Soviet attack again.

Looking from eternity, or from a distant future - or from just a bit further -, there really was only one war on the Finnish front between 1939 and 1944, driven by only one objective - a full and over-all take-over of Finland.

Please, address the issues raised by user:Whiskey. Hopes of the Finnish people are not among them. --Illythr 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been addressed. There is no evidence existing that would support that sort of claim. What? It is up to you to bring up that sort of evidence, if you really believe that there is such evidence. How else could I address that claim? That is his claim, no mine. The claimer is supposed to provide the proof. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally have never heard of such a thing, and I know that there were no such plans! I would know if there were. So, please stop this nonsense - or finally already, provide some evidence to support your outrageous claim. Impossible, ok !

Unfortunately you have not. Finnish parliament officially annexed ceded areas December 6, 1941, so your claim that their recapture didn't weighed doesn't hold. Also Finns were preparing land reform in East Karelia. --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As the Soviets had not honored the assurances given in the end of Winter War, and as they started/continued with yet another massive attack/war against Finland, it was only appropriate for the Finns to try holding on to their borders, the ones which were the Finnish borders prior to the beginning of the Soviet aggressions, in 1939.

It was wrong - of course - for the Soviets to continue the war again (=starting the so called Continuation War). While protecting the nation, it is important for the defender to secure also its border areas, while the hostilities are still going on (i.e. the war). 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, no, East Karelia was not Finnish before Winter war. In fact, it never was. --Illythr 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Finland's national objective - of course - was to prevent that take-over attempt.

USSR was not in a position to attempt to take over Finland in 1941, facing the Axis invasion. --Illythr 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, USSR was in that sort of position, or so it thought. In 1941 USSR already began receiving massive help from USA, and on November 12-13, in 1940, Molotov expressed this USSR:s intention in question in Berlin, i.e. it's intention to take to the conclusion the take-over of Finland.

Well, another quite successful tactic Soviet propagandists have executed was confusing the order and exact dates when something happened. Something along the lines above. USA started lend-lease to USSR at November 1941, although FDR expressed his willingness to support USSR already at June. Molotov has that meeting in Berlin before the beginning of the war (and lend-lease). --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

USSR was very well prepared. Besides, it already had a strong acknowledgement about the massive help it could start expecting. It made numerous border violations against Finland during the interim period. It made clear to Hitler on November 12-13 in Berlin, that it is intending to take to the conclusion the conquering of Finland. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And yes, of course there were "lesser objectives", such as preventing a forceful take-over of any Finnish land, preventing a take-over or destruction of Finnish property, killing or harming of Finnish people or wildlife in Finland, etc., etc.

You fail to elaborate, how the Soviet objective "is not defined properly" in the contested text. Clearly, the Soviet objective - take-over of Finland - was set forth in the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement in 1939. Taking that goal to the conclusion - finishing the job - was reaffirmed during Molotov's visit to Berlin on November 12-13, 1940. This was the sole purpose of the visit in question. These are clearly documented and widely accepted facts among academia.

This might've been the goal of the Winter war. The Continuation war happened in a very different situation. --Illythr 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Even in theory, what ever the goal of the June 25, 1941, Soviet massive attack would have been, the attack needed to be responded to. However, November 12-13, 1940, - famously - Molotov presented to Hitler in Berlin, that USSR had the intention to take to the conclusion the goal set forth in the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, conquering Finland, which goal USSR had not yet been able to accomplish in the Winter War, although it had Hitler's approval for the project at the time. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Listing all "lesser objectives in this particular segment would be pointless and misleading. Besides, the Continuation War article in its current form is already way too long as it is. It needs to be more to the point (sub-articles - perhaps - should be created, or the article can be divided). Let's remember, that we are not trying to rewrite the Bible here.

The capture of Soviet land by the Finns, as well as the Sword Scabbard Declaration (that article is currently in shambles, btw) is a key piece of information, that contradicts the "purely defensive" nature of the Continuation war as claimed by you. --Illythr 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There was one sentence reference to "peace" promissed to the Karelian people by USSR in connection with the Tartu Peace Treaty in 1920. USSR never honored that promise. Instead, in 1930s it finally tried wiping the entire Karelian population from the face of the earth, killing tens of thousands Karelian people, and other Finns who had moved to the area.

Source for wiping out the entire Karelian population? --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you never heard about Stalin's atrocities? Please, check Google. These are the alphabets. I shouldn't have to teach you every single alphabet. Don't you agree. These are widely accepted and clearly evidenced issues. Tens of thousands of Finnish people in Karelia were killed in early 1930s.

From North America alone approximately 10 000 Finnish people had gone to the Soviet part of Karelia during the preceding years. Not a lot of them ever came back alive. Are you also - perhaps - questioning that the genocide of the Jewish people during WW2 did not happen? Everyone should learn about these sorts of massive murder campaigns, before beginning their contributions to Wikipedia. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Source for wiping out the entire Karelian population...please. --Illythr 22:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Black mailing again: No one has spoken about "wiping out the entire Karelian population". The information provided, had to do with the tens of thousands of Finnish people in the Soviet side of Karelia, who met their final destiny in Stalin's atrocities.

Are you familiar with what the word "Blackmailing" really means? These are your words here : "Instead, in 1930 it finally tried wiping the entire Karelian population from the face of the earth, killing tens of thousands Karelian people, and other Finns who had moved to the area." --Illythr 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in 1930s (an obvious blooper: i.e., not in 1930, but in 1930s, with the "s". And, that is - of course -, referring to the Karelians on the Russian side, as the sentence attempts to - poorly however (I admit) - finish off ("... and other Finns who had moved to the area"). 213.216.199.6 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And yes, now the exact words are correctly stated on that page, since I fixed them some time ago (otherwise, the page is still a mess - you are right about that). The exact words are well documented, of course. So, let's not try setting distorted words to anyone's mouth. You, for instance, sort of tried insinuating above, that I used the words Hopes of the Finnish people, in that very shape and order (as you made the words stand in Italic lettering). I didn't use that wording precisely, but close. See, how careful we have to be, especially when we quote people. Mannerheim said nothing wrong or strange in his 1941 speech, upon the Soviet attack initiating the war.

You presented the Finnish occupation of East Karelia as a hope of Finnish citizens. Or at least evaded Whiskey's point on that issue. Of course there was nothing strange or wrong in Mannerheim's speech. But only if you don't view the Continuation war as a purely defensive war. --Illythr 15:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again!: I have not "presented the Finnish occupation of East Karelia as a hope of Finnish citizens". If you continue quoting and interpreting people - including historians and scientists - in this sort of manner, it is not likely that you will easily succeed in getting to the bottom of things, i.e. finding the truth about various matters. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is getting tiring. Why are you so meticulously avoiding direct questions? Reread the initial passage. Whiskey's issue was that the passage ...fails to mention Finnish objective to recapture ceded areas. To that you replied that Holding on to the Finnish lands was naturally in the Finnish citizens' hopes in both wars... Thus you either have made a completely irrelevant statement (evading the issue) or you have somehow connected the Finnish objective to recapture ceded areas with Finnish citizens' hopes. Please explain your logic. --Illythr 22:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel that you keep trying to get me to say something which simply does not fit the truth, regarding the Finnish objective.

The Finnish objective was simply to save Finland from enemy occupation! How many times does that need to be repeated to you?

Were there lesser objectives: to save the birds and other wild life in Finland, to try to prevent any destruction of Finnish property, to protect the air, to hold on to any and all parts of the legally Finnish lands (which were agreed upon in the 1920 Tartu Peace Treaty), etc.?

Yes, of course there were those lesser objectives - many more, besides the ones mentioned above.

That you are equating (in importance for this article) the occupation of East Karelia with saving the birds and other wildlife in Finland is quite amusing. All those "revolutionary ideas, meant to cleance the lies and hostile propaganda and open the people's eyes to the truth" look great - from a distance. It is those little details, the idea's authors failed to take into consideration, simply ignore or attempt downplay as "unimportant", that spell doom for the "revolution". --Illythr 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The contested segment is aimed to offer key facts, in short form, and no POV. However - as already stated -, the wording and structure can, of course, be worked on, and shall be, and sources will be added. Also, the headline can be changed.

As with any work, the job must be got on its way. The text can be improved! Rome was not built in one day! However, the text already serves the purpose as it is. Yet - of course -, I do agree, that we can also try carrying some of the facts to some of the other segments, and this segment could be made slightly shorter, perhaps.

Nevertheless, there are no un-true statement there. Yet, I'll review some of the points which you have brought up. I'll take a look at the wording, and I'll try passing on the message in slightly less direct approach, perhaps.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank you for responding (took a little digging, as no one had). When we know what bothers someone, we can try explaining in more detail, time allowing.

This is being constructive - although I must say that I really do not see you offering any valid reason for reverting the text, in contrary. Many sources are already built into the text - direct quotes, dates, agreements, etc. -, and more can and will be added, including book and page information, etc. None of the offered information really is any longer denied by Moscow (since c. 1991).

Any citation of that one? The Soviet quotes are also out of context, especially Stalin's. --Illythr 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

During WW2, Stalin didn't deny the fact that the Finns were fighting a defensive war. Of course, he knew better than anyone. He was talking about Finland's defensive war for example still in the Allies Tehran Conference in 1943. Famously, he also still praised the Finnish army in his speech n Moscow in 1948.

Later, during the Cold War, the Soviet lying policies came to effect in the Soviet history writing and propaganda, although already during the war the Soviets lied to their citizens about the casualties and about the course of the war and how the battles ended, etc (as Nikita Khrustsev explains in his memoirs).

That all changed upside down again, when USSR broke up. This is the reason why e.g. the Baltic Countries and Poland gained back their freedom again. These are some of the very basic pieces of information about the brake up of the Soviet Union, which we are discussing here.

Of course, - together with the Baltic Republics and Poland gaining back their sovereign rights and democracy (all victims of the illegal Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, like Finland) - Finland should have already in 1991, when Boris Yeltsin publicly admitted the truth, demanded back the Finnish territories, which became to be ceded to USSR in 1944, in the end of the illegal two consecutive wars launched against Finland, which were set in motion in 1939, by the illegal Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement.

Illythr, please find more information about this topic from for instance the following website:

http://www.prokarelia.net/en/

But of course, in 1943, after Finnish advances into Soviet territory were stalled and the tide of the entire war was already turned, Finland was already fighting a defensive war. Also note that it is kind of customary for the victorious war leader to praise the skills of the army he defeated (soothes some egos, I guess). The losing war leaders tend to complain about unfairness in military strength, lack of supplies, etc. Please, be more specific about where to go on that site. It's mostly in Finnish... --Illythr 15:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. Finland was fighting a defensive war at all times, as Stalin himself acknowledged openly in Tehren in 1943. Are you trying to claim that there was no M-R agreement, when even the Russian Presidents have admitted to it publicly. Why are the Baltic Nations free now? Knock, knock! Are you claiming that on June 25, 1941, USSR didn't commit a massive attack against Finland?

No, I am "claiming" that Finland "somehow" managed to occupy East Karelia in the course of its "defensive war". And Stalin didn't acknowledge that Finland was fighting a defensive war at all times. --Illythr 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got the wrong idea there, entirely. Finland had to push the attacking enemy away from Finland, and the close-by border areas as well, of course, to secure Finland from furher Red Army attacks.

There was never intention or plan to stay on the Soviet areas, when in the eventually approaching peace negotiations the Soviet aggression would be agreed to be over. Until then, Finland needed to have some tools to negotiate with, and a secure area free from enemy build up by the border reagion.

Please, try understanding already, that Finland could not be expected - by any standards - to fight only inside the Finnish cities, which the Soviets were attacking. All victims of any wars would understand this much, and the attackers too. 213.216.199.6 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Finns could have gone much further, of course. Famously, they went only as far as necessary; they didn't join the encirclement of Leningrad; they didn't cut ther Murmansk railroad (although in a couple of occasions single units/soldiers - who were not aware about the policy yet - did; they didn't enter deeper inland, past the River Svir, etc.; they didn't cut the Leningrad "lifeline", which went over the Lake Ladoga - etc. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, bar that, I've just found this there. I don't think any further search is necessary. If you really endorse that "program", than your views must indeed present a fringe opinion in Finland. --Illythr 15:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I only endorse, what I have admitted endorsing. I believe, that it is one site, however, where you can find further information relating to the topic discussed, in the context where the site was brought up, for you to look into more related information. There are lots of articles written by different authors there, I understand. I won't bother going to that link you offer - not now anyway -, as your endorsement accusation is yet another wrong assessment (I have a strong feeling, that I would endorse the site's over-all efforts, however!). 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the link leads to the program to "return" Karelia to Finland. It is central to the site's (and the movement's) views and overall efforts. --Illythr 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Only a token of this land USSR had gained on the battle fields. In the war's end, Finland had - after abandoning the City of Viipuri - won all the remaining nine consecutive final battles, which would determine the outcome of the war. In the very final Battle of Ilomantsi the Finns had even succeeded in pushing the enemy back.

Soviets recaptured most of East Karelia and southern Karelian Isthmus. It is true, that Winter War and Continuation War are maybe the only wars Russia/Soviet Union received more land as what they were controlling at the time of the peace. Finns didn't abandon Viipuri but tried to hold it and failed. Finns didn't won nine final battles (and which they were were not mentioned anywhere). Even though Finns won the final battles (six), they didn't make Finns win the war, they only made peace conditions much better.

The new multimedia documentary telling about the Continuation War, including the nine final battles, is discussed on the bottom of the line of comments here. Veterans are interviewed of each of the final nine battles, also experts. The project took five years to complete.

No, there was no such a thing as the Battle of Viipuri in 1944, and thus there is no such article in Wikipedia for instance. The Finns retreated from Viipuri with nearly no battle connection with the Soviets. The city was abandoned, with only delaying tactics used on June 20, 1944.

There were only some skirmishes on that very day, starting early in the morning. The flag was taken down from the Viipuri Castle pole at 16:45, and that is the time when the fighting was practically over.

Do you mean "… where Russia/Soviet Union received more land than it was controlling before war began" ?

No. I meant "...where Russia/Soviet Union received more land than it was controlling at the time peace was made." --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can see, that this statement of yours continues being very poorly addressed and confusing. Nevertheless, it was proven wrong already (see right below). 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That simply is not true at all, not even closely: In the Finnish War - for example -, Russia conquered entire Finland, from Sweden. WW2 - on the other hand - saw the annexation of the Baltic Republics to USSR. Practically the entire Eastern Europe was made to a satellite territory of USSR.

During WW2, among all the countries participating in wars, Helsinki and London were the only capitals west from Moscow, that were not occupied by enemy troops. Berlin too got to be occupied by the Red Army.

Finland in no point had plans to hold on to any Soviet territory anywhere after the war would end. However, until the hostilities would end fully, it was important - for Finland's protection, for diplomatic reasons and because of the approaching peace negotiations - for the Finns to use certain digression and caution with all planning and decision making having to do with the timetable and execution of the retreat, level of the intended resistance on different defensive lines, and the territorial holdings. All of these things - of course - were amongst the critically important determining tools of the peace negotiations.

Please replace the word "Finland" with "Soviet Union" and see what? Soviet lies and misinformation, of course! --Illythr 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we have to go back to the alphabets, the commonly accepted facts by all parties, including the Russians? There are no lies any longer about this. Do you forget about the Baltic Nations gaining back their sovereign rights, for instance?

For a person who has claimed that Tali-Ihantala area was forests, Finns abandoned Viipuri and Finns won battles of Valkeasaari and Kuuterselkä, I have quite a little trust on what you do say on the issue. And for plans, see above. --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are black mailing and misquoting once again:

1. Where have I mentioned anything about "Valkeasaari and Kuuterselkä"?

2. Furthermore, I have not said "that Tali-Ihantala area was forests" (although there were a lot of forests there).

3. And furthermore, the Finns did abandon the city of Viipuri in the Continuation War. Why and how, are different issues altogether (please notice, that you appear to be mixing two separate wars here).

4. Please, - finally already - try learning not to set words to the mouths of others, regardless how tempted you may feel. Thank you for your cooperation! We Wikipedians appreciate your continued improvements.

The Russian leaders have long since - after USSR broke up - admitted the very existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, of course. During the Cold War they didn't. It was reported that one copy was lost/destroyed during the bombardment of Berlin. Later, when the Soviet Union broke up, the other copy - the Soviet copy - "surprisingly" surfaced in Moscow.

Now you, Illythr, seem to be the only single person in the entire world who questions, whether or not there was this sort of agreement between Hitler and Stalin. Perhaps Poland was never shared between Hitler and Stalin after all, Illythr?

You misunderstand me. The phrasing you used above (it was important - for Finland's protection, certain digression and caution etc) is exactly the rhetoric the Soviet (as well as all other) aggressors used in all of their wars of conquest to justify their seizure of land as well as their reluctance to return those territories afterwards. I never questioned the existence of the Pact, please don't put words in my mouth. --Illythr 15:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You keep forgetting who the aggressor was, who started the war. The enemy must be driven away from the border area, for the time being, until its aggressions - the take-over attempts - can be agreed to have ended, in a peace agreement between the two nations. Thanks for trying to understand this. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Following the massive Soviet attack against Finnish cities and airports in June, 1941, Finland had to push the attacking Soviet army away not only from Finland, but in some critical areas also from the close vicinity of the Finnish-Soviet border, to prevent further bombardment and attacks against Finland, and - of course - to make impossible or extremely difficult the take-over attempt of Finland. Yet, Finland went no further than it must, for its protection for the time being.

Finland - by no standards - could be expected to do its defensive fighting only inside Finland, for example in cities such as Kokkola, Vaasa, Turku, etc. As any decent chess player or military officer could tell, the best defensive act in most cases is a counterattack - and this was the case here as well.

Yup, that was the aim of the USSR as well, from its own point of view, of course! :) --Illythr 15:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Illyhr - are you there? Again, who started the war? Knock, knock ... 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Finnish-"Russian" border was decided in the Treaty of Tartu in 1920. Petsamo (in red) became Finnish, whilst Repola and Porajärvi (green) were handed to the Soviet Russia. Lenin's (died in 1924) promises about special rights and freedom for the people of East Karelia turned into a Stalin's cenoside in 1930s. Tens of thousands of Finnish people in the Soviet side of Karelia were killed.

From 1917 to 1920 Finns had helped Estonia to gain its independence. At the time of the signing of the Peace Treaty of Tartu, Finns had also demanded and received Lenin's assurances about special rights and freedom to be granted for the people of East Karelia (on the Soviet side).

Despite of much diplomatic effort by the Finns in 1920s an 1930s, these promises were never honored, and in 1930s the Finnish people in Karelia became a target of a massive Stalin's genocide campaign, instead.

After the Soviet attack, which started the Continuation war in 1941, Field Marshal Mannerheim made a passing reference to these promised "freedoms" for the Karelian people, in one of his moral boosting speeches. In a few occasions afterwards those words of his became misused, altered and misinterpreted for propaganda purposes, in attempt to distort the goal of the Finns, who fought solely for the defending of the country's sovereignty.

Mannerheim didn't referenced to those freedoms or treaty of Tartu in his order of the day. And the order of the day wasn't a speech. And Finns didn't fight solely to defend sovereignty. --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply not true. Are you now also trying to set words to the mouth of Mannerheim? The exact words are widely available for all to see. You do not appear to be familiar at all about the related Lenin's promises, the Tartu Peace treaty, etc. What had been promised in regard to the Karelian on the Soviet side? Start from there. Then we'll talk again. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicely put. Just check out the Sword Scabbard Declaration article. --Illythr 15:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That text is a mess. I fixed the quotes as they were not even close to being correct. Entirely false words were presented inside quotation marks, as if Mannerheim would have said something like that. Terrible. This is the problem with Wikipedia. People's words can be distorted like that. Those entirely wrong words and misinterpretation had been there since September. No wonder you've been mislead, Illythr.

The words presented there until recently were not Mannerheim's words, not even closely. Now, the accurate words are there, including the original Finnish words (so that no one would turn the words upside down, again).

That one sentence "freedom" reference was made in a Mannerheim speech, after USSR had launched a massive attack against Finland in 1941. It refers to the same thing that was brought up time after time in 1920s and 1930s by the Finnish diplomats and politicians approaching the Soviets about these given promises, i.e. the Soviet guarantees made in 1920 about special "freedom" for the Vienna Karelians.

Those promises had turned into a massacre of the Karelian people instead. Tens of thousands of Finnish people were killed by Stalin. In return for those Soviet freedom promises and the area of Petsamo, Finland had given up e.g. its holding of two counties in Karelia, namely Repola and Porajärvi.

Would you have not opened up your mouth about the Soviets braking such given guarantees, especially if your people were attacked inside your country at the same time, by the very same people, who would have also massacred tens of thousands of your people only recently - the people who had been promised freedom?

Are these sort of massacres seen acceptable by the Moldovan people - and is the braking up of governmental promises viewed as acceptable in Moldova ? Perhaps you are a member of very exceptional group of people in this sense.

Please, don't use this rhetoric, it makes the fishing for relevant information in your text very difficult. No matter how justified an offensive war is, it still remains an offensive war. I also don't think I was misled, see here: Viena expedition. "Vienna Karelia" was/is a part of East Karelia, so the meaning of the declaration remains the same. --Illythr 15:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The Soviet war was the "offensive war". Any offense calls for counter offense, until peace is reached! 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Finns would have wanted to help the East Karelian people - of course - from further Stalin's murder campaigns. However, following the Continuation War Stalin's genocide continued on, and among the new victims now were also approximately 60 000 Finnish Ingrians, who died in further Stalin's atrocities.

That's an excellent excuse for a landgrab, to be sure. It was used by Hitler to start World War II, too. ;-) --Illythr 15:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not being clear again ! If you're referring to the Finns, you're on a strange track. Finns did not "grab" "land", and they had no intention to grab land anywhere, at any point! When? Where?

Finland was very lousily prepared to even defend itself, coming up to the Winter War. Money budgeted for the defense had been funneled to be used for other purposes (Minister Cajander policies / "mallia Cajander")). There was no dreaming about any annexations of foreign lands - to keep own land, yes, later (citizens were hoping)!

Do not mix things. First you write about Continuation War, then you write about Winter War. Finns were far better prepared before the Continuation War. And this is an article about the Continuation War. --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The above statement was meant to be pointed to Illythr, who appears to believe, that the Finns had dreamed about including Soviet areas into Finland, and that - perhaps - it was the reason for the war, and its continuation.

Yes, of course the Finns knew better in 1940: You must be ready to protect yourself! Let's not repeat the non-preparation stupidity of minister Cajander from before the Winter War. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You appear not to be very familiar with the actual information part and facts of this very topic, including Stalin's Finland-related goal, set forth in the notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement in 1939, and reaffirmed in Berlin November 12-13, 1940, during Molotov's visit.

These are commonly and widely accepted facts!

It is pointless to even request support for your "landgrab" theory, as there is no such support. Thus, please stop your reverts, as you're not providing - and as you cannot provide - any evidence for this sort of un-true accusation/claim, which apparently you use in your reasoning for reverting. Don't you really know that this claim of yours has no factual support! What?

What "my claim"? Are you trying to say that East Karelia never came under Finnish occupation? Or that it was unintentional? --Illythr 15:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question above has already been answered (see below). 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously mean to suggest, that the Finns should have answered to the Soviet attack - and fought - only inside the Finnish cities, which were targeted by the massive Soviet attack, and allow the Red Army to roll on to all over Finland to fight? Should the Finns have allowed Finland to become a catastrophic battle stage? Is this how - in your opinion - the Finns should have answered to the Soviet take-over attempt?

Do you realize, that allowing the Red Army inside Finland would most certainly have meant a Soviet take-over of Finland - and a cold trip to the Siberian death camps for a whole lot of people?

In your opinion, should the Finns really have allowed the Soviets to conquer Finland? Hopefully you understand why at this point we must question your neutrality, Illythr.

If the Moldovans were ever attacked, should they - in your opinion - bring the fight to the Moldovan capital, even though they could prevent it? Would the Moldovians not want to push the enemy out of their country?

In your opinion, didn't the Finns have the right to stop the take-over of Finland by the Soviet Union? Didn't they have the right to push the attacking enemy away from Finland, and to push away the large Soviet military build-up and formations from the Finnish border area, where the Red Army could continue bombarding Finland from, and where the Red Army could prepare to launch a final take-over and annexation of Finland?

It is clearly and widely documented and accepted fact, that the Finns - by no means - wanted to disturb the Allied war against Germany. Finns wanted to prevent a take-over of Finland and to protect Finland's sovereignty. Finns wanted to push away the attacking Soviets from the Finnish border area, and to keep the Red Army away from this area until the end of the war, so that no new attacks into Finland could be produced. Finns only wanted to go as far as was necessary for Finland's protection, not any further - and only for the time being, until the Soviets would agree to stop the war, and to leave Finland alone.

The Finnish policies included leaving alone the Murmansk railroad, which brought massive American help to the Soviets; leaving alone the support life-line to Leningrad, over Lake Ladoga; not participating in take-over attempts or attacks against Leningrad:, not proceeding further east than the River Svir, etc., etc.

The Finns were in a difficult situation - just like the American were, in terms of Finland's situation. Typically, - deep inside - Finns wanted to see both Stalin and Hitler toppled, in that order, in most cases, as Stalin was the one attempting to conquer Finland. Officially, the nation concentrated only to protecting Finland's independence and sovereignty, nothing else. No other goals were there.

So, please, stop the pointless reverts now, Illythr! The text will get some clean up. Get busy with helping Santa Claus, instead !

The text above is highly POV and fails to take into account numerous documents proving numerous claims above invalid or at least highly questionable. --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven't brought up any such document to our attention. Which one? 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On June 22 Hitler, in his first order for the eastern Front had said that the German troops are to attack im Bunde mit finnischen Divisionen, that is, alongside Finnish troops. Finnish policies also included allowing German troops on Finnish territory, as well as allowing the returning German bombers (from Leningrad) to land on Finnish soil, clearly marking Finland a German ally (and thus, fair game for bombing runs) for the Sovet leadership. I think that was meant by "political miscalculations" earlier. Anyway, that huge piece of rhetorics was really unnesessary to illustrate your point, anon. --Illythr 15:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, those words were quite scandalous, and - importantly - they were not endorsed by the Finnish leaders. Hitler tried making Finland Germany's official ally.

You too say things here about me, but I do not endorse many of the claims. It is as simple as that. On the second note, Finland had to allow Germans to use Finnish areas. They had to allow something in exchange. Even the Swedes allowed the Germans to use their areas. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ever since its initial attack in the beginning of the war on June 25, 1941, and the following retreat, the Red Army had not been able to cross the 1940 Finnish-Soviet border, except for a short-lived moment in the final Battle of Ilomantsi in 1944, where it suffered a lose, after two of its divisions were decimated and shattered by the Finns, while those escaping death were driven back east.

The outcome of a single battle (Ilomantsi) shouldn't be discussed in final assessment of the war, but where the battle is described. The fact that Soviets were unable to cross border during the war is relevant info, but it has nothing to do with outcome: In World War I Western allies were unable to cross German border during the war.

In all other Wikipedia's war articles, the final major battle always gets at least a passing mentioning - naturally -, if not much more. Why can't the war's final major battle be mentioned in this war article, at least in one sentence? Why would this article have to be an exception?

In this case you demanded a much more than a single sentence. Also, it alone did have very small signifigance to the outcome of the war. --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilomantsi was the place where the Soviets had their final chance, final opportunity to get their offense on its way again. That is why Ilomantsi is important to mention. It was the final major battle. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In these respects - from the military point of view - Finland clearly had come out a winner on the final battle stages. In the end, her troops were deep on the Soviet soil, except for a narrow Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus, which was stopped in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.

As Finns were elsewhere than Rukajärvi sector inside the 1920 borders and knowing how much Finns had to retreat from River Svir, it is not correct to say Finns were deep on the Soviet soil. The Soviet thrust to Viipuri wasn't narrow, and it was stopped in three battles (Bay of Viipuri, T-I and Vuosalmi), not one. Also, don't mix apples and oranges: Even though battles were won, the war can be lost. And once again, battles and their outcomes do not belong to final assessment, but in their proper places in the article.

This has been already answered above. Yes, makes difference what borders you look at. The Finns had no plans in staying past or even near River Svir. Naturally, the areas controlled had value in the diplomacy and work done towards the final peace. For diplomatic reasons - as the final peace making was getting closer -, it was better to retreat to a certain extend, rather than trying to hold on to areas that prior to the wars had been part of USSR.

The retreat was not done for diplomatic reasons. --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As already explained, there was no plan to hold on to these areas on the Soviet side - quite the contrary. If you claim differently, it is up to you to show such evidence. Otherwise, please stop the nonsense about that matter!

However, if Finland was to be portrayed as an ally of Germany, it would be fair to view Finland to at least have been on the losing side of the World War.

Yet again - from Finland's perspective -, as the Finnish leaders have consistently reminded the world; forced to do so, the Finns had accepted help from Germany, but they by no means took the relationship much further that that. There was no official pact signed between the two nations, and although there was a common enemy, the objectives were very different.

Not forced to do so, but what they thought at the time would be the best option to Finland and the Finns. There were no official pact, but like Jokisipilä has written in his researh, Finns were de facto allies of Germany (not de jure). Also this part is not relevant in final assessment, but in the background of the war.

Jokisipilä - de facto - is a controversial young researcher who is a product of the history writing controlled by KGB during the worst period of Finlandization. His comment raised a few eyebrows and drew a few laughs, until he was soon forgotten.

Sorry, but no. He is much younger. --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know well how very young he is. Yet, he is a produce of the history writing produced during the period of Finlandization, which in many ways has followed us up to the recent times, even up todate.

Please, do not ask me to start on this topic. President Ahtisaari too would want the Finns to finally be able to end the "mur-murs" about Finlandization, by joining Nato. For instance the Helsingin Sanomat has written about these Ahtisaari's views. 213.216.199.6 00:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You say: "Not forced to do so, but what they thought at the time would be the best option to Finland and the Finns."

Would you please think twice before you say things like that ! What other option did Finns have in your opinion? Why do you continue refusing to elaborate? Why wouldn't you reveal and articulate this information in Wikipedia, if there really had been such an option?"

You are now given yet one more chance to elaborate that as well as the following question (is this the fourth time this question has been pointed to you - to no prevail?): Why do you refuse to tell us your reasoning for reverting the Continuation War article back to the following sentence (can we already remove it?):

"In retrospect the Continuation War can be seen as the result of a series of political miscalculations by the Finnish leadership in which Finland's martial abilities clearly outshone its diplomatic skills."

Please, provide at least one source with an exact related quote by a known historian, to support this claim (easily verifiable source; book, page, author …). This claim of yours simly doesn't stand any scruitany, what so ever. This sentence only presents your personal POV - if even that -, and it has no academic support!

Paasikivi's assesment had become quite common in English language history writing.--Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Soviet agents themselves - including Viktor Vladimirov, the highest ranking KGB agent in Finland - have long since pointed out how the Finnish politicians' wordings were designed in Moscow.

The diplomatic and strategic choices made by the Finnish leadership, which led to Finland's exceptional success during and after WW2, compared to all other USSR:s western neighbors in Europe - despite the fact that Finland shared the longest border with USSR -, have received much praise, understanding and acceptance worldwide.

Finland wanted to live, and to protect her sovereignty, and in order to do so it had to accept help from anywhere available, as by 1940 it was evident that the Soviet Union was not about to honor the promises set forth in the end of the Winter War. Finland was rapidly losing all control of her internal matters. What the Soviet Union had not been able to gain in the battle arena of the Winter War, it was now grapping during the interim peace period.

And one again, this is not relevant in the final asessment, it is relevant in Interim Peace article.

Wrong! These facts must - of course - be included in the Interim Peace article too. However, these represent the very key facts, which must be presented in this context, in place of the above distorted and unprecedented POV about the suggested "series of political miscalculations" in the final assessment.

This is extremely relevant, as partially already expressed in the above answers. These are among the key facts explaining the very reason, why Finland had no other choice but to accept help from Germany, for its very survival! Why should this crucially important factual key information be hidden from this context, and why should the non-supported nonsense presented instead?

These facts cannot - and must not - be ignored in Wikipedia. This part can be elaborated by more words - as the information is vitally important -, but not really by less words (plenty of more facts and evidence can be provided, including e.g. book sources and references by distinguished historians, such as the professors Allan Tiitta, Seppo Zetterberg, Jouko Vahtola, Heikki Ylikangas, etc.

The key is to organize things properly, and not to repeat things everywhere. Also subarticles has to be created as this article is already too long for a single article. --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You nearly repeated my words there. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

By this time the Soviet Union had committed numerous border violations, it had controlled the Finnish elections, it had taken control of some vitally important Southern Finnish railroads, and its army was building up forces on the Finnish border, etc.

Don't generalize! It is just the tactics Soviet propaganda has used against Finns after the war. On the other hand, it has been delicious to pound some heads with the facts when they have tried to insert those issues here. :-) But why would you like to be a subject of a similar pounding?

Cute - but you're not making sense here! There's no reason for the Soviets to have brought up and advertised these very facts, which forced Finland to accept outside help for its protection, against the aggressions by USSR.

Soviets in their propaganda have used the same method, not facts, than you. And it will be as easy to blow your statements up than theirs. So why do you want your statements blown up? --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please check any recent Finnish history books by professors such as Vahtola, Tiitta, Zetterberg, etc., to discover how Finland was quickly loosing its sovereignty during the interim period. This has always been known. There's no news there!

Are you claiming for instance, that the Soviets did not interfere in the Finnish political elections? Or what? Be specific, please! Famously - however - in case of Ryti; he was also acceptable for the Soviets, not only for the Finns. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Those facts from the interim peace period are very well documented and widely known and accepted. During the interim period, the Finns were rapidly loosing their sovereign rights to decide about their own affairs.

It is a small miracle indeed, how the last minute correct strategic and diplomatic moves by the Finnish decision makers saved so many Finns - and the entire nation - from the evident and notorious destinies familiar from the Baltic States, which - like Finland - were victims of the illegal and vicious campaigns approved in the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement between Hitler and Stalin.

All the access from Finland to the rest of the world had become sealed by either the Soviets or the Germans, who at this stage had taken control of the Baltic nations and Norway and Denmark. Thus, even in theory, Germany now was the only place from where Finland could receive help for her protection. Pressed between a rock and a hard place, Finland saw that she had no choice but to go for the minimum amount of cooperation necessary for her protection. Nevertheless, a bulk of Hitler's key demands Finland refused to honor:

This doesn't belong here, but in the interim peace article. Finns did have choice, as pointed earlier. If you claim some demands from Germany, you should first source them.

For instance: War historian, Eino Tirronen:

"Suurpoliittisista syistä ylipäällikkö luopui myöhemmin Sorokan hyökkäyksestä saksalaisten vaatimuksista huolimatta." --> Uses the term "German demands" !

"Suomen sodanjohto pysäytti hyökkäyksen Kannaksella syyskuun 1941 alussa vanhan rajan tuntumaan eikä sotatoimia jatkettu Leningradin piirittämiseksi, vaikka saksalaiset sitä vaativat.

--> Here too here eplains what the Germans demanded, and so on ...

http://www.turunsanomat.fi/itsenaisyyspaiva/?ts=1,3:2008:0:0,4:53:2:1:2002-12-05;4:52:0:0:0,104:53:133061,1:0:0:0:0:0: Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This too is there to point out why Finland had no other realistic or rational choice. This helps to further understand why your claim of the "series of political miscalculations" really has nothing to do with reality!" Again, what choice did Finland have?

In contrary to your claim above, you have not pointed out another choice for Finland! Where? What? There's yet another un-true statement!

We are talking about the diplomacy here. It is not a black and white game where everything works in extrems, but there are myriad of small nuances.--Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides refusing to hand out her Jews to the Nazis (except for eight deported refuge seekers), the Finns refused to join Germany's - nearly successful - attack against Leningrad, the lose of which could have been detrimental to USSR in several ways, not least from the moral stand point of view. The Finns also held back from interrupting the American "lifeline" of help to the defenders of Leningrad, over the Lake Ladoga. Furthermore, the Finns categorically refused to cut the Murmansk railroad near its border, along which the crucially important and massive American help was transported to the Soviet Army, and Finland also held her forces from advancing any further east than the River Svir (Syväri).

Germans didn't demand Finns to hand out Jews. Finns had before the war said that it will not attack Leningrad and stick to that. (Although Germans did ask Finns to change their plans.) Generally, Finns have promised none of those to Germans, and stated beforehand what they are going to do. German/Italian forces did try to interdict Soviet supply (not American) over the Lake Ladoga from the Finnish side, but were too weak to achieve anything. Murmansk railroad was only the third in the importance of different lend-lease routes.

Finns had their say as to what and how the Germans could use the Finnish areas. Overall, this is quite irrelevant and rather pointless comment from you. If it makes you feel better, we can further elaborate, that the "Finns had before the war said that it will not attack Leningrad …".

Yes, the Finns were very firm on their position in this respect - "beforehand", during and after the fact - and they made themselves clearly understood. The text does try to make that very point, but in short, being to the point. And the key point here is, that the Finnish objectives were very different from the German ones.

In the way you wrote it "short", it lost its original meaning and claimed something untrue which didn't were. --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I'll tell you my position to that question again (this can be explained in many words, or just in few words): Finns were fighting for their survival. They fought back to prevent an enemy occupation of Finland.

213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Finns were fighting their own campaign. The enemy was the same which the Germans had. That common enemy happened to be attacking Finland, a take-over in mind. The Germans - on the other hand - happened to be attacking the attacker of Finland!

Yes, German forces also happened to be stationed along Finland's eastern borders by that time... --Illythr 15:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

True. However, the Germans were not allowed to open an attack against USSR across the Finnish border. The Soviets started the war against Finland, by a massive air attack - by nearly 500 planes (over 460) - against Finnish targets.

The Soviets did not bombard German targets in Finland! Finland had prepared to defend - not to attack - as Mannerheim elaborates in his memoirs. Counterattack, of course, was then executed - to drive the enemy away -, but it took weeks to turn into offensive formations.

You can be saluted for agreeing and coinciding with the true facts in this crucially important matter! This point cannot be emphasized enough, because so many - who are unfamiliar with the subject - do not understand this critical part, due to a lack of information. This is why these facts must be clearly and efficiently presented in Wikipedia.

These all were among the attempts on Finland's behalf to make the Soviet counterparts - and the rest of the world - to realize that Finland sincerely was only fighting for her survival, against Josef Stalin's continued attempt to conquer Finland, for which the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov had sought for Adolf Hitler's final approval - on his visit to Berlin on November 12 -13, 1940 -, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939.

Also shouldn't be here, but in the backgroud section. --Whiskey 10:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been explained above, why all this information has to be stated in this context, and why and how this information - collectively - is very relevant, as it shows how the view about the "series of political miscalculations" does not stand any serious scruitany and does fit reality at all.

And, this is not a patriotic or one-sided POV, but a thorough and comprehensive over-all look inside the facts. Leaving any of these particles outside - not included in - the over-all puzzle, could easily lead to a partisan POV.

A multimedia documentary about the Continuation War and the nine final and determining battles of the summer, 1944, is out. Experts as well as veterans of each of the nine final and determining battles of the summer, 1944, are interviewed. Below are two pages with some information (randomly selected). Please find more information from Google. The documentary project is well done. It took five years to complete.

http://www.suomensodat.com/ajankohtaista5.php

http://www.esaimaa.fi/arkisto/vanhat/2004/08/29/alueuutiset/juttu8/sivu.html

Any relevance to the actual article? --Illythr 15:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, relevant, because user Whiskey was aware of only six battles (do I recall correctly - did he withdraw that statement?). Furthermore, this documentary is carefully compiled with utmost expertise in cooperation with renown historians and researchers. Lots of authentic film material is provided, also interviews with veterans participating in each of the nine battles.

I restored following paragraph which was deleted by our friend with many names.--Whiskey 14:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I was very gratious by counting six. Five would be more correct... But, Ladies and gent's, please meet our friend with many names, the only man, living or dead, in Finland or in the rest of the world, who ever, ever has claimed that Finns won the battles of Valkeasaari and Kuuterselkä!!! --Whiskey 11:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, can you stop presenting out-right lies in Wikipedia? I have not used those terms. I don't recall stating anything about "battles of Valkeasaari and Kuuterselkä" in Wikipedia (I probably will though, later). Where?

So, what kind of "only man, living or dead, in Finland or in the rest of the world" does that claim make Mr. Whiskey, "Ladies and gent's" (borrowing his own words)? Yes, I know. No need to respond. Could you please drop this kind of nonsense talk now, user Whiskey. Lying is against the policies and nature of Wikipedia. Thank you. 213.216.199.6 08:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If I have deleted that or anything else, it has been accidentally, not consciously. I myself was asking out loud - before your comment above -, what happened to that statement! However, you do state the same in another part of the debate.

You claim six, I say nine. After you watch that document (information of which I have given), I believe you will finally agree with me and with all those experts who participated in the making of that multimedia production, which took five years to complete.

Nevertheless - in the meanwhile -, I am glad that you agree, that the final battles ended in Finnish victories. That is essential. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation

213.216.199.6 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. --Illythr 15:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, Stop the reverting already, Illythr. We can try working on the the text a bit, although there is no wrong onformation there and although it is all important. Cheers, -- 213.216.199.6 10:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(Restored comment by Pudeo deleted by User:213.216.199.6. -- Petri Krohn 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC) )

Now this is getting quite ridiculous, just look at the edit history.. Why does this person have over 10 aliases? If this continues semi-protection could be useful. This person has written some nice articles about the battles though, but I can't understand why he uses so many accounts. This is sock puppetry if used like that.. --Pudeo (Talk) 22:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)\

Wrong, that message was not "deleted". It is showing before the continued counter-commenting above, and my reply to user Pudeo is there as well. Thanks again, user Pudeo!

213.216.199.6 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why we must stop placing comments inside others' texts

User Petri Krohn: That Pudeo's message above was not "deleted". It is in its correct spot - timeline-wise -, right before the long continuously updated text above, and my answer to it is there as well (signed 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)).

If you needed to make a duplicate of this Pudeo's comment, why couldn't you just place it right here, on the bottom of the line of messages, where I just carried it (above). You duplicated the comment right in the middle - inside - an unrelated text, the very long text right above. You did that at 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Why in the middle of unrelated text? And why a duplicate? Are you trying to make a mess of the information provided here? Do the facts not please your ideology ? Why nothing productive from you ?

Earlier, you also placed the following comment inside another contributor's text:

"I would rather wipe the article out of Wikipedia. It is total crap. -- Petri Krohn 06:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)"

Elsewhere in Wikipedia, we stopped the very same counterproductive tactics, as this can easily create confusion, and mix-ups:

If we continue building the counter-commenting - with even unrelated messages and pointless remarks - inside someone else's message, we run out room inside the original message, we distort the original message, we create mix-up and confusion, and separating the contributions from one another becomes a bit difficult inside the mess.

Besides, if we do this, where is a possible newcomer supposed to place her/his unrelated new comment, when - timeline-wise - it may seem that the posting of the comment should be made right below the very last reply, which may be posted right in a middle of someone's long message.

So everyone, at least when it comes to my comments, please, set your replies below - not inside - my text (you too user Whiskey/Illythr)

User Petri Krohn: These tactics may have fit your purposes, as all I've seen you contribute so far, is the above counterproductive duplicate and your quoted "crap" remark.

Could you try performing at least a bit better than this, please! Hereafter, if and when you do reverting, removing or adding, make sure to provide clear reasoning, full with detailed sources to back up your counterclaims.

I you are not familiar with the topic and you have no appropriate counterclaims, please do not revert anything, even if the information in question may be new for you.

If everyone only provided "crap" to Wikipedia, what would this be? So, please, no more creating confusion, no more reverts without reasoning, no more anarchy, no more "crab"!

Thank you for your co-operation!

213.216.199.6 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Solving the edit war

Due to page protection, I introduce contested text here (once again). Please write your comments of the text here. The purpose is to produce neutral text what is acceptable to all parties. The participants could present their opinions of the acceptable entry at the end of the paragraph under the heading "Proposed paragraph:". Remember to sign also your proposals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskey (talk • contribs) 05:04, 20 December 2006

I do not think there is space for any of this material in this article. We could however start a new article on the historical evaluation of the war. Something like Continuation War in popular culture or whatever. The issue is still relevant, with the attempt to overturn the war-responsibility trials in Finland. -- Petri Krohn 19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course the issue is "relevant". You couldn't be more right about that. This is the most essential part of the whole article. This is what the war was all about. There is no reason - what so ever - to leave this most relevant part out. We are not here to try to dilute the war's purposes and results - quite the contrary. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your search for a "text what is acceptable to all parties", simply doesn't match the very principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is sort of like Ensyclopedia - or a dictionary. Its purpose cannot be to try to please "all parties", which you appear to be after.

Wikipedia is here to tell the truth, regardless whether or not some parties might like to prevent the truth from being revealed. 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, refrain using highlight in excess (=more than one word) inside the discussion, let's reserve them to the paragraph text and proposal text. The intention is that you propose what should be the text of the paragraph under the "Proposed paragraph:" and it could be modified constantly. The area above is reserved for argumenting and counterargumenting.

I also modified the places of some your signatures to make discussion more tight.--Whiskey 13:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As I wish to break this deadlock, I'm ready to accept the insertion of this chapter to the end of the article (I still prefer NOT to have the chapter at all!), with following restrictions:

The text must fulfill Wikipedia's NPOV criteria.
There must not be original research.
All claims which are presented, or even raised by persons involved in a dispute, has to be sourced in accord with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing_sources.

I'm going to play this according the book, so we follow the rules defined in Wikipedia's official policy. If we cannot reach consensus, I'm going to ask RfC. --Whiskey 00:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Par 1

It seems fair to state that determining the winner/s of the Continuation War is largely in the eyes of the beholder^{[citation needed]}. Finland had succeeded in her goal, to save her independence and sovereignty and to prevent the take-over attempts by the Soviet Union, set forth by two all-out attacks ^{[citation needed]} by the Red Army ^{[citation needed]}, one initiating the Winter War on November 30, 1939, and the other initiating the Continuation War on June 25, 1941.^{[unbalanced opinion?]}

If this paragraph is to be kept, then the "eyes of the Soviet beholder" need to be included as well. Something along the: "Likewise, the Soviets had succeeded in pushing the Finns out of East Karelia back beyond the former Mannerheim line and, with the Moscow armstice, took an even greater toll in land and reparations from Finland, than after the Winter war." --Illythr 07:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No appropriate reason has been provided for the removal of this paragraph. This is simply an opening for the text that follows. The following text is set to compliment the opening remarks, of course. --213.216.199.6 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The aerial attack in the beginning of the Continuation War wasn't an "all-out attack", and it wasn't intended to be. (Source: Platonov et.al., "Bitva za Leningrad") --Whiskey 08:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite agreeable. Noticed that, and wanted to change it, but the page was blocked. The original paragraph is below, as it was standing still on Dec. 17. (link to that day's version given below also). There is no "all-out" there. That was a rushed blooper (I also noted out loud the beginning of alterations).

The term could be replaced by "massive" (as it fits for both attacks, although Winter War's attack was also "all-out"). The authentic sentence given below (1.), and the newer version with "massive" (2.) given below it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Continuation_War&diff=94980359&oldid=94950759

213.216.199.6 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree on both, per Whiskey's arguments below (Par 2): Facing an Axis invasion, with the situation on the fronts catastrophically deteriorating, it is highly unlikely that the Soviet Union attempted to stage an invasion of its own, let alone with a complete takeover in mind. A pre-emptitive strike, aiming to prevent a combined German-Finnish offensive that was believed to be imminent by the Soviet leadership, is a far more likely reason for the attack. --Illythr 16:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this sentence. Official Russia today admits to having started both wars. They also admit the existence of M-R agreement, under the auspices of which the Soviets were to conquer Finland. Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Present a quote of a Russian president admitting starting the Continuation war. Even then, the current situation prevented the Soviet Union to start a war of conquest at that time. --Illythr 15:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

For instance in paragraph no. 4 it has been explained in larger detailing, why and how the time was good for the re-launching of the war against Finland by USSR.

The transporting of military goods (arms, planes, tanks, etc.) to USSR from the practically endless resource, USA, was to begin in October, i.e. very shortly. In this sense, lack of material was not going to the problem. Otherwise too, the timing seemed perfect from the Soviet point of view.

Plenty of source information can and will be added. Placing more source information to the article page will hopefully rescue us from having to explain each word separately to each curious visitor. We'll start adding more related sources to the text page, as it opens up for editing Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Present a quote of a Russian president admitting starting the Continuation war. Please also clarify, why the timing was perfect from a Soviet POV, as the points in par 4 fail to notice the massive German attack currently underway by June 25. It's also best to start adding relevant, reliable sources right here, right now. --Illythr 12:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph: (Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

-->to be saved in either one of the following ways that were suggested previously, below (Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)):

1. It seems fair to state that determining the winner/s of the Continuation War is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Finland had succeeded in her goal to save her independence and sovereignty. The Soviet Union - on the other hand - had fallen far from its objective, conquering Finland, although in the armistice it was to gain a little land, for a heavy price paid.

2. It seems fair to state that determining the winner/s of the Continuation War is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Finland had succeeded in her goal, to save her independence and sovereignty and to prevent the take-over attempts by the Soviet Union, set forth by two massive attacks by the Red Army, one initiating the Winter War on November 30, 1939, and the other initiating the Continuation War on June 25, 1941.

213.216.199.6 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

--> Keep the text (preferably the no. 2 version above). Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How would you convince us that you are not the same person? -- Petri Krohn 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

--> Version 2. with a change "Finland had succeeded in keepeng it's independence"--Mtjs0 05:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

--> Version 2. keep the text preferably number 2 -- Masa62 10:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 2

The Soviet Union - on the other hand - had fallen far from its main objective^{[citation needed]}, conquering Finland^{[citation needed]}, a goal set forth in Moscow on August 23, 1939, by the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Stalin and Hitler^{[citation needed]}.

Source for the main objective missing. Several historians, including Glantz, Manninen, Churchill, Upton, Liddle-Hart etc., affirm that securing Leningrad was the main objective. Conquering Finland would be secondary. Also no secondary objectives were mentioned.--Whiskey 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact says it all. The pact does not talk about "securing Leningrad". Thus, the information provided in the contested text is most appropriately important and relevant to reveal.

Sources to this affect are abundant: Professors Seppo Zetterberg, Allan Tiitta, Jouko Vahtola, Heikki Ylikangas, etc. All these, as well as other sources will be included for the support of the contested text, including exact book and page references, etc., when the end of the revert war and opening of the page for editing makes this work possible. The rapid revert war set forth by user Whiskey/Illythr has made this task so far extremely difficult.

The sources offered in the above comment of user Whiskey are mispresented: For instance, Manninen does not claim "securing Leningrad" to be the reason for the Soviet Union attacking Finland on June 25, 1941. We strongly view this as a distorted claim. We kindly ask user Whiskey to provide the detailed related book and page information to support his claim.

Prime Minister Winston Churchill, on the other hand, personally consulted with Field Marshal Mannerheim about the most important related security concerns raised by the Soviet and US leaders. For instance, Prime Minister Churchill conveyed to Field Marshal Mannerheim the Soviet and US wishes about the importance for Finland to allow the Murmansk railroad to operate freely, bringing critically important US help to the Soviets.

Leningrad was already "secure", because in the end of the Winter War Finland had - for this particular reason - ceded land to USSR, which was not lost on the battle fields, including the City of Viipuri (the closest large Finnish city to Leningrad). Thus, Finland had no military build up of any kind close to Leningrad.

Even the most important Finnish internal affairs were controlled by USSR during the time - the interim period (between the wars) -, including political elections, etc. Crucially important parts of the Southern Finnish railroads were under Soviet control, etc. The Soviet were making numerous border violations against Finland, without anyone interfering with the procedures. There was no security risk against Leningrad via Finland.

However, on November 12-13, 1940, Vyacheslav Molotov visited Berlin, to emphasize to the Germans, that USSR was intending to bring to the conclusion the take-over of Finland, set forth and agreed upon in Moscow on August 23, 1939, by the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Stalin and Hitler. All the Soviet moves in and around Finland pointed to the fact, that Finland had to prepare to fight against renewed attack by the Red Army. During the interim period (between the wars) the Soviets had rapidly - piece by piece - gained control of critically important Finnish internal affairs. Finland had to prepare for its protection.

No such information has ever been revealed, that on Molotov's visit to Berlin, "securing Leningrad" would have been presented as the reason for the planned take-over attempt of Finland. Instead, the reason discussed was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, based on which the Germans were to allow the Soviets to act freely in its take-over campaign against Finland.

Accordingly, the Soviets continued with their take-over attempt of Finland again on June 25, 1941, with a massive - nearly 500 plane - air attack against Finnish cities and airports. Notably, no German targets were bombed in Finland (Finland had at that point already accepted help from the Germans for Finland's protection, as - even in theory - the sealed access to all the rest of the world had at this point made any other international assistance to Finland impossible to achieve. --213.216.199.6 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Occupation/annexation of Finland would fulfil the primary objective which was securing Leningrad, so the M-R Pact doesn't reveal the main objective of the USSR. The situation of June 1941 is totally different than November 1940, and the occupation plans of Finland were pushed on the background. (Manninen, "Molotovin cocktail, Hitlerin sateenvarjo" and Manninen, "Stalinin kiusa, Himmlerin täi") Instead, the pre-emptive attack with limited objectives against the targets in Finland were planned, as Soviet leadership didn't believe that Finland would stay outside the war. (Platonov, "Bitva za Leningrad" and Tomas Ries, "Cold Will") --Whiskey 08:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The text points out the "main" objective of the Soviets properly. The Soviets themselves stopped denying the existence of M-L agreement, after the Cold War ended. Wikipedia must present current information, which (even more pointedly) is accepted by all parties. Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The existence or wording of the secret protocol of M-R pact is not questioned here. What is questioned is if whether the annexation of Finland or securing Leningrad was the main objective. F.ex. Churchill, Liddell-Hart and Manninen ("Talvisodan salatut taustat") support that view. In that view, annexation of Finland was only the way to achieve the main objective, which was securing Leningrad. --Whiskey 00:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is purposely keeping to the point - in short -, just like all other paragraphs and sentences in this segment, not to confuse the message of the key parts, which this text does want to concentrate in.

Those key parts do not include for instance the prisoner exchange programs, which you suggested, or any other similar or different types of smaller details, relating to the war.

Of course there were excuses, reasons and/or further goals, that were thought of by Stalin and the Soviet Bolitbyro, that would be advanced, helped and benefited by the occupation of Finland, just like in the case of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic Countries as well.

Hitler, on the other hand - similarly -, had his own ideas, plans, goals, excuses, etc.

What ever those related reasons, goals and excuses of Stalin - or Hitler - might have been, this particular segment is not trying to tackle or debate those particular details.

We could start this paragraph - of course - by stating/reminding (once again) in length, that Stalin (just like Hitler) had his own ambitions, goals, plans and excuses for conquering Finland and the rest of the nations, victimization and occupation of which had been agreed upon by the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

This all would be besides the point, which this segment is making.

The occupation plans of Hitler and Stalin were not going to be tolerated by some of those who could defend themselves against the aggressions in question.

Thus, this sentence is just saying in short, that Stalin attempted to occupy Finland, but failed in this attempt. 213.216.199.6 06:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

But you are not saying that in the paragraph. You are placing two claims, which, by the way, you still haven't sourced at all, instead. So, if you just want to say that Stalin wanted to occupy Finland and failed, why don't you say that instead of making unsourced claims? (But you have to source that claim also...) --Whiskey 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph: (Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

-->SAVE TEXT AS IT IS Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

-->SAVE TEXT AS IT IS --Mtjs0 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 3

Finland had abandoned the City of Viipuri^{[citation needed]}, using only hours of delaying tactics^{[citation needed]} on June 20, 1944, up to 16:40 (20th Br, 120 dead/MIA; research by Eeva Tammi, 8/2006). The following nine consecutive final battles were victorious for the Finnish Armed Forces^{[citation needed]}. In the very final Battle of Ilomantsi the Finns had even succeeded in pushing the enemy back.

Finns didn't "abandon" Viipuri and they didn't use delaying tactics there and then. All commands given from Mannerheim down to the each platoon were to keep Viipuri, not to abandon it. That the troops fled in panic doesn't doesn't constitute a delaying action. The given source is only used in defining casualties, not the intention and the tactics used by Finns. The names of the "final nine battles" were not given anywhere and neither is the source to the claim. The last sentence is factually correct, but it makes a very plain paragraph, and should be handled in the 1944 section of the article. The whole paragraph should be removed.--Whiskey 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The situation of the City of Viipuri during the Continuation War continues to be misrepresented by the user Whiskey:

Below, please find some more detailed information about the subject. This information has received rather wide consensus among the Finnish military and history experts, who have dealt with the topic during the reacent years. The information given also fully coinsides with the distinquished and most recent research work completed, by Eeva Tammi:

The city of Viipuri was abandoned in the Continuation War. Why and how, are entirely different matters. The lack of studies about this subject has recently become a center of much concern. The topic has not been examined very largely in the Finnish war history - research or studies.

Was there a fight that could be named "the Battle of Viipuri" - in the context of the Continuation War -, to be featured for instance in Wikipedia - under that main heading -, or elsewhere? Not really, and experts appear to agree widely about this topic.

Accordingly, no such thing has been called for - anywhere, really - including Wikipedia. This approach simply would not match reality.

There were numerous events in the Continuation war, that could be - but aren't - called a "battle", much rather than this one. More people have died in numerous train accidents, plain crashes or single building fires, and - provably - even in single machine gun firings by just a single Finnish soldier in just one single short fight, than during the extremely rapid abandonment of the city of Viipuri, which only took hours.

A "handful" of Finnish soldiers were lost - as missing in action or dead - in Viipuri, approximately 120 in total from the 20th Brigade, when the Finnish troops had finished their resistance by 16:40, after only hours of skirmishes which had began on the same day's morning ?

Can the work and efforts pointed to - and contributed by - these lost Finnish soldiers be dealt under the headline of "delaying tactics" in this general area - attempts to slow down the Red Army's "avalanche"? Just about any expert would say, yes.

The Red Army's rush in this critical area had to be delayed - naturally -, as much of organizing and re-organizing of troops and strategic planning and operations were taken place in this particular war front, and nearby.

Furthermore, - in this sense - the area in question was not much different from any other fronts of the war. The enemy's advancement had to be stopped and/or delayed everywhere, during all times. Accordingly, delaying tactics of all imaginable sorts were used everywhere, at all times. Viipuri was not en exception.

Nevertheless, the abandonment of - or retreat from - any given area on either side of the Finnish-Soviet border, by either party, had its own characteristics, of course:

The abandonment of Viipuri has been called the '"Mystery of Viipuri"'. The topic has been dealt with in several television documentaries, and elsewhere. In this context, one should be reminded of the fact, that not all that relates to the Finnish war history, can be found in form of printed text, available to the general public.

Accordingly - and continuously -, questions have been raised about suspected secret plans, and decisions made, information of which has not been included to archives, available for researchers or the general public to access.

Famously - and notably -, a certain distinctive sentence has surfaced repeatedly in media and news, over and over again, in connections with interviews conducted with Finnish war veterans and officers who were in or near Viipuri in June, 1944:

"In reality, there was no plan to hold on to Viipuri" ("Viipuria ei aiottukaan pitää").

Most notable - and best known - conveyer of this information has been General Aksel Airo. His duties included the operational management of the Finnish Armed Forces' Headquarters, during both Finnish wars against the Soviet Union in the course of WW2, the Winter War and the Continuation War. General Airo was widely considered to be the so called "'brains of the headquarters.

The man in charge, Airo, pointed out to his friends, after the war, how the viewing of the Finnish map clearly indicated, where the center of concentration - the heart of the strategic planning - really was, when it came to the perspective of the Finnish Armed Forces, in terms of preventing the enemy occupation of Finland.

The easiest access - "the shortest road" - to the heart of Finland, went through the Karelian Isthmus. Accordingly, General Airo foresaw at early point, that the crucial and determining battles would be fought on the lake isthmuses between Viipuri and Kuparsaari, at the areas of Tali and Ihantala.

On the eve of the abandoning of the City of Viipuri, General Lagus suggested, that the city would be abandoned without fighting. On the surface, his view was denied.

Furthermore, apparently already as early as in 1943 General Airo suggested to Finland's Marshall Mannerheim (research by Eeva Tammi 8/2006) the abandoning of the city of Viipuri at a time of Finnish retreat in the general area, because - based to Airo's reasoning - the city was located on a "wrong side" of the water way.

The general had discussed with a number of his colleagues about the fact that there was no sense to fight in the area of the City of Viipuri: Even if the entire Finnish Armed Forces would be brought to the area of the city, the city would be fully destroyed - the high officers reasoned -, at which point no one would have much use for the city, in the near foreseeable future.

Finland's Marshall Mannerheim had different views, as well, and - for instance - he is known to have supported the idea of the defending of the fortresses of East Karelia.

During the Winter War, there was an actual battle in Viipuri, and then the Finnish resistance was extremely heavy. In that war the Finns did not abandon the City of Viipuri - in contrary: 1/3 of Viipuri was lost, but in the end, with heavy loses and extreme efforts the City of Viipuri was kept in Finnish hands.

These heavy - and militarily successful - efforts of the Finns to save Viipuri in the Winter War proved useless in the peace negotiations: Like following the victorious final battles of the Continuation War, the border - agreed upon in the armistice - was not about to settle, where the arms had been silenced as the battles had ended.

In the end of Winter War, the Finns agreed to retreat from areas which were under the control of the Finnish Armed Forces in the war's end, Viipuri including.

The Finnish Army retreated from areas which the Soviets weren't able to capture in the actual battle fields, to coincide with the efforts of the Finnish politicians and diplomats, who attempted to agree on a settlement, which was aimed to open a road to a lasting peace. As soon became witnessed, the Soviets did not hold on to assurances made in the end of the Winter War. --213.216.199.6 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary: The loss of Viipuri has been the most researched, discussed and published issue of all Finnish history during the World War II. The writing of Tammi, you like to refer, is published in Sotahistoriallinen Aikakauskirja, but it doesn't reflect the modern concensus. In fact, it has been lynched by the Finnish war historians as a "conspiracy theory" (Manninen, Elfengren, Raunio) and even her main source, son of Gen. Laatikainen, has contradicted her main claim which was based on his 'eavesdropping' ("I didn't hear nothing about that plan at home."). There is no evidence about that kind of conspiracy against Mannerheim by Airo, Laatikainen and Nihtilä she has claimed.

Airo most likely had his doubt's about holding Viipuri, but it is not witnessed by any orders or official plans as stated by MPKK, "Jatkosodan historia 4", Uuno Tarkki, "Miksi menetimme Viipurin?" and "Taistelu Viipurista", Lauri Jäntti, "Viipurin viimeiset hetket", Matti Koskimaa, "Veitsenterällä"...

Lagus did propose abandoning Viipuri, but he was overruled on the issue by Oesch and Mannerheim.

The delay, as a military tactics, is a serie of defensive positions which are abandoned orderly in a preplanned way. The retreat from VT-line to VKT-line were done delaying, and there was never even an intention to hold positions, only to stop the head of the offensive temporarily and buy time for reinforcements to arrive and fortifications to be prepared. At Viipuri, there was an order to keep the town and the prepared fortifications were built to the front of the town, not behind.

From above, you have stated the source to the nine consecutive battles as http://www.suomensodat.com/ajankohtaista5.php so a guote from there: "Suomen Sodat multimedian DVD-videolevylle on koottu yhdeksän kesän 1944 torjuntataistelun kuvaukset. Mukana on Karjalan kannakselta Valkeasaaren, Siiranmäen, Kuuterselän, Tienhaaran, Talin-Ihantalan, Viipurinlahden ja Vuosalmen taistelut sekä Laatokan Karjalasta Nietjärven ja Ilomantsin taistelut." ("To the Suomen Sodat multimedia DVD videodisc has been collected descriptions of nine defensive battles of summer 1944. Included are battles of Valkeasaari, Siiranmäki, Kuuterselkä, Tienhaara, Tali-Ihantala, Bay of Viipuri and Vuosalmi from Karelian Isthmus and Battles of Nietjärvi and Ilomantsi from Ladoga Karelia.") So, you claim that Finns won Valkeasaari and Kuuterselkä. --Whiskey 10:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The city of Viipuri was abandoned (left without nearly any resistance). No need to elaborate this matter further in this context.

I believe you're not counting the battle of Tienhaara. The target of defensive strategic planning generally is to null the enemy's plan/operation/action. If the enemy is stopped from reaching their goal, the defensive action has been successful. This is a victory for defense, i.e. a defensive victory. Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please give us a source for the claim that Finns abandoned Viipuri.

No, I wasn't counting Tienhaara. The problem with that was the number of participating forces was so small compared with the other battles, and the timing. In timing, both Tienhaara and Siiranmäki happened before the second battle of Tuulos ("Viteleen maihinnousu") which was a Finnish defeat. If counting the size of the forces, then the battle of Liusvaara should be counted also, which also ended to Finnish defeat, and as it was at the end of July, then only the battle of Ilomantsi could have been counted.

And I wonder why you are supporting the wording which has been proven not to be truthful? --Whiskey 23:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Tienhaara was a critically important battle, as that was the battle that led to the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Only recently the film director Åke Lindman wanted to produce a movie about the events in Tienhaara. He produced the film under the name Etulinjan edessä ("in front of the frontline").

Lindman had been particularly concerned about the fact, that practically no information could be found about this battle.

Mr. Lindman personally knew - and had interviewed - a number of veterans who had participated in this particular battle. So that Finnish people as well as others interested would learn about these extremely important events, and so that the battle would not be forgotten, he decided to make the movie.

On the down note, experts have already expressed, that the movie has not been able to portray accurately the real life fierceness of the fighting that took place in Tienhaara.

Mr. Lindman was discussing his concerns about the lack of information relating to the battle and about his decision to make the film, in a televised interview, aired in YLE (Finland's Public Broadcasting System) some time ago.

In this respect, it is not strange - or a shame -, that you were not very familiar with the battle in question. Not very long ago very little information was available even about the most important battle, perhaps, ever to have been fought in Finland, the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.

This is due to the silenced history by KGB and Finlandization. What could not be accomplished on the battle fields, KGB was going to accomplish by lies, and by silencing media, and by turning around historical facts, to support a view spread for the world by Moscow.

KGB:s own history versions were introduced, to distort the facts about real events. This technique has not been used by KGB only in USSR, but elsewhere as well, and particularly in the neighboring areas, which had suffered so much because of the totalitarian rule of the Soviet system.

Finland was to be tainted as an aggressor, the guilty party for its own wars. For that it had to be tainted as an ally of Germany. As by 1943 it was predicted that Germany would loose its war, Finland too was going to be portrayed as the loser of Finland's war, regardless how its defensive war would end.

The Winter War, thus, had to wiped out from the Soviet history writing, as for instance the President of the Soviet Union Nikita Khrushchev has explained. Soon Khrushchev too became silenced.

Thus, the wording offered is correct, user Whiskey, and thus, as the user Pudeo (Talk wrote in his note some time ago, there were nine battles won by Finland in the end. The 5-year multimedia project recently completed tells about the nine battles. The project was produced in cooperation with the utmost experts on the field. Veterans of all the nine battles are interviewed in the document.

These are only some of the reasons, why these true events must be told about in Wikipedia, regardless of the fact that up till the present time someone might have not been aware about these events.

The idea of Wikipedia is to provide true facts, and not to hide the facts by repeating old lies, although you were explaining something about lie turning into truth, if it is repeated long enough. Lies are what we must fight against. The truth must win. Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder from where Lindman has searched his information, as there is a lot of information available in existent unit histories (F.ex. Nils-Erik Nykvist, "Sextiettan") and general histories (Like MPKK, "Jatkosodan historia 4"). Maybe he wanted to have more personal stories he could use in his movie? The whole battle of Kivisalmi/Tienhaara lasted only one day, June 23, when Finnish IR61 prevented at the morning Soviet assault over the Kivisalmi strait. Attacking Soviet forces were the size of a infantry regiment and it was assisted with artillery. Later the day Soviet artillery again tried to open way to new wave unsuccessfully. The total losses of IR61 at June 22 - June 24 were 160, of which only 46 were killed or missing. As almost all happened at June 23, it was a lot for the daily losses of a IR, but very small when compared to other battles in the list.

Also you are wrong about the lack of information about the battle of Tali-Ihantala. Already at MPKK, "Suomen Sota 1941-1944" it was presented quite detailed (in fact, most maps available online of the battle are copied from that book.) fashion. Also numerous books had been published during the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s about the battle. Only one who willfully closed his eyes could claim he didn't knew about the battle and it's end result.

You are lying about Pudeo's support to your view of nine battles won in the end. He only thanked you from your contributions to the articles about the battles. I have sent a direct quote from the place you referred as the source for the issue, and the quote flatly contradicts what you claim. Why are you still supporting erroneous text even after it has been proven erroneous by your own source? --Whiskey 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, try not to distort anyone's comments, including Budeo's, mine, and any other Wikipedia users', here or any other sites. The facts of history must not be distorted either. Thank you.

It was not stated that there ever was no information available, what so ever, about the critically important Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Where do you claim this to have been said? So, who really is lying?

Lack of appropriate information has been referred to - by many - for instance by Professor Leo Vuosalo, who for long has been trying to correct related misunderstandings, misinterpritations and false information in USA and elsewhere.

Vuosalo personally participated in the final fighting of the Continuation War. One related link is re-provided for you below, as you appear to have moved this link away from this page.

Please, do not make claims later, for me to have said something more particular about any information provided in the link. I am only trying to send you tokens of names, places and info, for you to be able to - perhaps - search further info, in depth:

http://www.kaiku.com/notcapitulate.html

As you see once again, I didn't lye to you. Anyone, of course, could make a blooper, for instance - and that would be very different. You are wrong: I do not rely on Pudeo for "support", or any single source, on anything. Besides, I'm not familiar with the user Budeo at all. Perhaps I should be. He can be a great fellow, all that I know.

To prevent presenting wrong information continuously, please begin using Ctrl-f search to double check, what exactly has been said by any given person at any given time, to help preventing further false claims from being presented.

Below, please find a couple of comments from the user Pudeo, which you appear to suggest never to have been written (I highlighted the parts which you appear to claim not to have existed in these comments):

"When Finnish troops retreated to pre 1939 border, SU lost 9 decisive battles in a row. SU didn't occupy any new areas that it didn't have in 1940. The early war was a success for the Finns, and USSR wanted even a peace treaty which would have been beneficial to Finland. ... --Pudeo (Talk) 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)"

"(cur) (last) 10:21, 9 December 2006 Pudeo (Talk | contribs) … Since SU didn't occupy any new areas and lost those 9 decisive battles in the war. …"

About the links provided to you previously: Those links were just quickly looked up and pasted for you, to offer you some information about a related multimedia project, for you to be able to look it up, to learn more about it, and - perhaps - to view it, to learn about the final battles and the results, importance and relevance of each on of them.

No claims (nor wrong quotes) regarding any detailed information about the battles being available on those particular sites were presented to you. Where ?

Those are only sites, which provide some information about the project in question, in short form. Nevertheless, a reference to the "nine" battles in question can be found from the info, and the fact that from each of those battles veterans were interviewed for the project. Thus, please, let us not distort anyone's wordings.

User Illythr: I'm not sure about your exact point (and maybe you no longer are yourself), but at least I'm getting the feeling, that you aim to state, that the abandonment of Viipuri - perhaps - was more than an abandonment, a battle perhaps, although there is no information available about anything that could be named a "Battle of Viipuri", in this context (check for instance Wikipedia / in the Winter War there was a battle, yes).

In just hours' time, the Finns had abandoned the City of Viipuri. There are strong reasons to believe and to suggest, that this abandonment was thought out ahead of time, and the explanation for you to that effect - including a very recent study - has been provided already.

Do I recall correctly (let me know if not): I believe you were pointing out that you had not counted the battle at Tienhaara, on the other hand. So can it - or can it not - in your opinion, be called a battle? If not, what could be then?

Approximately 120 Finns were lost as missing and/or dead, after only hour of delaying tactics and retreat in Viipuri. By 16:45 the Finnish flag was lowered at the castle.

This did not put the entire nation in danger, as has been explained to you in detail (information from the very recent research study was provided).

However, the Battle of Tienhaara was critically important for the safety of the entire nation (for reasons, use Google, please), and - to my knowledge - there had been no suggestion by generals or anyone to retreat at Tienhaara, as there clearly had been in Viipuri (Generals Lagus, Airo, etc.) An actual stopping of the Soviets was critically important at Tienhaara, for the safety of the entire nation.

Besides, Tienhaara saw more Finnish casualties than the abandonment of Viipuri, And, importantly, do not forget the Soviet casualties, and the result. Tienhaara led to the most important battle - perhaps - of all battles during the entire Continuation War, the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, where the Soviet offensive was put on stop. Ahven is a fish 07:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick quote from Pudeo from my talk page:To Whiskey: In fact I don't know the real number and I only took it from that user's edit which was "(Not true - 9 final conclusive battles were victorious for the Finns, including the very last, Ilomantsi !" Sorry for being careless without research. I don't support the edit warrer's actions at all anyway. I guess you cannot count anylonger to his support on your claim.

In fact, you are distorting my claims. While you stated that Not very long ago very little information was available even about the most important battle, perhaps, ever to have been fought in Finland, the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. I countered with Also you are wrong about the lack of information about the battle of Tali-Ihantala. which you countered with It was not stated that there ever was no information available, what so ever, about the critically important Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Lack of information indicates that there was too little information, not that there was no information at all. But we are both using foreign language here... You are giving one name here, Leo Vuosalo, but you haven't given us any document name he has written which proves your claim. Could you please give some of them?

The heart of the discussed paragraph is your claim that The following nine consecutive final battles were victorious for the Finnish Armed Forces. So, the source you gave wasn't a source after all? Could you please give the source which claims Finns won those consecutive final battles? Could you please even name those battles?

Another of your claim was that Finns used delaying tactics in Viipuri. So far you have not been able to give a single source to that claim. Could you give even a single source to that claim?

Just for curiosity: How many casualties Finns suffered in the Battle of Tienhaara? (And best with the source...) --Whiskey 01:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

--> Save the original text as it is. Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Par 4

Ever since its initial attack^{[citation needed]} in the beginning of the war on June 25, 1941, and the following retreat, the Red Army had not been able to cross the 1940 Finnish-Soviet border, except for a short-lived moment in the final Battle of Ilomantsi in 1944, where it suffered a loss, after two of its divisions were decimated and shattered by the Finns.

The initial attack was done by Soviet air force, not the army. The retreat was not done voluntarily but due to Finnish offensive. The Soviet army was not ready to conduct offensive operations at that time, and the intended reinforcements (which did have the intention to take fight to the enemy soil) were diverted to the other fronts after the initiation of the war. Also, the Battle of Ilomantsi should be handled in 1944 section. Although the fact that Soviet army wasn't able to reach 1940 borders except shortly in Ilomantsi is worth to mention -somewhere, but as the paragraph is now, it gives wrong impression about actions and readiness. Better to get rid of the whole paragraph.--Whiskey 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "Red Army" stand there to refer to the entire Soviet Armed forces, as quite typically that term is used in such manner. Wikipedia: "... people in the West commonly use the term Red Army to refer also to the Soviet military ..." It wasn't army that was atticking, but it was the Red Army.

Thought of that too for a flashing moment, however, and I not have anything against re-wording that part. Suggestion without that term given below.

213.216.199.6 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

1. It is irrelevant in this context to elaborate, how exactly the Soviet Attack against Finland was launched, unless you want to make an already lengthy segment even longer. The point is, that it was launched.

On June, 25, 1941, the Soviet attack opened up against Finnish cities and airports by a massive scale, with nearly 500 planes bombarding Finnish cities and airports.

2. It is an obvious and self-evident fact - not worth emphasizing in Wikipedia -, that the following Soviet retreat "was not done voluntarily". Naturally, the Finns had to force away the attacking enemy. This rather pointless "needless-to-say" information would again only make the segment unnecessarily longer."

3. It is pointless and false to try claiming in Wikipedia, that "the Soviet army was not ready to conduct offensive operations at that time":

Clearly, the Soviet army was ready to conduct offensive operations at that time. This is why it attacked against Finnish targets with nearly 500 airplanes on June 25, 1941.

The soviets had only recently, on November 12-13, 1940, specifically indicated in Berlin, that they were keen in taking to a conclusion the conquering of Finland, which they had not yet been able to accomplish, despite of the fact that on August 23, 1939 in Moscow an agreement was signed with Germany, allowing the Soviets a free access to the conquering of Finland.

The same agreement had also offered the Soviets a free access (with no German interference) for conquering the Baltic Countries and half of Poland. Those projects were already clearly and fully accomplished by this point. Only the Finnish resistance had so far been an obstacle for the entire puzzle to be completed.

In 1941, the massive and seemingly endless American all-out support began flowing to USSR. At early stage, the Soviets were well aware of the meaning of this bottomless goldmine", which gave the Soviet breathing room, as they were planning to take into conclusion any unfinished business - in particular: military projects planned and scheduled, but overdue, not yet finished.

The Finns were first on the line in this category, as the Soviets had - embarrassingly -failed in their take over-attempt of Finland the year before.

The upcoming enormous US support in the near foreseeable future was just one of several key factures giving the Soviet leaders now an extra boost of battling energy. The very recent annexations of the Baltic nations under the Soviet control had led Josef Stalin to want to "hammer some sense to the Finnish sculls", as well.

The US help now expected on loading ducks and storage facilities in USSR would not only include money, food, clothing or small arms. From October 1941 to August 1945 it also included - among other things:

Hundreds of thousands of trucks (of the 1943 US production alone, 409 526 military trucks were packed for shipments to USSR), 51 503 Jeep military automobiles, 35 170 motorcycles, 14 795 airplanes (+ 7 410 from GB), 8 075 tractors, 7 053 tanks (+ 7 410 from GB), 1 900 steam (train) engines, 66 diesel (train) engines, 11 040 train wagons for material transports, 185 000 field phones, etc., etc.--213.216.199.6 06:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

First, it wasn't the army, which conducted the air offensive of June 25, 1941, but Soviet air force. It was in the doctrine of the Soviet army to take the fight to the enemy soil even in defensive situations, like it was a doctrine in every European army of that time. But army wasn't able to fulfill its part on the plan. At June 25 they were on the defensive positions, and the mobilization transports have just started en masse, although some units were reinforced already during the months before to the war readiness, they were needed to secure the border before the mobilized units were able to reach the area. Soviets were able to concentrate 3 armored and 3 motorized divisions to the area before the catastrophic situation on the German front prevented additional transports and forced the withdrawal of most of the concentrated offensive power. Sources: MPKK: "Jatkosodan historia 1-3(6)", Jokipii: "Jatkosodan synty", Platonov: "Bitva za Leningrad" --Whiskey 11:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't an army, but it was the Red Army. 213.216.199.6 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Even the link you provided, Red Army, directs to the army branch, not to the common name for all branches of the armed forces. --Whiskey 00:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Included to the next chapter) --Whiskey 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ever since the initial Soviet attack in the beginning of the war on June 25, 1941, and the following retreat, the Red Army had not been able to cross the 1940 Finnish-Soviet border, except for a short-lived moment in the final Battle of Ilomantsi in 1944, where it suffered a loss, after two of its divisions were decimated and shattered by the Finns. 213.216.199.6 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with that. Save the suggestion above by 213.216.199.6. Ahven is a fish 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The text tells just the reality, and it must be saved -- Masa62 10:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 5

A narrow^{[citation needed]} but massive Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus had been stopped in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala^{[citation needed]}. On other areas, Finns were on the Soviet soil. Of the territory eventually ceded to USSR, the Red Army had won only a fraction in battles^{[citation needed]}, by fighting^{[citation needed]}. In this respect - from military point of view - Finland clearly had come out a winner on the final battle stages.^{[citation needed]}^{[unbalanced opinion?]}

Where did you get the idea that the Soviet spearhead was narrow? Before T-I Soviets had pressed on through three routes: along the coast, along the main railroad and along the River Vuoksi (after they reached Lake Suvanto). Coastal and rail routes converged to Viipuri, and from there the attack continued northwards to T-I. But it wasn't the only pressure point Soviet created, as they tried to cross both Bay of Viipuri and Vuosalmi, leading to the following battles. Being on the enemy soil, which is then ceded is a contradiction. It is a lie to claim that Soviets had won only a fraction of battles. The last sentence has grain of truth in it, but when shrouded with overwords ("clearly") and when its scope is not properly defined (What were the final battle stages?) its meaning moves to the clearly POV position which cannot be supported. The whole paragraph should be removed. --Whiskey 09:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The assessment above provides yet another misrepresentation by the user Whiskey, as no one - to my knowledge - has claimed "that Soviets had won only a fraction of battles".

Where - and who - has claimed such a thing? Please, let us avoid setting false words and terms to the mouths of other Wikipedia users. Thank you.

The fact is, of course, that - famously - the Finns won a series of final and determining defensive victories, to mark the war's end, during the mid and late summer of 1944.

From the abandonment of the City of Viipuri on June 20, 1944, onwards, the Soviet efforts did not lead to much success for the Red Army on the Finnish fronts, although attacks and counterattacks were produced by both parties of the war (and by the Germans as well).

A Red Army general's statement below describes the situation from June 20, 1944 onwards, from the Soviet perspective, as follows (the statement is a quote from the praised Russian book, Bitva za Leningrad 1941-1944 - "The Battle of Leningrad" -, edited by Lieutenant General S.P. Platonov:

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

The Soviet concentration of forces on this Finnish front was massive, by all standards. The formation of the main bulk of the Soviet forces in the area can be described as a spearhead, for several reasons:

The entire Karelian Isthmus between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga stands as a relatively narrow area for conducting massive military operations.

As the Red Army needed to be able to move large numbers of troops and war material, such as cannons, ammunition, trucks, tanks, etc., the landscape, waterways and available road systems dictated considerable further limitations for the offensive.

Due to these type of factures, the Soviets had to adjust the central concentration of their main offensive to the narrow lake isthmuses between Viipuri and Kuparsaari, on the areas of Tali and Ihantala.

As the user Whiskey quite correctly points out, the Soviets "tried to cross both Bay of Viipuri and Vuosalmi". These offensive fronts were substantial in scale as well, and they were designed to support and enable the advancement of the larger, central spearhead through the Karelian Isthmus towards the heart of Finland, and to spread the war front - the spearhead - wider as well.

However, these efforts did not lead to much success, as in both battles the Red Army's advancement was prevented.

As the offensive of the main spearhead became stopped also, in the so called Battle of Tali-Ihantala, the Soviets now lost the momentum on the Karelian Isthmus, and the entire motion of the Soviet offensive largely fell apart at the same time.

Accordingly, it was at this point - not before -, that the Red Army began moving its troops - including the remnants of its elite divisions shattered in the above battles - away from Finland, to be joined with the Red Army troops advancing towards Berlin.

The Battle of Tali-Ihantala can be seen to largely have determined the final outcome of the entire Continuation War.

After continued Finnish defensive success, the final major battle of the Continuation War was fought in the Battle of Ilomantsi, from July 26 to August 13, 1944, where the Red Army attempted to get its over-all offensive back on track, going again, for the very last time. However, the battle ended to a decisive Finnish victory.--213.216.199.6 12:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the sentence. Anyway, the whole structure is confusing. First you state that Finns were deeply in Soviet soil. If areas ceded to USSR in Winter War were not Finnish, then how could Finns cede them? If Finns could cede them, shouldn't then also East Karelia, from where Finns had retreated from, be counted and then the fraction isn't any longer small. The information about Tali-Ihantala is valuable and should be presented in an article of the battle, and some kind of shortened version in 1944 section of this article, but not in the assessment.--Whiskey 14:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, much depends of what areas are looked at. Areas ceded in Winter War were Finnish. Soviet areas retreated from in the end of Continuation War were Soviet.

When it came to the Soviets penetrating into Finnish areas, that had to be stopped, and was. To mark the ending of the Continuation War, Finnish army backed up from positions which it had been holding, as the guns were silenced in the end of Continuation War. Much of the area ceded to USSR had not been lost in battles. In determining the successes of the armed forces, this is important to evaluate.

213.216.199.6 18:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong about that sentence. I provides a valid, important and useful point. Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The area you claim were ceded to USSR at the end of the Continuation War was in fact legally ceded already at the end of the Winter War. The annexation of those areas by Finland in the beginning of the Continuation War wasn't approved by Soviet government, so legally they were still Soviet areas. And Finnish forces had to cede a lot of Soviet land to Soviet offensive before it was stalled at the end. --Whiskey 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

Finns were able to stop Soviet offensive well before the border of 1940, approximately to the same positions were the frontline was at the end of the Winter War. The only place where Soviets reached Finnish border was in Ilomantsi, and even there they were beaten back in the following battle. --Whiskey 00:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the sentence just as it is. Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you tell the truth and everything here earns to be respected -- Masa62 10:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 6

However, if Finland was to be portrayed as an ally of Germany, it would be fair to view Finland to at least have been on the losing side of the World War.

This is a strange one. Didn't Finland receive crucial material help from Germany? Weren't German forces stationed along the Finnish borders? Didn't the German bombers make a stop on Finnish airfields after bombing Leningrad? No formal treaty was signed, of course, but there was surely no need to "portray" Finland as a German ally - it really was one, de facto. --Illythr 07:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. This refers to the opposing view, which is only appropriate to bring up, as the point of the text is to analyze and compare the different interpretations.

However, accepting assistance does not make Finland an ally of Germany. There was no allied treaty between the countries.

Hitler's and Mannerheim's objectives, as well as main targets of operations, were totally different.

Finland was concentrating solely for the protection of its sovereignty, borders and independence, against an attacking enemy, a totalitarian super power or sorts, whose goal was defined in the M-R agreement between Stalin and Hitler.

USA assisted the Soviet Union with food, medicine, loans, etc. during the Cold War. That is similarly strange, perhaps, but similarly true. Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Military aid? Nah. Ever seen US soldiers manning Soviet military installations, say, during the Caribbean Crisis? In fact, it could be argued that providing Finnish airfields to German bombers was an act of war agains the Soviet Union in itself. --Illythr 15:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

For instance, the Swedes allowed the Germans to use their area. An independent nation can do that. Would you call Sweden an ally of Germany? The fact that the Germans used Swedish areas, couldn't and didn't give the right for the Soviet Union to attack against Sweden.

When USSR began aggressions against Finland in 1939, it lost its membership in the League of Nations. Each nation was, and is now, protected by international laws. Finland had not authorized Germans to launch direct attacks against USSR from the area of Finland.

USSR continued its war against Finland on June 25, 1941. That was unacceptable by all standards. In just about any normal circumstances, but particularly under the tough circumstances during the interim period (1940 - June, 1941) in Finland, the nation rightfully prepared to protect itself.

The lives of thousands of soldiers had been lost unnecessarily just shortly before, when Finland had not prepared itself well enough against approaching Soviet attack.

During the interim period the Soviet Union continuously violated Finland's rights, with numerous border violations, etc. (see prior explanations). It would have been a crime against humanity, if under these circumstances Finland would not have prepared itself.

Were there ever American military personnel in USSR during WW2: Yes. Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Finland allowed to use its airfields for such attacks, among other things. That is provocation enough. Germans didn't use Swedish areas to attack the Soviet Union (although allowing the transit of German troops to Finland in summer 1941 did allow many to question Sweden's neutrality).

Was the Caribbean Crisis a part of WW2: No. Please, do try to read my posts more carefully. --Illythr 11:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Finland did approve German use of its airfields, but the Soviets started the aggressions between the two nations - and not the visa versa -, i.e. the war, and the continuation of the war as well.

That is the important part. Even you have a right to defend yourself, when someone attacks you in the park. The Soviets attacked against Finnish targets on Finnish area already on June 22, 1941 (even the current Wikipedia article tells about that part / more details can be added). After the massive air attack launched on June 25, 1941, the nations were in full war. 213.216.199.6 08:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Winter war yes - unquestionably. The Continuation war, however, not so sure. To use your metaphor: several guys approach me in the park. One of them gives some brass knuckles to another, then that other guy attacks me. This dead sure looks like hostile intent to me... --Illythr 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the text just as it is (pls, see reasoning above) Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Par 7

Yet again - from Finland's perspective -, as the Finnish leaders have consistently reminded the world; forced to do so^{[citation needed]}, the Finns had accepted help from Germany, but they by no means took the relationship much further that that^{[citation needed]}. There was no official pact signed between the two nations^{[citation needed]}, and although there was a common enemy, the objectives were very different.

Finnish leaders were not "forced" to do anything. Of all available options they chose what they thought would be the best option to the state and its people. "Much further" is veeery obscure term, better to ditch whole sentence. Although there wasn't a military alliance treaty, there were numerous other treaties, mainly on economy. The last two sentences suit for me.

There was no other option. This is why no one can even suggest an alternative option. Finnish leaders were forced to choose this road, to save Finland. Ahven is a fish 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what they thought. The other options were refrain from requesting and accepting German military aid and/or become an SSR (much worse than what happened, but realistic options nevertheless). --Illythr 15:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is reasonable to suggest that in both of you alternative options, Finland would have become a SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic), just like the neighboring Baltic Countries became. They too were victims of the illegal Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement between Stalin and Hitler, under the auspices of which Josef Stalin annexed those previously independent nations into USSR.

Please, accept a more detailed answer to you under an independent headline below, explaining why this option would have been same as accepting a genocide of the Finnish people (compare what happened in the Baltic Countries, e.g. to hundreds of thousands of Estonians, even though the Estonians had not resisted the Soviet occupiers with the same determination than the Finns had in the Winter War. What do you think would have happened to the resisting Finns?). Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide sources to your claims instead of trying to move discussion elsewhere. Finland was not "forced" to accept help from Germany (Source f.ex. Risto Ryti's diaries). Finland signed and ratified numerous economical treaties with Germany and Finland also signed and ratified Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany. Could you please provide sources for counterclaims? --Whiskey 01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the sentence intact! Ahven is a fish 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Par 8

Finland wanted to live, and to protect her sovereignty, and in order to do so it had to accept help from anywhere available, as by 1940 it was evident that the Soviet Union was not about to honor the promises set forth in the end of the Winter War. Finland was rapidly losing all control of her internal matters^{[citation needed]}. What the Soviet Union had not been able to gain in the battle arena of the Winter War, it was now grapping during the interim peace period.^{[unbalanced opinion?]}

Factual content is almost right. Finland not only accepted, but also sought help actively. Also the wording of later sentences is far from neutral. Also the content is more suitable to Interim peace of this article and should be removed here.--Whiskey 11:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you'd leave out this essential part of the text, then the text indeed would fall apart. This must stay. Otherwise the puzzle is not complete. This explains, why Finland had to prepare itself quickly. Ahven is a fish 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Factual content is right. If one wishes to exchange the term "grapping" - for instance - with something else, what could the term be? This was a time of extreme aggressions in human history, on national and international level. An aggressive behavior during WW2 cannot easily and/or meaningfully be described by the same terms that are used in women's figure scating tournament, not necessarily anyway.

213.216.199.6 08:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This one looks the worst so far. Only the facts should be presented not interpretations and excuses so the reader can make up his/hers own mind --Mtjs0 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep this text. Ahven is a fish 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove. --Mtjs0 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 9

By this time the Soviet Union had committed numerous border violations^{[citation needed]}, it had controlled the Finnish elections^{[citation needed]}, it had taken control of some vitally important Southern Finnish railroads^{[citation needed]}, and its army was building up forces on the Finnish border^{[citation needed]}, etc.^{[unbalanced opinion?]}

This needs to be expanded and sourced, I think. --Illythr 07:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, for the first is misleading in scope, as there were only few. The second one is exaggerating as it has only "vetoed" number of candidates from presidential election and demanded exclusion of three ministers from government (Väinö Tanner had to leave). Third one is fantasy and is not supported any research of the issue and the last one is only valid for last months before the war, but it was part of the general build-up of the Soviet forces and was done everywhere in the realm. Paragraph should be removed as being factually incorrect.--Whiskey 08:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Only few" is incorrect, as there were numerous border violations during the interim period (e.g. Professor Jouko Vahtola has touched this and related issues in his recent works).

Yes, the Soviet demands about access to a part of Southern Finnish railroad system raised to be just one of many concerns among the Finnish leadership. There were a whole many other similar reasons for Finns to worry. These are all things that rapidly were eating away pieces off the Finnish sovereignty, pushing Finns to look for help for the nation's protection. Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Illythr, that this can be expanded, and of course it is agreeable, that further sources can be presented. I, for one, will gladly include appropriate sources, as soon as the text becomes editable again. Ahven is a fish 14:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been expanded, and could be further expanded in the appropriate place, in the Interim Peace article. For sources for railroads, take f.ex. Jokipii, "Jatkosodan synty" or Turtola, "Risto Ryti - Elämä isänmaan puolesta". Could you please tell your sources, as you are supporting a not truthful text according the sources I gave. --Whiskey 00:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Zetterberg, Tiitta, Vahtola, Ylikangas, etc. Each part of the text can be referenced. I suggest that if any part of the provided text is challenged, an exact book and page information must be provided, full with exact direct quote for all to see here on the talk page, so that we will know, where precisely we might need to prove you wrong. A list of books thrown to us will not prove anything, as we do not see or believe any of those people disagreeing about the facts already offered. Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you then please reference each text part? So far you have only provided names, and knowing how productive f.ex. Ylikangas has been, it is impossible to check what claims you base on which one and on which text of them. Could you at the very least provide a source to your railroad claim? --Whiskey 01:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No not take anything out. Perhaps even expand a bit, as Illythr suggests. Ahven is a fish 14:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Par 10

All the access from Finland to the rest of the world had become sealed by either the Soviets or the Germans, who at this stage had taken control of the Baltic nations and Norway and Denmark. Thus, even in theory, Germany now was the only place from where Finland could receive help for her protection^{[citation needed]}. Pressed between a rock and a hard place, Finland saw that she had no choice but to go for the minimum amount of cooperation necessary for her protection^{[citation needed]}. Nevertheless, a bulk of Hitler's key demands^{[citation needed]} Finland refused to honor^{[citation needed]}:

Paragraph contains information better suited to Interim Peace article (or section in this article). In theory, there was also Sweden. And Hitler didn't present any demands to Finland. As this untrue statement is the heart of the paragraph, the information content which is left is almost nonexistent, and the paragraph should be removed. --Whiskey 08:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For instance: War historian, Eino Tirronen, among numerous Finnish historians talks about various German demands:

"Despite of "German demands" Mannerheim later gave up the Sorokka attack", due to the diplomatic reasons relating to the superpowers …

"Suurpoliittisista syistä ylipäällikkö luopui myöhemmin Sorokan hyökkäyksestä saksalaisten vaatimuksista huolimatta." --> Uses the term "German demands" !

"Finland's military leadership stopped the offense on the Karelian Isthmus in the beginning of September, 1941, by the border of the old Finnish border, and the military operation were not continued to encircle Leningrad, even though the Germans demanded it."

"Suomen sodanjohto pysäytti hyökkäyksen Kannaksella syyskuun 1941 alussa vanhan rajan tuntumaan eikä sotatoimia jatkettu Leningradin piirittämiseksi, vaikka saksalaiset sitä vaativat.

--> Here too here eplains what the Germans demanded, and so on ...

http://www.turunsanomat.fi/itsenaisyyspaiva/?ts=1,3:2008:0:0,4:53:2:1:2002-12-05;4:52:0:0:0,104:53:133061,1:0:0:0:0:0: Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The presenting of the information in this paragraph is very important in this context. This explains why Germany was Finland's only option. Sure, Hitler demanded things in exchange for assistance. One of the demands was, that the Germans must be allowed to use the Finnish territories in agreeable manner.

In terms of Hitler's "demands", the Germans had to settle in what ever they were able to achieve, also visa versa.

Nevertheless, the same could be, of course, said in slightly different words. Why bother though? If anything, perhaps the word "demands" could be changed to "hopes", if that would make anyone happier. Nothing else should be tampered with, if even that. Ahven is a fish 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You are creating an interesting definition to verb "demand". And could you please be more careful what you mean, so no unintentional or nonfactual hints were given in the text. It would be very useful if you could provide a list of "key demands Finland refused to honor". Or even a partial list. Unfortunately I have to clarify myself: There was no demands from Germany before the Continuation War, and during the war there was only one: Finland shouldn't make peace with USSR without German approval. All the rest were discussed in negotiations, and for some proposals Finns agreed and to the other they didn't agree, and that's that. --Whiskey 00:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It goes without saying, that the help for Finland didn't come totally free. Naturally, there were demands for certain favors and cooperation in exchange. The militaristic reality we are discussing offers not a whole lot of space to play with, when it comes to the available terminology correctly to describe the "demands" and counter-demands in question.

For instance, can we refer to only German "hinting" of cooperation, or "suggesting" - perhaps -, "requesting", "begging", "mentioning", "hoping", or something of that sort? In the above message, considering possible alternative wordings was already agreed upon.

The use of Finnish areas, for instance, was high on German list. Simple "maybe" answer from the Finns certainly was not sufficient. Finns had to bend to a certain degree of cooperation with the Germans, of course, in order to receive the kind of assistance/cooperation which the Finns we after. We need either this or that. You scratch my back, I scratch yours, as the saying goes.

Finns had to play a certain game - to a certain degree -, to please the Germans, of course. Mannerheim, for instance, is known to have been quite irritated about even the smallest "mandatory" dance steps that the Finns had to participate in with Adolf Hitler. Hitler, on the other hand, was eager to lead the Finns to an entire Wiener Walze, if possible. Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Eino Tirronen may see them as demands, but f.ex. Risto Ryti in his diaries never refer those negotiations as demands. (He although mentions that Germans "demanded" Finns to close Polish embassy...) Also, by stating that Finland "refused to honor" indicates that Finns had promised to do something but then decided to do otherwise. The only such instance was Ryti-Ribbentrop agreement. Or could you source others? --Whiskey 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Again just state the facts of events and leave the rest for the readers --Mtjs0 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing ought to be touched in this paragraph either. Ahven is a fish 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove. --Mtjs0 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 11

Besides refusing to hand out her Jews to the Nazis (except for eight deported refuge seekers), the Finns refused to join Germany's - nearly successful - attack against Leningrad, the lose of which could have been detrimental to USSR in several ways, not least from the moral stand point of view. The Finns also held back from interrupting the American^{[citation needed]} "lifeline" of help to the defenders of Leningrad, over the Lake Ladoga^{[citation needed]}. Furthermore, the Finns categorically refused to cut the Murmansk railroad^{[citation needed]} near its border, along which the crucially important and massive American help was transported to the Soviet Army^{[citation needed]}, and Finland also held her forces from advancing any further east than the River Svir (Syväri)^{[citation needed]}.^{[unbalanced opinion?]}

This is factual information. It is critically important to point out these facts in this context. This explains the information given in the paragraph ahead of this one (Par 10). Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This conveniently forgets about prisoner of war exchange of 2800 Soviets (including couple of Jews) to 2100 Fennic POWs, the lifeline was attacked by Italian/German naval detachment operating from Finnish bases, the lifeline wasn't American. The Murnmansk/Archangel was only the third when counting the most important lend-lease route. Due to logistics problems, Finns never planned operating farther than River Svir. Source: Jokipii, "Jatkosodan synty". I like to know your sources? --Whiskey 00:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How much do you want to expand this text? I thought you first wanted to cut it shorter. It is generally referred to as "lifeline" - elamanlanka - which brought critically important help for the defenders of Leningrad. During the Leningran encirclement nearly half of the Lenbingrad population died.

The goods - the help - was mainly goods from America. According to some sources, it was practically all help from America. If you wish, this part can be said also a little differently. However, the text aims to be short, avoiding using a whole lot of words for something that can be said in few words.

Nevertheless, when the page opens up for editing again we'll try altering these words a tiny bit, so that even you will like it.

The following offers you just a couple of examples by the war historian Eino Tirronen, supporting the very statements made in the contested text, about the Finns refusing to go far, despite of the "demands" of the . These points by Tirrinen are widely accepted by historians and researchers familiar with the topic, worldwide:

"III AK pääsi pisimmälle noin 30 kilometriä Muurmanskin radasta Louhen kylään, jonne Mannerheim pysäytti hyökkäyksen USA:n nootin johdosta. Tästä syyn sai kenraalimajuri Hjalmar Siilasvuo,jota saksalaiset epäilivät yhteistyöstä vihollisen kanssa."

Due to a note from USA, Mannerheim stopped the offensive 30 kilometers from the Murmansk railroad. The Germans were suspecting/accusing the Finnish Major General Hjalmar Siilasvuo of cooperating with Germany's enemy.

"Despite of "German demands" Mannerheim later gave up the Sorokka attack", due to the diplomatic reasons relating to the superpowers …

"Suurpoliittisista syistä ylipäällikkö luopui myöhemmin Sorokan hyökkäyksestä saksalaisten vaatimuksista huolimatta." --> Note: Uses the term "German demands" !

"Finland's military leadership stopped the offense on the Karelian Isthmus in the beginning of September, 1941, by the border of the old Finnish border, and the military operation were not continued to encircle Leningrad, even though the Germans demanded it."

"Suomen sodanjohto pysäytti hyökkäyksen Kannaksella syyskuun 1941 alussa vanhan rajan tuntumaan eikä sotatoimia jatkettu Leningradin piirittämiseksi, vaikka saksalaiset sitä vaativat.

--> Note: Here too here eplains what the Germans "demanded", and so on ...

http://www.turunsanomat.fi/itsenaisyyspaiva/?ts=1,3:2008:0:0,4:53:2:1:2002-12-05;4:52:0:0:0,104:53:133061,1:0:0:0:0:0: Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, realize that this particular chapter in the Continuation War article is not meant to handle "prisoner of war exchange" issues (not in depth anyway), or matters of that sort.

The point of the segment in question is to tackle some key issues of the war, and to make some broad over-all conclusions of the main causes, reasons and results of the war - in short -, and not to deal with such other details or points of the war, which could hide and/or confuse the important tools offered in this segment for the better understanding and realization of what took place, and why, and how, and what came out of the entire ordeal. 213.216.199.6 09:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's one big difference between a good research and a bad one: the good one will try to tackle any detail that appears to contradict the main theory to the point of dropping the theory altogether. The bad research will simply ignore the detail and move on to greater glory. --Illythr 09:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the information unchanged. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

remove --Mtjs0 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 12

These all were among the attempts on Finland's behalf to make the Soviet counterparts - and the rest of the world - to realize that Finland sincerely was only fighting for her survival^{[citation needed]}, against Josef Stalin's continued attempt to conquer Finland, for which the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov had sought for Adolf Hitler's final approval - on his visit to Berlin on November 12 -13, 1940 -, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939.^{[unbalanced opinion?]}

Again, this is one of the several key facts, which all in unison prove this article extremely necessary to be presented in this very place in Wikipedia. This information is a must. Together with the rest of the information given, this makes the reasoning full and complete, for everyone to be able to understand it.

Naturally, somewhere else much more can be written about these matters. Here, the key fact should be presented just like this, in a short format. Listing sources of course is important. I, for one, gladly volunteer to help with that part. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

These are expanded in Interim Peace article. The validity of M-R Pact and Molotov's visit to Berlin are important in Interim Peace article, as they are part of the picture how Finland turned to Nazi Germany for help. But here, if you point to the treaty and diplomatic discussions warring parties has had before the war, you are only confusing the readers and making your statements suspicious.--Whiskey 00:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey, it is important to shortly refer to these key facts. Otherwise, the entire point of the text indeed would fall apart. Thanky you for understanding. The text is very much to the point. Yet, one thing we can try to do, is clean it up just a tiny bit. Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The text falls apart just because of these sentences. That is why they shouldn't be here, as they only confuse readers and makes the text suspicious in an accidental readers eyes.--Whiskey 01:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (Keep the text as it is currenrtly)

The text must be kept as it stands now (more reasoning above). Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

remove. --Mtjs0 06:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 13

Thus, as Finland's current President Tarja Halonen recently once again reminded the world in a speech in Paris, the Continuation War was a separate war from the World War Two, with a separate armistice in 1944^{[unbalanced opinion?]}, independent from the German armistice and trials of WW2 later. Whereas many of the Italian^{[citation needed]} and German key figures were executed, Field Marshal Mannerheim had advanced to become the President of Finland on August 4, 1944, continuing in the job until March 4, 1946.^{[unbalanced opinion?]}

The second sentence has been discussed here and other places, and the concensus has been that the Continuation War cannot be said to be separate from World War II, the separatedness is only seen in Finland, and even here most consider both Winter War and Continuation War being part of the World War II. (Which naturally creates some trouble from Soviet POV, as they were considered axis allied in the Winter War. I assume that is the reason why the Winter War is considered only contemporary war in Wikipedia.) The third sentence doesn't make sense, as Italy, Romania and Bulgaria also made separate armstices, so that isn't so special. The fate of military and civilian leaders has nothing to do with the separatedness of Continuation War. The military leadership generally managed to hold on and were not even prosecuted f.ex. in Italy or Bulgaria.--Whiskey 08:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply not true. There is no such consensus. In contrary: There may not a single member in the Finnish parliament, for instance, who would agree with you in this.

Even the current President of Finland, Tarja Halonen, only quite recently again reminded in Paris about the fact that the Continuation War, of course, was a Separate War from WW2.

If someone, your friend for instance, claims here to side with you, that alone does not provide appropriate enough reason for something to be presented in Wikipedia article as a fact.

Besides Illythr (hopefully that is not you), not a single other user has brought any war-related counterclaims or facts, in attempt to show anything incorrect in the text in question.

Illythr's reasoning strangely very closely matches your previously introduced reasoning (in your comment) for presenting something as fact (the following is a quote from Illyhr):

... Something need not be true to be accepted as true. It only needs to stick around long enough. --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The above kind of reasoning is precisely what us sincere and honest contributors are trying to avoid and change. Thus, the above false and unacceptable technique in fact is exactly what is being corrected in the contested text as well: i.e., Presenting lies as fact.

What comes to the points presented by you, your arguments have not provided any valid reason for not keeping the text in question in its current place.

The type of arguments from you, user Whiskey, which are represented by your statement above, do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reasoning of inclusion of any information into Wikipedia's articles.

It does not hurt the main point of the text in question, that Finland's separate armistice (1944) is mentioned. In contrary: That coincides, fulfills and appropriately adds an important related fact to the information offered.

213.216.199.6 18:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is Whiskey so concerned about the Soviet point of view at this point ("creates some trouble from Soviet POV"), when the Soviet Union no longer exists, and despite of the fact that today it is widely accepted (including in Russia) that in USSR the Soviet period media, news and history interpreting (to a very large extend) was based in lies and propaganda. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Does not relate to this article --Mtjs0 06:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Save the information. This piece is an important part of the conclusion as a whole. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove. --Mtjs0 06:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 14

In his memoirs, the Field Marshal Mannerheim emphasizes, how Finland - importantly - had prepared for a defense - rather than offense -, coming up to the Soviet attack of June 25, 1941. Thus, rearranging the troops to offensive formations to the level of the city of Viipuri took all of three weeks to accomplish, and another three weeks had to be spent to spread the offensive to the north side of the Lake Ladoga.^{[citation needed]}^{[unbalanced opinion?]}

You are clearly mixing things here, as Finnish offensive started north of Lake Ladoga and only a month later forces around Viipuri were commenced. Also the memoirs of generals and politicians tend to present things in more positive light than impartial assessment would do. And the correct place for this would be in 1941 section. --Whiskey 03:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

... had had to be spend. - - The wording can be clarified, so that no room is left for misunderstanding (even if the order is sort of besides the point). So, when the article is not locked, we'll clarify that.

213.216.199.6 18:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The direct quote from Mannerheim's memoirs can be included here. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Save the text as it is. This must be saved (including a direct quote from Finland's Marshal Mannerheim is supported by me, as the importantly related quotes by the other key leaders are presented in this part as well.) Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Save the text as it is. --Mtjs0 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 15

Although the Soviet history writing of the Cold War period had appeared to have all but forgotten the Winter War, since the break up of the Soviet Union the new Russian leaders - beginning from Boris Yeltsin - have publicly admitted to the Soviet Union having started not only the Winter War but the Continuation War as well^{[citation needed]}. This has encouraged a new choir of voices to join those no longer chanting the mantras of the Gold War period about a Finnish defeat:^{[citation needed]}^{[unbalanced opinion?]}

Yeltsin admitted USSR starting the Winter War. Do you have any source that he also admitted USSR starting the Continuation War? And how about current leadership? Any sources? The last sentence is worst kind of pathos and should be removed. --Whiskey 03:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no --> He admitted USSR having started the Continuation war. Also, the existence of the M-R pact became admitted by the Russians, as the Cold War ended. These are part of the reasons why for instance the Baltic Coutries are free and independent again.

This is the very reason why this information must be presented in Wikipedia. Just because you may not be very familiar with some of the most important parst, the very most important facts, does not mean, that these important facts should not be presented in Wikipedia. Of course, the relevant source information must included. Thus, more sources and reference information will be added. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, quote Yeltsin admitting that USSR had started the Continuation war. The entire paragraph is factually incorrect, but the last sentence is the crown of it all, being unencyclopedic in addition to being a false conclusion based on a false premise. --Illythr 12:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

An appropriate source will be included for that point of the words of regret and admitting. This is just one among several similar type and related things admitted to and apologized about by the leaders of Russia, after the break up of the Soviet Union, which coincided with the rapid democratization of the Eastern European nations.

In Finland, many now view that point to have been a lost opportunity - perhaps - for Finland to have demanded and received back the areas ceded to USSR in the conclusion of the Continuation War.

Others disagree. Many Finns think that Finland - especially quite a few of its political leaders - were simply too much under the spell of Finlandization still at the time, to have acted most beneficially for Finland's best. 213.216.199.6 10:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please present a source for the claim that Yeltsin (or Putin) had admitted USSR starting the Continuation War? --Whiskey 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Save the text as it is. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Save the text as it is. --Mtjs0 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 16

In his last interview, on December 17, 2003, the Finnish General Adolf Ehrnrooth followed the suite:

"I, having participated in both the Winter War and the Continuation War, could stress: I know well, how the wars ended on the battle fields. Particularly the Continuation War ended to a defensive victory, in the most important meaning of the word."

In general, I don't like adding quotes from politicians and generals to the article, unless they are given before or at the time when something happens. Those quotes tell more about the person who says it and the time and situation when and where he says that. Adding these here opens the pandoran box when everybody wants to add their favorite quotes. Also it opens the way to add propagandistic quotations which only make the article hard to read and understand. I quess it is self evident, that Finnish and Soviet politicians view the war and the result differently, and it is clearly shown in quotes. Better to leave quotations out, especially those which handle politics, and stay with the facts verified by academic research.--Whiskey 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the Russian and Finnish leaders do not think differently about these presented key parts (although there are unfortunate signs in the air, that President Putin has been taking Russia back to some of the notoriously unacceptable Soviet ways, including limiting the freedom of speach, and the free media).

These are facts, and related statements, to show how the two sides, including the nations' most important leaders, agree about the presented key points having to do with the Continuation War, its reasons and results.

This is the reason why in this context the showing of the exact quotes of the top leaders and military commanders is very important as well. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant, this should be about what happened around and during the war --Mtjs0 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Save the text as it is. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove --Mtjs0 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 17

In his memoirs, Josef Stalin's predecessor Nikita Khrushchev points out how the Soviet Union categorically lied about the results and casualties of the battles on the Finnish front^{[citation needed]}. In the praised Russian book "Bitva za Leningrad 1941-1944" ("The Battle of Leningrad") edited by Lieutenant General S.P. Platonov, it is stated:^{[unbalanced opinion?]}

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

Did Khrushchev really meant Continuation War? It was generally accepted he was very critical about the casualty numbers of the Winter War, but later research has discredited his claim of "million casualties" as an exaggeration. The latter quote is taken out of the context, and should be applied only to Leningrad front and its operations, not the whole war. --Whiskey 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Platonov's statement refers to the final key battles. This was the key front. The Battle of Tali-Ihantala and the time-line presented in Platonov's statement are the facts showing yet in one more important way, that the actual battles on the field ended to Finnish victories. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Save the text as it is. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove. Same reason as Par 16 --Mtjs0 06:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 18

The President of Finland Mauno Koivisto spoke at a seminar held in August, 1994, in the North Karelian city of Joensuu, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Finnish victory in the crucial Battle of Ilomantsi. The future President of Finland witnessed this battle as a soldier in a reconnaissance company commanded by the legendary Finnish war hero and a Knight of the Mannerheim Cross, Captain Lauri Törni (who later became a legend also in USA as a Green Beret under the name Larry Thorne, raised to the rank of major upon his disappearance in Laos in 1965, during the Vietnam War):^{[clarification needed]}

In the summer of 1944, when the Red Army launched an all-out offensive, aimed at eliminating Finland, the Finns were "extremely hard-pressed", President Koivisto itenerated, but they "did not capitulate".

"We succeeded in stopping the enemy cold at key points", the President said, "and in the final battle at Ilomantsi even in pushing him back."

Too much pathos (like "crucial"). Also unnecessary information about Törni. And Koivisto is politician, not historician, speaking to the Finnish veterans of the battle.--Whiskey 03:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Koivisto is Finland's (ex) President, who also happened to participate in the final major battle of the Continuation War. His statements belong to this context. Just like President Halonen, he represents a view point from Finland's political left wing, Finland's largest political party, and not some nationalistic separate group or party. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the text just as it is. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove. Irrevelant. --Mtjs0 06:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 19

In a speech held on September 4th, 1994, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the armistice, ending the Finnish-Soviet hostilities, the Prime Minister of Finland Esko Aho declared:

"I do not see a defeat in the summer's battles, but the victory of a small nation over a major power, whose forces were stopped far short of the objectives of the Soviet leadership. Finland was not beaten militarily ..."

"Finland preserved her autonomy and her democratic social system ..."

"Finland ... won the peace."

So, Esko Aho admitted that Finns lost the war but won the peace, as the saying goes. Also, you fail to mention the forum where Aho gave this speech. --Whiskey 02:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The forum (+ location and time) can be included, of course. Obviously, the text is aimed to be as short as possible.

The Prime Minister is one example among the others, showing how this is not a view of any separatist group, but a widely accepted fact. Wikipedia simply cannot present lies or a myth, but the truth, what really happened. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not leave out any of these important parts. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove. Irrevelant. --Mtjs0 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Par 20

In the 1943 Allied leaders' Tehran conference, Josef Stalin referred to the Finnish over-all war efforts as a "defensive" campaign^{[clarification needed]}. In Moscow, in 1948, Stalin reminded about his respect for the Finnish defense:

"Nobody respects a country with a bad army. Everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish army." - Josef Stalin

Tehran conference was at the end of November 1943, the last Finnish offensive operation was conducted almost daily two years ago, so the efforts were "defensive". The "defensive" here doesn't mean Stalins opinion about the Continuation War, but the passiveness of the Finnish army. The last quote has nothing to do with the outcome of the war. Many times the better but smaller army had lost wars.--Whiskey 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, his statements points out, that the nature of the war, which Finland was participating in, was defensive for Finland. In other words, he did not deny this fact, which of course it the truth. All the other facts in the text are emphasizing the same important key point.

You say the following: "Many times the better but smaller army had lost wars." Here you suddenly appear to be arguing even against the facts from the battle field now. Why this turn? You yourself were admitting for Finland having been victorious in the final battles. Aren't you contradicting your own statements?

An important part of the entire statement (the text contested by you) is that the Finnish army won the series of final battles, which set the war to its conclusion. A defensive war can only be won by a defensive victory! How else?

This is important. Stalin was the initiator of the war. Both wars against Finland (during WW2) were started by massive Soviet attacks. Why is the world would anyone at this time age try denying this fact.

Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph:

(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Stalin's final assessment belongs here (and it is also the final remark in the Finnish Wikipedia, and in much of the related literature). --> SAVE THE ENTIRE TEXT UNCHANGED (Every piece of given information is critically important.) Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the paragraph --Mtjs0 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Whiskey's suggestions

The proposed paragraphs are POV, irrelevant and/or contain shoddy scholarship. They should be removed. - Mikko H. 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

After all the debate above, I also agree with Whiskey. --Illythr 16:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if I agree with anyone, there is just too much text with italics and bold and italics and bold to read through. Why do we not just recognize User:213.216.199.6/User:Love is all we need as the permabanned user User:Art Dominique, also known as the "Kven user", and close the issue. -- Petri Krohn 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I know little of the subject matter at hand, but simply the language alone is enough to indicate that these sentences are POV. I agree with Whiskey's suggestions of removal. DarwinPeacock 10:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

When reality, the truth, turns out not to match what you had thought to be true, it can sound impolite, like yelling to your ear.

Not revealing the truth must be opposed, nevertheless. Ahven is a fish 13:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as strong disagreement exists on a subject in the outside world, that disagreeement should be represented on Wikipedia. Determining the truth of a situation lies in the realm of original research. If there is disagreement, either both points of view on it should be represented, or neither. Whiskey's edits are quite apt at this. DarwinPeacock 22:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas is too short to answer that. Perhaps two separate sites should be done. That way everyone can read the version of their choice. 213.216.199.6 21:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DarwinPeacock. Read the npov. The text is writen from Finnish point of view but should not be removed just make the language neutral. keep to the facts, there is no need to mention that Soviet Union was bad and Finland acting in what little room it had to maneuver, it will come from the facts by itself.--Mtjs0 06:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand these Whiskey's reactions

We should just keep in facts as Whiskey says. But why all the good facts should be removed as you propose. There is lots of good true information. It is a big mistake if those well prepared sentences are removed. It is against Wikipedia principles. It is not finnish people fault if the knowledge of Whiskey and Illythr is based on red biased information. I propose that those users are blocked from these pages. --User:Water-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.169.161 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 December 2006

Not removed, but put to the proper places. What we are discussing here is the final chapter of the article, kind of a political conclusions, where the proponent wants to have selected facts from the article. The problem rises from the selection and interpretation of the facts, which together form a picture which is not supported by military historians - not even in Finland, and certainly not in Russia. --Whiskey 01:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true. The ending very much coincides with the way the matter is seen in Finland, and in the circles that are very familiar with the true facts, worldwide. Since the end of the Cold War, the tide has clearly changed also among the Russian academics, who are now free to think as they want.

But can they fully speak out yet? Most people in the West probably would want to say a few strong words about that. What do you think?

Soviet Union's ex KGB agent, who became the chief of FSB (KGB:s new name), now is the President of Russia. Those who speak out against the totalitarian dictating of news and media, are treated with an iron fist. Do we need to say more? Ahven is a fish 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that was quite enlightening, thank you. Say, now do you manage to remember so many usernames, but fail to remember a single password to use it consistently? I think we can request semi-protection now. --Illythr 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User Illythr (Whiskey): Please, archive in chronological order

User Illythr / Whiskey: Today, Dec., 23, 2006, you just deleted a lot of messages from the Continuation War's talk page, the ones which you didn't like.

Yet, you left your own, much older - and radical - writings intact for the opening of the page, under the headline Introduction Query (in it you want e.g. the internationally used name of the war changed).

Please, go and revert that action now. Do archiving in chronological order (after first consulting with other users), please. Thank you for your cooperation. 213.216.199.6 20:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion to do the archiving hung on this talk page for two days. Since there was no opposition I archived all discussions I considered closed. The first section, "Introduction Query" was made by user:Jatrius, not me or Whiskey [4]. Jatrius, while rather harsh, did have a point there (that the Continuation war is considered as one only in Finland). I also left my own question about Mannerheim, because nobody answered it yet. My moral stance on removed sections is irrelevant, if you wish to continue discussing any of them, feel free to retrieve them from the archive.

Please refrain from such libelous accusations of sockpupperty towards Jatrius, Whiskey or me in the future. If you have doubts that we're all different persons, start a checkuser procedure instead. In such case, I will also expect you to submit yourself to that precedure as well, as a gesture of good will. Meanwhile, a polite apology to the three of us is in order, I believe.

It saddens me to see such twisting of facts and misrepresenting of intentions on your part. If these tactics of yours find their way into your research, there will be nothing more to discuss on that text above, I'm afraid. --Illythr 22:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the ending of the conclusion text must be saved

The ending of the Wikipedia's current Continuation War article - Contentious history views - must be saved in its place, althoug some minor alterations can be made, of course, and even the headline can be changed.

Oviously, the information provided in the segment in question was not aimed to be entirely total, complete, perfect or final by the very first shot.

However, although the formation of the sentences can be cleaned somewhat, and although minor informational additions and/or deletions can be worked out, the facts in question must be presented in unison, to provide a conclusive and easily understandable picture of the real historical events, and the related reason and results, to counter the Cold War period propaganda POV represented by the so called "official" USSR history interpretation.

This is known to be the aim of Wikipedia, as a whole - to provide the tools, the facts, for all to utililize, in an easily digestable form. The facts must not be hidden into a massive bulk of text on one page, reading and understanding of which can prove to be just too much to handle for nealry any of us.

The Finnish areas ceded to USSR in the armistice of 1944 (compared to the 1941 borders) were not conquered by USSR in battles, except for a fraction, on the Karelian Isthmus.

There, during the war, Finns had all along deliberately refrained from penetrating deeper to the Soviet side of Finland's 1939 border (except minimally). On that side of Finland's 1939 border, the Germans were fighting their own battle, the Battle of Leningrad, for approximately 900 days.

As Finns had not entered further eastbound in this area, the Soviets took the final fight on that sector to the Finnish area in the summer of 1944. There, the - relatively - narrow Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus was destroyed in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, and some of the near-by areas.

Elsewhere, ever since the beginning "moments" of the war - launched by a Soviet attack on June 25, 1941 -, the Soviets had never been able to penetrate to the Finnish side of the 1941 border.

The Red Army tried crossing that border in the very final major battle fought in the Continuation War, theBattle of Ilomantsi, but to no prevail. Two Soviet divisions were shattered there, and those Soviets troops who survived from the battle, retreated eastbound, to the Soviet side of the border.

Thus - clearly -, Finland came out a winner from the final battles of the Continuation war, what comes to the fighting with arms. Defensive battles can only be won by defensive victories. How else? This - its goal - Finland accomplished well.

An entirely different matter - all together - is, that Finland indeed agreed to cede land to its super power neighbor, to secure a lasting peace, despite of its final and conclusive defensive victories.

USSR tried to force Finland to agree to an unconditional surrender, but it was not able to accomplish that. Finland was not beaten militarily. That is one of the key points, that the ending of the Continuation War article is making - as it should.

Wikipedia needs to make this important point clearly - of course -, but particularly more so now, as the currently stated text (protected by the user Whiskey) in the conclusion segment of the Continuation War article offers the following statement, which simply does not match the widely accepted view about the matter abroad (although this view - to as large extend - was consciously included in the Cold War period propaganda represented by USSR):

"…the Continuation War can be seen as the result of a series of political miscalculations by the Finnish leadership in which Finland's martial abilities clearly outshone its diplomatic skills."

Whereas all other capitals of Europe were occupied by enemy troops (in the nations participating in fights during WW2), Helsinki and London were the only ones not. How could this explain a "series of miscalculations" by Finland - or even by England ?

Can anyone - at this time and age - seriously even try denying, that if it wasn't for the very mandatory steps Finland followed, although often quite reluctantly - for understandable reasons -, Finland too in the end would have been - most certainly - in the same boat with the rest of the bunch ? 213.216.199.6 09:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Does a lie really become a truth after a while ?

You're using that rhetoric again. Please consult the original quote. --Illythr 13:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The headline refers to the views presented by the user Illythr/Whiskey, such as in the staement below:

"Something need not be true to be accepted as true. It only needs to stick around long enough. --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)"

Loyal to this Stalinist approach, the user account Whiskey has also protected - and reverts to - the dubious remark claiming the Finnish leaders to having committed "a series of political miscalculations".

Yet - in further referral to this statement -, the user account Whiskey admits that "… totally different thing is then, does it provide the correct view." 213.216.199.6 07:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Was surrendering to USSR really a realistic option for Finland ?

The below answer deals with the above questions, raised by the comments of user Illythr. The answer is a follow up for the comments below (I've highlighted the parts, which I wich to deal with in my respond):

Next, it doesn't need to provide the correct view to be present, only the mainstream view. --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The funny (if sad) thing about Wikipedia and the world is that Whiskey is correct. Something need not be true to be accepted as true. It only needs to stick around long enough. --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"There was no other option. This is why no one can even suggest an alternative option. Finnish leaders were forced to choose this road, to save Finland. Ahven is a fish 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)"

"That's what they thought. The other options were refrain from requesting and accepting German military aid and/or become an SSR (much worse than what happened, but realistic options nevertheless). --Illythr 15:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)"

User Illythr: In the only other available option, Finland indeed would have become a SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic), just as the neighboring Baltic Countries were forced to become, and as you clearly appear to agree above.

The Baltic countries too were victims of the illegal Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Stalin and Hitler, under the auspices of which Josef Stalin annexed those previously independent nations into USSR.

In other words (please, tell me if I am not understanding you right), you appear to be suggesting, that Finland should have simply put her hands up, surrendered, and become a SSR?

If Finland would have done that, only then it would have not - based on you view - "made a series of miscalculation". Do we read you right ?

Currently that is what the Continuation War article is stating, and the user name Whiskey has protected that statement, by reverting back to it, after the sentence was modified.

Would all parties now agree, please, that the statement in question indeed needs to be modifies - including user Whiskey. You, user Whiskey, already appeared to go as far as to admit, that whether or not this is true, is a matter of its own (was that correctly enough recalled ? - should we bring up your exact statement). Thank you. 213.216.199.6 09:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Another option was to follow the example of Sweden and refrain from siding with anyone. Of course, by that time it was not know that Nazi Germany will attack the Soviet Union and thus foil SU's plans for Finland. I am stating that these were other options, not that Finland *should* have done anything differently (that would be pointless anyway). As for miscalculations: Allowing German forces to use Finnish soil for military operations was one. Mannerheim's intent of capturing East Karelia and its subsequent formal incorporation into Finland was another (underestimating Soviet strength). I am sure that user:Whiskey can provide more. --Illythr 10:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That sort of propaganda did not come even from Soviet Union. Please use Google and the library. Then you will be able to learn that there was no such a thing as "Mannerheim's intend of capturing East Karelia".

Please, can you stop using yourself as a source. Give us a detailed information from even a Soviet book, that discusses such "intend", with an exact quote (+ detailed book and page info, which is easily verifiable). Thanks for dropping the propaganda, in other words. Please, repeating a lie for long enough does not make the lie a truth. So they thought (to use yuor expressionism).

Like this one? [5], or the article Sword Scabbard Declaration itself?

That only worked in USSR, as the people there had always been suppressed under iron fist, as far back in history as can be told. Don't you agree. Is it for this reason, that you can't come to grips with the fact that Finns were saved. Is it jealousy, or what? Isn't it time for love, in place of jealousy and hate?

Having been prepared for a defense, it took Finland weeks to organize the troops and equipment for offensive formations, after the initial Soviet attack on June 25, 2006.

I am getting the feeling that you are not familiar with military procedures. You seen quite furious about the Finns launched a counterattack to push the Soviets to their own side, and for Finns to have secured their border areas secured, until the Russian would agree the war and the attacks against Finland.

It is clear that if Stalin would have simply not been as hard-headed, and is he would have agreed to hold his horses and stop the aggressions he had started, then the two peoples could have been friends, Stalin is known to have numerous miscalculations of these types, as you know.

Or, just go ahead and read Mannerheim's memoirs, please. There you can learn more details, how Finland was prepared for a defense, not for an offense.

Here's a question for you. Which way do you think would have been correct for Finland to proceed, so that you would not call Finland's decisions made a "series of miscalculations by the Finnish leadership":

1. Finland should have only fought inside the Finnish cities, which the Soviet Union attacked.

2. Finland should have not pushed away the Soviets from Finland to the Soviet side.

3. Finns should have immediately returned rather deep to the Finnish soil, after each time Soviet attack was pushed to the border area. There Finns should have simply waited for the next Red Army attack.

None of the above. Not that it matters, but I think that after June 25, Finland did what it had to do (except the formal annexation part). The political miscalculations happened earlier. By that time it was up to the Finnish army to clean up the mess Finnish politicians (and Germans) have brought them into. --Illythr 21:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You are forgetting something extremely important. Sweden too allowed Germans to use their area. So, if the Soviets wanted, they could have attacked Sweden too under the same principles. Sweden's cooperation with the Nazis, in allowing the Nazis to use Sweden's area, would have not been very good example for Finland, based on your own contradictions. That would have given USSR an escuse to attack Finland.

hopefully you'll realize why that would have not worked. Please, also take a look at map. Which one is the country up north, that borders Russia (USSR at the time of the war)?

Finland had been already attacked by an all-out attack in 1939, which launched the Winter War. Thus Finland had to seek for help for its protection. When do you recall the Soviet Union having attacked Sweden? Do you notice the difference?

Besides, USSR was eating away Finland's sovereignty during the interim period (= peace time period), and you have been told many a time how and why. It was making numerous border violations against Finland, controlling Finnish political elections, etc. These are all huge differences between Finland and Sweden.

Furthermore, November 12-13, 1943, Molotov was in Berlin, where he clearly indicated the intention of USSR to take to a conclusion the take-over of Finland. Please, do go to Google, and look up the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, for starters. Then we discuss that point and the difference between Sweden and Finland more. Ok?

Start from the key issues: 1. Who had been attacked, and who was going to be attacked again. 2. Which countries had made a pact, and what kind, etc ...

Being from an area so badly treated by Stalinism, as Moldovia, why do you wish so very badly for Finland to have suffered a similar destiny, under tyranny and terror ?

213.216.199.6 17:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC) / 213.216.199.6 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The Soviet Union, by Nazi Germany in Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941. Be more precise with the time period, will ya? 2. The attack had also voided the non-aggression pact as well, secret protocols and all.

Yes, that was Nazi Germany, not Finland. Besides, already that day the Soviets started aggressions in Finnish area, to be precise (although not in very big scale), on Ahvenanmaa. In Finland, the Soviets did not attack agains German targets, but against Finnish targets instead. 213.216.199.6 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you source that? I also read somewhere that Finland conducted a series of "deep reconnaissance" missions into Soviet territory as well... --Illythr 21:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweden only allowed the transit of troops, whereas Finland did much more than than. I hear, there was even a Finnish SS brigade... The Soviet Union intended to attack Finland anyway, eventually, but the Nazis foiled the Soviet plans of a full-scale invasion with one of their own. The Finnish front was thus only secondary, after the siege of Leningrad was lifted. Had Finland not sided with Germany back then, the SU probably would not have attacked it in 1941, it's hands being tied up by the Nazis.

Well, please do not trying to defend their action against Finland. They should have kept away. Thank you for understanding. Finns had to dance the German walze just ever so tiny bit. That much is true.

213.216.199.6 20:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Too bad that Germans lead them to step on the Soviet foot... --Illythr 21:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Germans did not leave the Finns anywhere, the Soviets did: to protecting Finland against the continued take-over attempt led by Josef Stalin, and the attempted annexation of Finland to USSR. 213.216.199.6 08:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh, November 12-13, 1943? I'm sure Molotov received a warm welcome there...

BTW: The country's name's Moldova, chum. --Illythr 20:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, I first actually wrote Moldova. I did that the other time too first, I believe. Then I believe I saw also Moldovia somewhere. Is that the capital? 213.216.199.6 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a historical region. See Moldovia. The capital is Chisinau. --Illythr 21:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

USER ILLYTHR PROTECTS KGB/FSP PROPAGANDA ON THE BEGINNING OF THIS PAGE / SENDS NEWER MESSAGES TO ARCHIVES

Here's the answer to that text's KGB-style name change request:

The Continuation War has continuously been known only by that name, although during the Cold War KGB tried denying the name.

A simple and quick Google search will point this out clearly to anyone unfamiliar with the topic.

Stalin wanted to forget about the Winter War. Later, he also wanted to deny that he continued the war on June 25, 1941.

As the war was continued, the contemporaries automatically began calling it the Continuation War - understandably, due to lack of better term -, to separate it from references made to the Winter War (which had been fought at winter time 1939-1940, whereas the continuation went on in the following summer, beginning 1941).

Perhaps not a single person foresaw or thought of any overturns or political reasoning for the name at the time of the war, when the name was already being used.

Illythr, please do not send newer messages of others to the archives, while protecting old radical writings of your own. Here was the answer. Go and move that propaganda to the archives, please. 213.216.199.6 17:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to stir up anything, but in regard to the opening request at the beginning of the talk page, the author has a point about German military personel not calling their actions apart of the Continuation War. While this may not constitute a merging of this article with WW2, it is still worth noting that the other foriegn power fighting on Finnish soil regards their actions as a part of the Second World War. I would like to hear anyone's thoughts on this. Repdetect 12/24/06

Dear Repdetect, as you can see, this section deals with my protection of the KGB propaganda and other horrible crimes. If you wish to address the issues raised by said propaganda, please post in the respective section above. This particular point of yours was already addressed both in the lead in in the intro sections of the article, by the way. --Illythr 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this KGB bullshit? Why are you trying to shove the Finnish Nazi version of history, in fact a postwar remake or re-write, down the throats of people who do not recognize as history? There is not a single book published outside of Finland from 1941 to 1960s that I know of that would call this sordid affair a War of Continuation. You have the other side - Russia - and no one, absolutely no one in Russia knows it by that name. Either remove or delete this piece of propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talk • contribs) 20:43, 29 December 2006

Are these one person: Illythr, Whiskey, Jatrius, Roobit

User Illythr: Yesterday evening you archived messages, but - strangely - you left untouched the long and radical opening message of the Continuation War page (it's still there). Why?

That message - in an unprecedented manner - suggests for this entire topic (Continuation War) to be taken out of this context, and to be made just a part of the WW2 article, if anything. Why?

The article also suggests that the name, Continuation War, should be changed, forgotten about. Why?

We find it very concerning, that below that article the following signatures can be found (in this order) and that you now insist protecting those radical suggestions of that article, by leaving it unarchaived:

Jatrius 08:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The introduction needs rewriting, I agree. --Whiskey 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also concerning, that the account of Jatrius was established on "18 April 2006", for that one and only contribution to be inserted to Wikipedia (no other contributions was ever made from that account), the very same contribution which you so fiercely now want to protect.

Excuse me, are you smoking something? Does that look like "one and only" contribution to you? --Illythr 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You have been asked to please revert your action from yesterday. If you archived the much newer neutral messages, this strongly Stalinist POV must go to archives as well !

Out of the three accounts, only Illythr reveals the contributions made, and no user pages exist for the two accounts.

Contribs: Jatrius,Whiskey, me. --Illythr 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

On the talk page, only Whiskey and Jatrius talk about Jokipii and Jatkosodan synty, and both make a point of discussing each two.

Those terms are mentioned several times. Jokipii is clearly considered highly controversial figure in Finland, to say the least. Thus in this way too you're protecting strongly one-sided POV. Furthermore, even Jokipii does not support even in slightest ways the kind of radical moves, context of which you bring his name up.

The arguments and reasoning by the two user accounts, Illythr and Whiskey, are - pointedly - exactly matching, and the accounts are - accordingly - fiercely protecting the same, strangely unprecedented viewpoints, in equally rotating, repeated, and long contribution times. Seems like a strange project for Moldovian ? Why to protect Stalin, who lead to the killings of tens of million people, and Stalin lies?

The consensus between your two accounts in question include all POVs presented, including the very odd ones, such as lie turning into truth over time, after having been repeated long enough, etc.

Together these two accounts recently contacted an administrator, in attempt to have removed the factual and much needed (although quickly compiled and not yet perfect) description of the main reasons and results having to do with the Continuation War.

Strangely, as the two accounts now were hinted to belong to just one person (i.e. Illythr), this time became to present the very first and only occasion ever for the two accounts to have made contact (Dec. 19, 2006) on their respected talk pages (no user page was ever established for Whiskey. Is it because you already have one?).

Despite of extreme cooperation and kinship and fierce coinsiding in Wikipedia, this type of contacting had never happened before. Strange, would you not agree?

Yeah, too bad I didn't meet him before... --Illythr 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Nah" ... you could talk to your other self over the mirror. 213.216.199.6 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thus, the user Water's concerns about the deletion of the "good facts" (as the user put it), by Illythr / Whiskey, must be taken seriously, as not a single other user has presented any war related arguments for the removal of the contested text (although few-word general remarks have been signed by a couple of other user names).

A quick scan indeed indicates, that the two accounts in question have a number of other similarities in their contributions (besides the fiercely protected, unprecedented POV), including choice of wording, spelling, signs, etc.

For instance, these accounts are the only ones to ever have used an extremely rare and personal "nah" word in their respected writings. Each of the two accounts used the term once in the Continuation War talk page, over two months apart:

Nah! This article is still full of juvenile exaggeration and sureness of those who don't know.;-) I try to go this throught, although slowly, and weed out those idiocies.--Whiskey 00:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Military aid? Nah. Ever seen US soldiers manning Soviet military installations, say, during the Caribbean Crisis? In fact, it could be argued that providing Finnish airfields to German bombers was an act of war agains the Soviet Union in itself. --Illythr 15:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Other signs used in equal amounts by the two accounts include ;-) , -- , etc., as for instance in the examples below:

this article seems to be quite neutral, as it draws flak from left and right.;-) --::Whiskey 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Hey Whiskey, noticed any Marxist statements in there? ;-) --Illythr 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody seems to believe that if something is found in the textbooks published in Soviet Union, it has to be marxist. ;-) (BTW, this is the first time I have been said to be marxist. … . ;) --Illythr 20:34, 15 December 2006

Illythr: 4 x ;-) Whiskey: 3 x ;-)

These reasons and you very Stalinistic POW appear to be why (according to you) you have been called Marxist. What do you think? Do you seriously still pretend to claim, that you represent a NPOV? Nadja Polpova 18:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Awww, maybe he's my lost brother! I never knew him... You know, we could use such a shrewd detective like you here, on Lubyanka - even KGB officers were previously unable to perform a personality match based on the usage of smileys!

However, you (and I) have also missed user:Roobit, who was the one to introduce the section as recently as in November! Bad job, Comrade!

PS: You still haven't answered me above, "Nadyen'ka". Although after this demarche I can no longer treat you seriously. Thanks for calling me Stalinist, I really needed that, BTW! :-D --Illythr 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, check this out: user:Pudeo and user:Petri Krohn are also using the two minuses in their sigs! They're probably even guilty of using (gasp!) smileys when they're joking! Petri has also agreed with Whiskey and was cruel enough to suggest to forcibly quiet the only voice of Truth here! Surely, a Conspiracy most foul is afoot! ;-) --Illythr 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

All minuses were seen - some plusses as well. Repeating truth for long enough, turns it to truth. One of many contagious things ;-) 213.216.199.6 21:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeating a truth doesn't turn it into anything - it can't get any "truer". Now, a lie, on the other hand... --Illythr 10:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh, looks like User:Roobit was indeed a sockpuppet. Too bad his puppeteer was already banned... Of course, perhaps, I can be the puppeteer of that puppeteer, making me the master of Roobit by the rule of transitivity... Whoa, that is rather convoluted. :-[] --Illythr 10:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WHY ILLYTHR (Whiskey) WANTS TO HIDE INFO ?

Based on your own comments, you appear not to only want to hide facts from the ending part of the Continuation War article alone, but, as for instance the texts below by Whiskey / Illythr indicate, also from the beginning: You call it "Minimalist Introduction paragraph".

Why all the facts should be hidden to the massive middle part, where - without much anergy and effort - nothing can be really found? Why?

Besides, in the article's massive middle part you're protecting a very one-sided POV, full with the concentration camp type of photo, with Soviet children, etc. Why such POV?

In the meanwhile, you're terrorizing any new contributors by hard talk, so that you could continue controlling the text at this page (do you wish to receive examples).

You call yourself a "main contributor" of the article (08:06, 3 October 2006). If you wish be a contribute, can you agree not to force extremism?

Not only that, but you clearly also want to end the entire article for good, by saving that old an radical POV in the beginning of the talk page, while at the same time archiving much newer, neutral and factual messages ? Why?

In that radical text you also suggest for at least the war's name to be changed. You mean to suggest, that the war didn't continue? Is that the idea? In other words, you want the Winter War to be wiped out form history books, which Stalin's Soviet Union so desperately tried to accomplish.

In same manner you have attempted to make Finland the initial attacker of the Continuation War. You are attempting to portray Finns as Nazis, who began the war, and lost (because Germany lost), although neither point matches facts.

Perhaps these are some of the reasons why - according to your own message exchange - you have been referred to as Marxist. What could be so terrbly far fetching about that. The Soviets - after all - have for so long terrorized the history writing in that area ? Nadja Polpova 19:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooo, I feel so eeeeevil! Or are you referring to user Whiskey? --Illythr 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, do not feel bad. It is Christmas time. Merry Christmas. We all have room for improvement, always I suppose.

Surrender - unconditionally - ru kiver. We'll make peace. This could be the time. We'll keep the bottom text.

However, I can write another similar type of text, with small changes here and there, taking a bit more sensitive approach. Let us go to that approach in just a couple of days. I have the feeling that others will agree. Consult yourself in the meanwhile. What is there to loose. Ok?

Josef Stalin could not be trusted. I'm quite sure you will do much better. 213.216.199.6 21:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Kiver? Surrender? This isn't a war, you know. In a scientific debate only the truth is supposed to prevail. I think that this is the case here, as well... A checkuser is probably still in order, to make things even more clear. --Illythr 22:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Stalin's goal to conquer Finland well documented already before the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

Stalin's genocide of over 100 000 Finnish people before and after WW2 (he had over 60 000 Ingrian Finns alone put to death after WW2) and his long time plan to conquer Finland are well documented.

Stop Hitlerite claptrap. Genocide means total extermination, elimination of the gene pool. No genocides were attempted in the USSR, never mind completed, the closest it came was class persecution which mainly affected the Russians (Great Russians). Resettlement does not qualify as genocide. Soviet authorities moved some Ingrians from border areas (allowed to return after the war) but in no way was it more heinous than American internment of Japanese citizens (note that USA did not even share border with Japan). My company's director is ethnic Finn, the former mayor of St. Petersburg was quarter Finn, the present day deputy mayor (Virolainen) is ethnic Finn. Unlike Finnish tradition of discrimination and openly rabid goals of ethnic purity and wild obsession with race, Russians - a multiethnic group of people to begin with - did not practice discrmination privately and even under Stalin (who - for you fans of ethnicity was not a Russian to begin with) never attempted a genocide Roobit

Below, please find just one such documented example of Stalin's plan to conquer Finland, from shortly before the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler:

In his speech on August 19, 1939 to the Soviet Politburo, Josef Stalin concretely laid down the Soviet Union's goals, to be set in motion by the signing of the illegal Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on August 23, 1939, with Adolf Hitler's Germany.

Why was it illegal? Roobit

In this speech, Stalin revealed his plans for territorial expansion of USSR to the Baltic countries, Finland) and Poland, with the approval of either the Western powers or Germany (Source: Wikipedia [6]). To old Russia's borders? So what is so remarkably offensive about it? Roobit

Stalin expressed an expectation, that the war would be the best opportunity to weaken both the Western nations and Nazi Germany, and make Germany suitable for "Sovietization" (Source: Wikipedia [7]).

In Pravda of November 30, 1939, the day of the outbreak of the Winter War against Finland, Stalin's interview relating to the speech in question was published.

Among other things, Stalin was asked for his opinion about the part of the speech, in which he expressed the thought, that the war should go on for as long as possible, so that the belligerents are exhausted.

Any quote in Russian by any chance? Or just propaganda? I have one handy here, but wait a second - it in English by Harry Truman, the massmurder of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that's perhaps what you meant:

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible ... (New York Times, June 24, 1941) Roobit

The user Illythr (Whiskey) should be well aware about this Josef Stalin's continued attempt to conquer Finland, which was reaffirmed by the Soviet Union's Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, on his visit to Berlin on November 12-13, 1940, in a follow up meeting for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939.

Indeed, at 08:38, December 20, 2006, the user Illythr himself was the very last contributor to the Wikipedia article about the Stalin's speech on August 19, 1939, given to the Soviet Bolitbyro.

The user Illythr appears to have contributed to that page also under the user accounts 64.231.36.226 (used only for a single delete of an entire paragraph) and Whiskey.

Er, where exactly did Whiskey contribute to that article? Diff? (Later: ahh, the talk page!) And how did you identify that particular IP as a minion of my infernal army?

Anyways, that speech happened (even if it did) before June 22, 1941 - the day that changed everything...

PS: Did you know that when one party starts attacking the messenger, it means that it is unable to attack the message? --Illythr 13:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, June 22, 1941, indeed "changed everything". Until this time USSR had committed numerous border violations against Finland - during the interim period - (before the new attack), and it had ate away off Finland's sovereignty in many ways and in ingreasingly rapid speed. This day, however, things turned uglier, as already in this day an actual attack against Finnish targets was launched.

Finnish targets were hit that day in Finland by USSR, although not in a massive scale yet. As in the soon following air attack by over 460 planes against Finnish cities and airports three days later, on June 25, 1941, this was an attack against Finland, not against Germany, as the targets were Finnish targets, inside Finland. Stalin's war and his long time plan to conquer Finland, was now continuing, from where it had been stopped by the Finnish defense the year before (thus the name "Continuation War"):

Finland feared that the Soviet Union would occupy Åland, so Operation Kilpapurjehdus (Sail Race) was launched in the early hours of June 22 by the Finns. Soviet bombers launched attacks against Finnish ships during the operation, but no damage was inflicted.

213.216.199.6 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Preemptive war by Finland and its Nazi friends? A nice justification for a war of aggression. Roobit

Quality of language

Whatever else may be contested in this article, it remains true that the quality of English is appalling. It has been written either by Americans or by a translation machine - often not very different in outcome.

I refer you to paragraph 11 under 'Contentious History Views'. The paragraph appears as:

Besides refusing to hand out her Jews to the Nazis (except for eight deported refuge seekers), the Finns refused to join Germany's - nearly successful - attack against Leningrad, the lose of which could have been detrimental to USSR in several ways, not least from the moral stand point of view. The Finns also held back from interrupting the American "lifeline" of help to the defenders of Leningrad, over the Lake Ladoga. Furthermore, the Finns categorically refused to cut the Murmansk railroad near its border, along which the crucially important and massive American help was transported to the Soviet Army, and Finland also held her forces from advancing any further east than the River Svir (Syväri).

It should be worded thus:

In addition to refusing to hand their Jews over to the Nazis (except for eight deported refugees), the Finns declined to join Germany's - near successful - siege of Leningrad, the loss of which could have been detrimental to the USSR in several ways, not least as a blow to morale. The Finns also refused to disrupt the American "lifeline" to the defenders of Leningrad over Lake Ladoga and to cut the Murmansk railway line near their own border, along which massive, crucially important Allied help was transported to the Soviet Army. Finland also held her forces from advancing any further east than the River Svir (Syväri).

I would urge more quality control here.

T A F—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.136.138 (talk • contribs)

You are a rookie, you see. it took you four edits, and how much planning and time, only to come up with nearly precisely the same old wording as before, except that you did contribute an error (at least one), the USSR.

All of the 20 paragraphs, however, were contributed by just a few more edits than that, before the page was already locked.

Suursaari 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. It seems that the entire article is a translation from one or several Finnish sources, the protecion pf the article caught me in the middle of cleaning up the text. The repeated insertion/deletion of that particular section is the cause of the entire dispute over here. Once this dispute is resolved, you issue will be solved as well - one way, or another.

PS: Please, do add new info at the *bottom* of the talk page, or at least *after* all the boilerplates. --Illythr 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Illythr/Whiskey/Roobit/Jatrius, etc., reveals yet another identity

You keep pushing the same false information to Wikipedia by your different user accouts, user Illythr, and now you continue pushing incorrect grammar to be inserted to the Wikipedia, as well, by yet another new user account, 88.108.136.138. Why?

Let us once again show another example of how the user account Illythr fiercely supports an false approach - an error, really - made by the account Whiskey:

The above English language grammar error of yours, Illythr, was already discussed with you under your other account, Whiskey. You reverted the Continuation War article back to "the USA" ([8], line 28), whereas the more correct grammar prefers just USA (the United States …, however, would be correct).

(Please, double check at the same time, what five Stalinst changes you made during the same contribution)

Now, you opened yet another user account to suggest that we should talk about the USSR, rather that just USSR. Where are you trying to take this debate. These types of thing things can be worked on, althoug on this final point of yours you appear to be wrong also.

Just USSR (without "the") presents the (more) correct grammar that the USSR (don't think of the song). However, here for instance, "the" is needed: … "the" Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also, sometimes: "the" Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

In song writing, for instance, sometimes improper grammar is used, so that the wording can be fit to the melody. Such is the case for instance in the Beatles song, "Back to the USSR". In this case too, please remember, repeating an error (lye), doesn't make the error correct (the truth), in contrary to your believes which you expressed in you comments.

User Illythr, that paragraph's message indeed can be presented in many ways. However, above, you only rewrote the original text nearly the same way, only adding errors. So, why do you bother?

Please, do not try claiming that your English language is somehow superior to the American English, or English used by people on the related talks. For instance, which are the only user accounts in Wikipedia that use the word "nah"? Correct, those are the ones of yours. Have many ever heard anyone using that term? Right, we don't think so, either.

You propose for the text to read: … "blow to morale" (in place of the current version).

You have advertised the usage of the same term in KGB style before, too, in you attempst to humiliate other Wikipedai contributors, as you claim to be the main contributor.

... it will be as easy to blow your statements up than theirs. So why do you want your statements blown up? --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The wording, American "lifeline" of help, was already discussed before. Yet, as all hints strongly that you do not want to talk about the American assistance anywhere, perhaps we can just use the word Allied then.

User Illythr, please stop insulting the Americans, as you did in your text here under the account 88.108.136.138, or the Finns and the Latvians (or anyone else)Anno Domino 15:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC), as you did under the account of Roobit here: [9].

Ps.: The sock puppet account Whiskey has been met on same Russophobia site, defending fake images:

"So it is not necessary for photos to be authentic to be used in the article ([10]) …--Whiskey 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)"

Ps.: In the following sentence there indeed was an accidental tiny blooper: "... refusing to hand out her Jews over to the Nazis (except for eight deported refugees), the Finns declined to join Germany's ...

Shoud be: their Jews (or: Finland declined)

The check up for possible bloopers had just began (see history), when you contacted an administrator, and suceeded in locking the page from fixing that blooper.

Anno Domino 15:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between 88.108.136.138 and me - he/she wants to fix the grammar of the one paragraph. I, on the other hand, want that paragraph removed altogether, or, at the very least, rewritten completely. Oh, and did I ask you to please refrain from personal attacks? --Illythr 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making unfounded accusations. We all know you are the banned User:Art Dominique. You have made some good contributions so we have let you stay. If you continue with this nonsense someone will list you and your sock puppets at WP:SSP. -- Petri Krohn 23:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, be precise. What do you see as an "unfounded accusation" above? Everything appears reasonably explained. If not, please simply request for further clarification. I'm sure, that can be provided, Petri.

The referred user, however, has made clear accusation of similar type, without even trying to offer any back up for the accusation (for instance, regarding user accounts, which do not belong to me - and this can be proven).

Please, do not act one-sidedly, Petri. Have you never been fooled by anyone? Be honest with yourself: How many people in the world have you ever seen using the word "Nah" during your lifetime (besides the "two" here). Threatening other users with the "blown up" remarks is not Wikipedia standard. Stalin used language like that.

I wasn't the one with the original request to block the accounts of Illythr and Whiskey. That too can be proven. So, please: Do not threaten me with anything. Instead, show what I have done wrong, if you believe something was done wrong. No false and foundless accusations, ok!

213.216.199.6 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with above writer that something odd is on those referred writers; Illythr and Whiskey. Gentlemen, more facts,less violence in language. Huckleberry Hugo 00:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with oneself is sock puppetry :-) -- Petri Krohn 05:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What? Sock puppetry?? I have not written above texts. Thanks. Yours, User:Huckleberry Hugo

Cite any authoritative grammar reference (I mean any proper English language authority) that USA is more correct than the USA (with definite article). In fact it is the USA, the USSR, the Netherlands, the Ukraine - while of course Russia, Finland, Belgium. etc. [[User:Roobit|Roobit].

Who said that ([[User:Roobit|Roobit]

Any proof that it is an error? Here is English grammar online, -

You do not use an article before the names of countries except where they indicate multiple areas or contain the words (state(s), kindom, republic, union). Kingdom, state, republic and union are nouns, so they need an article.

For example:

No article - Italy, Mexico, Bolivia, England

Use the - the UK (United Kingdom), the USA (United States of America), the Irish Republic

Multiple areas! the Netherlands, the Philippines, the British Isles

Keep looking ([[User:Roobit|Roobit]

.... American assistance is an oxymoron. In any way, what is this schizophrenic outburst? Of course I'd feel flattered if someone would impersonate me but this is so far not been the case. And it is pathetic that you lacking sound arguments or good common sense would resort to slandering people. ([[User:Roobit|Roobit]

We have got the picture, that is bothers you that the Soviet fighting against Finland as well as the Soviet defense against Germany were largely made possible by the Americans, and that without the help from the Americans and the Finns (Finns, because they did not penetrate further or participate in the attack against Leningrad, etc.), for instance Leningrad would not have been able to defend itself.

.... Any evidence? I mean victims of the Siege are to be thankful to Finnish allies of Hitler because they could have behaved worse or attacked deeper? Or to Americans - for what?! Metaphorically speaking Americans are worse than Finns that's for sure (that's a personal opinion - I like Finns. I never met anyone who likes Americans though) but what do they have to in the equation except that it seems they believe they have the devine right to stick their nose into every hole no matter how smelly or remote geographically or in this case historically. ([[User:Roobit|Roobit]

Give us the exact link to the part of the English grammar online, where you are referring to, Roobit. You obviously misunderstood thit part: "... they indicate multiple areas or contain the words (state(s), kindom, republic, union".

USA does not contains "state(s)". It only contains the letters U, S, and A. Entirely different matter is the United States of America. Simply go and check in Google. Try for instance: "I love the USA" (improper), comared to "I love USA" (proper) (use the quote unquote signs, please). And, yes both can be found, because there are always people, who do mistakes. Suursaari 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See [United_States#Name|here]. "The USA" and "The United States of America" are identical. This is also rather irrelevant to the article, seeing as how the country is only mentioned once, now. --Illythr 01:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to the outrageous stuff below

I requested the removal or renaming of the article because the term Continuation War is not shared by all participants of that conflict, which never occurred as a separate war (Continuation, Re-continuation of whatever is the translation of this nonsense) but was a part of the war waged by Germany against the Soviet Union. I have found no contemporary references in German war sources that would call Finland's aggression against Soviet Union a war of continuation. It is outlandish that Wikipedia would have an article which very title is so biased in favor of one side in the conflict - in this case the Nazis (and their Finnish helpers) and which does not even exist in the other side's historic terminology. If an international encyclopedia is to have an article on an event then at the very least the name of that event should be recognized and shared by all parties. It is certainly not the case here. Roobit

Er, I understand that Nazi Germany resented the Finnish view on the Continuation war as a separate conflict. Thus, the title and the article are not biased in favor of "the Nazis", but rather, only Finland. Also note that since the term exists - so does the article, even in the Russian Wikipedia. On the other hand, the part of WW2 known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia has only a short article describing the term; the main article for the event is called Eastern Front (World War II). Perhaps, a similar thing may be in order here, but I can't devise an appropriately neutral name. And please, do keep a cool head while editing. --Illythr 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That is why we need honest and factual Wikipedia information presented in the related articles. The Russian people too must learn these facts. For nearly a century the Russian people have been ruled by totalitarian leaders, and during this time the news and history have not been allowed to be reported correctly to the Russian people.

A prior FSB (KGB) leader with his partners now control Russia, including news, media, and interpreting and teaching of history. This is why those trying to open up their mouths about the truth in Russia, get poisoned, or killed or silenced in some other way.

Just because the Russian people are suppressed, and because their news and media is highly controlled, does not mean that the rest of the world should have to suffer the same treatment. This is why we try protecting Wikipedia from false information 82.128.246.13 13:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

in Russian Wikipedia it is more or less a disclaimer saying that a term like that exists in Finnish followed by an explanation of what this whole thing is about. However in English version it is the ONLY term. As you said the Great Patriotic War (which includes war against Nazi-allied Finland) is the term used in Russia but it would be insane to demand that the rest of the world uses that term. Eastern Front of European theater in WWII is the norm in English speaking historiography even though it sounds odd and a bit unfair to the Russian ear. I have no idea why should Nazi Germany resent the current Finnish terminology which was invented well after the war (and after Nazi Germany was long gone) - but I do have a book herebut the Finnish general staff member (Wehrmacht general attached to the Finnish general staff since it was the same gang), Waldermar Erfurth, der finnische Krieg, die finnische Front , 1941-1944, published in Wiesbaden in 1950, so the Finnish Front would be appropriate. Even Finnish-Soviet front would be more appropriate (as part of the Eastern Front in greater European theater narrative). Even Finnish-Soviet War would do. You can insert a disclaimer that certain Fennic speaking personages prefer to call it the Continuation War (?) but the way it is named now the whole thing strikes as just pure travesty of the objectivity principle. It is a profanation. Roobit

The Russian society is only taking its baby steps towards opening up as a free society. Just because one can conduct business in Russia with some of the western standards and rules, does not mean that there is freedom of speech. The media and news are very much controlled in Russia, as everyone in the west knows, and nearly everyone in Russia too.

A very bad thing is, that the development has taken a turn backwards in Russia, what comes to the opening of free society and rooting of democracy, and freedom of speech.

For now, the Russian leadership has kept a tide control of certain matters in Russia, including protecting many key parts of the Soviet period history writing. This is the reason why the correct information cannot be found in Russia. 82.128.246.13 12:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unlike yourself, who even has to post his rants anonymously, I enjoy total freedom of speech:)

Roobit

How do you know? What is "correct" information - the one that corresponds to the ethnonazi Finnish views or some other forms of propaganda? Roobit

Well, I understand that Hitler considered Finns to be full allies, whereas Finland had some reservations on the issue. Thus Nazi Germany would have objected to naming the war that way much the same as the Soviet Union would, albeit for completely different reasons. I am not against renaming the article to "Finnish-Soviet front (World War II)" (or ...war ()), but good luck achieving consensus with the other editors here. ;-) I also think that while your chances of succeeding are slim at best, but if you keep using POV phrases like "the same gang" they will be next to non-existent. --Illythr 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hitler didn't consider "Finns to be full allies" of Germany - the very contrary (are you purposely spreading propaganda, or do you simply not know): An American documentary about Hitler's visit to Finland in 1942 was aired in Finland only three days ago, in the Finnish Public Broadcasting System, YLE.

The documentary shows how Hitler pretended to be a friend of Finland and how he indeed sought for further Finnish cooperation. Yet, as is well known, he failed - and knew it. However, he was happy that the Finnish front was occupying some Soviet attention.

Nevertheless, the Soviets had been assured, that the Finns will not join the battle against Leningrad, for instance. Thus, this was tremendously relieving for the Soviets. They acted accordingly, and did not leave much troops facing the Finns in this front. Those much needed additional forces could be used against the Germany. 82.128.246.13 12:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Where, when were the "Soviets" assured of this? Any reference? Roobit

It is a well known fact, that the Soviets did not waist troops to this front. The reason appears to have been given correctly above.

User Roobit, you have not set the margins correctly for your replies. As you also don't always sign your notes, and as you do not date you posts, do place your posts below the messages, not between the lines Suursaari 00:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have the German Wochenschau from December 1941 here - and can post in one my server - where Finns are depicted as faithful allies, battling in the siege of Leningrad and doing their part. Finland was an integral part of the Nazi war effort and there is no need or justification for rewriting history in this outrageous manner, or worse forcing others to accept it. Roobit

Any references besides propagandist claptrap, Mr. 82.128.246.13 Roobit

The Finnish direction of the World War II has been almost forgotten in the Soviet history writing, it seems that only University of Petrozavodsk had done that in certain extent. It is seen even in the modern research, as for example Krivosheev's research about Soviet casualties had gaping holes in the Finnish direction even though no corps or army level formations were overrun during the war and in almost all cases Soviets were even able to evacuate encircled divisions. It is understandable, that main adversary, Germany, draws most research due to the masses included and relative importance, but it is unfortunate that it also reflects to the general knowledge of the issue, and through that to the way it was seen.

The name of the war in Finland was born immediately after the first shots were fired, as general public saw it the continuation of the Winter War, "the second round" if you prefer.:-) Currently it is an accepted name to the war also in Western Europe and United States, as shown by Library of Congress categorization, US Department of State infos or UK Foreign office documents.

The fact that the name is used by Finnish ethnonazis or revisionists does deserve a mention as the term is also references (with disclaimer) in Russian sources however it does not make the politically charged propagandist term valid or acceptable to the other side in the war. If Wikipedia declares that from now its English version will only allow pro-American views of world history or only pro-Nazi/Finnish views when it comes to the WWII whenever Russia is concerned or involved, then I'd have to rest my case. Roobit

In the end it becomes to the fact that certain events have different kind of meanings to the different countries. The Continuation War wasn't so important to Soviets or Russians as was the fight with Germans. For Finns its importance was much higher. It is quite common that smaller groups and countries have names to the things greater countries hardly remember, but that doesn't mean those things didn't exist.--Whiskey 23:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not - but the English Wikipedia does not call the entire Russia-Hitler/Allies war / Eastern Front "Great Patriotic War" - so if the term is accepted to Finland but is not immediately recognized in Russia, then, for the sake of fairness, at least some neutral alteranative can be used? Roobit

What name would you propose? I understand that Soviet and Russian sources do not distinguish between the "Continuation War" and other fronts in the Great Patriotic War, hence there is no Russian/Soviet name. One thing that makes this a separate war, is that the Finnish leadership made their independent decision to wage a war of aggression, and were convicted for crimes against peace in the war responsibility trials in Finland. If the war had just been another Nazi front, then there could hardly have been legal culpability. -- Petri Krohn 22:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Google books test

Google print for "Continuation War" 256 books
Googe scholar for "Continuation War" 136 books

In all western contires, atleast, the term "continuation war" is used. The name also dominates English language usage, on print sources also. --Pudeo (Talk) 13:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Google books test #2

Google print for "Great Patriotic War" 837 books.
Googe scholar for"Great Patriotic War" about 2,050 books.

You have a point there. Should we rename the Great Patriotic War article as well? --Illythr 14:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine to me if you like so. However, we would first have to use our brains a bit. Is it the best name for it? What it is called in the very top class history books? In this case, this war is called Continuation War. Oh, also WWII and Eastern front beat it with 184,600 though. --Pudeo (Talk) 14:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Syntax? GPW and CW are both only a part of WWII, you know. --Illythr 15:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You can name the entry FINLAND in the Eastern Front context. Roobit

Yes, but what do you (or Roobit) want to call it then? Soviet-Finnish front of Eastern Front of World War II 1941-1994? :S --Pudeo (Talk) 15:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm more interested in improving the quality and accuracy of the contents of the article, at least for now. Once that's done, perhaps we can come up with a new name like Finnish Front (World War II). Perhaps the article may be left as it is, as long as the war's name (along with its political implications) is clearly explained in the top section. --Illythr 16:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to identify it from other wars in Finland during WWII. Winter War and Lapland War. Anyway, I don't think "Finnish front" is used at all, as generally "Fronts of WWII" include the big ones. And why to start playing around with new terms and all when there is a real name for the war: Continuation War. You can check also all other Wikis who have it "continuation war", including German one. Sure it might not be accepted by stalinists/bolshevist symphatizers, but is it anything new? (when I've been here from early 2006, I've gotten enough of it...) --Pudeo (Talk) 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "Second Finnish-Soviet war", then? Then again, maybe just leave it as it was. My only issue is why this and the Great Patriotic War articles are treated differently, with both names being politically motivated? --Illythr 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Soviet-Finnish war is still inaccurate because it would be treated as separate war and not as Finland's aggression together with the Nazi Germany. As of being widely known - I studied in the US and Austria and never ever have heard of this term. I have books published in German right after the war. I have digital records of documentary news reels - and the name does not come up. Continuation War is an example of how a better positioned group, obsessed with a number of issues, bent on rewriting history, would manage to force its dubious agenda onto others. The fact that the article exists under this name in an online publication with claim to any objectivity is a total disgrace.

Roobit

Winter War continued, and the continuation became know as continuation

The name Continuation War became about spontaneously, instantaneously and naturally. The war continued, Josef Stalin's attempt to conquer Finland. That's all. There is nothing fake or pretentious about the name.

However, the name given in the Soviet Union for the Soviet over-all war during WW2, the Great Patriotic War, is seen by many even in Russia as fake, a name given under false pretense.

Why wasn't history taught correctly in USSR? Because, the country was a communist totalitarian society, and because the entire system of USSR - on all levels - was based on a big totalitarian lie, which was built of millions of smaller lies.

Should the Great Patriotic War article be ended in Wikipedia? No, but the article must be made to reflect the truth. A lie must be reported as a lie, and the truth must be reported as the truth.

The Russian people themselves must take the initiative in the healing process and re-education of the Russian people. Ahven is a fish 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Yelsin's statement

In the article is says: President Boris Yeltsin publicly admitted that the Soviet Union had started the Continuation War.(citation needed) citation provided-

"Finnish and Russian experts clash over wartime history" Helsingin Sanomat International Foreign Edition 22 April 2005 --Bejnar 01:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is a reference to the actual statement by Boris Yeltsin, not an insinuation by someone in Finland? It does not exist because Yeltsin never said anything like that. Becuase he could not have said it as the term is unknown in Russia. Roobit

Thank you, Bezhnar, for providing a quote of the Finnish historian, Professor Emeritus Osmo Jussila, that states "Only Boris Yeltsin admitted that the Soviet Union attacked Finland in the Winter War." How about an actual quote of Yeltsin himself? About the Continuation war, preferrably. --Illythr 11:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The better source would be [11], except it is unfortunately only in Finnish. Shortly it is a news article about the visit of the Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari May 18, 1994 to the Kremlin, where in the joined press conference president Yeltsin stated when speaking about the Winter War and Karelia: "...the seizure of these areas of Finnish territory was an example of Stalin’s totalitarian and aggressive politics, and as such was unacceptable." --Whiskey 13:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That source unfortunately requires me to enter something called "Käyttäjätunnus" and "Salasana" to proceed. :-) I'll take your word on it, though, as Yeltsin was known to make such statements in the past. Still, the main point, that the quotation is grossly misrepresented in the disputed section, stands. --Illythr 14:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it stands, and even better as you have now also ProKarelia supporting your view.;-) I was hoping that you could find something on Russian sources about that Press conference when you know the time and place. Unfortunately Finnish public broadcasting company doesn't have the conference in its free archive, as you could have heard it there directly. --Whiskey 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What does Winter war have to do with this so-called Continuation War - it is alleged that Yeltsin publicly said that the Soviet Union attacked Finland so launched this so-called "Continuation War?" Any proof he said that? Any scrap of paper. Anything? These are fairly fantastic claims. Happy New Year;-) Roobit

On this case, our friend who believes we are the same person, claims that Yeltsin admitted SU starting both Winter War and Continuation War, while in the citation given clearly shows that Yeltsin intended the Winter War - and NOT the Continuation War. Oh, and happy new year to you also. :-) --Whiskey 15:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A friendly handshake to end the deadlock of the Continuation War article

User Whiskey and everyone else: The proposal by user Whiskey [12] on December 29, 2006 for cooperation is appreciated.

His suggestion for us to hold on to the previously contested text, and to allow further sources and links to be added, and some minor alterations to be made, is in the spirit of the widely accepted Wikipedia standards and "rules".

The decision by the user Whiskey is met by a friendly handshake from the user Ahven is a fish, as long as it can be agreed to extend the exact same Wikipedia standards to cover the entire Continuation War article and its various claims, instead of this segment only. We - of course - must not have a double standard.

We must try allowing ourselves to act sensibly and sensitively with any changes proposed and made to the Continuation War article from here on.

Let us hope that others will not disagree with this attempt to cooperate. If we do not hear of opposing views by January 8, 2007, please allow the user Ahven is a fish to provide a new version of the text by January 9, 2007, in which minor alterations will have been made to the text, taking into consideration some of the suggestions that have been brought up and/or agreed upon in this forum. Also, further sources will be added.

The source below, provided by the user Bejnar on January 3, 2007, will also be added. This source confirms two very important key facts mentioned in the previously contested text, which has been under scrutiny in this forum:

1. Russian President Boris Yeltsin did admit, that the Soviet Union started the Continuation War, by its attack against Finnish targets (a claim fiercely contested by the user Illythr) .

...... When? Any reference? Link? Statement? In Russian? How can he have "admitted" to something that he cannot admit to (becuase Russia is not Soviet Union, and Soviet Union is not old Russia which included FInland in its present entirety) or even claim something that he cannot possibly claim because the term for this does not exist and is unknown except to a very small group of people familiar with postwar Finnish historiography? Roobit

2. President of Finland Tarja Halonen did remind in Paris, that - importantly - Finland had a separate war, siding the official Finnish view of the Government of Finland and the Parliament of Finland (a point fiercely contested by the user Illythr).

...... She can claim anything she wants. Germany provided weapons, advice, had staff generals commandeered to the front, there were German troops in Finland (did they merely come to fish?), there are heaps of literature published in Germany right after the war on the subject. It is preposterous to suggest that Finland was not ethnuasistic ally of Nazi Germany and not willing aggressor. You can only claim that when the other side is unaware of the claims or is silent, which has more or less been the case all these years, but it does not make your claims true or right. Roobit

"Finnish and Russian experts clash over wartime history" Helsingin Sanomat International Foreign Edition 22 April 2005

As the above points have formed the central backbone of the entire debate in this forum [13], it is solemnly requested, that the previously contested text will be allowed to stay intact from any further revert warring, and that sufficient time will be allowed for providing more sources, such as related book and page information, for support of the previously contested information. ---Ahven is a fish 06:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What information is contested? Here is the problem: the name of the article. The article pertains to a world history event that has two participants (more if you include Nazi allies of Finland). The title of this article is unrecognizable to most readers representing the second (or the first) side / participant. Therefore the title of the article totally defeats the principle of objectivity. Roobit

Of course you have similar rights to demand sources for other claims presented in the article. But you have had time already for weeks to provide sources to your claims, but have not chosen to. Could you please start sourcing your claims in the contested text in this talk page, so the chapter can remain in the article? The source given by Bejnar unfortunately doesn't confirm your claim that Yeltsin admitted SU starting the Continuation War, but only the Winter War. This is a consensus view of Finnish historians, Finnsih media, government and even non-governmental organizations like ProKarelia (which, as you all know, advocates the return of those areas to Finland).

I'd start by issuing {{fact}}-tags to everywhere in the text you need to source your claims. Also others, if you notice something you think needs sourcing, please add your tags. Also, if my suggestions need sourcing, feel free to add tags there too.

Note: Not only your suggestion, but the entire Continuation War article needs to be dealt with in the exact same manner - same scrutiny -, including the images used, if they are contested, regardless whose suggestion they might have been.

Let us not get one-sided here. After all, some of that old stuff is the very info, which called for this thorough - but short - added explanation, as to what really happened. 213.216.199.26 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

After one week (January 10) I'll ask unprotection of the article and sourced material will form the new ending chapter. Then you can start adding tags to the existing text, and we have one week after tagging to provide sources to the disputed claim. If the source is not provided, the claim will be removed. (Naturally, if the source can be found later, the claim can be reinserted with the source.) Ok? --Whiskey 14:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if there is a question of neutrality, then {{lopsided}}-tag should be added. Then the wording must be changed to fulfill WP:NPOV. --Whiskey 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been plenty of sources offered to you on this page, of various types, as we have step by step proven the text accurate, and you suspicions pointless. For instance, you didn't believe that there were German demands for Finland.

Immediately you were provided with this (and there are plenty of others): War historian, Colonel Eino Tirronen:

"Suurpoliittisista syistä ylipäällikkö luopui myöhemmin Sorokan hyökkäyksestä saksalaisten vaatimuksista huolimatta." --> Uses the term "German demands" !

"Suomen sodanjohto pysäytti hyökkäyksen Kannaksella syyskuun 1941 alussa vanhan rajan tuntumaan eikä sotatoimia jatkettu Leningradin piirittämiseksi, vaikka saksalaiset sitä vaativat."

--> Here too here explains, what the Germans demanded, … and so on.

http://www.turunsanomat.fi/itsenaisyyspaiva/?ts=1,3:2008:0:0,4:53:2:1:2002-12-05;4:52:0:0:0,104:53:133061,1:0:0:0:0:0:

So we have a war historian, who participated in the war, claims several decades after the war against the diaries of the president and memoirs of the commander-in-chief which both doesn't claim to be "demanded" on the issue.

Also, you didn't agree with the term abandonment of Viipuri. Immediately you were provided with only months old, latest study by the researcher Eeva Tammi, showing that the abandonment indeed is the right term to be used.

If we recall correctly, you have been unable to provide a single historian or detailed source to prove anything wrong, with appropriate - easily verifiable - exact quotes and/or links needed, similar to what we have provided, as in the cases above.

Furthermore, the entire key information of the study by the researcher Tammi was translated to you. What more do you want. Let's not get ridiculous. You appear to be aiming to a standard from us, which you have been unable to reach even close yourself, at least so far.

When interviewed on the issue, Ohto Manninen and Eero Elfvengren approved the publication of the writing, even though they immediately stated that her claims cannot be proven. The basis of her claim is a interview of Jussi Ranta, the friend of General Airo, who claimed that Airo had said so. The second evidence she mentions was a meeting of Airo, Gen. Laatikainen and Col Nihtilä in Laatikainen's home, which was accidentally eavesdropped by Laatikainen's son, Erkki. She claims that the map was taken out where the VKT-line was drawn west of Viipuri. Unfortunatly when asked directly by Helsingin Sanomat on the issue, Erkki Laatikainen stated that he didn't saw any map and he didn't hear anything through the door. Lt.Col. Ari Raunio (editor of Jatkossodan historia 1-6) states that her point of view is interesting and she has her archival sources correctly, but she doesn't have enough evidence[14]. So what we have here is a conspiracy theory without any written records or any other kind of proves. And, by the way, she doesn't claim 20.Br "delayed" in Viipuri, so you have to source it from elsewhere[15].

Oh, and Tammi is amateur researcher like you and me, and is special nurse in profession.

And there is two interesting facts Tammi fails to explain: Why was all preparative work done in front of Viipuri (Matti Koskimaa, Veitsenterällä) and why the defence after Viipuri was left to 10.D and IR1, which had to bear the main thrust of the Soviet offensive and had been 8 days in continuous battles before it was deemed being unsuitable for battles and ordered to rest and refit just two days before?

Even the contested text is filled with exact quotes, including dates and places where the words in question were said, etc., and more can be provides. Furthermore, several Generals' wording have been provided on this page, also professors to support different pieces of information. They include Leo Vuosalo, Seppo Zetterberg, Allan Tiitta, Jouko Vahtola, etc. So, please, no more lies about lack of sources.

You are the center of concern, in that sense. For instance, everyone is expecting for you to come up with a source - so many times asked from you - for your outrageous claim about the "series of political miscalculations by the Finnish leadership", which were the cause of the Continuation War, according to you. That needs to be well sourced, in detail. No more that childish stuff from you, please, where so far your only source for that has been your statement:

For example, William R. Trotter, The Winter War: The Russo-Finnish War of 1939-40, ISBN 1854109324, Aurum Press Ltd., London, p.265

"The totally different thing is then, does it provide the correct view". This king of garbage won't save you sentence. That you must understand.

Please, also realize, that simply throwing a name list of books at us, will not be acceptable either. That is an age old trick. I believe, you tried some sort of name listing like that above. Nevertheless, we can't know whether or not any of the "names" support you in anything - we believe not. The burden of proof falls on you. You must provide the source in detail - easily verifiable. 213.216.199.26 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And you claim sources identified by author are easy to verify? Give us even the name of the books/magazines they were published. I'll be satisfied with that. --Whiskey 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was clearly stated there: The sources ought to be distinguished, "appropriate" and "easily verifiable", works of known authors, historians, professors, researchers. Please, include the exact page information. Provide the exact quote, at least on the talk page, revealing what exactly the author claims, so that your calim can be checked.

For instance, you now came up with a book in your reply above. What does William Trotter exactly say on that page 265. Provide us the exact quote, without a mistake, the paragraph, or at least full sentences.

Do not take the wording out of its context, distorting the author's view. It is your burden to prove, that this man claims such a thing, "series of political miscalculations" by the Finnish leadership, that were the cause of the Continuation War.

Please, do not set words into the mouths of any author. As you remember, you have misquoted and misrepresented for instance the wordings of other contributors on this talk page, several times, and then even admitted to it, to misunderstanding, misinterpreting, etc.

That cannot be tolerated with an article of this magnitude. You appear to criminalize the Finnish politicians and leaders with unfounded accusations. Ahven is a fish 08:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I won't start copying paragraphs and pages from the books here (My paycheck from Putin is still late, and I have to do other things also). We use the approved Wikipedia style as described in Wikipedia:Citing_sources, and that doesn't include copying sentences, paragraphs or pages from the source. If you are not satisfied with my "interpretation" of the source, you are free to read the book yourself. --Whiskey 09:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily in the article itself, but on the talk page we need the quote, and especially for any highly contested and critical point. However, the exact page information is appropriate, and needed in any well prepared war article in Wikipedia (compare others).

Yet, in regard to this particular claim of yours, a quote from somewhere is a must, for even any consideration of your claim to be presented, as that claim alone would make Finland guilty for the entire war, and as that claim is not approved by any known historian in the west.

If there is one such a historian from the Cold War period USSR, we must know the exact information in their case as well, and somewhere - perhaps - we might be able to mention, that once there was such a man (providing his page, etc).

As you look up a page and the information there - and if you really, really know what the text says -, you might as well reveal it to the rest of us on the talk page.

For instance, we know that William Trotter does not claim, that "series of political miscalculation" by the Finnish leadership was the very cause of the Continuation War (despite of you saying so). So, that page, 265, will indeed be listed as a source against this very claim of yours, against yourself. See my point? If that was going to be your source, we might as well already agree to drop that sentence. This page is not claiming such a thing (have you ever even seen this page?)

By providing the quote in case like this, we make wach other's job easier. As you already have the book in your hands, why make others go through the trouble - unless you are being dishonest, and the book actually does not say what you claim. Ahven is a fish 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ANOTHER SOURCE: WHO STARTED THE WAR

President Boris Yeltsin also admitted to President Martti Ahtisaari, that the Soviets had started the war. Book, Menetetty Karjala (Lost Karelia), page 196:

"Presidentti Jeltsin tunnusti Stalinin hyökkäyksen, mutta yritti saada asiaa pois päiväjärjestyksestä" (President Yeltsin admitted Stalin's attack, but tried to get the matter out of calendar). 213.216.199.26 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Winter war, perhaps. Still, his exact words are needed to be sure. --Illythr 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct, my second form, our manynamed friend once again provides shortened quote which is twisted to fit his interpretation. --Whiskey 22:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also removed

The break up of the Soviet Union appeared to have brought a significant change in the policies and attitudes acquired by the new Russian leadership in this respect, when in 1991 President Boris Yeltsin publicly admitted that the Soviet Union had started the Continuation War.^{[citation needed]} When confronted with the question, President Vladimir Putin referred to President Yeltsin's earlier statements, saying that there was no reason for the Russian leaders to further apologize about the matter.

The Yeltsin's quote on the Continuation war was in fact on the Winter war. Should some part of this passage stay in the article?

The Continuation War is widely perceived as a continuation for the Finnish-Soviet Winter War (1939–1940), Stalin's attempt to occupy Finland, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed between Stalin and Hitler in 1939.

This sentence is redundant, as the info is given just two paragraphs below. --Illythr 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: My Kremlin masters demand that the information revealing my KGB affiliation as well as the Truth of what user Whiskey (et al) actually is on this talk page should be censored as fast as possible. Therefore, I humbly propose to archive all sections not related to the actual article. --Illythr 00:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose, that at this very point, no archiving will be done as of yet, as just about everything seems relative to the depate that has taken place. Let's give it some time. Thank you. Suursaari 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What, this, too? :-) I'd rather hide that info. ;-) --Illythr 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)