Jump to content

Talk:Continuation War/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

I question the following statement

"Sweden's leading cabinet members had hoped to improve the relations with Nazi Germany through indirect support of Operation Barbarossa, mainly channelled through Finland."

Sweden's involvement with Finland was not simply to gain favor with Germany, but also due to the deep cultural connections that the two nations shared, much closer than Sweden had with Norway for example. The common phrase was "Finlands sak är vår", ("Finland's cause is ours") and for many Swedes who helped in the Finnish effort it was for this feeling of brotherhood that they gave aid, although there were some ultra conservatives who would for other reasons. Most of political Sweden was dismayed that Finland was fighting along with Germany, but wanted to give some support anyway. Surely there was an element of appeasing Germany involved as well, as Sweden was forced to do this all along, but this was not the sole reason for helping Finland.Akseli 00:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


...forming an ambulance unit with direct personal influence by Marshal Mannerheim.

What does this mean? Was he the leader of the unit or did he use his influence to create it? Or what? --Illythr 11:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Photo

This is not good to put photo of slayed Russian soldiers in the beginning of the article. Then why not to show the truck full of Finnish dead soldiers? It was also available earlier in references. Right know I can`t put the link although I`ve scoured all this material from stem to stern, but you should know what I am speaking about.

Hello there. There is absolutely no problem in that kind of images from the real front. However, usually the victims eyes (at least) are not shown in this context, and in that image it's almost too privately focused on the face. From this POV it might be considered to be removed from the template. We all know there are casualties in a conflict called war.. The reason that image is chosen is probably that it is from front, has bicycle troops and a battleground. These make a classical image for Continuation War. What other image do you suggest? --Pudeo (Talk) 19:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This one (Mannerheim, bicycle troops) or this one (Vyborg aftermath). --Illythr 20:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually I want to join this point. I browsed through a few articles on wars in English wiki and didn't find a single one with dead body right in front of the article (if you did please let me know). I should add I oppose any dead bodies in wikipedia - finnish, german or whatever, especially in the context that can provoke nationalistic hatred. If you want to retain this photo, at least I request this photo be moved to a proper section - the one describing Finnish offensives in 1941 (of course to keep it balanced I'd commit myself to finding an appropriate 1944 photo with dead Finnish soldiers in the background). Or just remove the photo altogether... this isn't The Holocaust article after all. --Alex1709 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed it. It was really hard to find good images, I uploaded few but they didn't look good on the template. There aren't many symbolic images of the Continuation War, but that parade image is atleast. I hope the Soviet-POV pushers won't complain about it, but you see, the capture of Viipuri was perhaps the main objective for Finnish participation in the Operation Barbarossa. It was a symbolic moment. You have to also remember Eastern Front (World War II) and Battle of Berlin, I'm fine with those Soviet images. --Pudeo (Talk) 14:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I have restored the old image and moved the new image to the proper section.

  1. This image is representative of the war:
    • The Finns were the aggressors. A large number of Russians were killed, far more than Finns.
    • The war was mainly "low intensity", fought in less populated places. The image clearly shows the long distances and poor roads.
    • Bicycles played a major part in the war, and were the main form of transport on the Finnish side.
  2. Wikipedia is not censored. I cannot see what is wrong in showing dead solders in a war article. I also cannot see how the image could be offensive to Russians? It clearly shows the Finns as aggressors and the Soviets as victims.

-- Petri Krohn 23:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't like it. I fell that it's disrespectful to the fallen soldiers, open eyes and all.
A Finnish user has suggested a site with a photo gallery here (the English wiki seems to regard it as a spam source instead). I bet we can use some of those... --Illythr 00:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
--Hi all! I also would like to put my two cents in. It is disrespectful if not humiliating for fallen soldiers no matter Russian or Finnish to put their photo in the head of the article. I would ask you to replace this photo by any other one on your decision. For instance with Finnish soldiers marching in Viipuri after it`s recapture. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windfalll (talk • contribs) 11:04, 15 April 2007

Protection to be lifted?

I've been requested to unprotect this article [1]. Could the editors here report on the status of the disputes that led to its protection? Are they over by now? There's no point in unprotecting an article if a new edit war will start immediately afterwards.--Húsönd 12:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected--Húsönd 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning the Talk page

Part of the process against sock puppets is removing their contributions from articles and talk pages. I have done it here. However, due to length of the edit war, the sock puppets managed to infest many useful contributions, so I apologize about the childs thrown away with the washing water. I try to bring sanitated versions of some of them back shortly. --Whiskey 08:03, 8 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. 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)

Article protected again

I've protected this article again and it's unlikely that it shall be unprotected before the dispute is clearly over. I shall not directly involve myself in the dispute so please don't contact me to mediate or to fish for sockpuppets, just to report that the dispute is over. Meanwhile I once again recommend the following sections for resolving this once and for all: WP:RFC to attract input from other users; WP:RCU for checkuser against sockpuppetry; WP:RFI for investigating users' disruptive activities, can also be used to determine sockpuppets.--Húsönd 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think something might be learned from the article Military history of Finland during World War II and more spesificly from the "Assessment" section of the article, which deals with numerous controversial issues in a manner which has survived numerous edits and has not caused an edit war. IMHO in represents one side of the argument, the other side of the argument, the facts and nothing else. --Chino 10:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lies, sock accusations, and other BS by the Kven user

The article Continuation War was protected after an edit war on the inclusion of long section of OR by "Andropov Andrej", one of many usernames used by a multiuser contributing from IP address 213.216.199.6 [2] The article was protected, and a long discussion continued on this talk page between some regular contributors and an army of sockpuppets. (Archived here) The sock army failed to gain any support for its possition. After the issue of sock puppetry was raised, the sock master responded by voicing accusations of sock puppetry against established users here and on talk pages of some administrators. After two weeks some administrator lost his patience and took the issue to requests for checkuser, it was confermed that the user accounts were sock puppets of the banned user Art Dominique, also known as the "Kven user".

The Kven user has a good command of the English language. His arguments and accusations can be convincing to the casual reader. The content of his comments is however 100% <personal attack deleted>. See:

So this is where he had been busy. For parties interested in this user's earlier actions elsewhere, please refer to the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven. --Drieakko 14:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal of the false and absurd accusation of sock puppetry

The Kven user has accused several established users of sock puppetry, (first stated here). The accusation states, that Illythr, Whiskey, Roobit and Petri Krohn are the same person. The accusation is totally absurd. The users accused of being the same person have expressed very different points-of-view on contested issues. They also have long edit histories. The only reason for the accusation can be to spread FUD and lies.

-- Petri Krohn 05:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I, or rather, Whiskey is one multi-faceted genius, then. ;-) Hey, you used the {{vandal}} template! Awww... :D PS: The Saint Peter article doesn't help you assert the Finnishness of your name. ;-) --Illythr 15:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)´
(Moved inline comments here. -- Petri Krohn 11:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC))
Bullshit. What is a native Russian from Estonia? Someone like native American from Canada? I am certainly not a "native" Russian and am not from any friggin Estonia. Besides, who is that idiot who is attaching labels to people he doesn't know? Roobit 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
denaturalization laws - for one people who can be disenfranchised under denaturalization laws must have been naturalized in the first place. In case of so-called statelets of Estonia and Latvia those people were never naturalized (hence they could not have been denaturalized) as those states neithe existed as historic entities nor had any due naturalization process while being Soviet republics. Roobit 10:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry if I have have miscategorized you. The point here is just to point out, that the four editors listed have extermely different views and edits on just about anything. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone could mistake us for the same person based on our edits. I guess the best way to describe User:Roobit is that he can not be categorized in any of the traditional categories. It's impossible to mistake him for someone else! -- Petri Krohn 11:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Holmes! That was brilliant. Don't say Elementary! as I figured this out on my own. That was quite impressive (I only mean your powers of deduction). No, the address belongs to one company I helped to start back in 1998;-)Roobit 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Too fast archiving here

Why the most fresh discussions needs to be archived totally (including my short but fresh), user Petri Krohn??. I'll propose that that at least part of the most fresh discussions is left on the page. Othervise random walker as me don't even realize that discussions are ongoing and some good contributors can be missed. Instead the old and quite radical USSR style manifest on the top of the talk page is left, and some other outdated comments.

The sockpuppetry as we have seen to happen here quite much is not the way we should write. Ofcourse it is acceptable to use different name on the other article but not on the same. (This is just my opinion, and I think it is in line with Wiki rules) I found that user "Ahven is a fish" was accused of the sockpuppetry and revealed later as well. But user "Ahven is a fish" found also some things that more or less connects users Illythr, Whiskey and Roobit together (ref. discussion in User talk:Husond. Somebody could initiate the checkuser on these users to reveal possible SB. This would at least close the debate on that.

Er, what's "SB"? You are welcome to initiate a Checkuser for us, I will submit to it voluntarily. --Illythr 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Me too. --Whiskey 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

When looking the debate it seems that besides Illythr there were no other accounts opposing parts of the contested text, and after the debate even the user account Whiskey agreed ,(really!!!) to the saving of the text: (Please find the ref.)[3]. Only the user Whiskey provided any counterarguments in the entire debate. The account "Petri Krohn" only had small contributions and used some wording not in line with Wiki like the term "crap".

You forgot to mention that Whiskey demanded sources for all disputed statements. One one was provided (about Yeltsyn commenting on the Winter War), and it was off the mark. Huh, only Whiskey? What was I doing, then, pushing Stalinist POV? ;-) --Illythr 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, Hugo, be much more careful what you write and especially what you quote. For those who didn't bother to check the link Hugo provided, I didn't agree to the saving of the text, but to resolve the deadlock I compromised to allow the insertion of the text, which have to fulfill the Wikipedia quality standard by being a)NPOV, b)not original research and c)sourced. The proposed text failed in all three accounts, and regardless of numerous demands, puppets failed to address the deficiencies. Don't try to claim I advocated adding that text as is, you would be lying in doing that. --Whiskey 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for warning. You are rigth, you did not accept unconditionally. I'm sorry of wording I used. Yes, I just wanted to point out that you reach somekind of consensus with conditions. Text must meet the Wiki quality requirements. I stronly agree on that. We cannot write here into encyclopedia what we feel but what we know and is backed with reference. Huckleberry Hugo 22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well. I hope the discussion here is done more sivilized way. If we have two or more truth of the same thing those should be both left untouched until another/or both is referred. If both are referred then authors of the references have to be evaluated. This is if the final truth has to be dig out.;) In general, stop the nonsense, its not the quantity of edits (reverts), but the quality of edits that counts in Wiki.

Nah, you can insert something only if you can source it, as Wikipedia is a strictly "second-hand" source of information. The source must also be reliable, etc. --Illythr
Illythr, may I ask first. What means Nah?. I checked that in english it is synonym for word "no". Othervise I agree above. Wikipedia is source for second-hand information and reader has to be carefull. Huckleberry Hugo 23:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"Nah" is the antonym of "Yeah". ;-) Anyhow, why do you ask, if you already know? --Illythr 00:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Just doublecheck after my check. Huckleberry Hugo 10:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Everybody knows that the information of these finnish war things is more or less finlandized by the Russian propaganda which was practiced until '80s. I got personal wake after reading Taisto Huuskonen's "Laps Suomen" book.

What comes to the user "Ahven is a fish", he/she have lots of contributions in this article. Everybody can see that his/her main target is to write positively of Finland. That is desirable, instead of accusing Finland of the crimes that big powers are quilty of.

Unfortunately, "writing positively" or negatively in a neutral encyclopedia is not desired. Verifiable information from reliable sources in a neutral tone and from a NPOV - that's what is desired. --Illythr 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That is clear. But if somebody treats Finland as a criminal for the illegal WW2 in these pages the text gets easily negative from Finland POV. Then the text must be corrected. We can say positive things of Finland. Like, Finland tried to bring as much as possible fallen soldiers from battlefield to be graven in their home villages and did not grave them to battlefield. I think this sounds positive, at least to me. Huckleberry Hugo 23:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove "Ahven is a fish" article contributions unintentionally, otherwise what leaves left, half, not even that;) We see that nearly all the contributions have dried out, why? Nothing to say or nothing wanted to say? I hope you continue.

Huckleberry Hugo 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahven, i.e. Kven and his army of socks contributions were mainly a lame attempt at rewriting history. That he had created a sockpuppet farm to support himself and resorted to personally attacking his opposition (in a very self-discreditive manner, I might add) demonstrates the quality of his edits quite clearly. As for the sockpuppet war - it's over for now. The huge walls of text that consisted mosly of repetitive wild claims and funny accusations may be an amusing read, but is no longer an issue. --Illythr 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The talk texts gets easily difficult to read. Personal attacks does not belong to Wiki, I stronly agree on you. Ahven should leave that out right away. What comes to edits it can be seen that Ahven have lots of information but sometimes without sources. It is maybe better to add information in small portions but with sources to quarantee quality. Huckleberry Hugo 23:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact I was more lenient than Wikipedia policy, which demands removal of puppet contributions from articles and their talk pages: I just archived them. Puppets managed to infest almost all open discussions before they were banned, so many interesting issues were thrown away with archiving.
The issues puppets handled are beyond repair and incomprehensible due to walls-of-text method puppets used: It is impossible to follow discussion through the rhetoric which have no factual contents, only content provided was emotional.
Yes, that what I was worried about. If that is the case that puppetshow is totally forbidden. Then I'm getting angry because that show stole the whole show in this discussion and all the good contributions are now archived. I'm sure that Ahven can write without puppetry as well. (Actually lately he used mainly "Ahven is a fish" account.) Because the facts are the clue here not puppetry. Huckleberry Hugo 00:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I made the offer to leave the section in the article as a compromise; I still do not believe it is useful to be there. The only condition I made was to follow Wikipedia policies, for example a demand for sourcing the contested content. I even marked the contested sentences to the text to make his task easier. He had ten days to provide those sources, but no. Only sources he provided was a conspiracy theory without any evidence and a newspaper column. Instead he chose to turn back to his rhetoric and started demanding copying the sources to the talk pages. In addition being a violation of a copyright, it turned out that he himself chose to use same method with a twist: By cherrypicking sentences from the sources he changed the meaning of their message.
In his behaviour on the question about sources, he lost all credibility in my eyes: He was not interested in developing a good, informative, encyclopedic article, but all he was interested in was pure and simple vandalism.
I think in this edit war there was two sides as well;) I think that your recommendations to remove nearly all opposites the contributions were hard. At least to my eys. Didn't you propose to handle one chapter at a time? Sources are required and after the chapter is finished it would be moved to real article. This can be still done. Ok, you are proposing this below;). Huckleberry Hugo 00:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If you think there is something worth to salvage in his text, you are free to edit it to the article, but remember: Add the proper sources immediately! Also remember, that you cannot cherrypick sources: If you deem one source so reliable, that you quote it, you cannot blame if someone quotes the same source against your interpretation.
I'm not sure I'm able to do that as I'm quite newcomer here. But maybe later I can do some small contribution, with source.
As tensions are still riding high, I recommend moving first by piecemal, adding one sentence or paragraph at time, and proposing them first here in talk page so we can provide comments without disrupting the article itself. --Whiskey 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is the way. Small pieces are more easy to eat. Huckleberry Hugo 00:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Block this guy!

Why do you engage in discussion with this sock puppet? If his puppetry was not evident from his previous edits, it is clear from his support of the Illythr - Whiskey - Roobit sock puppet fallacy. He should be blocked immediately. Besides his sock master should be perma-banned, if he is not already.

Hmmm, global warming, bears wake up from winter sleep;), lets calm down. We can discuss with guys if we want. Above fallacy is just what is spread here. I have not accused anything, just commenting Ahven's discussion and proposing checkuser. This can clean guys reputation. Huckleberry Hugo 00:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that we need to start a new action against the Kven user, based partly on the false accusations of sock puppetry. He may not be perma-banned yet. (Or should we just ask Jimbo to ban him?) -- Petri Krohn 09:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the Checkuser failed to produce conclusive evidence against him. I think we can wait out until he becomes disruptive and obvious to more than just to you and me. Walls of text, introducing that section, silly accusations - all that stuff. ;-) --Illythr 11:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

...and a friend of Kven from Talk:Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 joins in his support...

(reduced indent)

Well, sockpuppetry must not be tolerated, but the same goes for Soviet POV pushing. I wouldn't be surprised, if Petri would declare here as well, that those who dare to refer to Soviet crimes are Holocaust deniers. Constanz - Talk 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Soviet crimes - what sort of bull is that? There were Nazi crimes, they are internationally agreed upon, defined, and Nuremberg war crimes tribunal dealt with them in proper manner. A few perpetrators were even brought to justice. I am sure the time will come and we'll put ethnonazis from so-called Estonia and Latvia on trial as well. This is however not the place to discuss either old Nazi or today's Estonian/Latvian ethnonazi crimes as the dispute is over the Finnish front article which Finnish nationalists/Nazi sympathizers keep calling "War of Continuation" - a preposterous misnomer for the war of choice and war of aggression fascist Finland launched and lost. I haven't even read that article to the end as my problem is with the title (although I can imagine well what the contents can be). If this online publication has any claim to objectivity whatsoever, as it pretends to, it should not allow only one side in this debate (in this case the losing Finnish/Nazi side) to present its views as the only correct ones. I can't waste too much time on arguing here with no end in sight but it strikes me as incredibly unfair that the group which is the nastiest, which viciously slanders other participants and spreads false accusations of sock puppetry, that those with the loudest mouth and least shame - should "win." Roobit 10:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should continue the discussion at Talk:Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945. -- Petri Krohn 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see that Constanz is evenly matched here. Be careful guys, you two might annihilate on contact one of these days!
--Illythr
"Soviet crimes - what sort of bull is that?" Good joke! Whole WW2 was a Big Crime of USSR (Stalin) and Nazi Germany (Hitler). All the other parties were just drawn into war, against their will ofcourse. - What is this writing actually Roobit? - Where you have learned these lies? Continuation War was a separate war that Finland had to participate against USSR's illegal invasion. But as you know in all the major battles russian troops were beaten by Finnish defence and USSR troops were not able to penetrate into Finland. So Finland won the Continuation War and kept it's indepence. I see, you have plenty of time, when spreading lies about the Nazi sympathizers. Finland was not in Nazi organization by any meaning but just got military support against evil USSR. Finland needed to accept weapons from anywhere available(refer. president Ryti manouver) to fight to preserve the nation. Huckleberry Hugo 21:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Finnish made many crimes in Contituion war but finns are like to think that they are angels:)))

Finland has never won a war. It was an aggressor and is listed among other axis states and co-billegerents by every credible source. After it was soundly defeated, it agreed to pay reparations for the damage it caused during its aggression and gave control of its territory with Soviet bases established at Hanko and Helsinki. Bases were later closed. The ongoing attempt to rewrite the history by Finnish Nazis and their sympathizers - as this article and its title illustrate - may indeed be shameless but it doesn't mean that the rest of us would just ignore this travesty without making any comments Roobit 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Roobit, that's the most blatantly pro-Soviet statement I've yet heard here and absolute bollocks. Tiny Finland attacked the enormous USSR completely unprovoked? What I've read is that Finland was forced into the Winter War because Stalin was worried about the Finnish border being so close to St. Petersburg [4], he feared that Finland could be used as an offensive base for the Nazis, and because the USSR's attempts at starting a Socialist revolution in Finland were unsuccessful. The Soviet Union signed non-agression pacts with Finland, which they broke and they also broke the Treaty of Tartu in 1937. After Stalin marched into east Poland (a blatant and unprovoked aggression), he demanded out of hand that Finland cede territory to the USSR. When Finland told them to go to hell, the Soviets began shelling them. The arrogant and incompetent Red Army were destroyed by a Finnish army made up of raw conscripts. The USSR was thoroughly embarassed. However, Finland didn't have the resources to continue fighting and was forced to cede the territory to Stalin in exchange for peace. The Continuation War was a perfectly legitimate and justified attempt at national defense by getting supplies and armaments from any source possible. Mannerheim made the Soviets look like hapless fools. These are the facts, as written in pretty much every source I've ever read. I've NEVER read a source stating that the Soviet Union was a victim of Finnish aggression. Some folks need to get out of their dream world. TheQuandry 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe Roobit is referring to the Continuation War (the subject of this article ;-) not the Winter War. In this war the Finns were the aggressors. Those responsible for this war of aggression were tried and convicted at the war-responsibility trials in Finland. -- Petri Krohn 03:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The continuation was just that- a continuation. They had a perfect right to try and regain the territory that Stalin stole from them. War responsibility trials are a joke. Did the USSR have to answer for their baldfaced aggression against Poland and Finland? Of course not, because they won. Whoever wins the war gets to write history (and force others to pay reparations and cede territory and blah blah blah). The idea that "Finnish nazis" are trying to rewrite history in this article is ludicrous. Poor old Soviet Union, always getting picked on by bullies. TheQuandry 04:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Other parties drawn to war? Just like that? With all due respect, Finland was a willing aggressor along with a bunch of others who, to paraphrase great Clemanceau, changed the tune only after "they had been defeated in the field, and all hope of profiting by the war of conquest had vanished." Finland, like the German Democratic Republic or East Germany was given a free ride when it came to war history and war crimes. In exchange for cooperation, Finland's countless crimes were not to be discussed. Likewise, the Nazi crimes were not talked about in the GDR as if West Germany, Christ like, assumed the collective sin. Fascist Finland (what about a new car sticker - instead of old SF - Soviet Finland, FF would be far more appropriate) was never brought to justice not because of any achievements on its own, as it lacks any (no one can call stabbing one's Nazi master in the back a great accomplishment) but because both Stalin and the Soviet Union needed it in the neutral state as a buffer and as a source of reparations, which in turn transormed Finland into an industrial power. I agree that Stalin made countless mistakes and this one was perhaps the most foolish one. Roobit 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Constanz, I suggest that you first examine the actual dispute before making such comments about Petri Krohn on this page. At the very least you may learn that the most hardcore Stalinist(s) on this page are Whiskey and me, with Petri being only a mild opportunist, caring only about Petri was maily concerned with such trifling things like NPOV and preventing a block evasion via a massive sockpuppetry farm.
As for Holocaust denial - Germany (!) had recently [5] proposed a law that marks Hd a criminal offence in the EU. Let's see what member countries will rise up to defend the freedom to erect monuments to honor SS soldiers in Europe, shall we? --Illythr 20:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't no a single country within the EU, where statues glorifying Hitler, Stalin, Gestapo or SS would be erected by the government. But I know one country otside this union, were Stalin cult is on the rise: A NEW statue of the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin is to be erected in Moscow, returning his once-ubiquitous image to the streets after an absence of four decades, a top city official said yesterday [6]
Constanz - Talk 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Show me an existing new monument to Stalin in Moscow (preferrably with a picture). Besides no need to equate a leader of victorious nation with your idols who got strung up on the gallows or spent years on meager diet of wild berries and mushrooms in the dark forests of liberated Soviet Baltic republics Roobit 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Than look in the Baltic republics, where SS troopers are equated in status with Red Army Soldiers, and where mayors organize marches of former SS soldiers... As usual, if you don't see something, it's probably because it's right under your nose... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I almost forgot, some acts by Soviet liberators of Finland: Some of the photographs show executions, including of Soviet spies, while others document cannibalism practised by encircled Soviet soldiers. [7], [8]. Constanz - Talk 16:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Constanz is incredibly bright - fine there is picture with someone being executed who is accused of being Soviet spy (at the time when the Soviet Union waged defensive war), what does it have to do with Soviet liberators or not? It is not Soviets (Russians) killing innocent civilians but actually Nazis (Finns in this picture) are executing a prisoner of war or one of their own. Roobit 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, courtmartialling and executing a spy was at that time a normal practice in just about every country (and even nowadays, one would have to be very lucky to escape it - I'm talking about wartime of course)
And as for cannibalism... How does it connect with war crimes? I would like to see you be thrown in the snow by 40 below zero, encircled and with little or no food. Would be amusing to see your reaction... As someone once said "Don't judge and you won't be judged" -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this relevant?

What the heck these things have to do with Continuation War? Roobit, can you calm down a bit? Finland was never fascist, but a Liberal Democracy. (Unlike Stalinist, totalitarian and communist Soviet Union :p) As for Soviet War Crimes.. How about invasion of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.They choose SU in 1939 without fight but after war we should call it occupation (The germans who participated in Molotov-Ribbentrop got sentenced), Soviet partisan terrorist attacks, mass rapes, bombing of civilians, sending people to gulags.. etc.. :) But as far as I knew this was a Continuation War discussion. So Roobit, you call everyone who call this war Continuation War (real name in academic literate also) Nazi Symphatizers or fascists? Should this be taken serious, or is this a joke? Personal attack? --Pudeo (Talk) 21:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Finland was of course a fascist state - very much in the traditional definition of the word fascist (but not yet quite Nazi), a "nation" where corporate and government interests merged, that was ruled by an oligarchy (to a degree it still is), without any credible opposition (as it was suppressed or killed off earlier). So called Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were statelets created by Bolsheviks that no one first recognized except the Bolsheviks who signed treaties which neither side had any authority to sign, by mid 1930s these were pretty pathetic authoritarian ethnocracies. Poland was certainlyn no liberal democracy in any sense although it never degenerated to the tribal or ethnic savagery witnessed in what once were Russian Baltic provinces. No German was sentenced for participating in Molotov-Ribbentrop act. Soviet Union never invaded Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania. Besides for the USSR and Soviet Russia this trio were not remote territories like Iraq is (to them) today (in occupation of which all three Baltic satrapies now eagerly participate. It is worth noting that more people died from sanctions and war in Iraq than is the entire population (!) of those who consider themselves ethnic "Estonians" - just to put the scale of crimes past and present into some perspective) but once Russian provinces. Furthermore these historic provinces were not attacked militarily but were entered without firing a shot. Enough said. Continuation War is not a "real name" (whatever that is) but obviously a term on which no agreement exists - (unlike War of the Spanish Succession or American-Spanish War). This discussion is the absolute proof of that. As of personal attacks. I am not attacking you or anyone else personally. Even with that Constanz personage, - I only dared to compliment him when I wrote that he is unusually bright, - hardly a personal attack. Roobit 23:01, 16 January 2007
Soviet partisan terrorist attacks?! I am sure there were no Soviet partisant near Abo. Partisans are armed civilians, resistance fighters and not an invading aggressor army. Naturally they engage in actions aggressor calls terrorist. However it is the aggressor who is guilty not the party that resists to the aggression. I am afraid, with all due respect, you are confusing perpetrators with their victims. Roobit 23:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy. Could you guys move off to someone's userpage with everything not connected with this particlular article? --Illythr

Everybody loves a good fight. And on Wikipedia news travels fast! -- Petri Krohn 03:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact there were, but they were called Desants, not that much partisans, more saboteurs - they were parachute dropped all over Finland, dressed in civilan clothing and equipped with different tools, some with radios to conduct espionage, some with explosives to try creating some damage. Partisan attacks were mainly in the more sparsly populated areas in the north. MoRsE 15:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitely Roobit userpage time, AIIKKKSSSSS! (Hopefully that's not some scatalogical or obscene exclamation I'm unaware of in a language other than English). A more misinformed, misguided account of history I have not encountered since Peabody's Improbable History (and recounted with much less dry wit). Accordingly I find myself agreeing (improbably) with Illythr.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Result of Checkuser

Art Dominique can no longer use this as a weapon for trolling TheQuandry 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird claims

"Finland's main goal during World War II was, although nowhere literally stated, to survive the war as an independent democratic country, capable of maintaining its sovereignty in a politically hostile environment. "

Any true and relevant claim should be literally stated somewhere. Maybe it is not literally stated, because it's far too simplified.

I bet this part plays at the Winter War = Continuation war thing. --Illythr 13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
One should notice that the claim concerns World War II, not only the Winter War or the Continuation War or Lappland War. This can be read from statements/writings of many different players from Ryti, Tanner, Paasikivi, Mannerheim, etc. --Whiskey 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Specifically for the Continuation War, Finland aimed at reversing its territorial losses under the March 1940 Moscow Peace Treaty and by extending the territory further east, to have more non-Finnish land to defend before the USSR would enter Finnish territories. Also some small right-wing groups supported Greater Finland ideology. Finland's exertion during the World War was, in the former respect, successful, although the "

How can exertion be "succesful" if the goal was like article says, reversing Winter War's territorial losses (and actually it was even more)? Finland didn't get back any of them and indeed lost even more territories.

Note the "in the former respect" part. It means "successful in surviving the war as an independent democratic country...". The sentence is rather confusing, I agree. --Illythr 13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You are free to rephrase those sections. As you have seen, I have (mostly) left political stuff out from my expansion of the article. And as I haven't touched those sections yet, they do contain some pathos. --Whiskey 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
(I noticed just now article isn't protected anymore :-o). Of course, all this succesful-talk (that can be found at the end of the article too) is more accurate if you look World War II as whole and not just Continuation War. But this is article about Continuation War, not "Finland in World War II". I think there are too much essay-like writing about how well Finland managed in World War II. --ML 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Also some small right-wing groups supported Greater Finland ideology."

This is very misleading. During the war, there was nearly a concensus for annexing East-Karelia and gaining "Greater Finland borders", althought in some cases (lefties etc.) motives might have been more practical ("easier borders to defend") than ideological. Without that, the army would never have crossed the old borders at all.

So I thought, but do you have a good source to back this up? I bet this part is going to be challenged. --Illythr 13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, before the war (what this chapter describes) the annexing East Karelia wasn't a supported dream of great majority of Finns, but the support for the idea had dropped among the populace since 1920s. The successfull conquest of the area increased the support temporarily, but already 1942 it was declining again. But one could check the sources on the issue. At least I have to check Ohto Mannisen's book about Greater Finland. --Whiskey 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Finnish-German alliance was far different from most of the other axis relationships. A striking example of this can be found in the participation of Finnish Jews in the fight against the Soviet Union. Despite the Nazi’s repetitive requests, the Finns did not feel they had a Jewish question to be solved."

Even if the Finnish-German alliance was somehow different from other axis, this is not a "striking example" of it, but totally irrelevant detail. There was only 1000 or something Jews in Finland, so no wonder Nazi-Germany didn't bother to make an issue of Finland's Jews (and some of them were sent to Nazi-Germany anyway).--ML 15:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Were not! The sent Jews were either foreign refugees (the famous 8) or Soviet POWs.--Whiskey 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Conventional wisdom among Finns who grew up in the 1960s–70s, and who saw friendly relations with Soviet Union paramount, depicted the Continuation War as a Finnish mistake. Nowadays, some tend to assert that there was really nothing Finland could have done to avoid the Winter War and the Continuation War — at least not in the last years before the wars."

This is pure false information or at least very harsh simplification/misleading. Theory of Finland being just a "victim of change" is very old, it appeared already in 40's and soon gained virtually official status in Finnish history writing (so-called "ajopuuteoria"). Due to criticism from foreign historians (not Soviets!), this official theory in 60's changed to a little milder version ("koskiveneteoria"), but it still stated Finland was more just a victim of bad times and could'nt have done much if anything to avoid the war. [9] (in Finnish) --ML 16:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was written from Finnish sources, most (if not all) of it is a translation from Finnish. Some patriotism may have crept in. Propose your changes here, then. --Illythr 13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The article needs balanced review of the presented theories, I agree. (And also here are some superlatives I don't like in historical articles.) --Whiskey 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Most important is to delete false information. It's always better if you can replace it with more factual information, but it is not necessary. "Conventional wisdom among Finns who grew up in the 1960s–70s, and who saw friendly relations with Soviet Union paramount, depicted the Continuation War as a Finnish mistake.". This is clearly and utterly false information. Ruling theory of the time did not represent war as a Finnish mistake, but quite the opposite - it praised the wisdom of war time Finnish politicians. "Nowadays, some tend to assert that there was really nothing Finland could have done to avoid the Winter War and the Continuation War — at least not in the last years before the wars.". This is very misleading at best, if not utterly false. Theories like this are not contemporary, but old and traditional theories. --ML 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
When Lundin torpedoed the original "ajopuuteoria" at 1957, Korhonen published the updated version at 1961, but already at 1965 Upton and Krosby sank that. Although Korhonen's theory was liked in certain circles, it didn't dominate scientific discussion, and more importantly, it didn't dominate the daily political discussion, which was lead by a new generation of historians and politicians highly critical of Finnish leadership before and during the World War II. For example in Jatkosodan pikkujättiläinen there is a good presentation of the development of different theories. --Whiskey 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about the later "koskiveneteoria" here. It didn't represent war as "a Finnish mistake" (as article states), but claimed Finnish leaders did wise choises in difficult situation. This theory wasn't sunk before 1980. See: [10]. I wonder if the political discussion differed that much from the historical one. --ML 09:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The refered Ohto Manninen's book pushed ajopuuteoria to the dustbin, and promoted koskiveneteoria, also just like the source you gave depicts. The modern theories are variants of koskiveneteoria, differing mainly in timing and pace of the things how Finnish military and political leadership thoughts changed. The discussion didn't differ that much in general, but both camps were in highly entrenched positions. ajopuuteoria was promoted by older historians, and conservative section of society supported it. One should note that at that time, conservatives were sidelined in politics (Kokoomus in perpentual opposition, K-line dominated in Keskustapuolue). Younger historians, following the general radicalization of the students, were critical to ajopuuteoria and supported the view of mistakes of the leadership. This radical line was supported by political left and elite. --Whiskey 11:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No doubt some radicals thought Continuation War as Finnish mistake (that polical elite though same way is very strong claim and needs sources). But which is most important, dominant theory in history writing in 60's and 70's was all but opposite - Finland had acted wisely. Nowadays koskiveneteoria is dead too. Couple of quotations, sorry nonfinnish readers (if there are).
"Kun englantilainen Anthony Upton ja amerikkalainen Hans Peter Krosby 1960-luvun puolivälissä osoittivat Suomen aktiivisesti hakeutuneen Saksan vanaveteen, alettiin Suomessa ajopuun sijaan puhua maasta koskiveneenä maailmanpolitiikan myrskyssä.
Tämän tulkinnan mukaan johtoblokki oli taitavasti ohjannut maan vaikeuksien läpi parhaaseen mahdolliseen lopputulokseen. Jatkossa koskiveneteoria vakiinnutti asemansa sota-ajan politiikan puolustuksena. Tukeutumalla Saksaan oli pelastettu maan itsenäisyys, eikä anteeksi pyydeltävää ollut. Talvi- ja jatkosota olivat yhtä ja samaa puolustustaistelua, jonka ainoana tavoitteena oli pelastaa maa Neuvostoliiton hyökkäykseltä."
[11]
"Ajopuuteoriasta kehitettiin edelleen nk. koskiveneteoria, jossa valtion johdon katsottiin luovineen tai soutaneen Suomen parhaaseen mahdolliseen ratkaisuun, vaikka itse virran suuntaan ei voitukaan vaikuttaa.
1970-luvulla ajopuu- ja koskiveneteorioista käytiin vielä vilkasta keskustelua, mutta professori Ohto Mannisen 1980 julkaisema Suur-Suomen ääriviivat hautasi lopullisesti koko teorian. Runsailla Suomen sekä Saksan arkistojen käytöllä Manninen kykeni muodostamaan selkeän polun talvisodan Moskovan rauhasta vuoden 1941 heinäkuuhun ja jatkosodan syntyyn. "
[12]
--ML 15:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not certain, but Manninen might have been the historian who coined the boat-in-rapids metaphor. (Meinander: "Hänenkin tulkintansa ydin oli, ettei Suomea viety tai ettei se joutunut jatkosotaan, vaan se pikemmin ymmärsi olevansa pakotettu valitsemaan tien, joka johtaisi sotaan mutta pelastaisi maan. Mannisen metaforaa käyttäen Suomi oli siinä tilanteessa enemmän koskivene kuin ajopuu." [13] (PDF))
In your second link, Pulkki presents what is in its essentials the boat-in-rapids theory: "Suomella ei siten ollut mitään reaalisia mahdollisuuksia vaikuttaa siihen, että se vielä joutuisi osallistumaan suursotaan. ... Suomi tarvitsi keväällä 1940 kipeästi apua. ... On siis aika turvallista sanoa, että vuonna 1940 Euroopassa oli tasan yksi Suomen tukemiseen kykenevä valtio - Saksa." I suspect that he meant that the theory (singular) buried by Manninen's book was the driftwood theory. Jouten 06:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"In any event, Finland's fate was no worse than any other country struck by the World War — quite the contrary. Only 2,000 Finnish civilians were killed during World War II, and only relatively narrow border regions had been conquered by force.". Finland's fate was clearly worse than countries like Iceland, Canada, even Norway etc. And number of civil victims is quite irrelevant factor. There were also 100 000 soldier victims and they don't differ that much from civilians expecially when there was a duty army. Also 400 000 civilians living in losted territories had to leave their homes.--ML 11:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Were Canada and Iceland actually struck by WW2? Probably best to change to "most countries". --Illythr 13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Age along issue that the lives of the women, children and the old have to be saved. Naturally it can be argued... --Whiskey 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Then I quess for example USA's costs of war were next to nothing, since there were very few civilian victims. --ML 20:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Compared to other major players they were. --Whiskey 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


The Numbers are borked

Finnish military deaths

year 1939 5681 year 1940 21082 year 1941 27023 year 1942 9743 year 1943 6180 year 1944 22777 year 1945 140

The numbers used in the article are only of the FINNS and only of people who died directly on the field not the ones who died going back to a hospital or in a hospital. This is standard practise which was used by the axis nations, Germany did the exact same thing. The people who died on their way to Hospitals or in Hospitals were counted as civilians who died of civilian causes.

The Soviet numers are ALL in the most abosulte form of the word, but the numbers there are borked as well. The wounded + sick = 380K not 380 wounded and 190k sick but the grand total of sick and wounded are 380 that is the grand total, so killed and missing = 200K, Wounded = 195K, sick =190K, but their is no mention of Finnish sick and no mention of any german what so ever. So move the Soviet sick to the bottom of the article, having it at the top is not only misleading but tasteless as well.

And the numbers are only of Finns not Germans Mooocow 02:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please source your claims?
My grandfather's cousin was wounded badly in the early days of the Winter War, and was evacuated to the hospital where he died. He has been included in the every name lists of Finnish casualties of war I've seen, which provide similar numbers as official statistics. Also, I have never heard somebody claiming that their relative were not included in casualty lists or wasn't buried in local "Sankarihautausmaa" if they died to their wounds at hospital. Do you have a source to support your claim on this issue? My example proves otherwise.
At 1943, during the trench war, Soviet wounded were 22,000 and sick were 47,000. How do you explain those sick were included in wounded? (I still grumble with those Soviet "medical casualties", as I don't understand it at all how serious they were. Were a man "a medical casualty" if he died from the sickness or if he had to spend two days in sick ward in hospital before returning to the front????) --Whiskey 08:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Soviet Union of the 1930s was a militarily weak power"

Millions of soldiers, more tanks than the rest of the world altogether (including the heaviest and the most advanced tanks), even more artillery, divisions of paratroopers, etc - yeah, totally weak. --HanzoHattori 22:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to second that I have a problem with the portrayal of the Soviet Union as weak and therefore needing Finland, the Baltics, et al. as a "defensive" buffer zone. The implication is that the Soviet Union's hands were tied by external circumstances, which is wholly inappropriate.
    I also believe (strenuously) that the word "perceived" in the introduction needs to be changed to the word "portrayed." Let's not forget Pravda printing an article portraying the Finnish prime minister as a "buffoon" for turning down the USSR's offer of friendship (aka mutual assistance pact). Nor Stalin's open threats of occupation under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact prior to the initial unprovoked Soviet assault (i.e,. "as far as Hitler was concerned," Stalin could occupy the countries immediately). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If you have some sort of source saying that the USSR perceived the war differently than portraying it, do provide it.
"Militarily weak" as in "not prepared to effectively counter a coordinated attack against it". Without effective leadership, the army is weak no matter its size. It took Stalin the Winter war to figure that out. Of course, if, again, you have a source showing Soviet soldiers capturing Helsinki in December 1939, do provide it. --Illythr 23:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"Whoops, I just made my army weak by killing my own officers, I need to conquer all the small countries now"? --HanzoHattori 07:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Nah, more like, "What?! Not in Helsinki yet and taking heavy losses? I really need some pros over there. Damn, looks like those traitors did a good job at running the army after all. Too bad I've got them executed and replaced with these useless bootlickers." --Illythr 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Gerhard Weinberg, A World at War extensively discussess Soviet military insecurities. You guys have to remember, nobody, including Stalin, thought the Soviets had a strong military in the 1930's. WWII radically revised opinions of Soviet military strength. And of course, the celebrated Soviet armor were produced later, during the war, and reliant on Allied-provided raw materials and transport to some degree. Slac speak up! 07:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? How many types of heavy tanks the "strong" German army had? Zero. How many tanks the "weak" Soviets had in 1939? 21,100 (twenty-one thousand, that is more than the rest of ENTIRE WORLD counted altogether). The war-time Germans managed to field 5,200 tanks in 1941 prior to Barbarossa - but the "peace time" Soviets already had 25,700 by this time (including 1,861 T-34 and heavy tanks superior to the 1,404 "best" German tanks). To quote Wikipedia: "The number of artillery pieces and aircraft was also heavily in the Soviets' favor, and the A-19 field gun was arguably the best in the world." I guess this makes German hopelessly weak, even compared to the Soviets. Who was "strong", then? The Finns?

How about "the world's most powerful but badly-led military power"?--HanzoHattori 12:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be a remarkably complex oxymoron. --Illythr 14:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, Stalin felt that way about the Finns too . . . and was in for an enormous shock. Paper strength isn't everything. Just as the PLA isn't as much chop as its massive size allows. At the risk of overloading this section with sarcasm, it wasn't as though someone could tell the French they should have no trouble with the Wehrmacht - after all, they had no heavy tanks! Slac speak up! 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Am I saying the French were "weak military power"? Militarily, they were European superpower - but they were also defetist nation with stupid/criminal politicians and generals. But, compared to the Soviets 1939-41, everyone was weak (France, Germany, US, name it) - at least on the ground (Soviets didn't have a real Navy or a bomber fleet). They just didn't know how to use it. --HanzoHattori 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuation War vs. Finlands aggression during the World War II

The name is the Finnish propagation. I suggest to find more neutral.--Jaro.p 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain what exactly you consider being non-neutral about the name "Continuation War"? You say it is a Finnish propagation, yes it is, it was coined by Finns and gained a foothold as it describes perfectly the events on the northern European front - not like the Soviet/Russian way of simplifying and baking everything into the term "The Great Patriotic War". Your suggestion "Finland's aggression during WW2" is both flaming, non-neutral and provocative. --MoRsE 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The name Continuation War (War of Continuation) is standard in English-language sources and seems ok to me. I have never seen other variants. Colchicum 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The term is not neutral; it portrays a Finnish revanchist agenda. Even more revealing is the term "Interim Peace", first used by Väinö Tanner, even before the Moscow Peace Treaty. (See: Jatkosota talvisodan rauhan syy) Both these terms implicate Finland as the aggressor in this war of aggression. -- Petri Krohn 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Petri, I believe you are interpreting the Tanner statement wrong: He said: (in February 1940) "Myös periaatteessa olen hävitystä vastaan. Suursota ei vielä ole kunnolla alkanut, emmekä tiedä, mitään sen loppumisesta. Tämä meidän rauhamme on välirauha, emmekä tiedä, millainen lopullinen rauha tulee.", and continued "Me olemme liian pieni tekijä luhistamaan Venäjää", and on 29th of February: "Ei kukaan ole niin naivi, että uskoisi näin pienen joukon voivan yksin kestää loppuun saakka." Nothing there implicates that the Finns would be planning a new aggressive war on the Soviet Union by using the term "interim peace" - it is just a statement that Finland most likely will be dragged into the Great war that is about to erupt. It was not until the autumn of 1940 that Finland had more intensive military contact with Germany and it was not until spring 1941 when it became fully clear (for the Finns) that it was Germany who would attack the Soviet Union. (BTW: the punavihrea.org link you provided can by no means be called a neutral link) --MoRsE 22:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to note, that also the Russian Wikipedia used to call this Continuation War - ru:Война-продолжение. This was only changed last week to ru:Советско-финская война 1941—1944 гг.. [14] -- Petri Krohn 11:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Even more interesting is that article's status as a "good article", despite all the Finnish POV and all. :) To clarify: the ruwiki article is mainly a translation of the enwiki one (with some POV/DePOV modifications), which is itself a translation of some Finnish source.
Petri, the original version of the ruwiki article was about the term [15], the main content was translated from English relatively recently. --Illythr 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The new Russian name: 4 hits on google. Old name, 520 hits. :) --Pudeo (Talk) 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, a lot of those hits deal with a translation of "Ultima regina regis" (Война - продолжение политики), and other such syntactic things. In Russia, this war is regarded as part of the Great Patriotic War, and thus doesn't have a common name. The new name is but an artificial NPOV construct (probably as NPOV as it can get). "Война-продолжение" is usually a translation used to deal with the Finnish point of view. --Illythr 14:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Valkeasaari

I am very much in favor of using original Finnish toponyms whenever appropriate, but is it ok to refer to a battle of this war as battle of Valkeasaari despite Valkeasaari being on the Soviet side of the old border named Beloostrov/Krasnoostrov officially? Maybe it is worth renaming to battle of Beloostrov? Colchicum 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeadia should not rename battles, only articles:-) Can you find English Language sources using "Battle of Beloostrov"? -- Petri Krohn 21:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No, neither battle of Valkeasaari nor battle of Beloostrov:-) Colchicum 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
At Soviet sources it is referenced as Beloostrov, and it was located inside the original Soviet borders before the Winter War. On the other hand, the battles fought in the area Finns ceded after the Winter War, are generally referenced through the cyrillic translation of their Finnish names instead of their modern Russian names. (Siiranmäki = Сийранмяки, Kuuterselkä = Куутерселькя etc.) --Whiskey 09:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

UK involvement

"The United Kingdom declared war on Finland on December 6, 1941, but did not participate actively in the Continuation War." I thought that the RAF attacked Finnish ports(?) Grant | Talk 03:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

German ships that were in Finland's port at the far north, Petsamo. There were no Finnish troops involved, but Germans returned AA-fire. Was there any other military involvment on Finland's / Russian territory? --Pudeo (Talk) 10:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, none. --MPorciusCato 10:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There were some British espionage mostly directed against the Germans e.g. in Helsinki ("The British Book Club") and among the personnel at the mines in Petsamo. A number of spy circles were rounded up after the declaration of war.--MoRsE 11:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

About the Finnish StuG III Ausf. G assault guns

"Note that swastikas were used by the Finnish and Latvian defense forces since WWI, not symbolizing German Nazism." It's tragic that Hitler usurped one of the oldest and most positive of humanity's symbols. I see no reason why the prior note was deleted. I updated to indicate both Finland and Latvia had used the swastika. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

All of Finland was never occupied by the Soviet Union. See winter war and this article. (RookZERO 13:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

On looking at my edit summary, I should have phrased it differently. (RookZERO 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC))
Most likely. --Whiskey 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

creation of new article Finnish reconquest of Ladoga Karelia (1941)

I created the new article and moved all text from that section intact to it. I also created the intro and placed section headings in the article. Of course, the article still needs work. (RookZERO 19:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

We still need some text in those chapters, the main information about the reconquest briefly. See Continuation_War#Reconquest_of_Ladoga_Karelia, doesn't look very good. --Pudeo (Talk) 12:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Occupation vs annexation/aims of the war

Point 1: However the people of the Baltic States or the world felt about it, the Soviet Union proclaimed an annexation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in 1940.

Point 2: The whole section below the "disputed" tag doesn't have a single reference anyway. If nobody can come up with one, the paragraph should be axed outright. --Stlemur 12:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Parallel war"

--Stlemur. I hear what you say, but the term "parallel war" was coined by Mussolini. The idea was that Italy would benefit (through territorial gain in the Balkans and North Africa) from German victory in the wider war. Initially, the Italians tried to avoid too close an engagement with the Germans. Finnish involvement in WWII was similar in character. Bob BScar23625 16:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the point, but I think it could potentially be a misleading analogy, though. Finland wasn't a member of the Tripartite Pact, didn't participate in wars against other enemies of Germany...furthermore, the Finnish goal in the war wasn't to expand territorially, just to survive. It's a false parallel. --Stlemur 17:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Finland's aim was to expand territorially, at a minimum to the territories lost in the Moscow Peace Treaty. The "just to survive" claim is BS. -- Petri Krohn 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Stlemur I have visited military museums in Finland - thinking in particular of the Headquarters and Infantry museums and Mannerheim's carriage in Mikkeli. The Finns seem to have a peculiar blind spot about their participation in WWII. The Finns like to present it as if it were an early cold-war conflict with the Finns acting as a proxy for the west. That is very far from the truth. Bob BScar23625 07:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not cold war, but it comes from much deeper: Finland had been a border country between eastern and western Christianity over 700 years, so it had installed certain thoughtpatterns to the minds of her people. And in truth, the Winter War was such a conflict, although the Continuation War is a bit more controversial one as "The West" doesn't always equal Anglo-Saxon...
Petri, to "expand territorially" is just as BS as "just to survive". Both do have their merits. --Whiskey 11:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Whiskey I am only an occasional visitor to Finland and what I refer to as "a peculiar blindspot" might be explained by your reference to "certain thoughtpatterns to the minds of her people". I know nothing about the thoughtpatterns of the Finns. Bob BScar23625 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all before the war 1939, Finland did not have any territorial claims on any of her neighbor. Finland had political orientation towards Scandinavian neutrality and was focused on building a welfare society and hade put very little money on her defenses prior to the war. After the winter war, and the fall of France, the Finnish situation was very fragile. There where shortage of houses to Karelian refuges, the Food production was low. And the army hade to be rebuilt, this and the massive Soviet pressure who resulted in Molotov’s trying to approve a new war in his 1940 Berlin visit drove the Finns to war on the same side as the Germans. There where no racial politic, no fascism (to speak about), and Finnish Jews had the same right as all other Finns. It also important to knew that Finland held democratic elections during the war time. With this background one can clearly figure out that motivation for war was different between the Finns and the Germans.--Posse72 12:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. Sure, "the motivation for war was different", but it was the same war. The issues affecting Finland you refer to were real in the period leading up to May 1941, but those issues could and should have been addressed in some manner other than joining the Axis. The USSR would never have invaded Finland after May 1941 unless severely provoked. Bob BScar23625 14:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I know the Interim Peace article isn't the most readable, but shortly the same information: After the Winter War, Finland tried to ally herself with Sweden, with treaty text opened for parliamentary discussion, Soviet Union immediately responsed that it would a breach of the Moscow Peace Treaty and a casus belli, and both Sweden and Finland dropped the idea. After that Finland negotiated with Britain a treaty, which would have been given Brits control of Finnish foreign trade, and it was ratified in Finland, but on the next day, before it could've been ratified in Britain, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway and Brits cancelled all trade to Scandinavia. Soviets started to pressure Finnish government to allow troop transports right after Germany had written it's troop transport agreement with Sweden at July. At August Soviets pressured Finns to fire one minister from government. Germans or Soviets never did such a thing against Swedes, but Soviet did it in Baltic States right after their occupation. Until then, Germany had adamantly refused to even allow armaments transfer to Finland, but after that Germans came forward with a deal of arms sales in exchange of troop transfer rights, Finns were eager to accept to stop the slide how the Baltic State had fallen to Soviet hands. Even then Finns tried to find alternative way, this time in the form of personal union with Sweden, forfeiting independence to the security within Scandinavian context. Also this time Soviet Union demanded this unacceptable and a casus. The Great Britain supported Soviet Union in this action actively. At November Soviet foreign minister Molotov demanded in Berlin that Germany should stop supporting the Finns so Soviet should have free hands to arrange the "Finnish question". Germans refused and used the discussion to enflame Finnish fears and increase Finnish loyalty by leaking the contents of the meeting to the Finnish government. The personal union between Sweden and Finland were raised one last time late November, but this time both Soviet Union and Germany shot it down. Soviet Union demanded control and free access of the nickel mines at Petsamo, and wasn't satisfied with Finnish offer of 50% and a Soviet guarantee that no anti-Finnish agitation were allowed with normal access to the mines. Also here British government supported Soviet demands. To pressuring Finns Soviets cut their grain export to Finland, fully aware that Finns could only feed 2/3 of their people without those imports. (Sweden was able to feed all of it's people at the time, so it was immune to such extorsion.) The only place Finns could find enough grain was from Germany.
It was then, at the end of February 1941 when the views of Finnish leadership were set: Soviet Union wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than total control of the whole Finland. Even Mannerheim threatened to resign if any additional concessions were made. The only options left were either to succumb to Soviet demands or a new war. Since the fall of France The Great Britain had tried to sell Finland to Soviet Union, and the only place where any support was received was from Germany. The wheels were set to the motion, but Soviet Union had still one change to stop them, as ambassador Orlov started his "smile"-campaign at May. Unfortunately he failed to issue any of the issues which worried Finns including Petsamo nickel and grain deliveries. The only major issue was the Soviet changed position to personal union with Sweden, this time also endorsed by Brits, who saw how their previous opposition had only driven Finns to the German arms, was moot, as Swedes were no longer interested in the issue and Germans vehemently opposed it. There was any longer no way to stop the war.
The Continuation War was a war of choise, but first and foremost it was the choise of the Soviet Union, which pressed towards confrontation right after the Moscow Peace Treaty was signed. Even at May 1941 it couldn't fully release the intention which in turn made it easy for Finnish leadership to make and keep their own choise of February 1941 up to the start of the war. --Whiskey 09:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Im do not agree with you, im quit sure that if Finland would have tried to be neutral, both Nazi-germany and Soviet would have made Finland an battlefield without asking. Rember that the only palce where Soviet division was up to 100% was along the Finnish border.--Posse72 01:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. Sweden, enjoying a similar strategic position to Finland, managed to avoid involvement in WWII. What advantage would either Germany or the USSR have gained from invading Finland after May 1941?. As far as Finland was concerned, participation in WWII was very much "a war of choice". I have never understood why the Finns chose to engage in the war - but I suspect that Whiskey's comments on the thoughtpatterns of the Finns are most relevant here. Bob BScar23625 11:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No you could not compar Sweden with Finland! during this time, Finland had/have about a 1000km frontier with russia/soviet, and was next to Leningrad and Murmansk and the murmansk railroad. Sweden had/has no land border with Russia. At least the US state deparment during the war made a distinction between the German war and the Finnish war as US never decleared war on Finland and did almost during the whole war had full diplomatic relations with the Republic of Finland. Sorry but im not understand where you geting at? For me who have relatives who fought in this war its quot clear why we did it. Remember that foreign politics is not made on month basis.--Posse72 15:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. What I am getting at is that the article used to imply that there was "moral equivalency" between Finland and the Allies in WWII. That is not so. Finland engaged in WWII as a matter of choice and has to accept a degree of responsibility for Nazi atrocities such as Belsen. Bob BScar23625 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the Continuation War is a matter of choosing to engage, but I really cannot see the reasoning behind claiming Finland responsible for Nazi atrocities to any but a trivial extent. Mannerheim intensely disliked Hitler and no political or government support for Nazi atrocities existed. 89.27.17.162 16:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Consider this. Finland's participation in WWII added several months to the conflict - with all that implies for allied casualties and the continuation of Nazi atrocities. Bob BScar23625 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is very easy for foreigners to say Finns should have sacrificed themselves to Nazi/Communist atrocities to save some allied casualties. Brits were very eager to accomplish that before the Continuation War, when they did their best to sell Finland to Soviet Union, which directly lead Finland to search support from Nazi Germany. If they had instead stand up their principles of democracy and justice instead of cheap bargaining, they might have prevented the Continuation War altogether. --Whiskey 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Whiskey. Nobody forced Finns to enter WWII. Finland faced the same choice as Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Sweden and Turkey - all of which chose to stay neutral. If you assist the perpetrator of a crime then that is little different to carrying out the crime yourself. Most Axis powers were dictatorships and their nationals can claim that "we were just obeying orders" when the issue of Nazi crimes is raised. Finland was a democracy (of sorts) in the 1940s, and therefore has no such excuse. Bob BScar23625 13:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that nobody forced. It is even absurd to claim that some country is "forced" to do something, it is always a choise those leading the country make. At 1939 there were two aggressive major powers in Europe who wanted to expand, Germany and Soviet Union. Let's check their neighbours: Denmark:Occupied, Netherlands:Occupied, Belgium:Occupied, Luxembourg:Occupied, France:Occupied, Switzerland:Not occupied, Austria:Occupied, Checkoslovakia:Occupied, Poland:Occupied, Finland:Not occupied, Estonia:Occupied, Latvia:Occupied, Lithuania:Occupied, Rumania:Occupied, Turkey:Not occupied. For Turkey and Switzerland are common large properly equipped armies and very hostile terrain for attacker. During the negotiations before the Winter War at Moscow, autumn 1939, Josef Stalin said to Finnish delegation:"I understand, that you want to stay neutral, but I assure you it is impossible. Major powers will never allow that!"
The great miscalculation of Soviet foreign policy at that time was their misbelief that the were the actor, and others would only respond to their actions. Up to the Tehran Conference their goal was to annex Finland, but they failed to notice at which length Finns were ready to oppose that annexation. Finns were not eager to being sacrificial lamb but they actively sought way out from Soviet pressure. Finland did try neutrality alone before the Winter War, it failed. Finland tried neutrality with Sweden after the Winter War, Soviet Union didn't allow that. Finland tried to become British protectorate via War-trade treaty, but Brits bailed out from the treaty when Germany occupied Denmark and Norway. Finland tried to give their independence to Sweden, but Germany, Britain and Soviet Union didn't allow that. From all of the possibilities Finland had before the Continuation War all the rest failed when tried until there were only two left: Accept Soviet annexation or search German support. --Whiskey 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Whiskey. Consider the possibility that you are offering an "ex-post justification" for Finland's entry to WWII. What you say makes sense - but only when seen through the prism of later events (eg the Cold War). The USSR was not viewed as an aggressor nation in 1930s, that only came about much later on. I found your earlier comments about the Finnish mindset to be much more interesting. regards. Bob BScar23625 10:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I somehow fail to see how founding of the Kuusinen government was a product of Cold War. Or Molotov's note to the Swedish government threatening with war if alliance with Finland were to be concluded. Or Soviets cutting grain deliveries right when negotiations about Petsamo nickel were in critical phase. Finns didn't need any cold war to deem Soviet policy aggressive, Soviet support to revolutionaries in Finnish Civil War and the open aggression in the Winter War were prove enough. Also Polish government in exile protested heavily about Soviet action already before the Barbarossa. The contents of the secret protocol of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact were widely circulated in Eastern European countries only few days after the Pact was signed, and Soviet negotiators openly referred them during the negotiations with Finland and Baltic countries.
But you are not alone. Even British ambassador in Moscow during the Interim Peace wondered to Paasikivi were Finns really opposed to joining the Soviet Union. --Whiskey 14:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What exactly was the 'same choice' Finland faced with Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Sweden and Turkey? And why compare Finland only with those countries? To comapre the choices made by non-major powers in Europe in 1939-41 one should also add -- at least -- Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria. 85.76.254.192 15:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If the finns would have laid down a died like the Baltic states, im sure that it would not have helped one singel inmate of Belsen. (If Finland had gone under as a freenation it probably would have been the reason for why the finnish jews and gippsys would have ended up there in Belsen) So with that way of speaking you as an Englishman would be coresponsible for the deportation and murders of your allied the USSR, as NKVD did in the Kathyn massacer, the deportation of sevral caucassian pepoles like the chechens. the deportation and murder of the baltic pepole. The rape of german women etc etc....I myself dont have this simpel and naiv way of seeing things. If Soviet really was intressted in peace the for exampel, they could have given Finland reasonble peace terms durring the peace talk of early 1944 (The finns would have been glad to accept).Finally You have very strong opinion with a very thin support.--Posse72 16:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is drifting from the original point, which is whether it's an apt analogy to draw a parallel between Italy and Finland during the war. --Stlemur 17:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union's motives for invasion

RE '"It is argued that all Soviet policies up to the Continuation War are best explained as defensive measures by offensive means: the sharing of occupied Poland with Germany, the annexation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and the attempted invasion of Finland in the Winter War can all be seen as elements in the construction of a security zone or buffer region."

This section seems like apologetics for Soviet conquest. It is true that Soviet conquest of Finland, Poland, etc. CAN be explained as "defensive measures," but a far more likely and reasonable explanation is that the Soviet Union was simply seizing the opportunity to conquer more land and extend its power. Any nation can always justify conquering another nation by claiming self defense.

More specifically, up to the eve of the German invasion of Russia, Stalin believed that Germany would NOT attack (see the BBC documentary War of the Century -- a memo in Stalin's handwriting telling his own intelligence service that they were wrong to anticipate a German attack). It seems clear the Russian's made their conquests in anticipation of a happy future where they and their Nazi friends would carve up Europe together, not in anticipation of fighting Germany.

76.172.236.68 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)marc handler

Iv totally agree!The finnish top diplomat and war veteran Max Jacobson has wrote a book,AKA "the voliance of the 2000 century" (my translation) where he but Stalins motive to claim the former areas of tzar russia. If Stalin would have been intrested in a securitypolicy for the easterneurope who would mean a collective security he would not have purge Maximil Litnov over Molotov.(Max Jacobsaon is a beliving Jew who was proposed to be the chair man of the UN in the early 70s--Posse72 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite agree, and in any case the paragraph is rather weasel-wordish and lacks references. "Best explained" by what measure? And what is needed is not explanations (that border on violating WP:NOR) in the first place, but references to sources that state Soviet motives. The rest is irrelevant. 89.27.17.162 16:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction's focus

I'd suggest that the introduction shouldn't focus so extensively on Britain and the US. That Britain eventually declared war on Finland but the US didn't just aren't the most salient introductory facts about the war. A short recap of the events along the structure of the article's Contents (war breaks out, Finnish offensive, war in trenches, Soviet offensive, war ends) would make for a better introduction, I think. --Jouten 22:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I'd like to add something about the Swedish Voulenters because it's an important part in Swedish history that Swedes helped all they could but their government couldn't. Th US and Uk parts in this isn't important at all.

A sensitive point

My Finnish colleagues. I seem to have touched on a sensitive point here. Some Finns have justified the involvement of their country on the side of the Axis in WWII on the following various grounds : (1) that they had "no choice"; (2) that their war was against international communism and (3) that it was a war for their national independence. None of these grounds has any substance. Finns should admit their national guilt - as the Germans and Japanese have done. I have looked into Mannerheim's carriage at Mikkeli station and seen pictures of Hitler in there. I cannot imagine such a thing in any other country. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 11:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be easier to write reply if you could specify your claims... But I try...
Sensitivity: The only sensitive in this issue is when people with very little knowledge from the issue start to make strong condemnations from one way or another. Until the fall of the Soviet Union it has meant basically repeating Soviet version of what happened. It is unfortunate how even such a figures as Churchill and Liddel-Hart had fallen to that trap. (That's the problem you have with a small language: researchers don't bother to learn it.)
Grounds: 1) No. There is always a choice. A different thing is if it would have been better or worse and to whom. Finland could have always accepted Soviet demands before the Winter War and could have become one of the Soviet Republics. One could always draw numerous what-if scenarios how the things could have played out. 2) No. Finland was always too small for that. Finland was only on a war footing against Finnish communists who had tried revolution in Finland two decades earlier and failed. If you are referring to my comment earlier about the mind-set, it is much more encasing than simple political view. It is a cultural thing. 3) I have found very few persons who still claim that in the Winter War Finns were not fighting for their independence. The Continuation War is a more controversial case, but if we take what Finnish politicians at that time thought by their words they wrote or spoke at the time, it is just the case how they felt it. It is all same for Ryti, Mannerheim or Paasikivi.
Substance: Could you specify this claim, please?
Guilt: What guilt? There are facts which can be stated, and each action can be morally judged good or bad, but if we start playing the blame/guilt game, there is no end in sight, as always can be digged up old wrongs which should be rightened. It is just a way to hypocrisy and victor's justice.
Hitler: Would you have been more at ease if we had removed them altogether and hidden that fact from you? Why cannot you imagine that in other countries? Are they afraid of their own history? Do they want to hide inconvenient facts from you? Do you really prefer illusion over the truth? In Finland there have never been a luxury of holding absolute truth as we were on the losing side of the war, so we have had our vocal group of leftist historians who had digged up every imaginable black spot of Finnish history during the WWII. The reason why their opinions were not included here is not because those tried to break some taboos, but simply because their pieces failed in scientific test of additional research. --Whiskey 13:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Being Russian (with ancestors from Leningrad), I fully endorse Whiskey's statements. It is ridiculous at best to require anybody to admit a guilt, especially in this case, where the guilt is very controversial (and I am absolutely not sure that there should be such a thing as collective national guilt at all). As to Hitler, well, Whiskey has said it all. Colchicum 13:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bob, your the one running on fumes here...--Posse72 12:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm BScar, you really need to read up on this issue. --192.176.237.2 12:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your points

1a Pre war Finland had oriented them self to scandinavian neutrality and if there where any country wich Finland had strong ties it was great britan And not Nazi germany. The major export of Finland was to UK. Big arms purchses was mad from UK as Vickerstank and Blenheim bombers.

1b The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact the following winterwar, and the fall of France made Finlands national security very fragile. Can you argue about that? Great Britan was fighting for its life at the battle for brittan and at the atlantic (What did your Russians Friend do during this time?), with no means or intrest to involve in the finnish sitiuation. Immieditly after the winter war Finland had seaked to join a defensive statunion with Sweden. USSR saw that if realized as hostile. after a 6 months of agresive Soviet politics aginst Finland Molotov ask HIS allied the Nazigermany if he could start the war agin.

2 During both war the majority of the finnish left supported Finland and there war aims. So the war was more of Russian imperialist, and not of ideolgy thou it played a roll Democracy aginst tottalian communism. 3 As late as the summer of 1944 the Soviet war aim was to conquer Helsinki and Finland.

The meating between Mannerheim and Hitler during Mannerheims 75th yearsbirthday th 4 june 1942 had very littel political impact. As the german dictator wanted Finland to play a larger roll in the war aginst USSR, Mannerheim did refuse such claim. If anyone schould admit anything its time for the Russian to take thier responsibility for the conflict and sead finnish occupied land--Posse72 13:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. What is all this about Russia ceding "occupied Finnish land" back to Finland?. When I was in Finland in 1999 I heard the head of the Finnish army making a statement along the lines that "Finland should not take back Karelia if it is offered on a silver tray". Do you feel that Finland should consider a military solution to the Karelia issue?. That was not entirely unrealistic in 1999, but would it be wise now?. Bob BScar23625 13:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My familie has rots going back sevral hundred years in that area. Offucurse i dont want an armed conflict about the Karelia, but dont forget that is only 3 years between the occupation of Karelia and the occupation of Palestain. --Posse72 13:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A military conflict started by Finland agaist the number 1 nuclerwapon nation i dont think anyone consider as an alernative.--Posse72 13:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Now Bob ill think its your turn to show your cards, your only attacking, without any support of your wage argumentation. Why should Finland bear responsibilty for Belsen, but UK (who really was allied with USSR) not have the same responsible for Soviet attroctis in the Baltics and the mass rape of german women, whats the diffrent?--Posse72 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. You are going back to the "moral equivalency" argument. The flaw in this is that the Axis was a group of aggressor nations who started WWII. No German women would have been raped in 1945 had Germany not invaded Russia in 1941. Bob BScar23625 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And Finland would not have been in war 1941 if they have not been attacked in 1939, is the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact irrelevent? if this is the best you can do to prove you point iv see you dont have a clue about the finnsh situation.--Posse72 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. Yes, but Finland was not forced to be in WWII because it was attacked in 1939. It chose to be in WWII, and modern Finnish official publications state that this choice was a "historic error". I don't have a clue about the Finnish psychology, so can you explain to me why Finland made this historic error?. My present knowledge on the matter is largely based on my visits to Finnish military museums. Bob BScar23625 17:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bob, Finland wasn't an axis country when the Axis powers waged the war. It was neutral at the time. In fact, it has NEVER been an axis country, as it has never been a signatory to the Tripartite Pact. As such, Finland shouldn't hold any responsibility for Belsen. And why do you dismiss the possibility that the Soviet Union could attack Germany and rape everybody all over Europe? I am neither Finnish nor German, Japanese or Italian, by the way. Colchicum 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I am not sure that it was a mistake. It would certainly be a mistake if no possibility existed that either Germany or Soviet Union would take over its territory in the upcoming war. After all, Finland ended up in a much more favorable position than, say, Poland or virtually any other Eastern European country. Colchicum 17:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Colchicum. Your suggestion that Finnish involvement in WWII was a wise move is not one that many Finns would accept. This involvement resulted in territorial losses, reparations payments and a significant loss of sovereignty. Bob BScar23625 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about many Finns, but other parts of Eastern Europe suffered much more significant loss of sovereignty, and I have little doubts that the same would have happened with the Finns if they had done nothing. Either takeover by Germany followed by a Soviet invasion or the fate of the Baltic States. Colchicum 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact there are quite a lot Finns who consider the war worthwhile. In a sense it was an error, and especially communist and other far-leftist historians and some politicians still consider that. On the other hand, if we take those with no political interests to the issue, like Tomas Ries ("Cold Will") or Max Jacobson, long time Finnish career diplomat, they consider the war essential to the survival of Finland. Without the war, there wouldn't be the image of "Mad Finns" which made Molotov to reply to the interviewer decades later that Finland would have been bleeding wound near the heart of the Soviet Union if SU had conquered it. Also Max Jacobson had noted that after the war SU handled it's foreign policy with Finland with similar care it did with major powers. It is not hard to find if you know what to look for, how amateurish, bullying foreign policy SU had done towards Finland changed after the war far to more intricate and limited one. --Whiskey 20:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bob, this discusion with you is as refreching as speaking to a concret wall. Bob not for its my business, but do you have any history with the communist party? From your tierdless argumentation we know:

  • You dont see any faults or responsiblity in the Soviet politics aganist Finland.Even Boris Yeltsin admited erors here.
  • You dont see any importance in the roll of the Finnish democracy.
  • You dont admit that Finland had a national security problem in the iterim peace period.
  • You really see the Soviet as good guy, with no need to blame on any atrocity, in the end its all Germays fault.

--Posse72 18:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. Perhaps I might rephrase your question as "why are you interested in this war?". I didn't know much about it until I made a number of visits to south eastern Finland in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I came across a war memorial in the town of Lappeenranta. It had a long list of names on a wall - giving their names, dates of birth and dates of death. The men who died varied in age between 16 and about 60. Some rather drunk guy who was about told me that they were the names of soldiers buried in military graveyards beyond the Russian border. Here is a photograph I took that day. Does it make me a communist if I question what the war was about?. Bob BScar23625 18:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)?.

File:Lapp1.JPG
Memorial at Lappeenranta to the dead of the Winter and Continuation Wars. The wall in the background carries the names of Finnish dead buried inside Karelia (whose graves were not easily accessible to Finns until well into the 1990s). The figures are cleaners carrying out a daily clean and tidying of the memorial. May 2000
No, it doesn't. Those who died in the Winter War were buried to the Finnish soil, only to be ceded to the Soviet Union in the peace treaty. (You know that Soveits never did occupy Viipuri, Sortavala or Käkisalmi, three largest towns in the area, during the war. They were lost in the peace.) Those who died during the Continuation War and were buried there, were also former inhabitants of the area, as Finns routinely brought back their fallen to the home parishes for burial. Even so, that if the body couldn't be recovered, the empty coffin were buried at the home parish. (See http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=84704 ). If you compare the losses Finland suffered to other countries, Finnish civilian losses were minimal, and although the military losses were higher, the total losses due the war were still less than third of that suffered by other East European countries. --Whiskey 20:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well and why is those Finns dead? Because Stalins Soviet had an agenda to incoperate Finland with the Sovietunion. That would have ment End of democracy, deportation and murders end of Finland as a nation. So your point of view become even stranger now.--Posse72 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. Do you believe that the Bombing of Dresden in World War II by the RAF was a war crime?. Bob BScar23625 14:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In strict terms yes, but such things happens in war. I think the whole concept of arial stratecig bombing during wwii was controvsial, cost alot of resurces, gained littel to the allied victory efort. Not all of those men, women and kids killed in the attacks where nazis or importent pepole in the defence of Nazi-germany.--Posse72 15:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. Yes, strictly it was a war crime - on the basis of moral equivalency. But Dresden would never have been bombed had Germany not started WWII, so one cannot accuse the British of a war crime.

Bob, I really hope you don't mean what you wrote above. War crime is a war crime regardless of who started the war. So far I haven't read of any lawyer who would have agreed what you wrote above. Neither do any military law have not-starting-the-war as a basis for deciding what is criminal and what is not. --Whiskey 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me try another one on you. Do you consider that the Russian attack on Finland in 1939 was more or less moral than the Anglo-American attacks on Toulon, Dakar, Iraq, Iran etc. in 1940/41?. Bob BScar23625 15:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ofcurse you could accuse Brittish of war crims, Just because the war is just dosnt mean you could go and make war just as Djingis Khan. Someone, (possible bomber Harris) held the decision to atack Dressden with all those refuges and he not the brittish pepole schuld have been trialed. And now over to the winterwar. Those allied attacks you mention forexampel in Persia or Iraq was not aimed to erase thire culture and values, and fianally deporte a majorty of it population to Siberia. Many of the counties you mention was allready at colonial statues not free contries with parlamentarian rule. The Russian attack on Finland was just as inmoral as the German attack on Polen, Denmark, Norway, ETc Etc. But in the case of Operation Barbarossa and the German attack on USSR the Soviet leader himself held a great responsible for signig the M-R Pact and divedup the eastern europe in order to regain the borders of old tzar russia and make illusionary strenght whit his armies.--Posse72 16:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. As regards Dresden, the 1945 bombing was sanctioned by Winston Churchill. Do you feel that Churchill should have been tried as a war criminal?. The historian David Irving might agree with you on this.

Once WWII was underway in September 1939, all the Allies violated the neutrality of independent countries. Iran, Iraq and France were not colonies - any more than Finland was. It all comes back to the issue of moral equivalency. The Allies were seeking to contain Nazi aggression and can claim that they only did what was necessary.

That's why Crimes against peace doesn't work properly. It should be systematically executed or it only becomes hypocritic fig leaf to victorious aggressors, as every aggressor could always find noble sounding reason why his aggression doesn't count. --Whiskey 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me try yet another one on you. Do you believe that the holocaust actually happened?. David Irving has suggested that conventional beliefs concerning the holocaust may be mistaken. Bob BScar23625 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ibelive the holocaust happend, yes. Dakar was ciertantly a france colony. --Posse72 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Once again i dont follow you. Do you mean that in order to belive that Finland was right you have to deny the holocaust?? Let me put it like this since its constution since 1906 Finland granted it Jewish the same right and responsblty as it other citizens. on the opposit of the Russians who have along history of antisemitism. Pogroms and the last of Stalins illconduct was a plan to kill of jewish doctors.--Posse72 20:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Dresdend was in the heart of Nazigermany, Finland was not. No ill dont think Churchill schould be tried´. Look who self is becoming nationalistic. So for the good sake of the allied cause, do you think that finnish soldier like my grandpaa deserved to die, and thiere familes would all be beter of in Siberia? The thing that bothers me most with your argumentation is that you don do any diffrence beetwen USSR and UK roll during WWII. I at least do.--Posse72 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Iraq was an absolut monarcy at this time, and so was Persia. Finland was a parlametariany democracy-It say it all. Bob once again you fail to recognize any value to the Finnish democracy. You know that your friends the Russian during the first months after they invaded your first allied Polend in 1939. They deported 1.8 milion poles living in eastern poland ,Jews was certantly among thoes. after a year HALF OF THEM, 900 000 had died of starvation and illtreatment! You can look it up your self in Norman Davies Book Rising´44 a very good book who points out the failur of the western allies to se the true nature of Soviet-Russian imperialism--Posse72 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. Nazi apologists take two particular lines of reasoning. The first of these is “moral equivalency”. That is, Nazi crimes should be considered in the context of equal or worse Allied crimes. And that is the line you are taking to explain Finnish involvement in WWII – that the behaviour of the Russians was so bad that the Finns were justified in choosing to enter the war on the side of the Axis.

Ah, Bob, you are mixing two different things here. In Moral equivalency it is a question of morality, not legality. Even without the equivalency, illegal acts are still illegal and should be prosecuted. The lack of moral equivalency doesn't make the war crimes committed by Allied soldiers disappear or unprosecutable, as was seen in numerous cases when allied soldiers were convicted from war crimes. --Whiskey 12:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The second of these lines is “Holocaust denial”. That is, claimed Nazi crimes did not actually happen. I am not accusing you of that.

Most scholars reject the concept of moral equivalency in regard to WWII. Sure, all the Allies committed crimes, but their moral position was different to that of the Nazis. If you watch British films set in the Cold War (eg Funeral in Berlin (film)) then you will see ambivalent feelings demonstrated towards the Russians. Perhaps you have the same difficulty in understanding British culture that I have in understanding Finnish culture?.

We have exhausted this exchange. So, I am pleased to offer you the last word. Best wishes. Bob BScar23625 11:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes truly you have exhausted your self.

  • You have not been able at one point show where Finnish action helped Nazi criems. Your pathetic way to conect Finland with the nazis falls plat.
  • You ignore mening of democracy (not even recogniz it) to defend stalinsim. Still your heronizing of the Russian make me think you certintly have a bakgroud as a Leftwing extrem.
  • You have in a very clumpsy way tried to put David Irvings febrish fought as my point of view. (Me my self has Jewish famille and know for the fact that FInnish jew served with the armed forces as any good Finns.
  • In your antypathy for Finland you even defend war crimes as Dresdend bombings and say that deportation, massmurder and rape are ok if it made by Russians.
  • IF you defend simlar crimes like the Poles- and other Stalinism crime you self become a sort of Nazi.
  • I have had very many good chats with British war veterans, not one has blamed my backgroud as a Finn, but sevral did remember how upset they where during the winterwar. The motivation for Finnish soldiers and British soldiers where quit similar during the whole war.
  • You have not yet said it, but all your other words says it for you. You would not have cared a bit if Red army conquerd Finland. And The NKVD have sent the Finnish pepole to Siberia as Stalin thretend to do. In Katyhn NKVD bulit next to the Polish barrack, new barracks for 20000 finnish officers. The intresting thing with your naiv point of view is if you talk to for exampel Polish pepole they exactly understand the sitiation the Finns where under.
  • During UKs darkest hour the fall 1940-sprimg 1941, when british pilots fought aginst the germa hordes, and ist merchant marin was vicious attacked by u-boots, who was the main supplyer of Petrol-Oil-Corn-grain-ore-coal to the german? Answer: The USSR who hounerd the trade agrement of M-R pact. ! With your leftwing way way of describing the evets you say what ever the russians did it was ok, Aparently Finns life was not worth nothing in your world of "Moral equivalency". Im quit sure you dont represent a typical british point of view on the issue, a stalinist view never is--Posse72 15:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck to you self( You need it)--Posse72 11:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Ill wonder whos sensitive point this russian apologist retoric is.--Posse72 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Bob your a abominable person, and its you not me who values pepole diffrent from an ethnical stand.--Posse72 18:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, seeing as article talk pages shouldn't be used by editors as platforms for their personal views, what's the relevance of this debate to the article itself? What changes to the article are being discussed here? --Jouten

21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This person: BScar23625 is holding the worst anti-finnish propaganda iv seen since the days of Herta Kuusinen. --Posse72 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

countries, Finnish civilian losses were minimal, and although the military losses were higher, the total losses due the war were still less than third of that suffered by other East European countries

The bombing of Dresden dosen't differ much from bombings of other german cities, only people without knowledge of the war belive that, the only difference was the fact that it was slightly less defendebale an action than the others. For the allies the options at the time was to lose yet another son or husband just to make it a bit more humane for the enemys, endangering the result of the war. Would you send people who have defended democracy and freedom for five years, who have done everything in their power to save their country from utter devestation, to their death because the country(NOT the peoople) trying to destroy them shall be spared of bombs? As for finnish civilian losses, either you're stupid or narrowminded to the extreme. Most other East European countries weren't democracys recentley freedtrying to defend themselfs. Just beacuse the finnish soldiers fought extremley bravley attempting to defend their country, freedom, families and friends from death therfore saving the people from the horrors of war lessens their deeds? They fought the second worst horror during the 20th century, just behind Nazi Germany. When Karelin was taken from them after the Winter War all the people there left and moved into Finland. So when they finally get a chance to take back their homes they become "Evil imperialistic Nazis who never uderstood war". You should read some history NOT written by red wine drinking, communistic, narrow-minded wannabe intellectuals. Read the memoirs of Mannerheim. Couldn't-care-less

Revisionist against Finland

BOB,BScar23625 You use an rivisionist term the "Moral equivalency" in order to negelect the victems of the Sovietaggrision in exact the same way as nazi-revisionist tries to remove the last dignity of holoucast victem saying this did not happend.

My feeling to you after you walkt around at Lapperanta war cemetery, saying they deserved it because other vise its a "Moral equivalency" is really the same as the feeling toward David Irving walking around in Belsen saying it was just a SPA camp.

Shame on you Mr BOB! --Posse72 11:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Soviet partisans

User:Recesende, two pictures of Finnish civilians killed by Soviet partisans are not necessary to the article, and removing one of them does not constitute censorship. One picture is quite enough, if even that is strictly necessary. 88.113.141.80 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Recesende is editing in bad faith. Your first edit clearly identifies two pictures of partisan victims at Seitajärvi. Now you're claiming in your edit summary that one picture is of partisan victims while one is of victims of the Red Army, and have changed the picture text. Not only are you contradicting yourself, you're also wrong, because people living in Seitajärvi cannot have been killed by soldiers of the Red Army since the area was never occupied or attacked by the army. Also, there is simply no reason to have two pictures of dead Finnish civilians. They are redundant, and that's why I deleted them. You first argued censorship and are now either misinformed or lying. This is certainly bad faith editing. As I've removed these pictures often enough, I hope someone else will delete one of the two pictures, if not even both of them. Elrith 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true at all, however there were multiple incidents from 1942-44 in that same area, the first photo is dated 1942 and the caption is taken right from this website [16] see also [17] you cannot delete these photos because they are obviously not fake, the sources are BOTH from Finnish news websites and credited to the Finish military, they qualify as reliable sources so how are they fakes? Also most Soviet partisans were on the pay role of STAVKA hence the difference between Soviet partisans and Soviet Army is not as clear cut as you may try to make out, since they were both generally under the same command structure. Do a google search and you can see the Soviets did attack Seitajärvi numerous times during the war, so your claim is wrong anyway. Your insinuation that I lied is a step away from assuming good faith, which is a policy here on wikipedia. Recesende 02:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the photos are fake or that partisans didn't attack Seitajärvi. I can tell perfectly well where they're from and what the topic is. I'm saying that there is no reason to have two photos on the same topic in the article, as partisan attacks are barely even mentioned in the article. If the only possible reason to delete pictures is that they're "fake", then why not have 200 pictures of tanks in the article? I personally stop assuming good faith when you make a revert and accuse people of censorship. Also, I'm not saying there's a difference between partisan and Red Army attacks, you are. Two pictures on the same topic are not necessary, one is enough, and even that may not be necessary as this is a marginal topic. Elrith 02:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The change in caption was a clarification, since the Soviet army had units that engaged in partisan operations, and this is more likely in 1944. Both pictures are needed because they are unique incidents, saying they 'redundant' is disingenuous, that's like saying every photo of a dead body is the same, not true, maybe the article needs a section on Soviet war crimes in Finland, but I'll leave that for others to write, until there is consensus (ie not just you and your IP) the pictures stay. Recesende 02:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, saying that the two pictures are unique incidents is beyond disingenuous. To use your metaphor, in order to portray unique events I suppose we need a photograph of every war grave in Finland in this article? You should also note that there's just as much consensus in favor of having two practically identical photos as there is against. "Soviet war crimes" wouldn't be a very good section title, IMO, but you're right, the article does need information on partisan operations. I've started a section on Soviet partisan operations. They weren't even mentioned in the text! Elrith 02:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures and text

This article obviously needs more text on soviet partisan operations, as well as on Red army unit cannibalism. In November 2006 pictures showing cannibalism and atrocities committed by Soviet soldiers and partisans conducting cross-border raids against Finnish civilians were declassified by Finnish authorities. The pictures include images of slain women and children. and evidence of Soviet cannibalism.

As it is now the article merely contains one image of decomposing women, and a pointer to partisan operations without accompanying text. This makes me perplexed about user Whiskeys rv of my addition of text by using the edit summary "(rv. This is already discussed in relevant places in this article and in Soviet partisans article.)" Where is this discussed in this article? Have I missed something?--Stor stark7 Talk 11:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not in this article, but in the talk page and especially in the Soviet partisans article. I do agree, that partisans section needs more text, but it should be balanced not only in NPOV but also in relevancy. The summary of Soviet partisan operations could be defined as ineffective (as has been done in both Finnish and Soviet researchers already during the war). Also the fact that most partisan operations in Finland targetted civilians, not military targets should be presented. But there is very little new in declassification of those pictures. The civilian casualties were widely known fact after the war and literature from the issue were published in Finland also during the years of Finlandization.
I don't think adding those pictures adds something to the article. Some of them are macabre, and they tend to unbalance the structure of the article. (Were those partisan attacks really the most important facet of the war?) This issue has been discussed already in Soviet partisans article.
Also, you should be careful when handling cannibalism. It only happened on encircled units or units left in wilderness without supplies and then some Soviet soldiers ate their dead comerads, not the Finnish civilians.--Whiskey 23:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Continuation_War/Archive_5&oldid=1085445199"