Talk:Continuation War/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Providing the small 'Soviet offensive' header for the last portion of the segment - for added clarity and easier access to info

I'm dividing the lengthy segment, by giving a sub-header for the lower portion of the text, where the Soviet attack is discussed, for added clarity and easier access to information (note: this is not the same arrangement which was proposed previously). Please take a peak, and please state your reasons, if you disagree. Boris Novikov (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The new proposal: Providing a sub-header for the last portion of the segment, where the Soviet offensive is discussed

The new version of the header arrangement should be more agreeable to all. Let's set the new version up for now, for everyone to see. So far no-one has opposed to it. If you don't agree with it, would you please make sure to explain why, in case you choose to revert.

In the new version, the 'Soviet offensive' is no longer in the segment's main header, but lower down in a smaller header, pertaining only to the text which discusses the attack.

User Posse72 has agreed to this headline in general. User Whiskey did not participate in the edit war regarding the previous proposal, but he did raise up a few interesting points about it. I responded shortly already, but here are a few more thoughts:

I agree with user Whiskey, that the header 'Finnish counter-offensive' is not necessary, but only if the Soviet offensive is provided it's own header of some type.

As an aggressive war-type escalation in Finland could be viewed the step-up from the - no-damage-inflicting and rather insignificant - Soviet bombing of Regatta, on June 22, 1941, to the war-initiating and massive Soviet Bombing on June 25, 1941. There had been numerous border violations also during the Interim Peace period, but they were an on-going thing rather than an escalation.

On Finland's behalf, there was no aggressive escalation - just continuous defensive preparations. Yet, even though we'd agree there to have been some escalation, why should this prevent us of giving the header ? There certainly was escalation leading to the Finnish offensive, but we are headlining the Finnish offensive regardless of it.

User Whiskey correctly views the Soviet attack as an "end point" of a chapter. It was also the beginning of another chapter, a major war. Yet, - although both points are true - these facts should not prevent the header - quite the contrary.

User Whiskey mentions that the Soviet air raid was not "followed by planned land offensive". This statement is controversial at best, as we do know that the Soviet infantry did cross the border into Finland, but the offensive was brought to halt in Parikkala.

Although both the Soviet and the Finnish offensive plans may be still somewhat blurry, why should that prevent us of giving the header for the Soviet offensive though ?

Besides, we do know that on November 12-13, 1940, the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov sought for Hitler's approval to allow USSR free hands for operations over Finland. As user Posse72 reminded us: "Proffesor Ohto Manninen did find out that the Soviet air attack was the first stage of a grand offensive against Finland that never materialized."

Accordingly, - in addition to Soviet air force - other Soviet troops also participated in this war-opening Soviet attack: Soviet artillery bombarded Finnish coastal areas in Hanko, on June 25, 1941, and the Soviet infantry penetrated to the Finnish side of the border, as already stated above.

We should compare the Soviet attack with other war-opening attacks in recent history, such as the Japanese attack in Pearl Harbor for example. It involved approximately 2/3 of the amount of aircraft of the Soviet attack in question. The Japanese targets were not in multiple cities, and the Japanese attack was not "followed by planned land offensive". As we know, however, these facts have not prevented the Japanese attack from being highlighted in texts discussing the Japanese-American war.

It is appreciated that user Whiskey brought up these points above, even though he wasn't part of the revert war related to this matter. It would be good, if anyone doing the actual reverting would also give their reasoning for doing it. Hopefully this new version meets wide approval though. Boris Novikov (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Finnish army helping to save Leningrad from Nazi occupation

Non of the points in the above comment lists any proof of Finnish participation in the siege of Leningrad - there is no such proof, as it didn't happen.

Furthermore, a quote given in the above comment fully supports the fact that the Finns did not participate in the siege of Leningrad. The quote says:

"Finnish allies had stopped on the outskirts of Leningrad". This is true, as the pre-WW2 Finnish-Soviet border ran on the outskirts of Leningrad.

"Allies" is a wrong term, however, as there was only limited cooperation between Finland and Germany, and no "official" agreement was ever signed between the two countries. The two countries were fighting their own wars. The Finns were fighting a war which had been launched by a massive Soviet attack against Finland on June 25, 1941.

The Finns refused to cooperate with the Nazis in many critical areas, such as:

1) - - signing the Tripartite Pact, also called the Axis Pact, which established the Axis Powers of World War II (despite of many requests from the Nazi-Germany);

2) - - allowing direct German attacks from the Finnish soil against the Soviet Union during the Interim Peace period;

3) - - accepting the approximately 80 000 German troops offered to be placed under command of Marshal Mannerheim;

4) - - attacking the Soviet Union, unless/until the Soviet Union would attack Finland first;

5) - - cooperating in the siege of Leningrad;

6) - - cutting the Allied "lifeline", which was operated over Lake Ladoga and which brought desperately needed supplies to the defenders of Leningrad;

7) - - cutting the Murmansk railroad, which delivered massive amounts of Allied weapons and other supplies to the Soviets;

8) - - attacking the same targets as the Germans;

9) - - handing Finnish Jews to the Nazis (The Finnish Jews participated in the Finnish war efforts just like all other Finnish citizens);

10) - declaring war against any other Allied countries except Soviet Union;

11) - allowing the Germans to operate against USSR through the southern Finnish borders, ... etc.

Boris Novikov (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Finns refused to participate in the siege of Leningrad, or to advance towards Leningrad around Lake Ladoga

On the east side of Lake Ladoga the Finns did not attempt to advance towards Leningrad - past the Svir River area - during the entire Continuation War.

The Finns came to the outskirts of Leningrad only where the legal nations' pre-WW2 border ran. Here, there were some skirmishes on both sides of the immediate border at the critical border-crossing areas of Valkeasaari (Russian: Beloostrov) and Siestarjoki (Russian: Sestroretsk) - 35 km northwest of the center of Leningrad -, but only to keep the Soviets away from the Finnish side of the border.

The Finns were fighting their own war. They had pushed the Soviets back behind the Finnish-Soviet borders, after having come under a massive Soviet attack on June 25, 1941.

The Germans and the Finns had the same enemy, but there was no official cooperation pact signed between Germany and Finland. The objectives of the two countries were very different.

By not participating in the siege of Leningrad - alone -, the Finns prohibited a huge strategic and moral victory from the Nazis. This very possibly may have effected the entire outcome of the WW2.

The Finns refused to cooperate with the Nazis in many critical areas, such as:

1) - - signing the Tripartite Pact, also called the Axis Pact, which established the Axis Powers of World War II (despite of many requests from the Nazi-Germany);

2) - - allowing direct German attacks from the Finnish soil against the Soviet Union during the Interim Peace period;

3) - - accepting the approximately 80 000 German troops offered to be placed under command of Marshal Mannerheim;

4) - - attacking the Soviet Union, unless/until the Soviet Union would attack Finland first;

5) - - cooperating in the siege of Leningrad;

6) - - cutting the Allied "lifeline", which was operated over Lake Ladoga and which brought desperately needed supplies to the defenders of Leningrad;

7) - - cutting the Murmansk railroad, which delivered massive amounts of Allied weapons and other supplies to the Soviets;

8) - - attacking the same targets as the Germans;

9) - - handing Finnish Jews to the Nazis (The Finnish Jews participated in the Finnish war efforts just like all other Finnish citizens);

10) - declaring war against any other Allied countries except Soviet Union;

11) - allowing the Germans to operate against USSR through the southern Finnish borders, ... etc.

05:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Boris Novikov (talk)

The withdrawing of the Finnish troops to the VKT- defensive line was ordered and stopped according to a plan

The massive Soviet attack started the war. Thus, the Soviets were pushed back - not the Finns. Thereafter, the Soviets were never allowed to cross the nations' (1940) border. There was no plan for the Finns to stay deeper on the Soviet side, when the war would come to an end.

Accordingly, the Finnish withdrawing of troops from the north side of Lake Ladoga didn't happen because of a Soviet push, or Finnish losses in fighting. In fact, in the war's last major battle on the north side of Lake Ladoga, in Ilomantsi, two Soviet divisions were dismantled as the Soviets were pushed back.

After abandoning the city of Viipuri on June 20, 1944 (the delaying tactics cost the Finns 120 dead or missing in action that day), to save the city and to have the fighting to be done in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala instead, the Finns won the war's all major battles.

The plan for withdrawing the Finnish troops to the VKT -defensive line, and stopping the Soviets there, was agreed on June 17, 1941, before the major Soviet attack of the summer of 1941 (see also related discussion below). This plan was made under the leadership of General K.L. Oesch, and with Mannerheim's approval.

Thus - importantly -, the withdrawing of the Finnish troops to the VKT- defensive line was ordered and stopped according to a plan. Boris Novikov (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A few things...

1) SU never conducted massive land offensive at 1941. It was Finns who made the land offensive that year. There were several suggestions for the future eastern border for Finland east of the 1920 border given 1941, both before and after the start of the war coming from Ryti or Mannerheim's HQ.

2) It did happen because of the Soviet push, as Finns had too few men and resources to stand Soviet offensive. See for example Jatkosodan historia, part 5, p. 18-19.

3) The delaying tactics was not used in Viipuri. The troops were ordered to keep the city. And the Finns didn't wan all major battles. We have gone through this already, see Talk:Continuation_War/Archive_4#Par_3.

4) Soviet offensive started June 9, 1944, well before June 17 when Oesch made his proposal to Mannerheim. (And it was a discussion should Finns try to stop Soviet offensive at the former Mannerheim Line location. Mannerheim supported the idea, but Oesch managed to convince him that Finns didn't have enough troops and materiel yet to stand Soviet forces at the Isthmus.) --Whiskey (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In the beginning, the Soviets did cross the border to the Finnish side in Parikkala, but they were pushed back.

In regard to the fighting in Viipuri, Mannerheim's wishes were not honored, as the study by Eeva Tammi in 2006 also proves.

Study by Eeva Tammi: The Finns executed a strategic abandonment of Viipuri in just few hours’ time on June 20, 1944. The day’s fighting in Viipuri was brought to a halt by 16:40, leaving only 120 Finns missing in action or dead.

Wrong: From Viipuri on, the Finns won all the war's major battles. Which battle did the Soviets win, according to you ?

Point "4": There indeed was discussion - of course. However, the withdrawing of the troops was conducted according to the plan, and the Soviets were not allowed to cross the VKT-line, just as planned.

In those sircumstances, it is fully understandable that there had to be room for flexibility, and the final decisions regarding the withdrawing could not be made until very late point (as the enemy movement had to be taken into consideration as well, etc.)

Please take the rest of my answer on the bottom of this page. Boris Novikov (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Boris Novikov's recent edits

User:Boris Novikov (who very probably is a sock of the banned 'Kven user' User:Art Dominique) is now trying to amend the Aims section to represent his characteristic POV.

- He writes that "some post- Cold War period Finnish researchers have argued the Continuation War to have been an aggression initiated by the Finns" — hardly any historian denies that it was a Finnish war of aggression. Some have claimed that Finland had no other options than to join the German invasion of the USSR, but this view is largely rejected by modern-day historians.

- He also gives the 'official Finnish view' that the Continuation War was a) a separate war and b) a counterattack to push back an enemy invasion (not a part of Operation Barbarossa). His source for these statements is an article ([1]) by the chief editor of Helsingin Sanomat, the biggest Finnish daily newspaper. This is a prime example of how Boris Novikov/Art Dominique misrepresents things. The cited article in fact discusses the both sides of the argument of whether the Continuation War was separate or not, and states that a new generation of historians is very skeptical of the separate war view. And nobody—not the 'official view' nor any serious historian—claim that Continuation War was a counterattack, and there's not a single word about this fallacious view in the cited article.

Mikko H. (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An SPI already determined that Boris is unrelated to Art Dominique. No comment on the changes themselves. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that's interesting. User:Boris Novikov exhibits exactly the same style and obsessions as the legion of proven sock puppets of User:Art Dominique who have plagued this article earlier. Didn't Wikipedia have a rule that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck? Mikko H. (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The CU request I filed showed that several other accounts were ArtD socks, but that the Boris account was unrelated. I am not really very familiar with the situation, but two people with the same POV aren't necessarily related you know. Illythr told me that Boris "seems to be a significant upgrade from the usual" ArtD sock (while assuming he was one). So overall, it seems very likely it isn't the same person but rather two people with the same POV.

I don't really know anything about the subject, so I'm afraid I can't be much help with the content dispute. However, give Boris some credit - he is at least trying to discuss things. he may be horribly biased and/or off-base, but he is trying. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the SPU case said nothing about Boris-ArtD relation - which is why I said it'd be pointless in the first place (last confirmed ArtD puppet is stale). In this case it's not just the POV, but the editing style of this user, which was (so far) unique to the legion of sockpuppets attacking this page even now. Take a look at archive 4 and see for yourself. Adding to the confusion is perhaps the aid of another sockpuppeteer swelling the legion's ranks even more. --Illythr (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Who in your view qualifies to represent and/or state what the current 'official' Finnish stance is - if not the people referred to ?

Clearly, the Finnish views of "separate war" and "defensive victory" in regard to the Continuation War stem from the fact, that the Finnish offensive launched in 1941 was not a part of the German operation - but a counter-offensive against the massive Soviet attack of June 25, 1941.

No one could seriously suggest that the Finns should have answered to the Soviet attack by resuming the fighting only in the streets of the Finnish cities which the Soviets attacked, or inside Finland only, not pushing the invading enemy back behind the nation's borders, a safe distance away.

The Soviet attack of June 25, 1941, had been anticipated, based on development in the Baltic countries and elsewhere, and the communication between the Soviets and the Germans, as well as the continued Soviet aggression and pressure against Finland - enforced with numerous border and other violations -, among other things.

Based on all the information available, the Finns knew well that the Soviet aggression - the take-over attempt of Finland - would continue, and thus they knew that they had to prepare themselves for the defense against the upcoming and foreseeable attack.

After having said that, I'd like you to now kindly please offer us a source which in your view provides proof, that Finland would have attacked the Soviet Union in any case, even if the Soviet Union would have not attacked Finland first. Please make sure to offer the related page No. for such information, in case you suggest for us to look into any certain book.

Famously, Mannerheim's memoirs point out that Finland was prepared for a defensive - not offensive -, and that due to this it took total of six weeks to arrange the Finnish forces from the defensive formations to the offensive formations - three weeks to the north side of Lake Ladoga and other three weeks to the level of Viipuri (source: Mannerheim memoirs).

The Editor in Chief of Helsingin Sanomat clearly says in the source article provided, that the "official" Finnish stance remains, that the Continuation War was a "separate war". Here are Mr. Virkkunen's exact words: "Virallinen Suomi on edelleen erillissodan kannalla ...".

Please note: 'Virallinen Suomi' translated to English means 'official Finland' - there is no room for misinterpretation in that wording.

By telling about this national "official" stance, Mr. Virkkunen is in no way representing his own views, and - in fact - his paper has been accused of trying to make too much news - to sell the paper - out of the rather radical new view points expressed by a few original thinkers, such as Mr. Jokisipilä and Mr. Jokipii.

The statement by Mr. Virkkunen about the current "official" Finnish stance is re-enforced by voices in the Finnish political leadership - among them the quite recent and well-published statement of the President of Finland Tarja Halonen in Paris, France, in which she referred to the Continuation War as a "separate war" (of WW2). When faced with the question more recently again, President Halonen saw no need to change her stance.

Importantly, the view point of the President of Finland Tarja Halonen can indeed be added as a further source - or back-up - for the "official Finnish view/stance". I'll do that next. Many more related and good sources can be added for the support of this as well, if need.

However, how much differently or better can the official Finnish view be offered, than in the words of the current President of Finland, or the Editor in Chief of the largest and internationally most respected Finnish newspaper, who reminds of this being the "official" Finnish stance, in his newspaper's head column.

What different proof/sources can you offer to us of the 'official' Finnish view to be used in Wikipedia, user Mikko H. ? The 'citation needed' window has stood in the article for too long time already, to no prevail. How long more should we wait for the requested citation for the claim which you offer, in your opinion ?

Please act now in the providing of the requested valid backing for your claim(s), user Mikko H., instead of reverting the properly sourced information which shows your contribution to represent your personal POV, instead of the current state of the 'official' Finnish view. As such, your contribution is improper for presentation in Wikipedia.

If the two Presidents used here as references - Presidents Mannerheim and Halonen - do not qualify in your judgment as the right type of people to refer to, who in your opinion should be used for stating the status of the official Finnish view/stance - current and/or past - in regard to the Continuation War ?

In this matter - with their views given - the two presidents do not make an exception among other Finnish political or military leaders. Additionally, In 2004, Mannerheim and Halonen were voted among the "greatest Finns" of all time by the Finnish public, during the Suuret suomalaiset (Great Finns) competition [2], Mannerheim making the No. 1 spot. Other studies support this result.

In the same competition, the here-referenced General Adolf Ehrnrooth was voted "the 4th greatest Finn of all time". His referenced statement of the Finnish 'defensive victory' in the Continuation War fully matches the "official" Finnish view of the Continuation War having been a "separate war", not part of the German offensive - but clearly a part of a Finnish defensive, a defensive counterattack in other words.

The here-referenced and quoted Soviet General S.P. Platonov's statement of the Soviet failure/loss on the Karelian Isthmus fully supports General Ehrnrooth's statement of the Finnish war victory. A defensive war can only be won by a defensive victory.

In addition to not honoring the 'citation needed' window in the 'aims' segment of the article, you also insist in reverting the text to a broken link in another part of the same segment, despite of requests for you to please stop doing so, user Mikko H. Here's your broken link: http://www.taru.pp.fi/jutut/tiejatkosotaan.html (SUOMEN MARSSI JATKOSOTAAN).

Please, do not anymore revert the 'aims' segment, without providing answers to the above questions, backing up your answers with relevant and valid sources. Please make sure to include the page numbers of your source information in any suggested reading. Please understand, that Wikipedia articles cannot for ever hold on to unfounded claims, which have no valid academic support/sources for back-up. Boris Novikov (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kven!

Could you please stop mishandling sources? You cannot cherry-pick single sentences or paragraphs from the article or a book out of the context and claim they support your view. Three years ago we did go through this issue at length, and you failed to prove any of your claims. --Whiskey (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Halonen's statement of "separate war" in undisputable way proves Virkkunen's description of the 'official' Finnish stance to be accurate

Please drop false accusations and concentrate in the subject - providing the long requested citation for the un-sourced claim in question. The burden of proof is in your side. "Citation needed" window has waited to be honored for too long.

Now, a number of respected Finnish political and military leaders' citations and the Editor in Chief of the largest Finnish newspaper have been clearly shown to contradict your POV. These citations support the real "official" Finnish stance - and that stance is different from what you portray for Wikipedia it to be.

These most respected Finnish leaders of all time are perfect sources in telling what happened in this war - Mannerheim and Ehrnrooth having led the Finnish fight, and Tarja Halonen being the current long time President of Finland -, and perfect sources are also the Soviet specialist on the topic, General Platonov, and the Finnish President, Phd Mauno Koivisto who fought in the final major battle of the war.

Can you explain why in your view the statements given by these highest ranking Finnish officials should not be used in determining the "official" Finnish stance - and what statements should be used instead of theirs ?

For the President Halonen to publicly state that this war was a "separate war" (from WW2), is exactly the type of supportive statement from the highest political office in Finland which we are looking for, for showing what the "official" Finnish stance is.

This is the type of citation we'd like you to be able to provide for support of your claim of the "official" Finnish stance - or should the official Finnish stance not be told in Wikipedia at all in your view - and why not ?

Unlike most presidents in the Western world, the President of Finland has a substantial amount of political power, only surpassed by that of the President of USA and - perhaps - France, in the Europe-USA -axel.

Thus, what you call a "cherry-pick" statement - the statement of President Halonen -, perfectly supports what the Editor in Chief of Helsingin Sanomat says to be the "official" Finnish stance.

Please stop reverting this Wikipedia text to the unfounded claim in question - and leave intact the sourced and true information provided.

It doesn't matter what is the "official" Finnish view. It doesn't also matter what is the "official" Soviet/Russian view. Only thing what matters is what scholars write about the issue. Do not mix daily politics to the historical research.

I call you your handling of Platonov, Mannerheim and Koivisto as a cherry-picking. --Whiskey (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why try hiding Finland's "official" stance. It differs from Mr. Jokisipilä's stance, but it needs to be shown as well

The "official" view stands for the main stream thinking, just like the political leaders stand - if it didn't, different people would be voted in office.

It is true that Mr. Jokisipilä has presented rather radical new thoughts, and - as new - they have broken the news barrier.

It was not suggested, that his view should not be shown. However, the nation's "official" stance must be shown alongside his.

The 'aims' segment claimed "consensus" where there is no consensus, and thus the "citation needed" has not been honored.

It would be difficult to try proving what the mainstream view is on that, and wrong to claim "consensus" - even among scholars. Furthermore, there's no evidence at all that could be shown (thus the "citation needed" can't be filled).

Accordingly, rather than claiming - especially without evidence - something as controversial as that, it is better to simply leave it out.

However, the nation's "official" view is interesting, important and useful information for Wikipedia - and it can be quite easily verified as well.

The linked Helsingin Sanomat head column article by Mr. Virkkunen brings up the information about the existence of the differently thinking young scholar(s) (although Mr. Virkkunen over-generalizes), but - importantly - it too makes sure to point out what the nations "official" view is.

The link to Mr. Virkkunen is given as a source only for the country's "official" stance, nothing else - a different source or additional sources can be used as well.

So - can we now please stop removing this information from the article ? Boris Novikov (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So, if we follow your reasoning, then we should also add "official" Soviet/Russian and Western official stands, which are that Finland was an aggressor and started the war?

"Official" stands are political decisions, made by usefullness of the certain point of view and marred by ignorance and lack of facts. That is why I oppose to the end using any kind of "official" stands in articles with historical importance. Only historical research should define what would be included to the article.

By adding Finnish "official" stand here, you are degrading Finnish historical research on the issue to the populist crap. And the international readership of this article is simply reading along the lines that: "...despite all the evidence, Finns are in denial and claim falsely that they were the victims. Aren't they stupid? Surely their historical research in the issue is similar crap and cannot be trusted when their claims are so out of reality." --Whiskey (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

boris knows best

User Whiskey: Please, don't just talk about "historical research" - give us exact quotes from there, like you have been given

You talk about historical research, but you are not giving us any support from there for your reverts. First, answer finally please:

What evidence - and offered in what book and page - shows that Finland would have attacked the Soviet Union in any case, regardless whether or not the Soviet Union would have attacked Finland first.

I hope you realize that you have to be able to show us the evidence used for this claim, if you keep reverting to it. You have been given a number of quotes/citations that contradict this view of yours (please, do not answer by just telling us to read books of such and such - as there is no such evidence).

We must be able to see what evidence your possible source is using for that claim. Note: This evidence is needed - it is essential.

Mannerheim's memoirs, for one, is a source to the contrary, pointing out that Finland was prepared for defensive, not offensive, and that due to this it took six weeks to rearrange the troops from defensive formations into offensive formations, after the Soviet Union had launched a massive attack against Finland on June 25, 1941.

The Soviet "official" view is already in the article, and you keep reverting to it, claiming that Finland was the aggressor. That is the "official" Soviet view !

Thus, we must also at least mention what the Finnish "official" view is. Why are you afraid of this ?

This article cannot be just Mr. Jokisipilä's window to the world - to try selling a book with a theory, which fights against all evidence. Jokisipilä does not represent the main stream of Finnish research. The Finnish "official" stance represents the main stream of Finnish historical research, and this is exactly why the official stance must be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.246.213 (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, Olli Vehviläinen, Finland in the Second World War, p.87: "The negotiations with Germany's military leaders were continued in Helsinki at 3 June, when the detailed arrangement for the arrival of German troops in Finland, Finnish mobilization, and the general division of operations between Finland and Germany were agreed. In this way Finland committed itself in practice to Operation Barbarossa, although no formal treaty was signed."

Martti Turtola: Risto Ryti, Elämä isänmaan puolesta, p.259: "Suomi olisi joka tapauksessa - oli lentohyökkäyksiä ollut tai ei - liittynyt viiden päivän sisällä Saksan rinnalla hyökkäykseen Neuvostoliittoa vastaan."

Mauno Jokipii, Jatkosodan synty, chapter "Kolmen päivän puolueettomuus", Helge Seppälä, Suomi hyökkääjänä, Väinö Tanner's memoirs, Upton, Krosby, Jutikkala etc.

Why I oppose that so strongly? Because it is a losing position. It is arguing with feeling, with single mindedness feeling which will lose every time when facing facts. The only way Finns could press their view is through verifiable facts. Through thorough research which takes into account all existing facts and rests only to them. Politics come and politics go, but the facts remain. When arguing with a feeling, then a single fact which contradicts given view will collapse all credibility from the view. It will paint all supporters of that view ignorant fanatics repeating given propaganda who do not care about facts.

Offensive towards Rukajärvi started at July 3, and the main offensive at July 10. Last time I checked calendar it was less than two weeks from June 25 to July 10. Not six.

The main stream Finnish researchers support "Koskiveneteoria", which point out that Finns actively sought German protection and sought revanche from the Winter War. --Whiskey (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Finns actively prepared for protection and defensive - that is true.

Naturally, after the Soviet Union had attacked Finland, the Finnish counter-attack started the very next day, to push back the attacking enemy. That was done in the scale it could be done, and it continued stopples, in the scale that could be managed.

However, mobilizing the troops entirely from defensive formations into offensive formations took total of three weeks on the north side of Lake Ladoga, and another three weeks on the level of Viipuri (source: Mannerheim memoirs).

You gave us a list of books, which I had said we do not want. I asked for exact quotes, and you did come up with the following two quotes:

Vehviläinen: "... In this way Finland committed itself in practice to Operation Barbarossa, although no formal treaty was signed."

Turtola: "Suomi olisi joka tapauksessa - oli lentohyökkäyksiä ollut tai ei - liittynyt viiden päivän sisällä Saksan rinnalla hyökkäykseen Neuvostoliittoa vastaan."

Please note, that there are countless books written and varying opinions given regarding this matter. Those two are opinions, but the writers do not offer evidence, no cold undisputable facts or agreement signed - or something like that - to back up their opinion.

Vehviläinen's reference to the meeting between the Finns and the Germans "in Helsinki at 3 June" (in your quote) is no evidence, that Finland would have attacked, even if the Soviet Union would have not attacked first.

So, once more: We must be able to see what evidence your possible source is using for that claim.

I do appreciate you trying, user Whiskey. However, I hope you realize that your efforts prove that there really is no evidence which could be given for this type of opinion - only speculations can be offered, at the most, and that is what the philosophical part of your comment represents.

Many/most Finns indeed hoped for Finland to receive a "revenge from the Winter War", but launching a military campaign (a counter-offensive) to receive revenge was to take place only after the Soviet Union would attack Finland again first.

This Soviet attack - a continued aggression against Finland - was anticipated to come, and this is why Finland prepared for its defense.

Please, do not mix up what you think the average Finn to have hoped for, with the actual plans and preparations of the country.

Still today, most Finns would want the ceded areas back for Finland, but not if it meant war or troubles. However if the Soviet Union - or now, Russia - again attacked Finland, most would want a revenge and the areas back - just like during the Interim Peace period between the Winter War and the Continuation War.

I really wonder what calender you are using? I checked Mannerheim's memoirs and he doesn't speak anything about 3 weeks at Ladoga Karelia and 3 weeks more at the Isthmus. Also, it doesn't fit accepted timeframe Finns operated: There is no three weeks between June 25 and July 10; It is 15 days, or two weeks as you see.

Why don't you wat books? It is those books we have to use to base our writing here in WP. Everything we write has to be sourced, and preferably from the secondary sources. Primary sources can be used to prove exactly what they say, but otherwise we have to use secondary sources.

The primary sources all have used are proceedings from Finnish-German meetings before the war and actions reports of different Finnish and German units. From these sources historians have analyzed and produced the view that Finns were marching towards the war, and even without the Soviet offensive of June 25, the war would have started in a few days.

But as you say, Soviets blinked first, so any speculation what would have happened in a few days are in the realm of contrafactual history. --Whiskey (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Although the Finnish counterattack on the northwest side of Lake Ladoga began on July 10, 1941, the entire mobilization of troops was not fully processed yet. On the Karelian Isthmus, the counterattack began later - Käkisalmi was not concurred before August 21, and Viipuri on August 30.

The war-opening Soviet attack is a fact, pure evidence of what took place. What I am calling for is evidence used for the speculation for what might have happened if the Soviets didn't attack. Isn't it true, that Turtola can only speculate - but he cannot give any facts to back up his opinion.

The full acceptance and realization of the "Soviets blinked first" fact is what is needed, and we must give less value for speculations in Wikipedia - or at least we must try not to be one-sided. We must also not claim "consensus" where it does not exist, and when it cannot be verified or shown in any way.

We know what happened in this scenario, but no-one knows what might have happened if ... and there's no evidence to prove it. The Soviet attack was anticipated, and it happened - that is what is important. The Soviet attack justifies the Finnish counterattack - it cannot make Finland the aggressor.

Just referring to books, not providing the quotes and page numbers, when controversial information is discussed, simply isn't right.

For now, the 'aims' section has for long been waiting for the "citation needed". As you're the last one to revert to the non-sourced claim of "consensus", can you please provide us the "citation needed".

We need to see whether or not such citation even exists - and if does, what is the claimed "consensus" there based on.

Better yet - however - I am suggesting a different wording for the first paragraph of the 'aims'. Please take a look, user Whiskey. Can we agree on this version:

Aims

Unlike the Winter War, which was a Soviet war of aggression against Finland, some researchers - most notably Markku Jokisipilä - have argued the Continuation War to have been an aggression initiated by the Finns, to rectify the territorial losses of the Winter War. However, Finland's 'official' stance remains that the Continuation War was a "separate war" from WW2, in which the Finnish offensive launched in 1941 was primarily a counter-offensive, to push back the massive Soviet attack launched on June 25, 1941 - and not a part of the German campaign against the Soviet Union. The 'official' Finnish stance about the "separate war" has been re-enforced by statements given by the current President of Finland Tarja Halonen. Boris Novikov (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Novikov, President Halonen has stated that Finland was in fact involved in the Second World War: [3] or in Finnish if your prefer: [4]

Separate war

Yes - both speech writers as well as translators ought to be extra cautious with wordings.

Direct translation to English from the President's speech: " ... as a country that had gone through WW2, ...".

Because the definition of what can be considered to have been a part of WW2 varies somewhat, it is less confusing to just refer to the Continuation War as 'a separate war from the conflict between the Allied powers and the Axis powers'.

Famously, In Paris, France, Tarja Halonen made clear her stance in this regard, when stating that the Continuation War was a separate war.

The statement you are referring to was made in 2005. The link I provided was that of a speech made in 2006. Other than that, I do agree that issues surrounding translations and what is part of, or not part of WW2 lead to complications. Repdetect117 (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Finns helping the Soviet war efforts against the Nazis

The Finns were fighting a "separate war" - not to be mixed with the German campaign against the Soviet Union. The Soviet-Finnish war - the Continuation War - was launched by a massive Soviet attack against Finland on June 25, 1941.

The Finns refused to cooperate with the Nazis in many critical key areas, such as:

1) - - signing the Tripartite Pact, also called the Axis Pact, which established the Axis Powers of World War II (despite of many requests from the Nazi-Germany);

2) - - allowing direct German attacks from the Finnish soil against the Soviet Union during the Interim Peace period;

3) - - accepting the approximately 80 000 German troops offered to be placed under command of Marshal Mannerheim;

4) - - attacking the Soviet Union, unless/until the Soviet Union would attack Finland first;

5) - - cooperating in the siege of Leningrad;

6) - - cutting the Allied "lifeline", which was operated over Lake Ladoga and which brought desperately needed supplies to the defenders of Leningrad;

7) - - cutting the Murmansk railroad, which delivered massive amounts of Allied weapons and other supplies to the Soviets;

8) - - attacking the same targets as the Germans;

9) - - handing Finnish Jews to the Nazis (The Finnish Jews participated in the Finnish war efforts just like all other Finnish citizens);

10) - declaring war against any other Allied countries except Soviet Union;

11) - allowing the Germans to operate against USSR through the southern Finnish borders, ... etc.

The current President of Finland Tarja Halonen has reminded of the war-time Finnish policy which secured the operation of the Allied "lifeline" of help over Lake Ladoga, helping to save Leningrad from the Nazi occupation.

By not participating in the siege of Leningrad - alone -, the Finns prohibited a huge strategic and moral victory from the Nazis.

In the Tehran Conference, ending December 1, 1943, the Allied leaders determined that Finland was fighting a separate war. 87.95.90.124 (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Markku Jokisipilä's book, Aseveljiä vai liittolaiset?, the Finnish political situation was similar comparing Italy, Hungary and Romania. All these countries did not have formal treaty with Nazi Germany, but they are still counted as allies. Only Italians had ideological similarities with Nazis. In page 34, there is also reference to Mauno Jokipii's study where he argues that Finland was a part of this group of countries as indepedent co-belligerence. And Finland signed Anti-Comintern Pact in 1941. Without Germany's help - economical and miltary - Finland would not have chance to fight against the USSR. In page 36, Jokisipilä writes that there is a consensus among studies outside Finland, that Finland was de facto a German ally. So, I think this conversation is end/finish/ende/kaput/loppu. Peltimikko (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting, as it was a Tripartite Pact which gave military guarantees to the participants. Anti-Comintern Pact didn't have any military articles, it mainly concerned intelligence and police co-operation between the countries. --Whiskey (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Finland did not sign a military alliance agreement with Germany. Italy, Hungary and Romania did, in contrary to your claim

If Markku Jokisipilä indeed claims what you're stating above, user Peltimikko - that Italy, Hungary and Romania "did not have formal treaty with Nazi Germany" -, Jokisipilä is mistaken:

1) - Italy joined the Tripartite Pact on September 27, 1940.

2) - Hungary joined the Tripartite Pact on November 20, 1940.

3) - Romania joined the Tripartite Pact on November 23, 1940.

However, Finland did not sign this military alliance pact. Finland refused to form or sign any official military alliance agreement with Germany.

The Anti-Comintern Pact, signed in 1941 by 13 nations, in no way established a military alliance between Germany and Finland, and the nature of that treaty is quite well described by user Whiskey above.

The list, which points out many of the critical ways in which Finland refused to cooperate with the Nazi-Germany, is not meant to imply that Finland wouldn't have greatly benefited of the cooperation shared with Germany.

Particularly in the summer of 1944, weapons purchased from Germany were of great value to Finland, among them e.g. over 25 000 Panzerfausts (In Finnish: 'panssarinyrkki') purchased during that year. Boris Novikov (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Stalin knew best the nature of the Finnish struggle, and who was the aggressor. Stalin in Tehran: Finnish war - a separate war

Everyone must agree, that Joseph Stalin knew better than Markku Jokisipilä what the Soviet intentions were, and what the nature of the Finnish battle was, and who was the aggressor in the Continuation War.

Together with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin acknowledged in the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, ending on December 1, 1943, that the Finnish-Soviet Continuation War was a separate war - not a part of the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied powers.

Being the highest leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin knew in detail what the Soviet intentions regarding Finland were. He knew exactly what had taken place, and why.

Accordingly, - in Tehran - the Allied leaders decided that Finland was fighting a separate war against the Soviet Union - not the same as the one between Germany and the Soviet Union -, and that it was not 'de jure' member of the Axis, and therefore Finland could also get out of the war through negotiations and separate peace agreement.

Thus, the separate peace agreement was granted to Finland and the Continuation War's aftermath was dealt under a separate, conditional peace treaty. The Nazis were forced into a treaty of their own. It was unconditional and meant total surrender. Boris Novikov (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

After the abandonment of Viipuri in a half a day, leaving 120 MIA or dead (E. Tammi), there was no Soviet major battle victory

Clearly, on the Leningrad sector, the final showdown had to be fought on the Finnish side of the pre-WW2 Finnish-Soviet border, as the border ran along the outskirts of Leningrad, and as Marshal Mannerheim had given strict orders for the Finns to stay out of the city (although right by the border there were skirmishes on both sides of the border, particularly in the critical border-crossing areas).

The withdrawing of the Finnish troops to the VKT -defensive line, and stopping the enemy there, was conducted according to a plan, which got its final shape on June 17, 1944, under the leadership of General K.L. Oesch - and with Mannerheim's approval.

The summer's major battles included the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, the Battle of the Bay of Viipuri, the Battle of Vuosalmi, the Battle of Nietjärvi and the Battle of Ilomantsi, none of which were victorious for the Soviets.

There were other battles, such as the Battle of Tienhaara (important - as it lead to Tali-Ihantala), but none ended in a Soviet victory.

The Finns had fought of Viipuri in the Winter War, being able to hold on to the city - only to have to cede the city to the Soviets anyway, when the peace conditions were agreed upon.

This in mind and to save the Finland's second largest city from being destroyed, Marshal Mannerheim's wishes of fighting for the city were not honored.

The Finns executed a strategic abandonment of Viipuri in just a few hours’ time on June 20, 1944. The day’s fighting in Viipuri was brought to a halt by 16:40, leaving only 120 Finns missing in action or dead (Source: Study by Eeva Tammi, 2006).

Ever since the start of the Continuation War, the Soviets had not been able to cross the preceding - 1940 - Finnish-Soviet border during the entire war, except for a short-lived moment in the very final major battle in Ilomantsi, in 1944, where the Red Army suffered a devastating loss, when two of its divisions were fully decimated and shattered, as the Soviets were pushed back.

Following the Soviet war-opening attack on June 25, 1941, and after about 15 days' defensive period first, the Finns had began a campaign to push the Soviets a safe distance away behind the Finnish border. The Finns then held the Soviets behind the (1940) border until the war's very final moment, accomplishing a brilliant defensive victory.

The Finnish defensive victory is reflected also from the statements made in the Soviet book 'Bitva za Leningrad, 1941-1944' - edited by the Soviet Lieutenant General S.P. Platonov:

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

Finland had prepared for a defensive, as Mannerheim has pointed out, and the war which started with the Soviet invasion on June 25, 1941, was not part of the German campaign against the Soviets, as the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, on December 1, 1943, concluded:

The Finnish-Soviet Continuation War was a separate war - not a part of the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied powers. Accordingly, Finland made a separate peace agreement as well, conditional by nature - not unconditional like the Nazis, who had to agree to a full surrender.

A defensive war can only be won by a defensive victory. Thus, the war's end result is correctly revealed by the words of the famed Finnish General of Infantry Adolf Ehrnrooth:

"The Continuation War in particular ended in (Finland's) defensive victory, in the most important meaning of the term." (Dec. 17, 2003)

Unlike Nazi leaders, many of whom were sentenced to death, the Marshal of Finland Mannerheim had advanced to become the President of Finland on August 4, 1944, continuing in office until March 4, 1946, when he resigned and retired - 19 months after the ending of the Continuation War. Boris Novikov (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate peace

Boris, you probably don't realise this, but by trying to insert a paragraph about Finland's separate peace with the Allies, you're arguing against your own point: A separate peace is something a member of a military alliance signs with that alliance's enemies, despite existing obligations not to do so. Therefore, any mention of Finland signing a separate peace implies that Finland was an ally of Germany.

Then there's the fact that the Treaty of Peace with Finland was signed in 1947 as part of general corpus of WWII peace treaties, where Finland is explicitly mentioned as having been an ally of Germany.

Lastly, without a page number, a link to the front page of a 900+ page document is all but useless as a reference. --Illythr (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please notice where the source was set, next to the word negotiations, as that is what it was given as a refence for, the fact that Finland could sue for early peace "through negotiations". Further sourcer, direct quotes and the respected page numbers are given in the following articles on this page.

On page 99 of the U.S. State Department report on Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, the 'Minister in Finland to the Secretary of State' Schoenfeld makes the following notion on November 30, 1942:

"The "separate war" would imply the possibility of a separate peace".

This, user Illythr, shows you that the term "separate peace" has at least one other definition, the one used in connection with the Continuation War. And, this "separate peace" refers to a "separate war", which Finland had.

The term became part of the popular language during the Continuation War, and it was not used by only the Finns, but also by others - such as diplomats and political and military abroad - discussing the Finnish peace terms.

The term "separate war" - 'erillisraura' in Finnish - is widely used in Finland, and it can be found under in Wikipedia too, for instance on this page , although it does not have a Wikipedia article of its own yet. I'll work on it, when time allows. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Separate peace - 'erillisrauha' in Finnish - needs to be given an additional definition in Wikipedia

I'll gladly provide you with page numbers from that report, when I have the time. Yet, they are quite easy to find under the search word 'Finland'.

The pages on the U.S. State Department report show how Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin discussed the withdrawing (separating / braking) of Finland out of its war in early stage, and how the conditions for peace for Finland were discussed.

As the source provided is a direct link to the State Department report, which has a search engine - the information given can be easily verified by anyone, unlike in case of numerous other sources - such as books - used as references.

The studies related to Tehran and to Finland's part in the talks there are based on research of a large number of documents, such as (in case of U.S. sources) various foreign policy reports, reports by the Secretary of State to Congress, congressional hearings, congressional books on Joseph Stalin, etc. Some of the research material is not available to the general public.

Rather than going through a large number of documents used for these studies and the research, the related sources can be provided in normal Wikipedia way. The research works by Tuomo Polvinen - the two sources provided - are given as sources for the paragraph in question. Other sources can be added.

Please not to remove sourced information. There is plenty of non-sourced information to delete.

It is true, that the general corpus of WWII peace treaties - which you refer to - gives a wrong picture of Finland's struggles during WW2.

To avoid confusion, the wording about the 'separate peace' can be clarified somewhat. The term used in Finland for Finland's "separate peace" is 'erillisrauha' (direct translation). It's definition - used in the context of the Continuation War - is not quite the same as the one which you refer to. Thus, 'separate peace' deserves an additional definition - another article - in Wikipedia.

In Tehran, the Allied leaders discussed the demand for the unconditional surrender of Germany and it allies. Roosevelt and Churchill talked on behalf of Finland.

Germany and its allies were going to be forced to an unconditional and full surrender, whereas for Finland an early separation from its war and a conditional treaty were sued.

In this context the wording "separate peace agreement" was used. However - for the sake of clarity -, alternative wording can be used.

Here's a quote from the U.S. State Department report which is given as a reference in the Continuation War article - United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, The Conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943 (1943) - page 591:

Mr. Churchill developed at some length the reasons why he did not consider reparations, in regard to such a country as Finland, either desirable or feasible. And he said in his ears there was an echo of the slogan "No Annexations and No Indemnities". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.130.40 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this didn't go any further than that (as the following sentence on that same page makes clear) - Stalin laughed off Churchill's musings and Finland eventually had to both cede territory and pay reparations. Thus, the source you cite does not support your claim, nor does the end result of all these conferences, the Paris Peace Treaties, where Finland is listed as a former German ally. The non-existence of the "special Finnish" meaning for "separate peace" in English literature may also give you a hint of acceptance your point of view has in Western historiography - minimal. Please do not insert text that is unsupported by cited sources, as this is highly misleading and considered disruptive. --Illythr (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

On page 99 of the U.S. State Department report on Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, the 'Minister in Finland to the Secretary of State' Schoenfeld makes the following notion on November 30, 1942:

"The "separate war" would imply the possibility of a separate peace". This, user Illythr, shows you that the term "separate peace" has at least one other definition, the one used in connection with the Continuation War. And, this "separate peace" refers to a "separate war", which Finland had.

The term became part of popular language during the Continuation War, and it was not used by only the Finns, but also by others - such as diplomats - discussing the Finnish peace terms.

The term "separate war" - 'erillisraura' in Finnish - is widely used in Finland, and it can be found under in Wikipedia too, for instance on this page , although it does not have a Wikipedia article of its own yet. I'll work on it, when time allows.

1) Petsamo was traded to Hanko, just as Stalin had had discussed. Besides that land trade, no areas were ceded.

2) Dr. Tuomo Polvinen, PhD, is the primary source for the paragraph. He is a specialist on the topic. Please pay attention to what sources are given, and where exactly the sources are placed on the text.

3) The later-added English language source was included to satisfy the request by user Repdetect117 to "show a direct quote from the Tehran Conference". It does not need to stay, if it bothers you.

4) 'Errillisrauha' - 'separate peace' - is a Finnish term used to describe Finland's peace treaty for the Continuation War. That term like a lot of other terms related to the Continuation war have just quite recently become - or are becoming - known for wider audiences. Even some Continuation War battles do still not have Wikipedia articles in major languages. Boris Novikov (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1) The extent of Finland's concession is listed in the linked treaty and on this map. It shows a quite different picture than "Petsamo was traded to Hanko".

2) Please provide a direct quote from Dr Polvinen so we can verify that he supports what you have written.

3) That source does not support your claim, nor the article text it was attached to. --Illythr (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Again, this is not about Paris. No-one has denied that concession were agreed to there. This is about 1943.

2) Dr. Polvinen studies are based on a large amount of archived documents, which reveal that Finland was shown in special light. Although it may be just slightly difficult to quickly point out any one sentence best to show this, his entire works describe this - but Polvinen is not the only, others agree. The Finland's handling in Tehran is no news to any bit more serious history fan - and I believe even you agree deep inside.

3) I find it a bit amusing that you don't like the State Department source in this context, where as I think it is a great first hand source for what it was given for. As I said, I don't mind it being removed though. It was added to satisfy someone's request for quotes from Tehran.

I read the related quotes from the report. Early separation of Finland from its war brought up and the peace conditions were discussed there as well - of course. Stalin suggested the exchange of Hanko to Petsamo. That is about all that the report was given for, as an additional read. I can provide links to those particular pages, if that helps.

The Allied leaders' statements in Tehran alone (the State Department report) unmistakably prove that Finland was wanted out of it's war a.s.a.p., and that decent peace conditions were sued for Finland.

1) Petsamo was traded to Hanko, just as Stalin had had discussed. Besides that land trade, no areas were ceded. - These are your words just above.

2) Unless a direct quote is provided, your claim remains groundless.

3) You have used the front page of this document to try and source a statement it doesn't actually support, thus wasting our time and yours. Not much to like here, really. --Illythr (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Notice the word "land". "Besides that land trade, no areas were ceded." --> that means compared to the 1940 borders. Thus, those two statements of mine in no way contradict each other. Boris Novikov (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

2) There are false claims in the article now. Those need "direct quotes", as has been requested. For instance, a source is needed to show that the Soviet Union would have perceived the Continuation War to be a part of the Great Patriotic War already before the Cold War period. It cannot provided, as the statement is false. The burden of proof is on the person who claims this, or who reverts to this.

3) This is a rather good point from you, Illythr. I agree with this one - and I apologize if I have wasted any of your time, for you having to search through pages there, perhaps. That wasn't my intention. I wanted to quickly provide something for the Wikipedia user who visited this article, not knowing if they'll be back later on (as I had previously not seen that username). Now I have pointed some individual pages from the report as well - and more can be pulled out.

4) Having said that, I hope you - and Whiskey too - can now stop wasting the time of all of us, when minor changes are made to the text, like the most recent ones, "Moscow Armistice" not including (although I hope you'll agree with that one too, as you previously have reverted to it yourself, Illythr). Boris Novikov (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Tuomo Polvinen is a good source on the Tehran Conference and for the views of the Allied leaders then. Others can be added

Note: Importantly - the sources are not given for the Paris treaty, or for what eventually became the final peace conditions. That is an entirely different matter.

This paragraphs tells how a different - "conditional" - peace treaty was sued for Finland, and why. It shows how the Finnish war was viewed by the Allied leaders, at the time of their Tehran Conference, in comparison to the war between the Allied powers and the Axis powers. That is what the sources are used for.

The handling of Finland in Tehran - and hundreds of documents related - shows that all Allied leaders were full aware of the uniqueness of the Finnish war, in comparison to the war between the Allied powers and the Axis powers, a part of which Finland was not.

Again: The sources are not used for what happened years later in Paris, and for what eventually became the exact peace conditions - although Finland became separated from its war in quite early stage, nine months later, just as the allied leaders had discussed in Tehran (they wanted it to be even sooner), and the views presented and discussed in Tehran eventually were honored to quite large extend.

When happy fellows meet, there will be - and there should be - laughter involved. Yet - importantly - it was the pressure of Roosevelt and Churchill, that ensured that Finland was not going to be taken even more advantage of than it was. However, despite of the separate - unique - nature of the Finnish war, there was only so much that Roosevelt and Churchill could do, in terms of getting a good deal for Finland from their partner, Stalin.

The Soviet Union had needed the help of its allies for saving USSR from the Nazi occupation. At this important point, 12/1/1943, Stalin had to take into consideration the demands/vies of its sponsors/partners.

Thus, please take the sources for what they are given for. The U.S. State Department report supports, what it is used for as a source (as discussed above) - but, additional/different sources can be used as well.

Tuomo Polvinen is a historian, who has specialized in the related history, including the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference. That is why his works are used as sources for the paragraph. Others can be added.

In the text, additional/other words can be used in place of "separate peace agreement", in such a way that there will be less room for confusion or misunderstanding. When/if we try to describe this matter in short, there indeed will be room for misinterpretations. There can be lots of definitions for "separate" anything, and the analyzing of the best fitting words/terms can be a bit tricky.

However, the truth is that the Finnish deal sued for in Tehran - which got its final shape later on - was "different". Thus, perhaps for instance that word or other similar words ought to be included to describe the nature of the Finnish agreement.

The U.S. State Department report shows how Roosevelt and Churchill protected the Finnish interest on their behalf, being pretty well aware of the Finnish situation and what the Finnish struggle was about. After all, the U.S. embassy worked actively in Helsinki during the war.

Stalin - naturally - tried to work out the best deal possible for USSR, while Molotov tried to help the Soviet cause by - for instance - portraying the Finns as participants in the siege of Leningrad and describing how long the Finnish (and German) artillery fire had bombarded Leningrad.

There are other documents that show more of the views presented by the Allied leaders and what went on in Tehran and in other talks between the Allied powers.

This having been said, I agree that the paragraph is not perfect, and that it ought to be improved, just like the entire Continuation War article. I'll go ahead and remove the "separate peace agreement" - 'erillisrauha' in Finnish - from the paragraph, for now anyway. Boris Novikov (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The first page of the 1947 Treaty of Peace with Finland, that is, "what eventually became the final peace conditions" is available here. The full text is here. It presents the views of the participating states quite clearly. Thoughts previously expressed in unofficial discussions and later freely interpreted by an anonymous Wikipedia editor hardly merit their inclusion into the lead section of this article. --Illythr (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

1) The paragraph is not about 1947. It's about 1943, and the views of the Allied leaders on the Continuation War then.

2) Professor Tuomo Polvinen, PhD, a former chief of the Finnish national archives, is just as merited source for the Tehran Conference as any other source used in the article - if not more merited.

3) The additional side source can be moved to "further reading", if it bothers you. It was later added in response to request by user Repdetect117 who wanted me to "show a direct quote from the Tehran Conference". However, I have not "interpreted" any quotes from there. Anyone can do that for themselves.

In the State Department report, anyone can quickly recognize how an early separation from its war was sued for Finland; how the peace terms were discussed; and how Roosevelt and Churchill talked on behalf of Finland. Interestingly, eventually Hanko became to be trated to Petsamo, between the Finns adn the Soviets, just as Stalin had discussed in Tehran. - Please take the rest of my answer below. Boris Novikov (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1) You are trying to present Churchill's words in a rather unusual fashion. Please provide supporting sources.

2) Direct quote, please.

3) As the source doesn't support your claim, the request stands open.--Illythr (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1) All those boys there were using the same tone of voice. Even Stalin made a reference about the Finns fighting bravely for their country, which could be taken into consideration when peace deals were made (those were not his exact words).

2) Dr. Polvinen studies are based on a large amount of archived documents, which reveal that Finland was shown in special light. Although it may be just slightly difficult to quickly point out any one sentence best to show this, his entire works describe this - but Polvinen is not the only, others agree. The Finland's handling in Tehran is no news to any bit more serious history fan - and I believe even you agree deep inside.

3) Wrong: There are many direct quotes showing how the Finnish peace conditions were discussed and how the early separation of Finland from its war was brought up. User Repdetect117 must have searched with the keyword as suggested, because he/she made no more reverts, and no further requests either. Boris Novikov (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, despite the back and forth editing of the beginning paragraphs of this article, I'm glad that the sentence, "Similarly, Germany saw its own operations in the region as a part of its overall war efforts of World War II" remains unchanged. I'm hoping this means that this contribution of mine is correct. Repdetect117 (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why, not only do we have Hitler's words on that, there has never been a controversy about Germany's position on the matter in the first place, to my knowledge. --Illythr (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if people can claim that the Soviets considered their fight against the Soviets to be not part of the "Great Patriotic War" from documents that state no such thing, then I thought they might do the same with Germany's position. Repdetect117 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BEANS. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When you say Hitler's word, are you talking about his Barbarossa speech? Repdetect117 (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The time before, during and after the war are different, with diffrent views - each must be told

Please do not continue mixing the Cold War period year of 1947 with the Continuation War year of 1943, when the war was not over yet. Those are different times, with different views.

The paragraph in question says nothing about other periods, such as the time before or after the war. Those are discussed in other paragraphs. This paragraph only tells the view of the Allied leaders during the war.

The lead of the article shows how the different participants saw the war. That is why the view of the Allied leaders should be mentioned. They saw the war as a separate war from the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied Powers.

The thoughts expressed, official and unnofficial - before, during and after Tehran - are interpreted by Professor Tuomo Polvinen, PhD, a former chief of Finnish national archives. He has specialized in the Finnish-Soviet relations. All along, his two works have been attached to the text in question as sources.

The distinguished historian Professor Polvinen has specialized in this part of history. His "interpretations" of history do qualify to be used as sources in this article just as well as any other given source on the page - if not better. Other sources can be added.

The U.S. State Department report was later included as a side source only, in response to request by user Repdetect117 who wanted me to "show a direct quote from the Tehran Conference". Yet, the source does not need to stay. Polvinen is the primary source - and others can be added.

In the war which the Soviets started, they had plans to move rather rapidly deep inside Finland, and then conquer such places in Finland as Helsinki, Kemi, Oulu, Rovaniemi, Turku and the Åland Islands - and more.

In the final peace treaty, Hanko was "traded" to Petsamo between USSR and Finland - as Stalin had discussed in Tehran -, but Finland agreed to no other land ceding or trading.

Thus, the conditions which the Allied leaders discussed for Finland in Tehran - and what appeared acceptable to Stalin there -, are rather decent in hindsight, in comparison to what might have happened, had the Soviets won the war, or had Finland been considered to be part of the Axis.

However, that is an entirely different matter, than the paragraph discussed, and the validity of the U.S. State Department report to be included as a source there. Again, please notice that the report was used only as an additional side source - as further concrete evidence - to show how in talks, official and unofficial, an early separation of its war and the conditions for peace for Finland were sued at the time.

The world was different in 1938, in 1943 and in 1947. In the Cold War period year of 1947, the views expressed by many leaders were very different from what they had been during the war, or before.

For one, the war plans of the Soviet Union (Ohto Manninen - 'How Finland is conquered: The operational plans of the Red Army, 1939-1949') show in detail, what the Soviet Union had in mind during the war - and before - in regard to Finland. Clearly, the Soviet plans to conquer Helsinki, Kemi, Oulu, Rovaniemi, Turku and the Åland Islands - and more - show how the Soviets perceived the war during the war and right before the war.

What was said three years later, after the war, in Paris, was - of course - very different.

Thus, it is important to reveal in Wikipedia not only the end result - which was eventually determined during the Cold War in 1947 -, but also the views of the participating nations and their leaders during the war and before the war.

As to further sources for how the Soviet leadership saw it's position on June 21, 1941, the comment below gives a few leads. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC) (broken original signature from 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC) was replaced)

The peace treaty of 1947 is a formal document that provides a definitive stance of the Allies towards the Axis and their allies. The statement They saw the war as a separate war from the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied Powers is not supported by the text of the Tehran Conference you cite. If Mr. Polvinen believes that this was as you say, we can add this as his interpretation with direct attribution, but no sooner as you provide a direct citation from his work that does support the text you are inserting. --Illythr (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

YOU MIX UP WHAT SOURCE IS USED FOR WHAT INFORMATION, USER ILLYTHR

User Illythr - you say: "The statement They saw the war as a separate war from the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied Powers is not supported by the text of the Tehran Conference you cite."

I say: No-one has claimed so. Where ? Can you show us please ?

Once again, the State Department report has never been used as a source for that sentence - and even the sentence is not exactly like that. Please take the rest of my answer on the bottom of this page. Boris Novikov (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff. Indeed, so far, you are the sole person who have claimed this. --Illythr (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That spot for the source would fit too. Yet, please notice that the source was very shortly moved to another spot - and you have complained while the source has been in the current spot. In the previous location too it clearly was not a source for the entire paragraph. The source for the paragraph is in the end of the paragraph.

There are others who have reminded of it here and in other related forums, that the Soviets (and the Americans) saw the Continuation War as a "separate war". For instance Peltimikko headlined at 09:35, 2 June 2009:

"The Continuation War formally was seen as a separate war by both Moscow and Helsinki,"

Also in Wikipedia, that information can be found (not brought there by me) - here for instance: Tehran Conference. - - Boris Novikov (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin and Andrei Zhdanov explain how USSR must now "move on from defense to attack"

In June, 1941, the Chairman of the RSFSR Supreme Soviet Andrei Zhdanov stated to the Military Council of the Supreme Soviet:

"We have become strong, and we can now begin accomplishing things by more active approach. The wars in Poland and Finland were not defensive wars. We already have started on the road of attacking politicks."

This followed the speech of Joseph Stalin given on May 5, 1941, where he stated the following:

"But now that we have modernisized our army, acquired weapons technology required for modern warfare, now that we have become strong - now we must move on from defense to attack.

As we were improving our nation's defense, we gave up attacking. We shall now move from defensive to offensive war politics. It is necessary for us to renew our educational work, propaganda, agitation and print in offensive spirit.

The Red Army is a modern army - but, it must be remembered, that a modern army is an army of attack." Boris Novikov (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Suvorov's theories are not accepted by the larger community of historians due to not presenting the sources of his analysis ans selective choice of facts (his idea of an "autobahn tank" became particularly infamous for the bad research it involved). Meltiukhov supports the idea of a Soviet first strike, but is much more cautious about the date and other details, citing lack of documentary evidence for an accurate scientific analysis of Soviet war plans. --Illythr (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It ought to be noted, that Sovorov's career was not that of historian's to begin with. Yet, I do not fully agree with your view on this, user Illythr. My sources have pointed out the contrary, showing the critics of Suvorov - one vocal and important critic in particular - to have not been a match to Suvorov's statements and claims.

If I recall correctly, the critic in question has claimed to have gotton access into some related archives of the Soviet Union, implying that Suvorov would not have been provided such access, despite the fact that Suvorov was a Soviet spy with a network of connections to various directions and with access to much secret information.

While making this claim - and other similar claims -, the critic has made some highly contradicting statements, by implying for instance that the related documents, a part of them at least, would have been destroyed, while at the same time also implying that the related archives (some of them at least) would still be hidden/protected/not given access to.

Please allow me to get back to you on this, after I have checked my records and verified who this known/vocal Suvorov's critic is. Thank you user Illythr.

Directly below, please find information about Gabriel Gorodetski. Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Most observers see Suvorov to have succeeded in proving a number of Gorodetski's critical claims to be false, and in proving Gorodetski to be a paid worker of the Russian Federation.

One of Suvorov's main critics has been Professori Gabriel Gorodetski.

In his book 'Viimane Vabariik', Suvorov has used an entire chapter - chapter No. 24 - to prove Gorodetski to be a paid worker of the Russian Federation. Most observers see Suvorov to have succeeded in proving a number of critical claims made by Gorodetski fo be false. Boris Novikov (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Massive offensive preparations were conducted by the Soviet-Finnish border during the Interim peace

A "sideshow" of unprecedented proportions was planned for post- Winter War Finland

C. G. E. MANNERHEIM (MEMOIRS):

"The railroad construction that had started by the Soviets on the fall of 1939 proceeded rapidly. The most important stretches of the railroad, Petroskoi-Suojärvi, Louhi-Kiestinki ja Rutši-Salla were completed in a few months' time. To the last-mentioned stretch alone, over 100'000 forced labor workers were stationed. These railroad stretches were supported by 15 strategic roads for motor vehicles.

On approximately 200 kilometers wide boundary behind the border, airports were being built, the number of which was later concluded to be as many as 90."

ERKKI NORDBERG (former Chief of the Department of Education at the Main Headquarters of the Finnish Defence Forces):

"Only one conclusion can be made, and needs to be made, of the the Interim Peace period war preparations of the Soviet Union. The Red Army was preparing to attack west, and in the process to occupy Finland. This time it would be done immediately, and with even much larger forces that had been planned for 1939."

(Source: 'Arvio ja ennuste Venäjän sotilaspolitiikasta Suomen suunnalla' - "The Analysis and Prognosis of the Soviet Military Politics on the Finnish Front" -, 2003, page 181 .)

(Prior to his retirement in 2006, Colonel M.A. Erkki Nordberg served as the Chief of the Department of Education at the Main Headquarters of the Finnish Defence Forces. Nordberg has focused foremost in the history of the Finnish wars during WW2 and he has researched extensively the war plans of the Soviet Union, related to WW2.)

Please don't generalize "usage of sources" being correct or incorrect, user Whiskey. Please, be always specific and point out what source, when you make claims of that sort. Also, when you discuss my statements, please bring an exact quote, so that I know what you are referring to. Then I can defend myself and explain - perhaps there's something that you had not understood.

Yes, there was supposed to be other stages of the Soviet offensive, which never materialized, as unexpected things happened. I have said that many a time.

You must have read for instance about the Soviet operative orders given on May 14, 1941, for the formations of the Soviet forces and the execution of the Soviet attack, which was planned to reach 250-300 km westward, pass the Soviet border .

What would have been left of Finland already at this point ? Another similar "pre-emptive" Soviet attack - the one of the Winter War - had resulted to the moving of the Finnish-Soviet border considerably west the year before.

Below, please find more details of the post- Winter War offensive plans of the Soviet Union, which further reveal and proof the Soviet intention to invade the entire country of Finland. The Soviet attack plan and the related map - with arrows showing the Red Army attack routes to the Finnish cities - can be added).

A distinguished source, Ohto Manninen, - full with page numbers - is provided further down (notably, he has also been used as a source by you, and - importantly - user Illythr supported your use of the source).

You say: " ... plans do not mean that Soviets intented to conquer Finland in the beginning of the Continuation War." It doesn't have to be right in the "beginning", user Whiskey. Certainly, at least some in the Soviet leadership knew following the Winter War, that occupying Finland wasn't easy, all the circumstances considered.

Besides, at least some of the utmost military experts in the topic disagree with you on this. This time around, the occupation of Finland was supposed to be swift. Please, accept further evidence and a source in my article further down.

I asked you to please bring proof of the Soviets having moved troops away from Finland before the Battle of Tali-Ihantala - because you reverted that text in the article (as in reality, they didn't move troops away before that battle).

Instead, you tell me now that they had hard time getting more troops. That is not what I had asked you about, Whiskey. The Finns did too.

Naturally, partially destroyed units were sometimes pulled back, as otherwise they would have been fully destroyed. I am asking you to please provide proof, that any significant amount of forces were moved away from Finland, before the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. If you cannot provide such source, please do not remove the contrary information from the article. Thank you, Whiskey.

Finally: During earlier years of WW2, no-one knew where the war would be eventually finished. If the Finns would have cut the Murmansk railroad, and if they would have joined the attack against Leningrad, that would have released German forces south, and the entire WW2 would have been a different ballgame.

Therefore, the Finnish front was just as significant - if not more significant - than any other Soviet front. The Soviets had no idea in 1941, where the war would be finished, Whiskey. Thus, your "sideshow" theory/speculation - or that Finland would have become a "sideshow" already before the Battle of Tali-Ihantala - does not belong to Wikipedia. Nor is it supported by - arguably - the worlds' largest (at least up till then) artillery battle, the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User Illythr: You mix up what source is for what info. The U.S State Department report is meant for additional read only

You say: "The statement They saw the war as a separate war from the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied Powers is not supported by the text of the Tehran Conference you cite."

I say: No-one has claimed so. Where ?

Once again, the State Department report has never been used as a source for that sentence.

Please do not mix up sources and information. Clearly, at no point has the U.S. State Department report been attached as a source for that sentence or a similar sentence.

Even the sentence does not read exactly like that. Below, please find the entire paragraph in question, including the sentence. Please notice where the State Department source was attached, next to the word 'negotiations' - that is what it was given as a refence for, that Finland could sue for early peace through negotiations. I agree that links to the individual pages should be formed. I'll list some possible candidates further down.

In the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, ending on December 1, 1943, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin acknowledged that the Finnish-Soviet Continuation War was not part of the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied powers, and as Finland was not 'de jure' member of the Axis, ways for Finland to get out of its war through negotiations at early stage were sought.

The report was never offered as a source for the sentence in question or the paragraph as a whole. Polvinen was, however (for the entire paragraph) - and other sources can be added (more sources further down on this page).

The State Department report was added as a side read, but for that particular spot only, next to the word 'negotiations' - as a reference how the Allied leaders discussed Finland's early separation from its war, which was to be accomplished through negotiations.

The source was not necessarily meant to be left there permanently. It was added after user Repdetect117 had requested to be given something "from the Tehran Conference", "preferably sources in English or online, possibly even direct quotes".

In the State Department report there are direct quotes from and about the Allied leaders, in regard to the early ending of the Finnish war, peace negotiations, etc. There are not necessarily direct quotes for that particular sentence which you describe (although perhaps there are ?) - and importantly, that is why the source has not been attached to that type of sentence, and it is not used as a source for that type of sentence.

So - source was not used wrongly. You, Illythr, made it look like that, by claiming that the source was used for that sentence.

Here's a page from the U.S. State Department report, page No. 592 , which shows how the conditions for the Finnish peace deal were discussed between the Allied leaders. A Quote regarding Joseph Stalin from that page:

"Marshal Stalin said that the Treaty of 1940 was broken and must be restored, but is Hango were belonging to the Finns he was willing to accept Petsamo instead, which would give them a common boundary with Norway. He added that Petsamo had been in the first instance a gift from Russia to Finland." (Editor's note: Marshal Stalin lied. Petsamo had been traded in the previous deal too).

Page 590 shows how getting Finland out of the war was discussed. A quote from that page:

"He (President Roosevelt) said that he wished to help in every way to get Finland out of the war, and he would like to have the views of Marshal Stalin."

On page 591 an early separation for Finland from its war is being sued - a quote about Winston Churchill's statement:

"The Prime Minister (Churchill) stated that he attached a great importance to Finland's being out of the war and Sweden's being in, at the moment of the great attack im May."

On page 591 also the Finnish peace deal and getting Finland out of the war are discussed further. A quote regarding Stalin on that page:

"Marshal Stalin agreed on the desirability of getting the Finns out of the war, but not at the expense of the interests of the Soviet Union."

On page 99 , the 'Minister in Finland to the Secretary of State' Schoenfeld makes the following notion on November 30, 1942:

"The "separate war" would imply the possibility of a separate peace". This, user Illythr, shows you that the term "separate peace" has at least one other definition, the one used in connection with the Continuation War. And, this "separate peace" refers to a "separate war", which Finland had.

The term became part of popular language during the Continuation War, and it was not used by only the Finns, but also by others - such as diplomats - discussing the Finnish peace terms.

The term "separate war" - 'erillisraura' in Finnish - is widely used in Finland, and it can be found under in Wikipedia too, as a headline for instance on this page , although it does not have a Wikipedia article of its own yet. I'll work on it, when time allows.

Finland's early separation from its war and the peace conditions for Finland are discussed also on the following pages of the U.S. State Department report (this is only a part of the Finland related pages):

Page 112 (9 matches) Page 113 (11 matches) Page 114 (5 matches) Page 115 (6 matches) Page 116 (7 matches) Page 117 (4 matches) Page 118 (2 matches) Page 119 (4 matches) Page 120 (2 matches) Page 121 (4 matches) Page 122 (4 matches) Page 213 (5 matches) Page 214 (8 matches) Page 736 (1 match) Page 737 (4 matches) Page 738 (5 matches) Page 739 (5 matches) Page 740 (5 matches) Page 741 (5 matches) Page 742 (4 matches) Page 743 (5 matches) Page 744 (4 matches) Page 745 (3 matches) Page 746 (3 matches) Page 747 (4 matches) Page 748 (3 matches) Page 749 (7 matches) Page 750 (6 matches) Page 751 (5 matches) Page 752 (4 matches) Page 753 (8 matches) Page 754 (3 matches) Page 755 (9 matches) Page 756 (5 matches) Page 757 (2 matches) Page 757 (9 matches) Page 758 (2 matches) Page 759 (9 matches) Page 760 (7 matches) Page 761 (6 matches) Page 762 (11 matches) Page 763 (7 matches) Page 764 (11 matches) Page 765 (10 matches) Page 766 (11 matches) Page 767 (17 matches) Page 768 (6 matches) Page 769 (9 matches) Page 770 (8 matches) Page 771 (5 matches) Page 772 (1 match) Page 773 (4 matches) Page 774 (2 matches) Page 775 (4 matches) Page 776 (1 match) Page 777 (5 matches) Page 778 (6 matches) Page 779 (2 matches) Page 781 (5 matches) Page 782 (4 matches) Page 783 (3 matches) Page 784 (3 matches) Page 785 (3 matches) Page 786 (2 matches) Page 787 (4 matches) Page 788 (2 matches) Page 789 (4 matches) Page 790 (3 matches) Page 791 (4 matches) Page 793 (4 matches) Page 794 (6 matches) Page 794 (1 match) Page 795 (13 matches) Page 796 (4 matches) Page 797 (5 matches) Page 798 (5 matches) Page 799 (10 matches) Page 800 (10 matches) Page 801 (13 matches) Page 802 (9 matches) Page 803 (8 matches) Page 804 (4 matches) Page 805 (4 matches) Page 806 (1 match) Page 807 (2 matches) Page 808 (4 matches) Page 809 (5 matches) Page 811 (2 matches) Page 811 (2 matches) Page 812 (6 matches) Page 813 (4 matches) Page 814 (4 matches)

Boris Novikov (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This demonstrates further that the notion of a "separate war" was not supported by the members of the Tehran Conference as well as you remarkably bad usage of that source - note that the document cited on page 99 is not part of the conference, nor was is written by one of the participants. Moreover, the term "separate peace" is used in its direct sense there, dismantling your argument even further. Despite all this, a short mention of Finland's case in the Tehran Conference may be in order (Churchill's suggestions, Stalin's conditional, but firm refusal, etc), just not in the form you are trying to present things. --Illythr (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not correct. Please, take my answer in the articles below. Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

All the Allied leaders and Hitler saw the Continuation War as a "separate war", as reported in numerous sources (a few below)

All Allied leaders and - importantly - Adolf Hitler too (source provided, with a page number) saw the war as a separate war from the conflict between the Allied powers and the Axis powers.

As you suggested, user Illythr, I could indeed write a book for you about this, rather than continuing to bring in more and more sources and documents as evidence, for your review - something that we cannot expect from my opponent, you - or can we ?

However, others have done a great job. A number of books about the topic has already been written by the most appreciated and highly regarded historians and diplomats. One of them is Max Jakobson. His becoming the Secretary General of the United Nations was stopped only by the 'veto' right exercised by the Soviet Union.

In his book about the issue, the long time Finnish diplomat and government minister Max Jakobson points out many ways how the Soviet Union acknowledged the "separate" nature of the Continuation War. For instance, Jakobson itenerates: "Luopuessaan antautumisvaatimuksesta Moskova tunnusti Suomen sodan erillisen luonteen."

In English: "When giving up the demand for surrender, Moscow admitted (recognized/acknowledged) the separate nature of the Finnish war." Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

USSR agreed to a conditional truce in the "separate war" against Finland, while the war against the Axis continued

You say: "the term "separate peace" is used in its direct sense there".

You appear to agree with me, user Illythr. As I've said, the term can be used in different "senses", and there is not just one definition. I'll itenarate more further below.

You also took my "separate peace" out of context. The sentence in question talked about a "separate peace agreement", not "separate peace" - there's a difference (not that it is all that important, however).

The peace was separate from the one forced to Nazis - not the same - it was different - independent from - etc. Finland's peace was conditional, unlike the one forced to the Nazis.

The Soviet Union signed a (temporary) separate peace agreement with Finland while the war between the Allied powers and the Axis powers continued to be fought, for quite some time to come.

No Illythr - there's no room for misinterpretation in the U.S. official's statement. In a clear way, it supports the use of this particular terminology in conjunction with the Continuation War, and on its part it defines the meaning of the term in this context.

This is just one example - one among a large number of similar cases, in similar documents, used by researchers to evaluate how the Allied countries viewed the Continuation War.

Further down, please find more evidence and examples of the term's use in this context in historiography and in diplomatic language.

Among those more familiar with the Continuation War, this terminology is known widely. The term used in Finland for the "separate peace" is "erillisrauha". Boris Novikov (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no room for misinterpretation - a separate peace is an armistice or a peace agreement signed by a country behind the back of its allies in a war. --Illythr (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)'

If you see there not being room for misinterpretation, then we can include the wartime American diplomat's words next to Max Jakobson's in the article.

The important thing is the separate war. The peace can simply be called peace - Mannerheim is right - and Illythr is not wrong, as long as he accepts the war having been a "separate war" - what it was.

Additionally, our personal views are not important when telling a story in Wikipedia. We must report what happened and why, to the best of our knowlkedge, providing the facts and the related sources. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Jakobson is another example of a high ranking diplomat and a prior government minister saying the use of "separate war" is correct

Again, not only the American politicians and diplomats - as seen in the document provided above - but politicians, historians and diplomats at large, among others, have used widely both terms, 'separate war' and 'separate peace' with a "separate"/different definition in conjunction with the Continuation War, than the definition referred to by you, user Illythr.

In my article further below, please find additional evidence to confirm this, including a direct quote from - arguably - the all time best recognized Finnish diplomat and a prior Finnish government minister, Max Jakobson (whose becoming the Secretary General of the United Nations was stopped only by the 'veto' of the Soviet Union). Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hitler too - like all the Allied leaders - acknowledged and accepted the nature of the Continuation War as a "separate war"

Germany too fully acknowledged and accepted the fact, that the Finnish Continuation War was a 'separate war' from the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied powers (sources provided per request).

In the end of October, 1943, the Finnish Ambassador Kivimäki gave a briefing to Adolf Hitler, where he clearly emphacized the nature of the Finnish war as a "separate war". Hitler did not protest, and - instead - he made it clearly understood that he fully agrees:

"Based on the German knowledge ... Finland has not agreed to anything else, but to defend itself, if it became a target of an attack." (Source: T. M. Kivimäki, 'Suomalaisen poliitikon muistelmat', 1965, page 262).

In his speach on November 26, 1941, the German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop pointed out that Finland was not an ally of Germany, and that it did not even fight on the side of, together with, Germany, as did Italy, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia, according to von Ribbentrop (T. M. Kivimäki, 'Suomalaisen poliitikon muistelmat' - "the Memories of a Finnish Politician" -, 1965, page 262).

General Erik Heinrichs: "I all this time, Finland has not committed to anything." (Source: Erik Heinrichs, Mannerheim Suomen kohtaloissa - "Mannerheim in the Destinies of Finland" -, part II, pages 342-343)

After the Continuation War, a thorough investication was conducted, in which it was determinated whether or not Finland had made any agreement with Germany. The so called 'Hornborg Committee' report was released to the Finnish government on July 17, 1945:

"The Committee saw it having been determined, that no political agreement with Germany had been made." Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite of Mannerheim's concern, the new definition of "separate peace" became acceptable in this context

In time, the meaning and definition of some words and terms have changed, or got new nuances or additional definitions. This is an on-going process. In understanding of user Illythr's concern, the following interesting thing has been reported and should be mentioned:

Although he saw the war as "separate", of course, the Marshal of Finland Mannerheim did not accept the term "separate peace", for the very reason introduced here by user Illythr.

Here's a free translation from a quote: "When talking about the "separate peace", let it mentioned, that Mannerheim did not accept this word ('erillisrauha'). In his opinion - as a member of the Headquarters (of the Finnish Armed Forces) has expressed -, Finland who fought its own war against Russia, Finland who was not tied by any political or military agreement, did not have to make a "separate peace", but simply to make a peace, immediately when it was possible."

Same in Finnish: »Erillisrauhasta» puheen ollen tulkoon mainituksi, ettei Man­nerheim hyväksynyt tätä sanaa. Hänen mielestään - kuten eräs päämajan jäsen on asian ilmaissut - Suomen, joka kävi omaa sotaansa Venäjää vastaan ja jota ei sitonut mikään poliittinen tai sotilassopimus, ei tarvinnut tehdä »erillisrauhaa», vaan se yksinkertaisesti solmisi rauhan ja heti, kun tilaisuus siihen tarjoutui.

In this regard, user Illythr's concern is not entirely in the woods. However, since Mannerheim's days this linquistic concern has all but vanished, while historians and politicians have chosen to all but challenge Mannerheim's point, and since then the "separate" definition for "separate peace" - when used together with the Continuation War - has been widely accepted among scholars, diplomats, politicians and others.

Importantly - however -, this Mannerheim's view too supports the 'separate' nature of the Continuation War - the emphazis of ours. Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"The "separate war" would imply the possibility of a separate peace" - Minister in Finland to the Secretary of State, 11.30.1942

As the 'Minister in Finland to the Secretary of State Schoenfeld states in writing on November 30, 1942:

"The "separate war" would imply the possibility of a separate peace".

Or, if you prefer: The separate peace would imply the possibility of a "separate war".

This document, among thousands of other similar documents and other material, together with actual true life events that took place, tell historians how the Allied leaders saw Finland's struggle.

The Soviets gave up a demand for Finland's unconditional surrender, and signed truce with Finland, while the war between the Allied powers and the Axis powers continued.

Mannerheim was made the President of Finland right before the war's end, and he stayed in office until 19 months after the war, when he resigned and retired.

This all was possible, because the Allied leaders saw the Continuation war as a separate war. USA kept it's embassy working in Helsinki throughout the Continuation War, and Roosevelt and Churchill spoke on behalf of Finland during the war, including in the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference.

And - importantly -, also the Soviets saw the Continuation War as a "separate war", as user Peltimikko correctly headlined at 09:35, 2 June 2009:

"The Continuation War formally was seen as a separate war by both Moscow and Helsinki" Boris Novikov (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You should publish a book on this topic, get it peer-reviewed in serious journals than come back here. While your interpretation of history is interesting, it appears to be too marginal to be included as Finnish historiography views. --Illythr (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, user 'Illythr'. Please take my answer below - the next few articles. A number of great books on the topic have already been written, making it not necessary for me to bother, not right now anyway. I will refer to some very valuable sources below. Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

SOVIET POST- WINTER WAR PLAN TO CONQUER FINLAND - I AM INCLUDING A SOURCE PREVIOUSLY USED BY WHISKEY, SUPPORTED BY ILLYTHR

"Appears to be too marginal to be included as Finnish historiography views" ?

In my article below, please find yet more distinquishes sources which are in full accordance with my statements. The works are highly valued among academics - and they are "peer-reviewed" -, Max Jakobson's works being perhaps the most highly valued of them all.

Please notice that Ohto Manninen has been used as a source also by user Whiskey - and his use of Ohto Manninen as a source was backed by you, user Illythr.

I hope you won't contradict yourself in this case (as you have in for instance in reverting the war's result to "Moscow Armistice, only to later insist in reverting it away from "Moscow Armistice" - thank you for holding your horses on that one.) Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Errr... I do not remember defending "separate war" theory (maybe some sort of misunderstaning). The Finns tried to keep the war in political level as much separate as possible (Hitler tolerated this as long as military relations were working, formal agreements were unnecessary; Ribbentrop, as his own project, tried to form a formal alliance agreement from 1943, first without success), but military and economy relations were very close through the war - and in fact, the Finns would not have possible to fight without German military (troop in Northern Finland, tanks etc.) and economy (cereals, trade with German's allies etc) assistant. The Winter War gave lot of goodwill to the Finns, and that was one of the reason why U.S. did not declare war against Finland. And the U.K. warned several times before it declared war against Finland. But U.S.-Finland relations became much worse after Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement. Peltimikko (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And another thing. "Separate War" theory has never really get any foot outside Finland among historians. Though, after the WWII there was some small support in literature in Germany and in the Soviet Union. However, the Finnish historians changed their view in late 1980s and nowadays the war is seen as an alliance with Germany. Peltimikko (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User 'Peltimikko' - kindly please take my answer in the two articles below. Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Numerour foreign sources - past and current - are in full accordance with the Continuation War having been a 'separate war'

A BRIEF ANSWER TO YOUR POINTS, USER PELTIMIKKO - PLEASE TAKE THE REST OF MY ANSWER IN MY ARTICLE FURTHER BELOW

You are mistaken. For example: In my article below, I refer to a book from 2005 by the Finnish Councilor of Education Erkki Hautamäki, which is in full accordance with the view that the Continuation War was a 'separate war'. The book provides details - including new evidence - of the Continuation War having been a separate war, a Soviet attempt to conquer Finland - a war, which was not part of the conflict between the Allied powers and the Axis powers.

The Swedish version of Erkki Hautamäki’s book was examined by the scientists of the University of Uppsala, Sweden. The introduction was co-written by Colonel, M.A. Erkki Nordberg, who until 2006 was the Chief of the Educational Department of the Main Headquarters of the Finnish Defense Forces. Professor Kent Zetterberg, a teacher of the Swedish Defense Academy, was the second writer.

1) Thus, you claim of "the Finnish historians" having "changed their view in the late 1980s" does not coincide with reality. The four additional distinquished sources provided in the article below are also in disagreement with your statement.

2) Furthermore, the above information also shows your claim wrong about the "separate war" not having got "foot outside Finland among historians".

In addition to the scientists at the University of Uppsala, Sweden the Swedish Defense Academy and the Swedish Professor Kent Zetterberg, the many historians shown in the list given on this page, who have stated in writing that they believe the Soviet Union to have intended to conquer the entire Europe (or at least most of it), at the same time see Finland to have been simply a peace of this European invasion intended by the Soviet Union.

The historians in the list - a great majority of them, if not all - see the Continuation War to have been an a Soviet attempt to occupy Finland. I have just added the Finnish Councilor of Education Erkki Hautamäki to that list.

3) Respectfully - you are now also contradicting yourself, and disagreeing with yourself, user Peltimikko. Again, below please find your own statement, a headline on this page, entitled by you at 09:35, 2 June 2009 (note: in this statement, you are absolutely correct):

"The Continuation War formally was seen as a separate war by both Moscow and Helsinki"

4) As stated before, the limited Finland's co-operation with Germany as such has not been denied by me. However, the numerous critical ways in which Finland refused to co-operate with the Nazi Germany, explains how Finland's war was a 'separate war' from the war between the Axis powers and the Allied powers.

Finland refused to form or sign any official military alliance agreement with Germany, as determined by the Hornborg Committee report, released to the Finnish government on July 17, 1945.

The Anti-Comintern Pact - to which you referred to before -, signed in 1941 by 13 nations, in no way established a military alliance between Germany and Finland. The nature of that treaty is quite well described by user Whiskey above.

The list provided on this page, which points out 10 critical ways (more can be added) in which Finland refused to cooperate with the Nazi Germany, is not meant to imply that Finland wouldn't have greatly benefited of the cooperation shared with Germany.

Particularly in the summer of 1944, weapons purchased from Germany were of great value to Finland, among them e.g. over 25 000 Panzerfausts (In Finnish: 'panssarinyrkki') purchased during that year. Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to pipe in on 3): In his post of 09:35, 2 June 2009, Peltimikko writes something completely different, and the header is a quote of the article text introduced to Talk:Co-belligerence by user Rakovsky four years ago in order to post a rebuttal. I'm not sure why you keep claiming things that are the opposite of truth and can be easily verified as such.--Illythr (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If there was a misunderstanding, I apologize. Following the headline, his signature came first - at least I thought so - assuming that he would also stand behind the headline.

And, there's no reason not to stand behind that headline. Please just see how and why Max Jakobson fully agrees with the headline. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: Soon including distinguished sources for the post- Winter War Soviet war plans to occupy Finland (more sources can be added)

Among others, the Wikipedia contributor Whiskey has used the distinguished historian, Professor Ohto Manninen, PhD, as a Continuation War source, and user Illythr has defended user Whiskey's use of the source. I fully agree with the two - Professor Manninen is a highly credited and valuable source for the Continuation War article.

I am soon adding to the Continuation War article Professor Manninen and several other distinguished WW2 history specialists as sources for the post- Winter War Soviet invasion plans of Finland. Below, please find information about the sources in question, and a brief explanation why they were chosen as sources. More sources are available per request, and can be added in the article.

OHTO MANNINEN

Professor Ohto Manninen, PhD, has focused foremost on the history of WW2 and - in particular - the history of the Finnish wars during WW2. Manninen served as the associate professor at the University of Helsinki for 11 years, and as a professor of the history of Finland at the University of Tampere for three years. In 1998, Manninen became the professor of history of war at the National Defense University of Finland.

Professor Manninen has completed an extensive survey on the Soviet plans of operations for the Finnish front, having to do with the Winter War and the Continuation War.

In his book, 'Talvisodan salatut taustat', pages 48-52 , Professor Manninen introduces an offensive war plan map completed by the High Command of the Soviet Armed Forces on November 27, 1940.

The completion of this Soviet offensive war plan map took place only two weeks after the visit to Berlin, November 12-13, 1940, by the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, who sought for a renewed Hitler's approval for the Soviet take-over campaign over Finland, which had originally been agreed upon in Moscow on August 23, 1939, by the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany.

"On November 27, 1940, an operational plan map was completed at the High Command of the Soviet Armed forces. In it, the concentration of the Soviet forces and the offensive plans of the Soviet Northern front targeted against Finland were outlined."

"From the plan it can be seen that also this time the cutting of Finland in two was considered a priority, and that it was planned to be executed in lining of the railroad."

Additons to the above-mentioned offensive plan were made in May, 1941.

(In reference to the railroad in the quote above - editor's note: Massive offensive preparations had been made on the level of Salla on the Soviet side of the border during the Interim peace period. The Salla railroad which the Finns had been required to build during the Interim peace, played a key role in the Soviet plans to conquer Finland and to proceed to the Atlantic coast through Sweden and Norway. Please see the article below regarding the critical role of the Salla railroad in the Soviet plans to attack west.)

With 13 red arrows placed on the full length of the Finnish frontier, the map illustrates the Soviet invasion. In north, one attack route is marked to enter Finland on the level of Salla in northeastern Finland, and to penetrate in via Rovaniemi and Kemi to Oulu, on the west coast of Finland, facing Sweden.

In south, one Soviet attack route is marked to originate from Estonia, and to push in by the way of the Åland Islands to Turku and Helsinki, where the Soviet forces would meat another Soviet attack spearhead, which would have broken into Finland via the Karelian Isthmus.

In the over-all offensive plan produced by the Soviet Navy in the summer of 1940, the primary purpose of Hanko was to serve as the basin for the invasion of entire Finland.

This book by Professor Manninen is chosen as a source for the Soviet post- Winter War plan to occupy Finland, because Professor Manninen's extensive research work and findings are regarded highly by the academia and the general public at large, including the Wikipedia users Whiskey and Illythr - based on the Wikipedia history records -, who both have contributed for the Continuation War article.

It is presumable, that if this plan and other similar post- Winter War Soviet war plans and a large number of related documents researched by Professor Manninen and his colleagues would have been available for the representatives of the Allied countries during the Cold War year of 1947 - and/or before -, Finland's handling in the final peace arrangements and in the Paris Peace Treaty would have been different, at least somewhat.

Knowing well his own plans and the nature of the Soviet-Finnish struggle, Joseph Stalin knew precisely who was the aggressor in the Continuation War and why, and why the Continuation War was a "separate war" from the conflict between the Allied powers and the Axis powers. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The Soviets had multiple plans to occupy Finland from 1930s as a part of assault against Germany - some of them did include Finland and some did not. (And it was just a matter of time which one, the USSR or Germany, would assault first.) Unlike Erkki Hautamäki, Manninen is very reliable source. Peltimikko (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe you may be surprised in time ahead - just hold your horses please, user Peltimikko. Hautamäki in an honest man who investicates his material thoroughly. We cannot accuse him of simply repoting the findings and the news. "Don't blame the messanger", user Peltimikko. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ERKKI NORDBERG

Prior to his retirement in 2006, Colonel M.A. Erkki Nordberg served as the Chief of the Department of Education at the Main Headquarters of the Finnish Defence Forces.

Erkki Nordberg has focused foremost in the history of the Finnish wars during WW2 and he has researched extensively the war plans of the Soviet Union, related to WW2.

In his book, 'Arvio ja ennuste Venäjän sotilaspolitiikasta Suomen suunnalla' (2003) - 'Analysis and prognosis of the Soviet military politics on the Finnish front' -, Colonel Nordberg explains why and how the Soviet Union intended to invade Finland, following the Winter War (1939-1940). The findings of Nordberg are based on extensive research of documents related to the war plans of the Soviet Union.

Nordberg point out that Joseph Stalin was happy with the end result of the Winter War, because now The Soviet Union could threaten Finland's "vital centers":

"Now the threath to Helsinki is materialised from two directions, from the direction of Viipuri and the direction of Hanko."

Colonel Erkki Nordberg, regarding the post- Winter War Soviet invasion plans of Finland:

"Only one conclusion can be made, and needs to be made, of the the Interim Peace period war preparations of the Soviet Union. The Red Army was preparing to attack west, and in the process to occupy Finland. This time it would be done immediately, and with even much larger forces that had been planned for 1939.". 87.93.99.132 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

MAX JAKOBSON HAS ENTITLED A CHAPTER IN HIS BOOK: "FROM SEPARATE WAR TO SEPARATE PEACE"

Do you see room for misinterpretation in this one too, user Illythr ? Doesn't that remind you of the statement by the American diplomat:

THE U.S. DIPLOMAT SCHOENFELD WROTE: "THE "SEPARATE WAR" WOULD IMPLY THE POSSIBILITY OF A SEPARATE PEACE"

The 'Minister in Finland to the Secretary of State' Schoenfeld wrote the above on November 30, 1942. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

MAX JAKOBSON

Max Jakobson is a retired Finnish Jewish diplomat and journalist. He began his career as journalist. He worked at the BBC. From 1953 to 1974 he was employed by the Finnish foreign ministry, eventually acting as Finland's ambassador to the United Nations and Sweden. He helped shape Finland's policy of neutrality during the Cold War.

In 1971 Jakobson was a candidate for the post of United Nations Secretary-General. His candidacy failed, ostensibly because of a Soviet Union veto. Jakobson has been active as a commentator on Finnish politics, having written several books and numerous articles on Finnish political history and contemporary Finnish politics.

He has acted as chairman of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity investigating Communist and Nazi crimes in Estonia.

According to Minister Jakobson:

If Germany would have executed its landing to England on the fall of 1940 (tying its forces to the western front) the Soviet Union would have attacked against Finland already then - in which case the Finns would not have been able to receive help even from Germany (as they were able to in the Continuation War).

Just like the wartime and post-war Finnish presidents Risto Ryti and C.G.E. Mannerheim - as well as the current president of Finland Tarja Halonen -, the long time Finnish diplomat and former Finnish government minister Max Jakobson says the Continuation War to have been a "separate war" from the conflict between the Allied powers and the Axis powers.

This is also the current official Finnish stance, as the Editor in Chief Janne Virkkunen confirms in the head column of the largest Finnish newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat (link provided originally by user 'Peltimikko').

Max Jakobson has written extensively about the "separate war" and the "separate peace" of Finland. Furthermore, he has also entitled one of the chapters in one of his his books 'From separate war to separate peace' (in Finnish: 'Erillissodasta erillisrauhaan').

In his book 'Väkivallan vuodet' ("The Years of Violence"), 1999, page 353 , Jakobson writes about the Continuation War:

"Luopuessaan antautumisvaatimuksesta Moskova tunnusti Suomen sodan erillisen luonteen." (same in English below)

"WHEN GIVING UP ITS DEMAND FOR FULL SURRENDER, MOSCOW ADMITTED THE SEPARATE NATURE OF THE FINNISH WAR"

87.93.99.132 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ERKKI HAUTAMÄKI

Erkki Hautamäki is a Finnish 'Councilor of Education' - 'opetusneuvos' in Finnish -, a 'major of the reserve' for the Finnish Defense Forces, a historian and a researcher who has - foremost - focused in the history of the Finnish Wars during WW2 and the Soviet war plans related to WW2.

In the 1960s, Erkki Hautamäki served in a special task force at the 'Main Headquarters of the Finnish Defense Forces'.

The Councilor of Education Erkki Hautamäki has published a book, 'Suomi myrskyn silmässä' ("Finland in the Eye of a Storm") , in 2005, in which both the pre- Winter War and the post- Winter War Soviet invasion plans for Finland are discussed and analyzed in detail.

Hautamäki's book brings forth details and information about the last Finnish wars, which were not discussed in the Finnish main media - nor elsewhere - during the Cold War period, due to the sensitive and friendly Finnish-Soviet relations, in particular.

In interpreting the part of the Finnish history in question and in preparing his book, "Finland in the Eye of a Storm", Hautamäki has utilized information from the so called File S32 of the Marshal of Finland Mannerheim, which has been classified as "secret".

For the book - the part I, of II - Hautamäki has also researched extensively a large amount of documents pertaining to Marshal Mannerheim's private statements and writings, his private correspondence with his friends, colleagues and enemies in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, as well as various types of other related documents.

According to Hautamäki, the evidence available shows that the Continuation War was triggered by the continued Soviet determination to occupy Finland.

Based on Hautamäki's findings, the Soviet Union did not only intend to occupy Finland, but Finland was just a part of a much greater Soviet invasion plan for Europe.

Hautamäki's book has helped to change the historiography of the war times in a significant way. Up to quite recently, there were mainly just hypothesis available, as there was only secondary evidence available of the documents that describe the Soviet war plans and operations, and their consequences.

The Swedish version of Erkki Hautamäki’s book was examined by scientists at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. The book's introduction was co-written by Colonel, M.A. Erkki Nordberg. Until his retirement in 2006, Nordberg served as the Chief of the Department of Education at the Main Headquarters of the Finnish Defense Forces. Professor Kent Zetterberg, a teacher at the Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences, was the second writer. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

HANS PETER KROSBY

According to the American professor-researcher Hans-Peter Krosby, the Soviet Union had decided to exercise in the case of Finland exactly the same invasion procedure that was used with the Baltic Countries and Bessarabia:

"There is a reason to believe that the Soviet invasion of Finland was timed to take place in accordance with the assumed German landing to England, so that Germany getting totally stuck elsewhere could be used in advantage." 87.93.99.132 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

When the Finns had frozen their counterattack, the Soviets could concentrate to the fight against the Nazis and their allies

Ever since the war-opening Soviet offensive of June 25, 1941, the last major battle of the Continuation War - the Battle of Ilomantsi - turned out to be the war's most successful attempt of the Red Army to cross the war-preceding Finnish-Soviet border, although in the end two Red Army divisions were fully decimated and dismantled, as the Soviets were bushed back.

However, that battle is yet another evidence of the fact that up till the very end of the Continuation War, the Soviet intention to break through the Finnish defenses was serious.

At no point of the Continuation War, was the war considered to be a "sideshow" by the Soviet leadership. However, as the Soviets saw that the Finns were not going to participate in the siege of Leningrad or to try pushing further east, this gave the Soviets an opportunity to release forces elsewhere, to fight against the Nazis.

If the Finns would have joined the attack against Leningrad and if they would have cut the Allied supply lines over the Murmansk railroad and over Lake Ladoga, the Germans - instead - would have been able to release forces to the critical battles against the Soviets in south.

In that scenario, the final outcome of WW2 could very possibly have turned out to be very different than it did.

After its loss in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, the Red Army had began moving forces from the Finnish front, to be joined with the Red Army units marching towards Berlin, but - importantly -, not before.

It had become apparent to Stalin, that Finland could not be beaten militarily, and that it wouldn't be worth trying any harder at that stage, when additional Soviet forces were needed for the invasion on Germany.

Besides, continued large scale campaign to conquer Finland at this point would not have been viewed friendly by the Americans and English, who had pressured Stalin for early ending of the Finnish war and for fair conditions for the Finnish peace (Churchill's and Roosevelt's views and related quotes on this can be seen on the pages of the U.S. State Department report, provided earlier). 87.95.85.139 (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

THE SALLA RAILROAD PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE IN THE WESTWARD OFFENSIVE PLANS OF USSR

Breaking through northern Finland to northern Scandinavia - and conquering Finland in the process - played a major role in the Soviet over-all offensive plans against the west. Accordingly, what later became to be known as the Continuation War was in a key role on Stalin's drawing board (not a "sideshow", user Whiskey).

As a part of the Interim peace conditions, the Finns had been required to quickly build the railroad of Salla, enabling a railroad connection from the Soviet border to the Swedish border. During the Interim peace - before the Soviet war-opening attack on June 25, 1941 - the Soviets had demanded time after time that the Finns must speed up this work process.

Massive offensive preparations had been made on the level of Salla on the Soviet side of the border during the Interim peace period.

As historians have pointed out, the Salla railroad played a key role in the Soviet plans to conquer Finland, and to proceed through Sweden and Norway to the Atlantic coast and southward:

OHTO MANNINEN:

On November 27, 1940, an operational plan map was completed at the High Command of the Soviet Armed forces. In it the concentration of the Soviet forces and the offensive plans of the Soviet Northern front targeted against Finland were outlined.

From the plan it can be seen that also this time the cutting of Finland in two was considered a priority, and that it was planned to be executed in lining of the railroad.

BROR LAURILA:

This clearly shows that the intention of the Soviets was to conquer Finland and to proceed through Sweden and Norway to the Atlantic coast.

The railroad would not have had any meaningful commercial use. Also in Sweden, the military purpose of the railroad was seen in this way.

C. G. E. MANNERHEIM:

"The railroad construction that had started by the Soviets on the fall of 1939 proceeded rapidly. The most important stretches of the railroad, Petroskoi-Suojärvi, Louhi-Kiestinki ja Rutši-Salla were completed in a few months' time. To the last-mentioned stretch alone, over 100'000 forced labor workers were stationed. These railroad stretches were supported by 15 strategic roads for motor vehicles.

On approximately 200 kilometers wide boundary behind the border, airports were being built, the number of which was later concluded to be as many as 90."

HANS METZGER:

"There is no doubt that with the construction of the new railroad the Soviet Union sought purely militaristic goals against Finland, Sweden and Germany."

ERKKI NORDBERG:

"Only one conclusion can be made, and needs to be made, of the the Interim Peace period war preparations of the Soviet Union. The Red Army was preparing to attack west, and in the process to occupy Finland. This time it would be done immediately, and with even much larger forces that had been planned for 1939.". 87.93.111.58 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

INVASION OF FINLAND WAS FIRST INTENDED TO BE TIMED WITH GERMAN LANDING TO ENGLAND

MAX JAKOBSON:

If Germany would have executed its landing to England on the fall of 1940 (tying its forces to the western front), the Soviet Union would have attacked again against Finland then already - in which case the Finns would not have been able to receive help even from Germany (as they were able to in the Continuation War).

HANS PETER KROSBY:

"There is a reason to believe that the Soviet invasion of Finland was timed to take place in accordance with the assumed German landing to England, so that Germany getting totally stuck elsewhere could be used in advantage." 87.93.111.58 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DURING COLD WAR - NOT BEFORE - USSR PORTRAYED THE WAR AS PART OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR

User Whiskey: Please, don't remove important sourced information from the article. Please stop reverting against the statement in the above headline.

Despite requests, you haven't provided a single source, which supports your claim. All sources below show how and why USSR attempted to conquer Finland.

Among sources used are those from historians whom you have shown to respect - Ohto Manninen, Mauno Jokipii, etc.

Additionally, all of the sources in question are appropriate - known distinguished historians, and the related quotes and page numbers have been presented. More sources will be added, upon request.

The sources in question clearly show the following:

At the time when the Soviet Union started the Continuation War, it saw the war as an operation to conquer Finland, based on a plan which got its final shape in May, 1941, one month before the Soviet war-opening attack.

During the Cold War period, while admitting that it had started the war, the Soviet Union portrayed the war as a part of a greater "defensive" struggle, the Great Patriotic War. 87.93.111.58 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

MOLOTOV, JUNE 23, 1941: GERMANS BEING IN FINLAND NOT THE REASON FOR THE SOVIET ATTACK

C. G. E. MANNERHEIM:

Earlier, claims were maid that the Germans having been allowed a passage right through a Finnish area to Northern Norway (a similar right which the Swedes had granted to the Germans), this might have prompted the Soviets to attack against Finland - as there were Germans on the Finnish territory on June 22, 1941.

In his memoirs, Marshal Mannerheim emphasizes that Finland had decided to remain neutral, unless it was attacked.

Manneheim's "Memoirs" further prove - and is added as a source - that the Soviet attack against Finland was not launched because of the Germans being in Finland, but - instead - because of the Finnish invasion being something that the Soviets had decided to complete:

On June 23, 1941, Molotov made no mentioning of Germans being in Finland or of any Finnish-German deal made. This was in the line with the fact, that they were the Soviets themselves that had forced Finland to take the first step aside from its neutrality, when they had demanded passage rights to Hanko (dangerous for Finland, as Helsinki was on the route, allowing the Soviets a chance for surprise attack).

"Instead, he (Molotov) focused again in accusing Finland of an attack, which had not happened. The Soviet leadership had decided to draw Finland to a war." ("Memoirs", Mannerheim)

In accordance with the above, in its war-opening massive attack on June 25, the Soviet Union focused in only bombing Finnish targets, no German targets.

Later, the Soviets admitted to having made up the reason for the attack against Finland (see the Cold War period confession below). 87.93.111.58 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DURING COLD WAR, USSR EMPHASIZED THAT IT HAD INITIATED THE CONTINUATION WAR

MAUNO JOKIPII:

Professor Mauno Jokipii has explained how the Soviet Union officially emphasized that it had launched the Continuation War (the first attack to Finnish territory having been on June 22, 1941, starting 06:05, after which two Finnish submarines landed mines on the Estonian coast ):

"The Soviet Union does not even try to deny its own initiative in the launching of the massive offensive. In contrary, it is being emphasized. The question who started has been solved: The Soviet Union admits in an official publication to have started the air raid in Finland and the Nordic." 87.93.111.58 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)