Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Continuation War

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation War

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): JumbledPasta (talk)

Continuation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After receiving and addressing the previous peer review for this article, I've decided to list the Continuation War for an A-Class review. The article is already GA status and currently has a B-Class MilHist rating. Eventually, I hope to get the article to FA since the preceding WWII-era war, the Winter War, is already a FA; it'd be great to have both Finnish wars be FAs. Thanks in advance to all who comment, and I will respond quickly. JumbledPasta (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cplakidas

[edit]

Not my area of expertise apart from a basic knowledge of the events, but the article looks interesting and is an excellent opportunity to learn more. Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 10:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Sorry for the delay, but here it goes:[reply]

Lede
  • fifteen months after the end of the Winter War as people may not be aware of it, perhaps introduce the Winter War at the start of the paragraph? E.g. 'The Soviet Union and Finland had fought the so-called Winter War from November 1939 to March 1940, which had ended with a Finnish defeat and the cession of significant parts of territory to the USSR, including most of Finnish Karelia'? The lede should have sufficient context and cover the main body of the article (there is a section on the Winter War there), and I expect most readers won't be aware of the background.
  • Soviet lend-lease equipment perhaps 'lend-lease equipment sent by the US to the Soviet Union' for clarity and context.
Background
  • turned its attention to the Baltic states I suggest listing them, as many readers may not be familiar with them.
  • Likewise, Finnish leadership wanted to preserve there's a 'the' missing, and who exactly was that leadership? The government? The president? Mannerheim?
  • Fixed the missing 'the' and I believe based on the context of the paragraph that the original editor used the word 'leadership' to refer all of the positions you mentioned above; there may be a better word to indicate this. JumbledPasta (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'the' is still missing (and I found another case at Finnish leadership justified its alliance with Germany as self-defence..
  • Western-orientated policy I think 'Western-oriented'? Never come across 'orientated' before.
  • Soviet annexation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia has already been linked, and I would suggest using consistent terminology (either spell out the three countries or call them 'the Baltic states')
  • Russian-language sources, such as the book Stalin's Missed Chance,...Postwar Russian-language sources... Is there distinction between the former and the latter? Obviously all Russian sources referring to these events would be post-war? Is there a distinction between Soviet and post-Soviet ones?
  • Strangely, all the sources mentioned are post-Soviet analyses of the conflict, so I don't know why they're referred to as being different. Changed to refer to all of them as post-Soviet; not sure if there are any Soviet sources available, will look out for any. JumbledPasta (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chancellor Adolf Hitler the title was inaccurate by that time, and inadvertently masks Hitler's real position as dictator.
  • Since the date of his mentioning is mid-1940, it is fair to replace with the term dictator as by this time he had already seized absolute power and named himself der Führer und Reichskanzler. JumbledPasta (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears another user has reverted it back to chancellor, which doesn’t seem fitting since it’s in the 1940s. Will probably make discussion about it and other similar instances of word choice. JumbledPasta (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finnish appeals to purchase arms 'Finnish requests to purchase arms'
  • During the presidential election 'During the Finnish presidential election'
  • Finnish Major General Paavo Talvela met with German Generaloberst Franz Halder... if Finnish ranks are translated, the German ones should too, especially since a non-German speaker or non-military expert doesn't know what a Generaloberst is.
  • in-carefully couched 'in carefully-couched'?
  • more tolerant and permissive not sure what this means, these are adjectives to describe a master, not an ambassador. Perhaps 'conciliatory' or 'less confrontational'?
  • which had taken place after Finnish intentions of relying on the League of Nations and Nordic neutrality to avoid conflicts had failed because of lack of outside support has already been mentioned, and is unclear how it relates to Finland's decision in 1941.
  • I changed this statement to be a little more concise; I think the writer of this may of been trying to convey Finnish frustration that the LoN didn't succeed in avoiding the Winter War. I don't know if such a connection exists or if it was just a duplicate description the conditions of the Winter War. JumbledPasta (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...supported a Greater Finland ideology. a very brief explanation of the latter wold be in order here, to help understand why the war with the USSR was related to achieving it.
  • Historian William R. Trotter stated that was back in 1991, is this still the current state of research?
  • I'm not completely certain about more modern research. However in the next paragraph, Kirby's 2006 book (pp. 221) corroborates Trotter's point about how the Finnish leaders being kept in the dark regarding Operation Barbarossa to the German information as the following: "Finnish officers ... were drip-fed information about the invasion of the USSR", "talks ... resembled nothing so much as a polite game of poker, which neither side seemed willing to bring to a conclusion". So I think it's fair to say that Trotter's point still stands. JumbledPasta (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They agreed upon the arrival of German troops, German troops are mentioned as already being in Finland.
  • inner circle of political and military leaders might be useful to identify them, especially if they crop up later in the narrative
  • The paragraph previously includes this: "The inner circle of Finnish leadership, led by Ryti and Mannerheim...". I'm not sure that anymore detail of other leaders is necessary since only these two are the only officials of this 'inner circle' frequently mentioned throughout the article. JumbledPasta (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • it did sign the Anti-Comintern Pact, a less formal alliance please give a date, as it currently suggests it was done before the war even started
Order of battle and operational planning
  • against the Soviet Air Forces had not affected air units located near Finland, it could deploy around 700 aircraft the 'it' here is a tad unclear
  • outnumbered the Kriegsmarine introduce it briefly; since otherwise English terms are used, gloss or explain Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH) and Oberkommando der Luftwaffe (OKL), smth like 'German army High Command (OKH)' would be enough.
  • supporting the advance of the German Army Group North perhaps add 'through the Baltic states towards Leningrad'?
Finnish offensive phase in 1941
  • the Finnish government used the attacks as justification there is a MOS:EASTEREGG here
  • There's a photo of Ryti with the caption President Risto Ryti giving his famous radio speech about the Continuation War on 26 June 1941 should this 'famous' speech not be mentioned in the main text?
  • (motti in Finnish) why is this relevant?
  • due to unacclimatised German troops, heavy Soviet resistance, I suggest reversing the order here; whatever the actual and certainly real problems were, the lack of acclimatisation is most often an excuse for failing. One should give credit to the Soviet resistance where it is due.
  • "short border, long peace" here the Finnish term might be relevant to have.
  • Mannerheim drafted his order of the day, the Sword Scabbard Declaration, in which he pledged to liberate Karelia; in December 1941 in private letters, he made known his doubts of the need to push beyond the previous borders this apparent contradiction should be explained. Was it a result of the prospect of the failure of Barbarossa in achieving a rapid Soviet defeat, or other reasons?
  • See also: Arctic convoys of World War II is this not more relevant in the discussion of the offensive towards Murmansk and its railway?
Trench warfare from 1942 to 1944
  • Operation Nordwind (1941) disambiguation is not necessary here
  • I know why we have the disambiguation in there, but in the context of this article it is pointless (the few people who will know that there was another similarly named operation in another front won't complain). But your solution works fine as well :). Constantine ✍ 07:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • of whom 300 were refugees from where? Karelia, or Nazi-occupied Europe?
  • German command mentioned Finnish Jews 'German command' is vague here; just that the Finnish Jews were mentioned is enough, rather, the significance of the Wannsee Conference should be briefly explained.
Soviet offensive in 1944
  • Because of Soviet pressure, Finland was also forced to refuse any economic aid from the Marshall Plan. lacks reference
General
  • Non-English terms should be marked by relevant templates, e.g. {{lang|de|Oberkommando des Heeres}} or {{transl|ru|Stavka}}.
  • There's a lot of images on both sides of the text, leading to a lot of MOS:SANDWICHING in smaller monitors
  • Should not Finlandization be mentioned as a consequence of the war?
  • Is there any further info on the Finnish home front?

That's it for a first pass. A really interesting and quite comprehensive article. Constantine ✍ 13:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

[edit]

It's great to see this article developed to a good standard. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The infobox says: "Soviet victory[5][6][7]" - I don't think that this needs any specific references, much less three, given it's not controversial
  • I feel by simply stating the Moscow Armistice ended the war allows for a more nuanced and neutral approach to the outcome of the war instead of just outright stating victory/loss for either side especially since the Soviets did not annex Finland. There is even an argument for a Finnish victory, considering they remained independent with their own form of government in place and were forced to cede only about 11% of their territory. I used the format of infobox for the Winter War article and its respective talk discussions as a basis to construct the box here. There are also elements of Finnish achievement in the conflict such as they resisted the Soviet lines for years and their military losses were much lower compared to that of the Soviets, and their role in the Siege of Leningrad. I think these factors are all neutrally approached in the current version of the infobox since it was not an overwhelming one-sided victory. JumbledPasta (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm rather concerned that we've gone from an over-refenced statement that the war was a Soviet victory to an unreferenced statement that's rather unclear. The claim above that the war might have been a Finnish victory seems hard to justify - what reliable sources state this? Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a passage in Kirby 2006's A concise history of Finland on pp. 231-232 that talks of the harshness of the Soviet terms. It also talks of how the terms could have been much worse if the Finns had previously surrendered and sued for peace in June. However, from reading over the actual document of the Moscow Armistice it does definitely seem as if the Soviets won the war. I'll change the result section of the infobox to 'Soviet victory and Moscow Armistice' of course without any unnecessary citations. JumbledPasta (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note on the UK in the infobox says that the declaration of war was largely for appearances sake, and notes some limited military support for the USSR. This seems a bit of an over-simplification, as the British would presumably have brought in an economic embargo against Finland and equipment provided by the UK to the USSR would have been used in the war.
  • The chronology in the second and third paras of the lead is a bit confusing: the 2nd rightly notes that Finland took part in planning for German-led invasion of the USSR, but the third wrongly implies that the USSR was the aggressor
  • The new lead omits the German and Finnish led planning stages so I think that this clears up the issue. Also the Soviet Union did 'technically' conduct the first offensive action with its air raids in Finland on the 22 and 25 June 1941 and claimed that they were only targeting German stations. The Finns then used it as rationale to invade which is stated in the new lead. JumbledPasta (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is a bit over-long: the usual rule of thumb is to keep leads to 3 paragraphs
  • "Moscow turned its attention" - don't refer to governments by their capital city
  • The second para of the 'Winter war' section doesn't cover the effectiveness of the Finnish military during the war, which was presumably a factor in the Finnish decision to re-open the conflict
  • "To combat this, the Finnish government demobilised part of the army to prevent industrial and agricultural production from collapsing" - when did this process occur?
  • "Nevertheless, the United States never declared war on Finland during the entire conflict" - my understanding is that this was partly strategic, to preserve a way for the western Allies to communicate with and put diplomatic pressure on Finland.
  • The 'British declaration of war and action in the Arctic Ocean' also doesn't note whether the British subjected Finland to an economic blockade.
  • The second para of the 'Unconventional warfare and military operations' section should note that the Finnish front was a low priority for the Soviets and Germans
  • "Finland was required to..." - required by whom? The Soviet peace terms, I presume?
  • "Evidence of the Soviet leadership's intentions for the occupation of Finland has later been uncovered. " - this para is a bit confusing. The previous para notes that historians continue to debate the Soviet war aims, but this para implies that the USSR intended to occupy all of Finland on the basis of currency which was printed. How does this fit into the debate by historians? A lot of nonsense has been written about 'invasion currency' in various areas of the war, so I'm a bit doubtful about this material (e.g. currency printed by Japan for use in occupied areas of Australian New Guinea was for years misinterpreted as being intended for use in the invasion of the Australian mainland, something the Japanese actually ruled out doing)
  • "Because of Soviet pressure, Finland was also forced to refuse any economic aid from the Marshall Plan." - needs a reference
  • "Of the Soviet prisoners, at least 18,318 were documented to have died in Finnish prisoner of war camps" - this is about one in four Soviet POWs. This issue should be discussed, as it's a shockingly high figure.
  • There are too many links in the 'See also' section, with some having already been linked and discussed in the article
  • Notes 7, 8, 9 and 11 are confusing: why are all these references in notes, and are so many references really needed?
  • "According to a news piece on 8 December 1941 by The Examiner, an Australian newspaper, Britain notified the Finnish Government on 6 December "that she considered herself at war with [Finland] as from 1 a.m. (G.M.T.) to-morrow" - I'm not sure why a provincial Tasmanian newspaper is being used as a reference here. The British official history is available online via Archives.org, and will have the exact date (see History of the Second World War for the relevant links to volumes - I suspect that you want the 'British Foreign Policy in the Second World War' series)
  • There's a bit of over-linking in the article, with some articles being linked several times.
  • The references are a bit confusing, with some books receiving full citations in the 'Citations' section while others use the sfn format; I'd suggest standardising on the later.
  • Some of the works in the 'Further reading' section are missing the full publication details.
  • Are you confident that all the photos in the 'Военный альбом' link are under correct copyright conditions? Russian copyright law is a bit complex.
  • According to a translation of this page, "Due to the different legal status of different photographs, it is impossible to indicate uniform conditions for the use of any photograph on the Site" . . . "Restrictions on the use of a specific photograph known to the author of the Site are indicated on the page of the corresponding photograph". There are nearly 54 pages of images on the site, so I'm not sure if every single one is copyright free. However, I don't think any images from this source are used in the article. JumbledPasta (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JumbledPasta: I'll be travelling overseas from mid this week, and may take a few days to respond to your comments here. Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JumbledPasta and Nick-D: Where are we at with this? Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like not all of my comments are addressed so far. Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a review once the others are satisfied. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • The Commonwealth nations of Canada, Australia, India and New Zealand soon followed suit. But India did not become part of the Commonwealth until 1947? And why is New Zealand linked?
    For your info: The Soviet Union asked the UK for a declaration of war on Finland, Hungary and Romania in October 1941. After consideration in both the War Cabinet and

Advisory War Council, the Australian Government told the United Kingdom that the hesitations which the British felt seemed unconvincing and could not be justified publicly, and that a refusal to accede to the request would have bad effects on Russian morale. The United Kingdom decided to declare war on the three states and Australia approved. Australia declared war on 8 December. Some Finnish people were interned in Australia as enemy aliens. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

[edit]

Time for the fussy stuff:

  • Standardize ISBN formats; some have all appropriate hyphens, others just one and still others none at all.
  • Erickson is a reprint; please add the original year of publication
  • Most of your titles are in title case; be consistent, even with translated titles
  • Most all book sources are in the bibliography. Why aren't all of them there?
  • n-dash rather than hyphen needed for cites 84 and 102
  • A lot of cites are missing page numnbers
  • Be consistent about using place of publication or not for books
  • All books or journals need an ISBN, OCLC # or ISSN
  • These will keep you busy for a bit. I'll check back once you're done with these and will do spot-checks, etc. then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Continuation_War&oldid=1194056913"