Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 21 December 2006

FailedGA|3 October 2006}}

Military history Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

• Talk:Continuation War/Archive 1
• Talk:Continuation War/Archive 2

Introduction Query

---

Request to move or delete an article

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

Where do casualty figures and such come from? Any credible sources for anything? 

___

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jatrius 08:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

1/3rd of Soviet military machine

No idea what that is supposed to be, but unless the total Soviet military machine consisted of no more than 1.2 million soldiers, it is wrong. I have changed it, hopefully without changing the idea that should have come across. According to Krivosheev (see tables posted here), Leningrad Front committed 188,800 and Karelian Front 202,300. Together ca. 400,000. That includes air forces etc. Andreas 15:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it was some uninformed soul who confuses Winter War and Continuation War. At the end of Winter War, about the third of Soviet forces were deployed to the Finnish front. (Some sources put this to 40%.) Unfortunately it hadn't been only confusion in this article, but also other similar stupidness had been found here and also in related articles. But this is Misplaced Pages, and we have to endure and correct those. --Whiskey 19:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Petrozavodsk

Soviet troops occupied Petrozavodsk on 28 June 1944. - Eh, shouldn't it be retaken? With Petrozavodsk being an initially Russian city. --Illythr 23:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd favor even liberated. Retaken indicates that it was captured earlier but lost after that. Petrozavodsk was initially Russian/Soviet city, and it was occupied by Finns, so the liberation from occupation works fine. --Whiskey 11:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 'liberated' is apposite in this context. - Mikko H. 09:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have done the deed. Still, the next sentence (about food delivery and all) makes the whole paragraph look a bit strange. Perhaps reclaimed would be a good neutral replacement? --Illythr 10:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another minor unrelated thing: These, as well as some volunteers from the occupied Eastern Karelia, formed the Kin Battalion (Finnish: "Heimopataljoona"). At the end of the war, the USSR required that the members of the Tribe Battalion were to be handed over to the Soviet Union.

So, is it Kin or Tribe Battalion? Probably a minor translation mixup. --Illythr 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a current discussion on the naming issue in . Currently they seem to be favoring Kinship.:-) --Whiskey 10:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact the consensus favours 'Kindred' :-) - Mikko H. 07:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Like one of those Kindred? Whoah, scary! (Just kiddin'!) :-) --Illythr 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Introductionary paragraph

The introductionary paragraph starts to contain too much information. I think it could be a good idea to move that to the text and keep the paragraph as simple as possible. Both starting and ending of the war are fuzzy, and they can be properly only addressed in the text. Any opinions? --Whiskey 11:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the ending dates are mentioned twice and this sentence is, IMO, out of place there: Material support from, and military cooperation with Nazi Germany was critical for Finland's struggle with its larger neighbour. --Illythr 10:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have trimmed the intro down a bit. Mind checking it out? --Illythr 10:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A little bit better. I have more radical edit in mind, because for the ending dates one could use armstice September 4, 1944 (for Finns), September 5, 1944 (for Soviets), interim peace treaty September 19, 1944, Final peace treaty at Paris February 10, 1947 and ratification of the Paris peace treaty April 18, 1947 (for Finns) and August 29, 1947 (for Soviets). There is a similar bunch of dates concerning the beginning of the war. --Whiskey 11:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, but you said that the paragraph contains too much information! I thought you wanted removing stuff, not adding it?--Illythr 11:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I want to remove stuff, heavily, and put all those details in the text, not in the introductionary paragraph. I'll try to put in what I have in mind (and revert it immediately back.) --Whiskey 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Naturally the removed text and references should be located into the relevant place in the article. --Whiskey 11:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting statements

a) When the Finnish Army occupied russian East Karelia 1941–1944 several concentration camps were set up for Russian civilians. The first camp was set up on 24 October 1941, in Petrozavodsk. Around 9,000 of the prisoners perished due to malnourishment, 90% of them during the spring and summer 1942. - by user:Ben-Velvel
b) Before they retreated, Finns delivered food to people for two weeks. This is a rare or even unequaled act in the war history. - by user:Kahkonen

So, uh, which one's true? Any references? --Illythr 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

These aren't necassarily contradictory statements. Malnourishment was a serious problem early on, but things got better as the war progressed. Of the two statements a) is correct (although I can't check the numbers now), don't know about b). - Mikko H. 07:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Like Ben-Velvel wrote, most of these deaths occurred during the first winter and summer of the war, and Finns were not experienced to handle these kind of camps. The amount of food was in principle enough, but during the first year the quality of the food lacked too much, and people didn't have their homegrown additions due to displacement. Also, it should be noted, that only 13% of populace was confined to the camps at their highest, and the time Soviet forces liberated the region that had dropped to 7%. I don't have sources right now available to support claim b). What I do know about the situation, the Finns had depot in Petrozavodsk, and they managed to evacuate most of the military material from there. It could be that they made good of a necessity and distributed the left-over food to civilians instead of destroying it or giving it to advancing enemy. Maybe someone with more knowledge could inform us better...

For a a) claim the number seems to be inflated. At Finnish literature it is generally given as 4,000-4,500 people perished on the camps. At Soviet literature the numbers around 9,000 but also up to 12,000 has been seen. At the Finnish side the study of Antti Laine: "Suur-Suomen kahdet kasvot" (The two faces of Greater Finland) is the best source. Dr. Laine states that in no way there could have been more than 5,000 deaths in the camps and supports the official Finnish numbers received from official camp documentation. --Whiskey 09:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Helge Seppälä (one of the Finnish military historians more critical of Finnish actions) in Suomi miehittäjänä says c. 4000 people perished in the camps in 1941-44, c. 3500 of them in the summer of 1942. - Mikko H. 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Minimalist Introduction paragraph

It seems that people want to have a lot of information on the introductory paragraph. I suggest that we put the minimalist version of it and add all other information to the relevant places into the text itself. If you have something to complain about that, please state your claims in this talk page before editing the article itself. (And this article seems to be quite neutral, as it draws flak from left and right.;-) --Whiskey 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I wonder if that anon knows about the existence of talk pages...

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

Somebody seems to believe that if something is found in the textbooks published in Soviet Union, it has to be marxist. ;-) (BTW, this is the first time I have been said to be marxist. So far I have been mostly fascist, nazi, right-extremist, lahtari, white officer or even socialist.8-))

I'll start myself the reasoning:

Why June 25: Neither Finland or Soviet Union acknowledged that the state of war existed between the nations at that time. Soviet ambassador Orlov still worked in Helsinki between June 22 and June 25.

Why September 19: The date when interim peace treaty was signed in Moscow. Even though cease fire had been in effect two weeks, the state of war still existed between the countries. --Whiskey 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic groups of East Karelia before 1917

In Russian Empire East Karelia was a part of the Province of Olonets (). 289,531 of its inhabitants were Russians, 62,695 people were finnic-speaking (but Orthodox) people of Karelians. Russian population of Karelia also was very ancient (russian settlements on Onega and Ladoga are known since 9th century).

p.s. I shall open to you a small secret :), the Russian population of all northern and northeast Russia is result of mixture of east Slavs with Finnic-speaking people and such active element as Scandinavians-vikings

Ben-Velvel 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not trust the tsarist census. Karelians may well claim to be Russian, and still be fluent in Finnish/Karelian. -- Petri Krohn 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

About "awful tsarism". Finns-Suomi and Karelians prospered in the Empire, no violent russification existed (have you other data?). By the way, the Great Duchy of Finland possessed the big privileges, for example, its natives were not called up for military service. It had independent police and bolsheviks easy lived in Finland while the imperial police strenuously searched for them... About Karelians. If you can translate from Russian, please read Brockhaus-Efron Encyclopedia. Karelians are one of peoples of the Finno-Ugrian language family, influenced by Russian culture already in the early Middle Ages.They are Orthodox. Please visit Petrozavodsk, if you do not trust me. It is necessary to distinguish actually Finns of Finland (Suomi) and numerous nationalities of Finno-Ugrian family living in Russia (Karelians, Mordva, Maris etc) Ben-Velvel 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

russian settlements on Onega and Ladoga are known since 9th century... Are you refering to Staraya Ladoga? This is not in East Karelia (athough the original inhabitants may have been finnic.) Can you cite sources?

West and East Karelia were the territories of medieval Novgorod principality ( ). Staraya Ladoga of 9th century was the center of northern Russia and had mixed population of east Slavs, Scandinavians and finnic tribes (not Suomi). In the West and East Karelia there are such ancient Russian Novgorod settlements as Korela (Priosersk), Olonets, Oreshek, Kargopol, Serdobol, Pudozh etc. The West Karelia only in 1617 has passed under the control of Swedes. The Russian imperial government has left the West Karelia in structure of Great Duchy of Finland after conquests of 1710 and 1809. The East Karelia always was part of Russia and had mixed Russo-Karelian population Brockhaus-Efron Encyclopedia. Ben-Velvel

Valaam monks claim the monastry was founded in the 9th century, not by Russian but by Greek monks. -- Petri Krohn 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Greek monks were in Kiev. They did not come far on the north :) Valaam monastery was founded by Russian monks Sergiy and German and has been populated by Russian monks over 1000 years and has been some times ruined by the Swedish forces. Ben-Velvel 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC), St.Petersburg

I question the following statement

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

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

Picture in "Finnish occupation policy"

The picture is soviet propaganda picture, i.e a fake one... in my opinion shouldn't be used or at least should be stated that it is a fake. (anon)

Please provide proof (i.e. references) to back up your claim. Fisenko 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It almost for sure is propaganda but there isn't anything faked still. There were children (30-40%) at the camps as they weren't split up with their parents. First they were put to quarantine camps that lasted for 2 weeks. There was a hospital at the camp, they could work on forestry works and do confession-"school" in church. After the quarantine the people were split to working places what they had done before; most ingrians were put to farming. Especially workers were needed at farming, food was really on scarce. But not to concentrate just on this side of the war - Soviet union's Gulags. Do you know how many people were put to Siberia from the Baltics? --Pudeo (Talk) 08:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Muutosten maailma 4: Suomen historian käännekohtia (2005, WSOY), page 138 (ISBN 951-0-27645-6). Now stop whining. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should we talk about Gulag in the article dedicated to Finnish occupation policy in Soviet Karelia ? There are plenty of articles dedicated to Gulag on Misplaced Pages. Statements with no proof such as "this is almost for sure is propaganda" or tales about how "pleasant" it was for the Russians in Finnish concentration camps have little credibility either. The fact is there were Finnish concentration camps for ethnic Russian civilians during the war and this fact should be mentioned in the article. Fisenko 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a headache or something? :) I just told all the information I got from "Jatkosota Kronikka" ISBN 951-20-3661-4, 1991. As this information isn't told in the article either. It has that image and says after the occupation. But use logic, the image is classed as taken in the USSR before 1973. Therefore, it is taken by Soviet photographers, be they propaganda or whatever, doesn't matter. I don't know whether they left the workers in the camps or not so I don't know if they put some children in the camp again just to make images for propaganda against "nazism". And indeed the work camps have to be mentioned; Why I brought gulags is that this article doesn't cover Soviet attrocities, partisans and transports, russification of the ingrians and others. But I won't complain. --Pudeo (Talk) 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture should be removed. It gives a misleading idea that Finnish practises during the war were comparable with those promoted by Hitler and Stalin, leaders who had no idea of human dignity.Spespatriae 16:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ei helvetti, mikä typerys! Mene levittämään kuvottavaa kiihkovenäläisyyttä muualle! --Jaakko Sivonen 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The photo is indeed fake and taken for propaganda by the Soviets after the war. My source is Muutosten maailma 4: Suomen historian käännekohtia (2005, WSOY), page 138 (ISBN 951-0-27645-6). If it is returned it must state clearly that it's a Soviet forgery, but it's best for it not to appear in the article since it gives the wrong picture for someone browsing through the article. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My mother's uncle was in Soviet Karelia during the war, and he told me the about the prison camps. That's when I heard of them ion the first time. --Lalli 06:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is arguing against the existence of the prison camps, only the reality of the photo in question. --Jaakko Sivonen 05:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the page 138 of the book ISBN 951-0-27645-6 particularly refers to this very image and states that it is false? Please elaborate. --Irpen 06:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has the same photo and then the caption tells about prison camps and then it reads, I'll quote (in Finnish): "On myös muistettava, että kuva on venäläisten sodan jälkeen ottama ja lavastama." A translation: "It must also be remembered that the picture is taken after the war and staged by the Russians." --Jaakko Sivonen 06:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not "staged". Rather "framed", as almost all of the war photos are. No problem with the picture, the camp and the sign are authentic. --Lalli 15:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against adding the picture to the article. Also the most inhabitants of the camps were underage or elderly, as almost all working age population were evacuated before Finns came. As a compromise I suggest modifying the text of the picture with one word: instead of using "during", let's use "after", as it is the case the picture was taken after Soviets recaptured the town. (As most photos showing the suffering in German KZ camps were taken by Soviet, British and American soldiers, not Germans, which had mostly clinical, "beautified" versions in their photos.) --Whiskey 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the picture since it is Russian propaganda and it is spread by the Russian Fisenko for obvious non-NPOV reasons. --Jaakko Sivonen 16:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored it. It is no more propaganda than the famous Auswitz pictures. They were all taken after the camp's liberation. Does not make them unusable or "false" or "Allied propaganda" in any way. --Irpen 16:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. Soviet Union is known for its propaganda and there is no reason to think that the prison camp was like that. It was taken after the Finns had left: the Russkies forced the children to go behind the fence and told them to look sad, probably at gunpoint if necessary, therefore it was a Russian prison camp at the time of the photo, not a Finnish one! --Jaakko Sivonen 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that "the Russkies forced the children to go behind the fence and told them to look sad, probably at gunpoint if necessary"???. If yes, spit it out as you were asked on Talk:Russophobia for ages now. If not, stop your rampage. -- Grafikm 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence is that the Finns had already left the area when the photo was taken, so the people had already been released from there (if the children ever were there). So someone put them back there. --Jaakko Sivonen 23:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

So do you insinuate that pics of German concentration camps, taken both by Anglo-American forces and Soviet forces, are fakes? -- Grafikm 00:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Jaakko, you are beating the dead horse. Currently, the text in picture states that it was taken after Finns had retreated from Petrozavodsk. (And it seems that nobody is any longer challenging that...) And it doesn't matter if the picture was staged or not, because it still presents one of the striking peculiarities of the Finnish camps in East Karelia: Due to the evacuation of working age males and females, almost 40% of people in camps were underage children. The picture has been used even in several Finnish history books, so please do not explain it cannot be used here also. --Whiskey 00:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, as I showed on Russophobia the sign still exists, in a museum.--Pan Gerwazy 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dividing a section

Could the "Finnish Offensive 1941"-section be divided somehow? At this moment it is very long and difficult to read. —MoRsΞ 14:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

The authors of this article may not have noticed it, but someone nominated your article for GA. It is clear, however, that you haven't finished it yet as you have some empty subsections to work on under "Finnish Offensive 1941". I would suggest that you remove the GA nomination until the work is finished.

After taking a glance, I have some tips:

1. Be careful about the length of the article. Although length is not a criterion, at 82 KB, it is quite long and it is rather noticeable. You have a few choices on handling the problem. One is to reduce the details of a subsection if there is already another main article covering the topic. Another is to split certain subsections to separate articles of their own. Third is to try to use more of a summary style. The day-by-day operational-level detail, especially the notes of the movements of each division is great for military historians, but as this is an encyclopaedia article, some editing might be order.
2. Avoid the one-sentence paragraphs.
3. Fill out the lead section so that it is a summary of the article, perhaps adding one or two more paragraphs.

This topic is an important contribution to Misplaced Pages so I hope you get this worked out soon and bring the article back for GA nomination. RelHistBuff 12:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have put up the failed GA template. As I mentioned, I believe the main authors did not even know the article was nominated, but in any case the article has to be treated and taken off the list if the nomination is not self-removed. For purposes of the GA process, I list the main reasons of failure as

1. it is not complete and missing certain subsections (failing criterion 3) and
2. it dwells too much on battle details so that the prose is no longer compelling (failing criterion 1)

Keep working at it and renominate it again. RelHistBuff 07:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As a main contributor I agree. I recognize that article is going too deeply in the issue, but I still plan to make whole 1941 in the similar manner initially, add the maps, and then shorten it on the second round for the suitable length. 1942-3 are easy, as not much happened, but then the 1944 is going to be more lengthy. --Whiskey 08:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Finnish Propaganda? :)

Some clearly errant statement about recapture of Karelian isthmus as "second largest offensive after D-Day". Have you guys heard of Kursk, Bagration, Stalingrad, Berlin? Neither D-Day was the largest, nor that Soviet operation was larger then any of other offensives on eastern fronts. "50 mm" guns look suspicious also, and 45-mms are dedicated AT guns. Say, 76.2 mm and up are used for artillery preparations.

Nah! This article is still full of juvenile exaggeration and sureness of those who don't know.;-) I try to go this throught, although slowly, and weed out those idiocies.--Whiskey 00:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Omg that para is total rubbish indeed... -- Grafikm 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps slightly exaggerated, but still one of the major Soviet strategic offenses, see Fourth strategic offensive --MoRsE 11:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't pay too much attention to the text there, but the figures (I will need to rewrite the later article I see) MoRsE 11:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the author who wrote that meant after D-Day in the meaning that After June 6, D-Day attack. Not that D-Day was the largest, 4th Offensive second. In that way it is true, it was started June 9. But anyway yeah.. --Pudeo (Talk) 13:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the campaignbox?

--Nielswik_(talk) 15:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a campaign box, but I think the information needs to be checked, as I don't have my rference material with me right now (I am currently travelling abroad).MoRsE 11:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Finnish defeat

From the recent edit war I must say: Continatuation War's basic pilar was Operation Barbarossa. That was an Axis defeat, not Soviet victory. When USSR brought new reserves to Karelian front, they wasted much time and troops which could have been used in race to Berlin. When Finnish troops retreated to pre 1939 border, SU lost 9 decisive battles in a row. SU didn't occupy any new areas that it didn't have in 1940. The early war was a success for the Finns, and USSR wanted even a peace treaty which would have been beneficial to Finland. Therefore I wouldn't call it a Soviet victory, like I wouldn't call Barbarossa, but Finland didn't won it either. It lost. --Pudeo (Talk) 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Finns managed to stale the Soviet advance at Tali-Ihantala, but there is no question what the outcome would have been if the war would have continued for 2-3 months. The Finns managed to secure an armistice at the precise right point to maintain their independence. It was in their last hour. --MoRsE 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Finnish troops didn't retreat to the pre-1939 border. In the war's end, the Finnish troops were deep in the Soviet soil, except for the very narrow Soviet spearhead in the Karelian Isthmus, due to the Finnish decision not to want to fight in the two cities, built to a large extend by the Finnish blood, i.e. Leningrad and Viipuri.

The fight was taken to the nearby woods, where the Soviet army was beaten. The Finns should have taken the area of this spearhead back, before the diplomacy took place. Finland's army was in a better shape than ever. New tanks were still in packages, not cleaned up from the oil, etc. Stalin respected only power. The western powers would have helped Finland's position in the ensuing negotiations.

"Nobody respects a country with a bad army. Everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my tost to the Finnish army." - Josef Stalin - 1948, Teheran.

213.216.199.6 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The above text is not in accordance with general analysis of contemporary and current military analysts. First you propably mean 1940-border. Second, Finns did want to keep Viipuri but it was unsuccessful. Third, Finns didn't took the fight to the forests, in fact all the decisive battles in Karelian Isthmus and also the Battle of Nietjärvi were fought in cultured soil. Only Battle of Ilomantsi was fought in the forest. Fourth, there was discussions about counter attack on the Isthmus before negotiations, but military leadership considered its success highly unlikely as well as pointless and Soviet forces were building defensive fortification along the frontline. Fifth, new tanks (and planes)were in reality quite few in numbers, so they would not bring Finnish forces to quantitative parity with Soviets. Sixth, western powers were still bogged down with Germany and unlikely to anger SU at that time. --Whiskey 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh... and above quote was spoken in Moscow, not in Teheran. --Whiskey 00:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Tali-Ihantala battles indeed were "in the woods". Where in the world are you getting your information from ? The area of the battles is still "woods" today, as we speak.

01:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 213.216.199.6

The fellow before me was - for some reason - talking about the "1939" border.

213.216.199.6 01:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

213.216.199.6: there were no realistic possibility to regain the lost ground. The numbers were very uneven, in the favor of the Soviets, and the Finns were preparing to withdraw to the Salpa-line, if that one would have broken, then the Soviets would have flooded the country. The only thing left would have been some guerrilla warfare, a tactic that proved unsuccessful both in the Baltics and in Ukraine after the war. The Finns were war weary, the weapons were few and not all too useful. StuG III:s had only a limited capability, Pz IV's were too few and came too late. AT-guns were too few, AT-weapons like Panzerschreck's and -faust were too few and came too late, and they are of a defensive character, not offensive. Even if the cooperation with Germany would have continued, the German aid would have quickly stopped when the new offensive against Germany itself began. --MoRsE 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To MoRsE: Finns were preparing the Salpaline to the fight, but Finns were not preparing to withdraw to Salpaline at the end of the Continuation War. (Unlike in the Winter War, Finns were preparing to withdraw from the eastern portions of the Mannerheim Line when the peace came.)

To User:213.216.199.6: Just go and check few aerial reconnaisence photos Finns took during the battle. It is as easy to see that most of the area was cultivated. Only substantial forested area was 200-400m wide running 3km northwards 1km west of Ihantala-Portinhoikka road, and ending to Pyörökangas, and the fields started again north from Pyörökangas. The fields were broken by small, rocky hills (which did have woods, as the land was unsuitable for cultivation), and Finns did prepare their defences to these hills in obvious reasons. (And for those who don't figure it out, I'd say that it wasn't because of the trees.) --Whiskey 23:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey: A peripheral part of a defensive line is of little use when the line itself is breeched. They were barely holding out at the time of armistice, but after the Salpa defense line and the natural obstacle of the Kymi river, there would have been little to stop a Soviet advance on the Finnish capital and the rest of the country. --MoRsE 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, could you be more specific which war you are referring at a time? In the Continuation War, Soviets were ordered to defensive in Karelian Isthmus at the July 15 and also later in other parts of the front. Also Soviets were transferring their spearhead units to the German fronts while Finns were recalling already released men back to service. Could you refer a source which claims Finns were barely holding at the time of the armstice. (And again unlike the Winter War, when the Finns *were* barely holding the line at the time of the peace.) --Whiskey 01:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about late 1944, not the Winter War. I will search for the documents when I get home from work. MoRsE 07:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Who won the war - statements by key figures

This digression by User:... but a war broke out (a.k.a User:Love is all we need) was removed from article text. Moved here by Petri Krohn 16:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Finland ... won the peace."

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

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

- Josef Stalin

Some of the bits above could be hammered into usefulness -- a section on perceptions of the war today, for example -- but as it stands it's a purely one-sided essay. As far as the outcome of the war goes, as far as I'm concerned, if you end the war with less land than you had when you started, you lost. --Stlemur 16:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Most claims from the essay above could be hammered into bits when comparing them to modern historic research. There are some sentences where the factual contents is (almost) correct, but they have to be rewritten because of POV. --Whiskey 17:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This text is far more appropriate in Military history of Finland during World War II than here. Also, the quotes of politicians tell more about those who is quoted and the situation where the quote is given, not about the historical research or interpretation of what really happened or motives behind. --Whiskey 22:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why areas were ceded

Yes (user Stlemur), the Finnish armed forces won, but the politicians lost, in a way. It may seem strange. In 1943 the Soviets decided on a policy, to be used in the war's end: The Winter War was to be wiped out from the Soviet history writing and propaganda in the ensuing future. Finland was to be tainted as the aggressor, and as an ally of Germany.

Thus, Finland was also going to be portrayed as a loser in the end of her war, regardless how her war would end, because Germany would lose, as could be predicted already in 1943. Even if the Finnish forces would have been all the way on the Ural mountains in the end of her war, Finland probably would have had to cede some territory.

This Soviet propaganda strategy would be continued all the way through the Cold War, i.e making Finland guilty for her war against the Soviet Union.

Many believe that the Finnish forces actually should have conquered back the narrow Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus, before the final negotiations should have been concluded. Based on this theory, the West would have not allowed Stalin to further act against Finland after Berlin's defeat.

Masa62 21:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Many? No. Only very few, and not a single serious military historian or military expert. --Whiskey 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there has been many. In Finland, however, one must have kept quiet. Finlandization still has not ended, although a bit of light is shining trough the tunnel.88.113.177.49 12:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the "renewed offensive" theory, in my opinion it is more "renewed history", as it would have been completely unrealistic. The Finnish forces were in a very bad situation and did not have the means nor the will to reconquer the isthmus, even though some pressure had been relieved after the offensive against Finland stalled. Why on earth would they have wanted to gain the isthmus back and loose another 60 000 men? They needed to gain peace before there was nothing let of the country. Perhaps Finland could have withstood 1-2 more months with German aid, but there is a time when you can see a small opening for a political move - and the Finnish politicians acted very good at this very stage, they managed to secure peace and still retain the independence of the country, while maneuvering out of the Finnish-German treaty...you only have to watch other states like Romania and Hungary to see what would have happened if they hadn't. MoRsE 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What "Finnish-German treaty" are you referring to? Please, remember that there was no such a thing.

Anno Domino 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Finland and Germany had different objectives. No ally treaty signed

In the Summer of 1944 Ribbentrop flew to Helsinki, to request an agreement of a certain kind. For a continued German support, he wanted the Finns to continue fighting, and not to make an early peace with the Soviets.

As the Finnish House of Representatives (eduskunta) would not have ratified any Finnish-German co-operational treaty, tying Finland to Germany, President Ryti sent a personal letter to Hitler instead. In the letter Ryti assured that Finland would not make peace with USSR while he was the President.

Prior to the delivery of the letter, it was red in the Finnish government's meeting, with legal advisors present. It was confirmed that this personal promise would not tie Finland to anything after Ryti had resigned.

Ryti resigned on August 1, 1944. Afterwords, the war historians have determined, that it is highly unlikely that the German assistance for Finland would have ended, even though the letter in question would not have been delivered.

For the actual Finnish defensive battles of the Summer 1944, the main bulk of the material help in question did not make it to Finland in time. However, at the war's end the Finnish armed forces were better equipped than ever before in history. This helped Finland in the ensuing peace negotiations.

Following the Finnish battle victories, some in Finland considered continuing the war efforts, some also recapturing back the narrow Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus, before the final peace would be sought for. The remnants of the Soviet elite divisions had been moved away from Finland, to join the Soviet troops advancing towards Berlin. Finland indeed had a couple of options at hand. Possibly the Soviet spearhead could be traded to the Soviet areas which the Finns had in their position.

For better or for worse, the motion to begin the negotiations won 108-45 in a secret session of the Finnish House of Representatives on September 2, 1944. Prime Minister Antti Hackzell was the leader of Finland´s Peace Delegation, until he - rather suspiciously - got a stroke in Moscow on September 14 - the very same day when the Finnish delegation was supposed to meet the Soviet counterparts.

Josef Stalin is known to have spoken favorably about assassinations of his political woes, and - importantly - he is known to act accordingly, numerous times. On Stalin's view, getting writ of the main man on the opposing side solved many problems, and had a tantalizing psychological effect.

What could not be achieved on the battle fields, had to be resolved on the negotiations' table - or, sometimes, just before the negotiating was scheduled to begin - regardless of the methods used. Poisoning was one of Stalin's favorite methods, just like it is today for FSB (KGB:s predecessor).

After his stroke, caused by a suspected food poisoning, Antti Hackzell fell permanently ill, dieing on January 14, 2006.

Anno Domino 04:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My changes

1. The Continuation War is widely perceived as a continuation...; The Continuation War was so named in Finland...; Finland has always considered the Continuation War...

   Same info three times!

2. Boris Yeltsin became the first Russian leader ever to publicly admit that the Soviet Union had started the Continuation War

   He WAS the "first Russian leader ever" since that war, the others were Soviet leaders and most of them were not Russian, too. Anyways, this needs a source. Did he really mean the Continuation war? Or the Winter war? Or both?

3. ...that the Finns as a people would most likely not have survived the war without cooperating.

   I don't think that either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union actually intended to kill every single Finn in Finland. (added independent)

4. This led to a few excursions to the area...

   What? Excursions? If the Finnish troops really did have "leisure or educational purposes" in mind during their "trip", then they have seriously misbehaved! ;-) (changed to incursions)

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

   What does this mean? Was he the leader of the unit or did he use his influence to create it? Or what?

6. Finland had no alternative but to turn to Germany.

   Even if you are eaten there are always two ways out. ;-) (added felt that)

7. Ivan Zotov behaved undiplomatically and strove to advance Soviet interests in Finland. In his reports he recommended that Finland ought to be finished off and wholly annexed by the Soviet Union.

   Every single diplomat in the world strives to further his country's interests if he's any good. The rest warrants a source (even though it's probably true).

The rest of the changes are mostly cosmetic. Please note that countries posess a neutral gender in English.--Illythr 08:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, there was no other possible way out, except - perhaps - a God's miracle. What other way? Explain! The only other way was a cold and final trip to Siberia, familiar from e.g. the Baltic nations' history, even though those nations did not put up a fight, worth mentioning.

Well, you see, there's the other way - become an SSR! :) Not that it was acceptable to Finland, of course, but that's why I added the Finland felt that part. Subjectivity versus objectivity. ;) --Illythr 20:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The article did already indicate your point, that already during the war the leader of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin, accepted the fact that the Finns were fighting a defensive war (and yes, often members of the Soviet leadership were not Russian).

Nikita Khrushchev - in his memoirs - then told about the Soviet lying policies. Boris Yeltsin's statements came upon the break up of the Soviet Union, also - much later - Putin's coinciding referral to Yeltsin's earlier remarks.

Swedish Speaker 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, "my point" up there concerns only the form of that one particular sentence. Mainly, the "first Russian leader ever" part. And it does need a citation, to avoid misinterpretation and all. --Illythr 20:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

World's no. 1 university (Professor Kennedy) distorts the truth: Finland was "flattened"

Those not familiar with the recent Finnish history: Please, join the braking of totalitarian history writing, and the myths it has spread. Let us together wipe out Finlandization from the face of the earth.

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

Whereas one "dictator", Adolf Hitler, was toppled, the other - the winner -, Josef Stalin, is the center of admiration for the current Soviet president, Vladimir Putin, an ex -KGB agent and the ex-chief of FSB (new name for KGB). Putin himself has praised Stalin in several occasions.

No wonder some still are under the spell of the KGB propaganda. Finland could win the battles of the actual war, but not the huge propaganda war and the distortion of history writing of the Cold War period.

KGB was controlling our media, and the history writing about these events, fully. Even in the end of the famous Finnish movie, The Unknown Soldier (Tuntematon sotilas), a Finnish soldier had to be set to a final battle stage, to state that the Finns had lost the war.

How in the world could that soldier have "known" to state something like that, and - importantly - at that point, when no deal about the borders was yet done. In the real world, all he was aware of, was that Finland had just won all the final battles - including the very last one -, and that the Finnish troops were deep on the Soviet soil, except for that narrow spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus, which was broken as well, in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.

The world's top university, the Stanford University, has successfully competed of the no. 1 spot in the world in the amount of Nobel prizes. Yet, their history professor has up till recently taught his students, that the Finnish army was "flattened" by the Red Army.

The world's long time leading TV documentary - made in co-operation between the Soviets and the Americans - distortedly claims, that Finland started the Continuation war. Nothing is mentioned about the initiating all-out Soviet attack against Finnish cities. Black arrows are offered to show the main "Nazi" attack routes. Big black arrow is set to the Finnish Karelia, pointing east.

"The ignorance of even the best-informed observers in the West about Finland's part in World War II is astounding.

Take the British Major General H.M. Tillotson's book Finland at Peace & War - 1918-1993, for example. It was written in close collaboration with Finland's Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Defense, Defense Staff, Commission of Military History, Military Archives and Military Museum, to mark, in 1993, the 75th anniversary of the armed forces in independent Finland."

Yet, in its 354 pages, the book has room for only one sentence about the single most important battle, perhaps, fought in Finland's Continuation War - and arguably, in entire Northern Europe -, the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.

There are numerous other examples of the so called Finlandization and the results of the massive Soviet propaganda, which was set forth on the expense of the often suffering - and often starving - Soviet citizens. What the wars could not accomplish, the overwhelming propaganda machine was designed to fix.

However - on the long run -, the Soviet money was not spent wisely here, either. Today, the Soviet Union no more exists. Finland - however - does well.

Join us in a battle against totalitarian history writing. Let's together reveal, what really happened. The American Paul Sjöblom had it right. Let us not turn the tide back to the Soviet Union ways. Finland did not capitulate ! "Myths die hard" (Mr. Sjöblom - a journalist - has passed away, to eternity, since he wrote the below article):

http://www.kaiku.com/notcapitulate.html - Thank you, Mr. Sjöblom !

Swedish Speaker 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you really are concerned of the issue, there is only one remedy: facts! Facts! And facts! You should drop all pathos and politics and stick strictly to the facts. The propaganda works only so long when people don't know all facts. Against cold, sourced facts even the best propaganda becomes toothless. Otherwise, you will be doomed to the same category as propagandists and your actions become counterproductive. --Whiskey 19:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, those should be black arrows. Red are for the Soviets. --Illythr 20:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC) --> Thanks. They were changed to black (a blooper). 213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I, personally, am aginst it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

213.216.199.6 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

213.216.199.6 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Counterargumenting the contested text / + replies the counterarguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are black mailing and misquoting once again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are commonly and widely accepted facts!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

213.216.199.6 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation

213.216.199.6 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

213.216.199.6 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why we must stop placing comments inside others' texts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your co-operation!

213.216.199.6 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Solving the edit war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Par 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

213.216.199.6 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

213.216.199.6 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Par 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Par 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 4

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

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

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

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

213.216.199.6 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

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

Par 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 6

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 7

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 8

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 9

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

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 10

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 11

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 12

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 13

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 14

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 15

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 16

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

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 17

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

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 18

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

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

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 19

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

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

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

"Finland ... won the peace."

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

Par 20

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

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

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

Proposed paragraph:

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

I agree with Whiskey's suggestions

The proposed paragraphs are POV, irrelevant and/or contain shoddy scholarship. They should be removed. - Mikko H. 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

After all the debate above, I also agree with Whiskey. --Illythr 16:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggest archiving

As the talk page has become quite bloated, I propose to archive closed discussions (sections 2 through 7 and 9 through 18). --Illythr 17:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Start-Class military history articles