This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Petri Krohn (talk | contribs) at 22:29, 8 January 2007 (Cleaning the sock puppet contributions)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:29, 8 January 2007 by Petri Krohn (talk | contribs) (Cleaning the sock puppet contributions))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Continuation War was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 3, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Military history Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Russia Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
- Talk:Continuation War/Archive 1
- Talk:Continuation War/Archive 2
- Talk:Continuation War/Archive 3
- Talk:Continuation War/Archive 4 The Puppet War of December 2006
Introduction Query
I'd like the author to give me the source of their contention that Finnish public opinion views the Continuation War as inevitable. I can find plenty of evidence for this view about the Winter War but none from Turku's Library of Political Sciences for this view about the Continuation War, even from contemporaneous sources.
- I'm not the author, but have you checked Ryti's and Paasikivi's diaries, Paasikivi's biography (sorry, don't remember the writer right away), Mannerheim's memoirs and Jokipii's "Jatkosodan synty"? All points out, that right after the Winter War there was no such feel of inevitability, but during the summer when Soviet Union pressured additional concessions and prevented closer co-operation with Sweden, the feeling of being on the Baltic road increased (Paasikivi,Mannerheim,Jokipii). According to Jokipii, it was the Petsamo crisis which made Mannerheim's and Ryti's mind that the second round is inevitable.
- By default, the Continuation War is considered a war of choise, if we consider the situation from the end of the Winter War. But if we roll forward to June 22, then the war was already inevitable. It is interesting to look what happened between those two dates, so see Interim Peace. (Ok, its not a perfect name, but hopefully we find something better...)
I do believe that the articles are slightly skewed to an unflinchingly Finnish Nationalist pov and I say that as a long-term foreign resident of the country, which I hope qualifies me to pronounce on such things without fear of being insensitively blind to cultural pressures to conform to the state's view of history.
- You are free to balance it, and I appreciate it greatly.
Can whoever wrote the article's introduction please insert some definite articles (THEs to English speakers) but that is a minor point.
As regards Nazism, there is a synagogue in Turku, which was closed down in 1943. A friend Antti has told me of a similar event in Naantali, but I have no dates for that. Also, the article skates around the thousands of Finns who joined the Viking Division of the SS to fight under the colours of Nazi Germany.
- Thousands of Finns? 1,400 (1200 before Barbarossa and 200 replacements 1942)? At Naantali there wasn't Jewish parish, unlike at Helsinki, Turku, Viipuri and Tampere. If you have more sources on the issue, please insert those to the article.
Jatrius 08:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I've refrained from editing until there may be a deeper consensus arrived at on the issue of inevitability.
I question the following statement
"Sweden's leading cabinet members had hoped to improve the relations with Nazi Germany through indirect support of Operation Barbarossa, mainly channelled through Finland."
Sweden's involvement with Finland was not simply to gain favor with Germany, but also due to the deep cultural connections that the two nations shared, much closer than Sweden had with Norway for example. The common phrase was "Finlands sak är vår", ("Finland's cause is ours") and for many Swedes who helped in the Finnish effort it was for this feeling of brotherhood that they gave aid, although there were some ultra conservatives who would for other reasons. Most of political Sweden was dismayed that Finland was fighting along with Germany, but wanted to give some support anyway. Surely there was an element of appeasing Germany involved as well, as Sweden was forced to do this all along, but this was not the sole reason for helping Finland.Akseli 00:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
...forming an ambulance unit with direct personal influence by Marshal Mannerheim.
- What does this mean? Was he the leader of the unit or did he use his influence to create it? Or what? --Illythr 11:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Photo
This is not good to put photo of slayed Russian soldiers in the beginning of the article. Then why not to show the truck full of Finnish dead soldiers? It was also available earlier in references. Right know I can`t put the link although I`ve scoured all this material from stem to stern, but you should know what I am speaking about.
- Hello there. There is absolutely no problem in that kind of images from the real front. However, usually the victims eyes (atleast) are not shown in this context, and in that image it's almost too privately focused on the face. From this POV it might be considered to be removed from the template. We all know there are casualties in a conflict called war.. The reason that image is chosen is probably that it is from front, has bicycle troops and a battleground. These make a classical image for Continuation War. What other image do you suggest? --Pudeo (Talk) 19:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Protection to be lifted?
I've been requested to unprotect this article . Could the editors here report on the status of the disputes that led to its protection? Are they over by now? There's no point in unprotecting an article if a new edit war will start immediately afterwards.--Húsönd 12:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unprotected--Húsönd 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Cleaning the Talk page
Part of the process against sock puppets is removing their contributions from articles and talk pages. I have done it here. However, due to length of the edit war, the sock puppets managed to infest many useful contributions, so I apologize about the childs thrown away with the washing water. I try to bring sanitated versions of some of them back shortly. --Whiskey 08:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Also removed
The break up of the Soviet Union appeared to have brought a significant change in the policies and attitudes acquired by the new Russian leadership in this respect, when in 1991 President Boris Yeltsin publicly admitted that the Soviet Union had started the Continuation War. When confronted with the question, President Vladimir Putin referred to President Yeltsin's earlier statements, saying that there was no reason for the Russian leaders to further apologize about the matter.
- The Yeltsin's quote on the Continuation war was in fact on the Winter war. Should some part of this passage stay in the article?
The Continuation War is widely perceived as a continuation for the Finnish-Soviet Winter War (1939–1940), Stalin's attempt to occupy Finland, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed between Stalin and Hitler in 1939.
- This sentence is redundant, as the info is given just two paragraphs below. --Illythr 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Article protected again
I've protected this article again and it's unlikely that it shall be unprotected before the dispute is clearly over. I shall not directly involve myself in the dispute so please don't contact me to mediate or to fish for sockpuppets, just to report that the dispute is over. Meanwhile I once again recommend the following sections for resolving this once and for all: WP:RFC to attract input from other users; WP:RCU for checkuser against sockpuppetry; WP:RFI for investigating users' disruptive activities, can also be used to determine sockpuppets.--Húsönd 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories: