Talk:Continuation War/Archive 7

RAF 151 Wing kill ratio

 * I just finished reading "Hurricane Aces", which has a chapter on the 151 Wing. The book is fairly new, but the author still claims the 15:1 ratio (although these are claims, all were not verified). He also mentions that they only encountered German aircraft (about half of the claims were Bf 109s and the rest bombers attacking Murmansk). The first patrol were further south against the Finnish border, but no aircraft were encountered. Okay, there is an excellent book on German losses in Northern Finland, called "Luftwaffen Pohjoinen Sivusta" by Hannu Valtonen (one of the foremost experts on WW2 air warfare around Finland) which lists all German losses in northern Finland and Norway, also, another way could be to contact the aviation historian Carl-Fredrik Geust who has done massive research in Russian archives, trying to correct information and numbers of Finnish, German and Soviet air victory claims in WW2. --MoRsE (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does the artical have a russian propaganda picture?
The picture of the "petroskoi kids" behind the cattle fence is a known propaganda picture staged by soviet autohrities, why are we using it in the article?--Posse72 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is was made after the camp was liberated doesn't negate the fact that the camp and those kids were kept there, so as long as the caption properly addresses the date issue, the picture is fine. --Illythr 23:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, deliberate use of propaganda pictures shows a certain preconceived attitude, which should have no place in an unbiased article. What would people say if similar pictures prepared by the Nazi party propaganda office would be pasted to history articles, with the text like "picture possibly taken for dis-information purposes". 130.231.167.174 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Wettim
 * I don't see you complaining about the propagandist nature of the picture of "finnish civilians killed by soviet partisans". Exibition of such double standarts casts doubts about your desire for an "unbiased article". Ko Soi IX (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No one invited the Soviets to first invade Finland originally, so it's not Finnish propaganda versus Soviet propaganda as if both are on an equal footing. How are pictures of Soviet atrocities propagandist? —PētersV (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my frankness, but the statement that Finnish propaganda is somehow more objective than Soviet propaganda because "nobody invited the Soviets to first invade Finland originally" is utter nonsense. Also, in Continuation war, the Finns were the agressors, not the Russians. As for the picture of Soviet atrocities - all I see is two corpses. For all I know, they could've been killed by bandits, for example. In my opinion, this picture is only there to counter-balance the "kids in camps" photo. The Eastern Front article has 12 photos, out of which 2 deal with atrocities and deaths of civilians - which, for a conflict in which up to a half of the victims were civilians, is reasonable. However, the Continuation war article has the same proportion (1 out of 6), which seems strange, since civilian losses were rather small in this war (if we are to treat it as a separate war and forget about Leningrad). What would you say to an Eastern Front article in which the only civilian corpses shown on photos were those belonging to agressor states? Does that answer your question about propaganda? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 05:38, 24 December

2007 (UTC)
 * Oh no. another so called expert that probably either have read nothing about the conflict...phu of all the nonsens you write who i dont have any intention to correct, the moste revealing fact of your lack of knowledge is that you blame the Soviet attrocitis on "bandits"!? Well Finland hasent have roaring bandits since the 16th century.So if you dont know, pls dont guess!--Posse72 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What a good way to have a discussion - make a point that your opponent didn't make, and than succesfully argue against it. I never said anything about roaring bandits. Ok, so even if those atrocities were commited by Soviet partisans, they resulted in a whopping 200 deaths. Yet it is of them that we have a picture of corpses - a strong image - not of the 1 000 000 civilians who starved in Leningrad thanks in part to the Finnish army, not of the thousands of Russians who starved in Finnish internment. And yes, Finland was also an agressor in this war. Care to argue why this picture of two corpses shouldn't be replaced by pictures of starving leningraders? There were 5000 times more of them than of partisan victims, anyways... Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The image we are talking about is definitely not a Finnish propaganda photo. It was held in the secret military archives until 2006. The Soviet raids to the Finnish villages near the front were not published by the Finnish media during the war. This was done in order not to make peace talks any harder. The photo in question was taken by the Finnish military personnel investigating the massacre and buried in archives for decades. Even after the war, it remained closed in secret archives alongside with other photos with distastefully cruel subjects. These links give more info about the history of the photograph in question:, . However, in general, I agree with you: no propaganda is good or "neutral", regardless of origin. --MPorciusCato (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MPorcius, for clearing the origins of the photo. However, I still maintain that it doesn't belong in the article. Photos of corpses send a very strong image, and I think that having such a photo for a relatively minor aspect of the war (2.4-3.6% of total civilian casualties without Leningrad) violates neutrality. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree in principle. However, in its context, the image is acceptable. We are not illustrating the civilian casualties in general, but the Soviet partisan activity on Finnish front. However, a better image would be preferable. As far as I know, Commons does not have any good photos on the Soviet partisans operating in Finland, so we must satisfy ourselves with the results of raids. The image itself is not a bad illustration: the photo has a good technical quality and its composition is rather harmonic. Indeed, this harmony increases the horror of the photo. I also have no qualms about the other image, which Posse72 has critized strongly. --MPorciusCato (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against propagandapictures in the article, if they are recognized as such. I agree with MPC that Finnish image is strong but acceptable. At the Finnish side, the partisan attacks consisted about 15%-20% of all civilian casualties. Also, the Soviet partisan activity inside the Finnish territory is a sorry chapter of the whole movement, and it is partially recognized also the Soviet military and NKVD. For example 2/3 of all attacks were against civilian targets: no other Soviet unit has worse track record! --Whiskey (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if the consensus here seems to keep the brutal photo, than for the sake of neutrailty we have to find a picture of finnish atrocities of similar brutality. If we can't find one, the picture in question must go. Personally, I would rather remove it, than balance it out, since civilian losses weren't characteristic in the conflict (without Leningrad, of course). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the other discusion topics here you could get some answer to your delusion.
 * 1 Finland did not actively participated in the sige (did not attacked the iceroad or shelled the city etc)and the reason for the war was because the aggresive Soviet policy during the winterwear e.g NO Winter war woulde mean no Continuation war. The main reason for so many civilian death was ofcurse due to the Soviet refuse to evacute the pepole in time. Finnish intrest stopped at its border, the city of Leningrad was not of Finnish concerne.
 * 2 The Soviet open the first shots of the war, and must there for be called the agressor.--Posse72 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, I strongly recomend you to cease using words such as "so called expert" and "delusion" in regards to my persona. If I don't know something which you do, your argument will look stronger without stupid personal attacks. My main argument is - the "partisan victim" photo should be removed, as it uses a very strong image for a minor aspect of the war, and isn't balanced out by a similar photo of Finnish atrocities. Now to the points you made: 1a - At any rate, Finland participated in the siege, even though "passively". 1b - So some historians justify Finnish agression in 1941 by Soviet agression of 1939, and they are not without point - but generally speaking, revaunchism is problematic excuse. The finnish leadership decided to use the German invasion to achieve their own goals - return the territories lost in the previous war + some more land. A rather pragmatic choice, in my opinion. And not much different from Soviet actions in 1939. 1c - yes, it's the Soviet's fault that so many starved in Leningrad, they didn't evacuate, it's the Soviet's fault that Germany starved several million prisoners of war, they didn't ratify the Geneva accord, the invaders are innocent. Yeah, right. Btw, evacuation from Leningrad saved many lives; but due to Leningrad's importance in the military-industrial complex, near total evacuation was never an option. 1d - At the border, eh? Petrozavodsk too? 2 - Are you seriously implying that without those strikes, Finland would just sit there with a mobilized army? Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1b) I'd say it was more the Soviet foreign policy towards Finland *after* the Winter War which resulted Finland to search support from Germany. By February 1941 both Mannerheim and Ryti have lost their belief to the peaceful solution between SU and Finland, and they thought it was only a question when the SU would attack again. And if the war was coming anyway, it should be better to fight it at the best possible time for Finland. --Whiskey (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There were many factors which led to adopting a militarist stance by the Finnish leadership. It was a rather pragmatic decision - who than knew that the war would end in Berlin? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ko Soi wrote"and isn't balanced out by a similar photo of Finnish atrocities pls name any incident where Finnish soldiers delibrated at point blank murderd children?--Posse72 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A problem with partisans is that there are always bandits posing as partisans. The line itself is blurred. A partisan may even be a bandit one day, a patriot the next. I find it doubtful that there were direct orders by the co-ordinators of the partisan movement in Kremlin that led to the tragic and untimely deaths of those 200 Finnish civilians. However, Finnish forces took part ("passively" if you prefer) in a siege that caused over 1 000 000 civilian deaths from starvation. The scale is rather incompatible. So why do we have a brutal picture for 200 Finnish civilians, but not for a million Soviet civilians? Or, say, the 4 to 7 thousands Soviet civilians that were starved in consentration camps? Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that those partisans didn't operate inside the occupied territory, but they had their bases in Soviet controlled territory and only made raids to the Finnish controlled territory, so no local bandits. Also, as 10-20% of all men were criminals, and the ration rose much higher closer you got to the grunts on the field, it is no wonder they cared nothing about the legalism of their actions. And based on the official reports about their achievements, they didn't bother to tell the truth about their doings to their superiors either.--Whiskey (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What you said makes sense, but I hardly see what does it have to do with the tendentious choice of which atrocities deserve a brutal image, and which don't. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well actually there is in one memoar by a Soviet partisan (translated to Finnish) a part where 3 civilan Finns is captured and the Soviet partisan HQ gives order by radio to execute the civilians. The Partisan war in Finland was not a spontaneous one (like the ones in Belrussia Russia and Ukraine), but a deliberated build up of resources, training facilities, military leadership etc. all leading to the 1st Parisanbrigade and its action, to be fair idont think the aim of the brigade in the beging was to terrorize civilains. While two dead children or 200 murrderd civilians is not much compeared with the attrocities made on the easternfront, Finnish war veterans would say that -"real soldiers dont murder children". That why this picture has such big impact in Finland still to this day.--Posse72 (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you provide the name of the author and the book, please? Surely, "real soldiers don't murder children", yet as we all know, there were many kids among the starving leningraders... As for this picture being important - it has been declassified in 2006, so I'm not sure what you mean "to this day". Basically, all my arguments about neutraility still stand. This image must be paired up with a similar one, or be removed. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So do you think we have to remove the sections on Oradour-sur-Glane just because there is no western-allied action to balance up the event with? You can not blame the Finns on the siege of Leningrad on the fact that the Finnish border was north of the city. The pictures of this event and others have been know and published well before 2006, ill have it from a book from 1999, and my father have them from books published in the 1970s. ill come back to you on the author.--Posse72 (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That massacre was a one-sided affair, just like, say Katyn or Khatyn - unlike this war. After all, Finns killed more civilians than Soviets, even if we disregard the siege of Leningrad (majority of russian historians and some western ones don't share the view that one "can not blame the Finns of the siege", which seems to be dominating in Finnish historiography). Also I would like to note, that the Oradour-sur-Glane, while being an article specifically dealing with a massacre (in which 3 times more civilians were killed in a single day, than in Finland by Soviet partisans (or attributed to them) during the entire war) still doesn't have any brutal corpse pictures. Neither does the Khatyn article. Strong images have to be dealt with carefully, so that neutrality is maintained. Personally, I'd rather remove it, but the consensus seems to favour keeping it. I've been looking for good pictures to balance it out with, but found nothing befitting so far. As for the origins of the picture in question, MPorciusCato had a different version - look above. Thanks in advance for looking for the author. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * quot: "Finns killed more civilians than Soviets" the civilaians mostly died of starvation, that was a effect of the war, not Finnish soldiers. Also the "collectivization" of the agriculture in East karelia prio to the war made ineffective food production even more ineffectivie, and would with or without the war have killed civillians in the area as it did before the war. Also the Finnish occupation of East karelia ended the terror that killed at least 20 000 Eastkarelianns in 1938-1941. That is approxemently 5 times more that those died during the Finnish occupation. Still could you find any massacre made delibrated by Finnish solders at pointblank?--Posse72 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, it's never the agressor's soldier's fault, it's either the "special ss units" or "war itself" or "stupid criminal policies" of the invaded country... Ended "the terror"? Surely not for those poor souls who perished in finnish concentration camps. How is starving people in concentration camps any less of an atrocity than conducting raids against civilians? Same criminal negligence of leaders - only feeding 20 thousand people is probably much easier than controlling thousands of partisans. Well, since you're picky about wording, let me rephrase it for you: in this war, even without Leningrad, the Finnish side is responsible for more deaths of Soviet civilians than vice versa. The article is about the war, right? As for any deliberate massacres by Finns - I will look for it during the week. I'm quite sure Finns were no less human than the rest. Ko Soi IX (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You miss the big picture in your Soviet appolgistic view,
 * 1 Finnish army succesfully held of the red hordes from its mainland during the whole war, If Soviet would be successful in its vicious plan to capture Finland, civilain casulties in Eastkarelia would have been Peanuts compeared to what NKVD would have done to the Finnish population. (In the Soviet occupation of East Poland 1939 1.8 milions Poles was sent to the Gulag, after 1 year 900 000 where dead.
 * 2 The thing that upsets Finns about those picture is the merciless eastern form of warfare that sprungs from the time of Djingis Khan, where children are legitime targets.--Posse72 (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So my view is apologetic because I want NPOV to be maintained?
 * You have not in any of your postings showed anything that resembles remotley to a NPOV.--Posse72 (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Such an accusation coming from the person who tried to keep Soviet civilian casualties from the infobox? Please, tell me, where is the lack of NPOV prevalent in the changes that I propose? In my desire to have all atrocities illustrated, not just the ones where Finns were the victims? In the finnish POW data that I provided? Ko Soi IX (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting logic. Than it will be no problem for you to articulate without making moral choices, why 200 dead Finns deserve a strong picture, unlike thousands of victims of Finnish concentration camps or over a million of victims of the siege of Leningrad. To your points:
 * 1 The Soviet Union probably wanted to caputure Finland during Winter war. During the Continuation war, the Soviets, realizing Finnish stuborness, prefered not to occupy Finland after the Finnish army was smashed in 1944 - for it would lead to large scale partisan warfare - and finnish determination was already well known.


 * Ahem! Could you please specify and source the claim? By recalling demobilized men back to the service, the strength of the army rose about 60 000 men during the summer 1944 even as losses are reduced. The will of fight increased when all the fighting moved to the pre-1940 Finnish soil. And also the material situation improved: The number of modern fighters in FiAF doubled, number of "modern" tanks (read: "capable taking any Soviet tanks out") quadrupled, and hand-held anti tank weapons were delivered and trained to the troops. And in the last large scale operation of the war Finns shattered two Soviet rifle divisions at Ilomantsi. Doesn't sound as a smashed army.:-)
 * 1943 Soviet government prepared a document for Finnish unconditional surrender, which included the occupation of the country. The original was found in the Soviet archives. And June 22, 1944 when Finns sued for peace, Soviet response was for unconditional surrender. (Although afterwards Mme Kollontai explained that it was an unfortunate misunderstanding...) --Whiskey (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I can't. I must withdraw it instead - for as you clearly demonstrated, this was never as simple as I thought. Although the manpower losses of the Finnish army were considerable, they were far from being finished. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As for your what if questions - if the Germans and their Finnish allies succeded, the civilian casualties ALREADY INFLICTED by them would be dwarfed by what would come after the Axis victory. What's your point? PS.The numbers of Polish deportees your provide are greatly exagurated. 1.8 million is about the total population of Gulag in 1939-1940, and mortality never exceeded 25% a year in those camps (and that was during WW2). Sure, the Soviet actions were often crude and brutal, but that is no indulgence for crimes of others.
 * 2 All this "eastern form of warfare" concept is frankly eurocentric bs. "Westerners", for instance, didn't discriminate in their carpet bombings. Finnish allies, the Germans, who are also by all merits "westerners" were extremely barbaric in that war. Finns themselves starved several thousand civilians in concentration camps... Personally, I think those raids aimed at civilians were despeakable, and I'm absolutely sure that the Soviet leadership didn't see children as legitimate targets. My argument is not about morality, it's about adhering to NPOV principles. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll only note that Ko Soi IX has a rather simplistic view of the GULAG. For example, as far as I am aware, GULAG deaths don't include those who died on the way. Your contention about being "absolutely sure" the Soviet leadership didn't see children as targets is based on what documentation? If you're going to throw around figures and profess certainty about what was going on inside Stalin's head (!), please provide your sources. —PētersV (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In turn, I'll note that you are simply not informed about the number of poles in Gulag. On Jan.1 of 1939 there were 16,680 poles, on Jan.1 of 1940 there were 16,133 poles, and on Jan.1 of 1941 there were 29,457 poles incarcerated in Gulag camps (http://publicist.n1.by/articles/repressions/repressions_gulag2.html). So if the 1.8 million Poles were indeed deported to Gulag camps, over 1.7 million didn't reach them, which seems rather unlikely.    As for me being absolutely sure - the harsh punishments given to those Soviet soldiers who commited crimes against civilians are more than enough for me; even if Stalin though that killing children is the right thing to do, it is not what was being done. As for sources on what Stalin actually thought, ask God. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * God was probably on the Finnish side in this conflict!--Posse72 (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is going to make my list of best arguments of all time! :-) --Illythr (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but ill rather believe in profesor Norman Davies than in your Soviet statistic, what your are saying is that no Poles was ever sent to Gulag as a result of the Soviet 1939 invasion, just that should for a normal objective student requier self critizism. ANd more on eastern warfare, Profesor John Keegan does in several of his books portrai the primitiv warfare of eastern cultures, and phenomen as mass rape and child murder seen recently in Balkans and chechnya.
 * You can believe him, sure, but if he claims that the deported Poles (or others) went to Gulag labor camps en-mass, he is mistaken. Very few Poles (out of the several hundred thousands deported) were sent to labor camps. Most were exiled. This is what modern Russian research, which is based on archival documents, indicates - the number of poles in labor camps was significantly lower than the number of deportees. As for "eastern warfare" - please do not hesitate to provide a reference (or at least a book name, for Keegan has quite a few, and I haven't read them all). Personally, I see no difference between "eastern" warfare in Chechnya in 1820s and "western" warfare in Phillipines in 1900s. Or between "eastern" warfare in Chechnya in 1990s and "western" warfare in Iraq in 2000s. As always, regardless of "westerness" or "easterness", civil wars are brutal, civilians are killed, crimes are commited (scale varies, depending on a multitude of factors such as the quality of troops etc). Ko Soi IX (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Already during the winterwar in the very few occations where Finnish civilians where cought by the Red Army there are Stories of Murder and atrocities, like horrible accounts of Finnish women murded by as stck beeing drow th there genitsals.
 * An australian journalist, in Prague in June 1945, asked a woman about Russian crimes. The woman started talking about mass rapes, murders, etc. The journalist asked her, what did she see herself. She replied she saw drunk Russian officers breaking glasses and shooting in the air. The journalist asked her, did any of her friends see any rapes or murders. The woman said no. Ko Soi IX (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As and answer to several of your absurd postings that Whiskey and P-Cato answerd, I have told you before and ill tell you now, -You seems to lack some basic knowledge of this conflict.--Posse72 (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Fortunately, unlike you, both Whiskey and P-Cato are willing to share their knowledge. Ko Soi IX (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ko Soi IX, this is inconsequential to the article, but your reference contradicts strongly well-founded historical knowledge on Estonian deportations. According to table Национальный состав лагерных заключенных ГУЛАГа {1}, there were somewhat more than 18.000 Estonians deported to GULAG. In 1941, in particular, there should have been 278 deportees However, this contradicts strongly the fact that during June 1941, 9,254–10,861 Estonians, of whom 2,500 were children and were deported. Nonetheless, your source may be technically correct, if PetersV consideres both deportees and GULAG prisoners, while your source defines the group of victims much more stringently. What comes to the fact that Soviet troops would have been restrained from atrocities, you can refer to Anthony Beevor, who has shown, like many others, that Soviet troops systematically raped Eastern European women.


 * Yet the above conversation has no impact on whether we should keep the images as they are. Your premises are incorrect. Your idea is that the Finnish Army must have engaged in atrocities which are as bad (or worse) in scale than the crimes committed by Soviet partisans on Finnish soil. However, please consider the fact that Finland was the losing party of the war. After the war, several Finnish servicemen faced criminal charges for their crimes on the basis of charges raised by Soviet populace in Eastern Karelia or by former Soviet POVs. (In a celebrated case, a Finnish military doctor was convicted of grave-robbing Soviet cemetaries for unauthorised anthropological studies.) The Finnish communists and the Soviets took advantage of every bit of propaganda value that could be gained from the trials. Yet, as far as I know, no one has ever accused any Finnish unit of a massacre of Soviet civilians. Considering the facts, I would think this makes a good case for the nonexistance of such massacres. The worst crime that was committed by the Finnish military administration of Eastern Karelia was the unequal treatment of Fennic and Russian populations, which in winter 1942 resulted in famine among the Russians, who were detained. This, indeed, constitutes a war crime according to the Rome statute. In my opinion, the image of the children in the camp illustrates this point quite as well as does the other image illustrate the partisan activity. --MPorciusCato (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a simpler answer. If I remember correctly, the overwhelming majority of the deportees were not sent to labor camps, they were exiled (like Kersnovskaya). You are incorrect in asessing my idea. Posse72 requested me to find a documented instance of Finnish soldiers killing civilians (that will have to wait until the weekend). I said nothing of comparing the scale of crimes of Finnish army and the Soviet partisans on Finnish soil. Generally speaking, apart from the starvations of Russian detainees, and participation in the siege of Leningrad, the Finns were not at all known for killings of civilians. At best I think I can find perhaps an isolated incident or two (not a massacre by a unit). As for Soviet military crimes - sure, there were crimes. But their existance doesn't prove or disprove the intentions of Soviet leadership - and that was the question; such crimes were punished severely, often by death despite the humane practice of penal troops. I wouldn't consider Beevor a reliable source. His Berlin book depended too strongly on anecdotal evidence. Now back to the actual argument. Ok, let's keep it. Let's just throw a picture of some starved leningraders into the mix. Because, as I said before, the well done picture of two dead young females is far too strong of an image. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is humor!--Posse72 (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against the picture you describe as such, but what should it illustrate? At present, the Section about the reconquest of Karelian Isthmus shows only a link to Finnish reconquest of the Karelian Isthmus (1941). If you want the article to benefit from such a picture, we must have also text about the siege of Leningrad and the Finnish part in it. Although I do not fully agree with your sympathies and choice of sources, I believe in your honest intentions to make this article better. Go ahead and write about the Finnish culpability for the siege of Leningrad! The subject has been amply researched and if you go astray from the path of neutrality, someone will surely correct you. :-) --MPorciusCato (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. I'll post suggested draft on talk page first. Also, I think we're missing information about Finnish prisoners of war. According to archival research (http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_13_11.html), the Soviets captured 2377 Finns, of which 1974 returned home and 403 died in captivity - mortality of 17% (Russian prisoners in Finland - 28.5% mortality). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that this is moving to the direction of removing both of the pictures. I'm not certain if I should support it or not... --Whiskey (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My source about the Polish victims is from "Risining '44" by the brittish proffesor Norman Davies (S-Bob could need to read some of his books)btw Finland was not allied with Nazi-germany but cobelligrent.--Posse72 (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Im changing position over this subject for the same reason as the over beefed RAF section and advokat a removel of both picture to own articles.--Posse72 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Related arbitration committee decision
Dear friends,

The Arbitration committee has made a decision in a case related to this article. The decision includes a general restriction for engaging in any disruptive behaviour. In particular, we should make sure that we edit this talk page more civilly than we have done in the previous week. Otherwise, any of us may get an editing restriction and even a subsequent summary ban. --MPorciusCato 06:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys. Rebuke accepted. I have banned myself from editing this article and its talk page for the next 28 days. Bob BScar23625 07:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Source 2!
Ill want references that says "that Mannerheim and Hitler planned there strategy together." As to my knowledege Bobby is upp to great discovery with huge politic/historical impact if he could prove his claim! Quit amazing due to the fact that Bobby hasnt read one book about the subject. --Posse72 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

''Posse72. When have I said "that Mannerheim and Hitler planned there strategy together"?. regards. Bob'' BScar23625 (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

ps - please leave my contribution at normal size and do not shrink me.

Your imbicil communist basterd, could you at least prove your source.--Posse72 (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please avoid personal attacks and keep things civil. --Stlemur (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Posse72: I realise that you are trying your very best to improve an important article in a language which is not your first, but I need you to tone down your offensive and intemperate language and discuss edits rather than editors.
 * Even when you are not being personally offensive to other editors, this language in an edit summary is simply unacceptably nationalistic: "Mannerheim cross first awarded during continuation war, i suppose its not in line with all the other anti-finnish crap in this articel btw why is the russian medal not removed?)"
 * If you fail to heed my warning, further action may follow.  A l i c e  ✉ 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So why was the Finnish medal removed but not the Russian one? Why is stalinst Bob so unhinderd in his anti-finnish agenda, with dubius sources,unprove statment, and false captations,a book from 1942 is it a good source!? If I during my academic period would have treated sources the same way Bobby does I would have been suspended at best.
 * -Was it relly so that the British submarines and aircraft carriers main mission in the artic ocean was to wave war aginst Finland?(and where is the source for this?) Does Bobbys sources specify any targets bombed in Finland while RAF escorted? Why is the only picture of Mannerheim, the one when he meat Hitler, a meating that was unwelcome, indecisive an fruitless? This is as ridiculous for us Finns as it would be in article about Chuchill and WWII to have the only picture of him one where he is standing next to Stalin. The story of the Hampden bombers is not aboute any action aginst Finland, but RAF effort to sink Battleship Tirpitz in Norway, and should we also included a articel of the "Brittish war" aginst Sweden als the bomber flew a much greater distance over Swedish territory than Finland? 6 bombers where lost, but nowhere does the sources support S-Bobbys captation that they was shotdown over Finland.(Its more likelly they wanished over the sea --Posse72 (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Except, perhaps, for the adjectives you use to categorise your fellow editors, all of the questions and concerns you pose immediately above are legitimate - since they concern past and future edits. Please ask someone you trust to translate WP:CIVIL for you, Posse72. Thanks for taking my concerns seriously.  A l i c e  ✉ 19:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User BScar23625 on continuation war!
My relation to continuation war is the same as most Karelians, it was an oppertunity to get back the stolen land. In my intresst for the subject i have read well over 100 book, seen film, read newspapper atricles. So im am no novice to the subject. The conflict concernse me personally because our familly lost its home, put a prospering and well respected familly in to misery, and killed sevral familly members. An familly member visited our house durning the 90s and was shooked to see that the "new owners" hade dismanteled the houses and sent it to Russia, and worst of all, the have demolished the graveyard where my greatgrandpaa is buried, and used the grave stones to build roads with. (And our familly did at that time share the greek ortodhox belife)

Me and Illythr doesnot share the same view, but ill can respect his view thou he hade read about the conflict, and present the Russian view of the matters.Illythr both proves sources and and a wider picture.

That more that one can say about Bobby, he has for a great while now running an own agenda very simller to a "Stalin appologist" one. Out rages claim like comperaing Finland with Rhodesia (Witch is redicules as Finland was the first contry in Europe with "universal suffraget" making it trully the first with one wo(men) one vote ), and uselly without any source. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, meaning that we should prove our claims with sources. Well Bobby have admited that he dont have read even ONE book about the subject.

As this RAF articel that Bobby put inb the article he claims that it was some sort of intervention aginst Finland. The RAF squadron was there to secure the convoys, not to attack Finland. When the two countries finaly went to war the Squadron was removed. Ill can prov this by sources.

Also we see how Bobbys own research. If he had bother to read anything about the event he would know that the meating was donr on Mannerheims 75th Birthday, Mannerheim was irritaded ower it, Hitler did not make any atempts to make Finland more active in the war. By puting a picture as Bobby does with the captation of "Planing strategy" he forge the history and and deminish the accuracy of Wikipedia.--Posse72 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think that Bob's agenda is as you describe, but even if it were, the way to counter it is to persuade your fellow editors of the merits and de-merits of his edits rather than to attack him personally. Thank you for adding a balancing viewpoint and I concur that it can be difficult not to give undue weight sometimes to an American/British viewpoint due to the greater availability of sources emanating from those two English speaking countries.  A l i c e  ✉ 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * His sloppy use of sources and statment without any source, shows that his intresst in editing this article is not to focus on the historical events as much as making politics out of it. Ant there is only one political view who defends Stalinism, and is not exactly the Tory view.--Posse72 (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bobbys past editis shows perfectlly where he stand political. That has a certaint impact in your edits if your see history trough Marxist eyes. S-B editings in this article can best be described as Soviet appologist revisionism.--Posse72 (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Posse: Bob's political views will not affect the contents of this article. Your political views will not affect this article. What affects are facts, sourced facts. So please stop blaiming persons and get back to sourcing and editing the contents of the article! --Whiskey (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish measures taken in Finland
The article says "The Finns did not take any anti-Jewish measures in Finland, despite repeated requests from Nazi Germany." according to source #14, but source #13 says that few jews were given to Gestapo and atleast some of them were sent to Auschwitz. Also apparently few thousand PoWs were extradited to Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.226.119 (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is probably somewhat badly written. Finland did not engage in persecution or discrimination of her Jewish citizens during the war. They lead lives akin to everyone else in Finland. The German Jewish refugees were a somewhat different story. The refugees were interned and eight of them were indeed sent back to Germany, following an extradition request based on criminal charges. Although legal forms were followed, this case gave rise to such political furor, that Finnish authorities refrained from further extraditions, regardless of German requests. The PoWs were another story. Finland exchanged with Germany some 2,500 Russian PoWs for 2,000 PoWs of Ingrian or other Fennic origin. Among the exchanged, there seems to have been some 50 Jews, who most likely perished in Germany. Both cases are detailed in the article. --MPorciusCato (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Primitive warfare
Posse72. You write :

''... the primitiv warfare of eastern cultures, and phenomen as mass rape and child murder seen recently in Balkans and chechnya. During the winterwar in the very few occations where Finnish civilians where cought by the Red Army there are ... horrible accounts of Finnish women murded by as stck beeing drow th there genitsals.''

This is terrible!. Do you feel that the problem was caused by (a) the undeveloped nature of Slav societies, or (b) the nature of communism?. Or, is it possible that (a) and (b) are related in some way?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bob: I'm not entirely convinced that either your own or Posse72's political belief systems are of overwhelming importance in the great scheme of things. As Whiskey alludes to above, (and Posse72 continually requests) it is sources that are important in producing a better article.
 * Posse72: I have reverted your addition of tags to Bob's comments. Please do not change another editor's comments without very good reason.  A l i c e  ✉ 00:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice. Rebuke accepted. I have banned myself from editing this article and its associated discussion page for 56 days - unless I am unreasonably provoked. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * -Self-criticism?--Posse72 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if it came over as a rebuke, Bob. It was intended to be a reminder that things might be a bit less heated if we discussed the merits of various sources rather than soapboxed our own political viewpoints.
 * I'm not an admin (as you know) and your self imposed penalty is much harsher than is warranted - unless, of course, you fancy a little break from the "Continuation War" (feeble grin).  A l i c e  ✉ 08:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bob, I wish you won't do that, as it would freeze the British participation issue for that time. I'd like to see some kind of resolution to the issue, maybe a separate article could be best solution, maybe not, but it is an issue which is not very widely discussed in books so it is important to have it here. --Whiskey (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Finnish POWs
I added Finnish POW's to the infobox, using []. In dealing with World War II, this book is a modern study of declassified Soviet archives of the period. It is probably one of the most authorative sources on data about axis POW's in Soviet captivity. The 2,377 number, however, might exclude those soldiers who were captured, but didn't arrive to POW camps. What do Finnish sources say about this matter? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Finnish sources estimate the number of Finnish POWs to be 3,400–3,500. Naturally some of the POWs died of their wounds (or of exhaustion) before arriving in the camps, but some of the discrepancy results from the prisoners executed during or shortly after the capture. Especially the partisan units could not transfer prisoners to higher echelons. --MPorciusCato (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So which one should go to the infobox? The same applies to Soviet POW losses - we should be comparing same categories. Perhaps, we should make a small subsection dealing with the fate of Finnish POWs in Soviet captivity? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Another Russian atrociti over 1000 Finnish soldiers that vanished!--Posse72 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger: Advance in Northern Finland/Operation Silver Fox.
This proposal was made on 18 June 2007, but there doesn’t seem much enthusiasm for it; I can’t find any opinion anywhere about it.

I am removing the Merge proposal here, and there.

I would be opposed to a merger, particularly from here to there; The advance in Northern Finland was bigger than Silver Fox, (which was just the German operation in that theatre), and covered a longer time period.

Also, the Advance… section deals with Finnish actions, in the context of their Continuation War, whilst Silver Fox has the German context.

I am posting this message there also.

Xyl 54 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Silberfuchs was just one operation in the German warfare in Northern Finland. I oppose the merger. --MoRsE (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose new section :The nature of the Soviet warfare.
As we have seen from many reliable Finnish sources, the Soviet warfare was full with over brutal messurs, like childmurder, canibalism, murder of Finnish P.O.W., Soviet troop murders of Finnish wounded soldiers at a military hospital in Viipuri in 1944, murder of civilian, terror bombing campaign aimed at civilian targets, attack on on neutral Sweden, faked occations when Soviet solders pretended to give up in order to ambush etc. To be an objective article we need some information on this. --Posse72 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it needs to be mentioned clearly. The article Soviet war crimes deals with the subject more in depth )to varying degrees of detail and neutrality). --Stlemur (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if we need a sub-section about "the nature" of Soviet warfare. The deviations from the rules of war by the Soviets are mentioned all over the text (a bit too much if you ask me). Meanwhile, this article doesn't even have a section about Finnish participation in the Siege of Leningrad. I will post an outline soon; however, it seems strange to me that Finnish contributors didn't write anything about it. Also, to Posse - I'm still looking for Finnish military atrocities; when/if I find reliable sources - I will not hesitate to post. You, however, are yet to provide the source for that memoir that deals with Soviet partisans. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What ill will be adding to the"Naval warfare at Gulf of Finland"

 * Soviet whitdraw to khronstad
 * Sinking of the Ilmarinen
 * Evacuation of Hanko
 * Fight over Suursaari
 * Submarine campaign of 1942 swedish engegment (Swedish navy was fighting a antisubmarine campaign) and Soviet losses.
 * Naval avation campaign of 1943
 * The return of the Soviet navy in 1944 and the sinking of Niobe and gulf of Viipuri
 * Maybe something of Ahvenanmaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This would cover the most importent aspect of this campaign.

BTW does any of our Russian friends know how many destroyers the KBF hade 22.6.1941?--Posse72 (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And of curse sources!--Posse72 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommended umbrella article: Finnish invasion of the Soviet Union
Hello.

Could I recommend the creation of a Finnish invasion of the Soviet Union article which would cover all aspects of the Continuation War roughly anagolous with Barbarossa (June - December 1941)? It would be easier to read a coherent whole then each of the daughter articles presented. It would also help readers to guage relative importance of the various operations in comparison with each other (particularily since most of the initial battle/operation articles are missing numbers). Oberiko (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Finnish Wikipedia has the proposed article. The term used for this phase of the war is called in Finnish Jatkosodan hyökkäysvaihe, lit. English Offensive Phase of the Continuation War. Such umbrella article would be a good idea. However, the name you use may violate NPOV, as it implies a moral judgement against the Finnish offensive. For this reason, I suggest the name Finnish offensive of 1941. --MPorciusCato (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think invasion is a word denoting morality (i.e. Invasion of Normandy in 1944 etc.), but I have no problem with proposed Finnish offensive of 1941 since it's still accurate. Oberiko (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think invasion is a better word, since it describes the situation more exactly than the more universal offensive. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Framework
This article is pretty tough to read as it jumps around alot. Can I recommend the following framework?


 * Background
 * Course of the War
 * Finnish offensive of 1941
 * Two and a half years stalemate
 * Soviet mid-1944 offensive
 * September 1944 armistice
 * Aftermath
 * Analysis

Oberiko (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the current article does follow this structure (more or less), except it has an additional "Aims of the war" section and lacks condensed aftermath and analysis sections, which are spread all over its body. Might be a good idea to reform it, although I foresee some heated debate over the last section... :-) --Illythr (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I found it kind of hopped around and has far more sectional headings then needed for an article written in summary style. The analysis might have debates, but since everything has to be factual (i.e. "Finland produced X number of tanks and committed Y number of soldiers" or "according to historian Q such-and-such was of critical importance to event Z" etc.) it shouldn't be to bad. Oberiko (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be too bad, but it is surprisingly difficult. Do you realize the amount of material that has been written on the aims of this war and on Finno-German relationship? Finnish historians, mainly writing in Finnish, have adopted about every conceivable standpoint, not to mention Finnish politicians. This is a subject of very lively contemporary discussion. --MPorciusCato (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All the more reason to include it. Something like "most Finnish historians take the following view points X, Y and Z; this is contrasted by Soviet / Russian historians who tend to have the opinions A, B and C".  Oberiko (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it a good idea, as it moves the most debated parts of the article to the single chapter. It also forces to tighten the article and improve the "main"-articles. Also, I like to propose merging the armstice and aftermath sections, as they provide a lot of intertwined topics. And I do find it important to separate in background section what happened before and after the Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact. --Whiskey (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The reorganization isnt smart, in the beginig we can read that the where Finnish voulentes in waffen SS, but nothing about the germany offring Mannerheim the command of over 200 000 prio to Barbarossa. Witch event hade the biggest impact?--Posse72 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. What's the problem exactly?  You're concerned that the proposed framework won't be able to include a transfer of soliders to Mannerheim's command? Oberiko (talk)

Name
I'm not sure the Russian name should be present here, since, as the second paragraph of the article states, this war is not known in Russia under that name. In fact, there's no particular name for it, the warfare in those areas is usually referred to as "Leningrad front" and "Karelian front" of the Great Patriotic war. The name in Russian is merely a translation of the Finnish one. --Illythr (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh, I just actually had an edit conflict with myself! Incredible... --Illythr (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

New articles likely warranted
After reading all the comments here, I'm thinking you guys could probably do with a few other articles to spread some of the content around. May I suggest the following?


 * Finnish-German relations (1933 – 1945)
 * Finnish-Soviet relations (Would likely absorb most of this)
 * Foreign military involvement in Soviet-Finnish wars (1939 – 1945) (Primarily focused on non-major combatants, such as Italy and the United Kingdom)

Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first two, just for reasons of size -- the political interactions of Finland during the whole period from independence to the end of World War II is pretty intricate. With regard to the final one, though, this plows right into the question of whether and how to divide the Finnish-Soviet parts of the war from the Finnish-German parts from the German-Soviety parts etc etc...I think it's better to keep it in one place, as the allies and German-aligned states were acting in two distinct camps, and avoid the risk of content forking at the same time. --Stlemur (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For that last one, I don't intend that it should be a large foreign affairs article (as by the title, it's restricted to only military related matters), more of a place for the actions of the British, Italians and Swedish volunteers; things that were quite minor in the course of each of the Finnish wars.


 * As I read from above, it looks like the insertion of quite a bit of material on the British involvement (which was very minor in comparison to the involvement of the Finns and Soviets in this conflict) was debated as being out of place (or at least, proportionally exaggerated). IMO, the British role (and Italian, Swedish etc.), as listed on this page, should be one or two sentances ("declared war on X, actions restricted to Y and Z") while the other page could go into considerably more detail without disrupting the flow or seeming out of scope. Oberiko (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have said it all a long that the section of the British involment is far out of propotion, and as 100% of the litrature says it was a importent asset in supporting the murmansk convoys, and not as it say here a brittish way of waveing war aginst Finland. That section perfectlly fits in to its own article.--Posse72 (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Result
Looks like the results are under contention. May I suggest we go for "Soviet victory"? The other Allies had very little role in the Continuation War. Oberiko (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (You beat me to it!) Xyl 54 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

“Gentlemen, you can’t fight here, this is the war room!”

Is there any room for agreement, here?

The result previously said “Moscow Armistice” and Posse72, Lysy and Kurt Leyman want it to stay that way

Other proposals are “Allied Victory” from Mixer and MPorcius Cato, And “Soviet Victory” from Nirvana77, (have I missed anyone out?)

I suggest it can’t stay as “Moscow Armistice”; that isn’t a result, really. The First World War ended, technically, with an armistice, but it was seen as, and is recorded as, a victory by the then allies.

If the sticking point is whether it was the Allies who won, then yes, Finland wasn’t at war with all the allies (America, for example); but she was at war with some of them, Britain and the USSR. So “Allied victory” isn’t inaccurate.

If the contention of this page is that Finland was fighting a separate war, for her own ends, against the Soviet Union, then the result is “Soviet Victory”; the Moscow armistice page is clear that ther was nothing in for Finland except for the Russians to stop fighting them.

So, what’s it to be? Comments?

Xyl 54 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Battle of Midway is recorded as an "American" victory because they were predominant Ally in that engagement. Most conflicts with the Japanese are recorded as "Japanese" victories or defeats, because they rarely acted in concert with other powers.  "Soviet" is the most accurate here, IMO, as they were responsible for 90%+ of winning the Continuation War. Oberiko (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I propose a freeze on editing the "result" part of the infobox until a thorough discussion's been had? At the moment it just looks like a three-way revert party. --Stlemur (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I would support Soviet victory. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The point I was trying to make was that "Moscow Armistice" isn't a result. Too bad that Finnish people largely have that kind of myth in their heads (blame government's propaganda) that Finland's Continuation War was some kind of separate war from WW2 (even though they were close allies with Germany) and that Finland didn't lose, but instead pull out a "repel victory". Over the years, I tried many times to change it, but there are simply too many Finnish people on Internet willing to share their opinions. That's why that line was always changed regardless of what I wrote there (as you can see the same thing goes with Talvisota). I'm OK with both "Soviet victory" and "Allied victory". The former is also OK because Continuation War was part of a greater war scene and it doesn't matter did every Allied country participated in it. France didn't fought against Japan, but it's still thought that the Allies won.mixer (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please extend your statement about the winterwar. --Posse72 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsens! If Finland was a close allied with Nazi-Germany, why have no document of this alliance been found? Why did Finland not captuered Leningrad or the Murmansk railwayline as it would have been very easy for them to do in late summer of 1941? The Finnish continuation war has all the hallmarks of a seperatewar, and co-belligerent is aknowledge under international law. Just bacause the war started 25th of June 1941, does not make the event before the war unimportent.Stalinist-Soviet appologist may cryout that they where victims, no recognizing the fact that they helped creating the monster in signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. It was out of this reality Finland acted, beetwen the two greatest eviles Europe ever before have seen. Soviet had a clear agende after the winterwar trying to finnaly occupie Finland, while Nazi-germany respected Finlands internal politics, and did not interfere. So dont try to use your childis Putin retoric, pls.--Posse72 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Why did Finland not captuered Leningrad or the Murmansk railwayline as it would have been very easy for them to do in late summer of 1941?" Because they couldn't. Cutting the Murmansk railway was one of the Finnish goals of the war, was it not? As for Leningrad, while Finland didn't have the resources to take such a large and heavily defended city, the Finns did help their German allies starve up to a million Leningraders, regardless of whether Finland was an ally or a co-belligerent of the Third Reich. Ko Soi IX (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We're drifting from the topic of discussion, which is: What was the outcome of the Continuation War? --Stlemur (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Slightly off-topic, but the Asian theatre of WWII is a different story; we have to say "Allied" due to the significant contribution of the Chinese and Commonwealth nations. The Continuation War (and the Soviet-German War in general) was mostly won by the Soviets (barring material support like lend-lease).


 * It also appears that we're getting off-track here. How about Soviet Union and allies victory with the 'allies' being a link to Western Allied support to the Soviet Union during World War II (an article we could probably do with regardless)? Oberiko (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I support such a proposal. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because Finlands war goals was not the same as Nazigermany, US and UK admited that. As stated before supported by Finnish and western military historians Finland would have without any problems capatured the city of Leningrad, if they hade decided in September 1941, pls dont spreed unsuported russian urbans legend here. ALSO modern western hisorians as Max Hasting and Norman Davies make a destinct diffrence beetwen the Soviet and the western allies, where Finland wargoals did not collied with the one of the western allies. Futher dont forget that Soviet made a serious atempt to capture Finland as late as the summer of 1944, witch failed misserbly resulting in the dececive Finnish victories in Tienhaara, Bay of Viipuri, Tali-Ihantala, Vousalmi, Netijärvi and Ilomatsi.So the Soviet failed in conquering Finland how can we call this a Soviet victory?????--Posse72 (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when total conquest is nessesary for victory? Ko Soi IX (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that was what it was all about, an denial uncomfortable for Soviet appoligist, for exampel Finland asked for peaceterms in the late fall of 1943, and got harder terms than in the actual peace 1944 clearlly showing Soviet hade no wish for separte peace. Also Govorov told his troops before the Soviet 1944 offensive that Viipuri will be captured 2 weeks after the offensive and Helsinki after a month. + This intriging document found in the archives of the Russian forign department.dated 23rd of June 1944 one day before the failed Soviet offensive begun in Tali-Ihantala! saying:

''The Finnish Government and the Supreme Command of the Defence Forces acknowledge the complete defeat of the Finnish Armed Forces in the war against the U.S.S.R. and announce the unconditional surrender of Finland, requesting the cessation of acts of war. The Government of the U.S.S.R. agrees to formulate the terms, on which it is ready to halt the acts of war against Finland, because the Finnish Government and the Supreme Command of the Defence Forces fully accept the demands of the Government of the U.S.S.R., and because they commit themselves into abstaining from preventing acts of war by the Allied against Germany and other Axis powers. On the basis of the above, the representatives of the Supreme Command of the Soviet Defence Forces (on one hand), and the representatives of the Finnish Government and the Supreme Command of the Finnish Defence Forces (on the other hand), all of whom have the required authorization, have undersigned the document below on the unconditional surrender of Finland :

''1. WAR TERMS

A. GENERAL WAR TERMS

1. Hereby the Finnish land, naval, and air forces, regardless of their location, surrender unconditionally.

2. The Finnish Government and Supreme Command cease acts of war against the Allied in all theatres of war on land, on sea and in the air after one hour from signing this document.

3. The Supreme Command of the Finnish Defence Forces will give without delay to the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces complete information on the locations, orders of battle and equipment of all the units of the Finnish land, air, and naval forces, wherever these are located, as well as the military units of its allies, located in Finnish territory, or co-operating with it.

4. The Supreme Command of the Finnish Defence Forces gives to the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces complete information on the location of mines, mined obstacles, and other obstacles of movement prepared by the Finnish Armed Forces or it allies on land, on sea, and in the air, including mined obstacles in the Baltic Sea, the Barents Sea, Lake Ladoga, and Lake Onega as well as other waterways. The clearing of mines and removal of obstacles will be carried out by the Finnish land and naval forces under the supervision of and in the order and schedule as ordered by the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces.

5. As this document takes effect, the Finnish Government and the Supreme Command of the Finnish Defence Forces commit themselves without delay in calling to Finland all Finnish troops on other fronts and in disarming them.

6. The German military compounds and units operating in Finnish territory must immediately be disarmed and interned. The staff in command of these troops and the whole personnel of German headquarters must be detained. The Finnish Government and the Supreme Command of the Finnish Defence Forces will give all possible assistance to the Supreme Command of the Soviet Defence Forces in the disarming of these military troops. In this context must be taken into account the possibility of Finnish Armed Forces participating in the disarming of German military troops on the demand of the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces. The representatives of the Supreme Command of the German Military Forces at Finnish headquarters and military units must be immediately arrested and handed over to the Supreme Command of the Soviet Defence Forces. The Finnish Government and the Supreme Command of the Finnish Defence Forces will forbid transportations of German military troops through Finnish territory and provision of weapons, equipment, and all other supplies to German military troops, and their local supplying.

7. The Supreme Command of the Finnish Defence Forces will carry out the disarming of all Finnish land, air, and naval forces according to the orders, schedule, and sequence given by the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces, under its supervision.

8. Since the moment of signing this document until when the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces has taken under its control all communications connections in Finland, all radio broadcasts in Finnish territory are forbidden, and Finnish telegraph, telephone, and radio connections to other countries will be cut off.

9. The Finnish Government and the Supreme Command of the Finnish Defence Forces will secure the transportations of military troops of the U.S.S.R. in Finnish territory by rail and by other means of transportation and the needed supplies to the troops.

10. To fulfil the terms of surrender and to secure the interests of the U.S.S.R., the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces – by its own military forces and at its own discretion – will occupy partially or fully the territory of Finland, her harbours, the archipelago of Åland, and the islands of the Gulf of Finland. The Government of the U.S.S.R. will make use of all the rights of an occupying power in the occupied territories of Finland. The Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces will publish its own orders and directives. The Finnish Government and the Finnish people will by all means try to contribute to the execution of these orders and directives. To serve this aim, the Finnish Government will without delay give an order to all the authorities of the central and local government, to the judicial system, public organisations, and all civil servants to remain in their previous positions, to obey orders unconditionally, and to carry out their duties conscientiously, until the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces gives its directives.

11. In the occupied territories of Finland the maintenance of order and peace will be the responsibility of the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces. In the unoccupied Finnish territories the above will be the responsibility of the Finnish Government.

12. The Finnish Government will commit itself to carrying out such legislative and other measures, as deemed necessary by the Supreme Command of the Soviet Military Forces in fulfilling the terms of this document.

13. The Finnish Government will cover all expenses of the occupation.

Unfortunatly things didnot go the Soviet way.--Posse72 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Soviet Union did force Finland to switch allegance; even though Finland wasn't conquered, the outcome of this war was Soviet victory - not unlike how the Battle of Borodino was a French victory, despite Napoleon's failure to destroy the Russian army. Ko Soi IX (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, "Suck!" Thinn argumentation supported by nothing....Soviet could have got that allready in the winter 1943/1944 as Paasikivi went to Moscow to ask for Soviet peaceterms. This clearlly show that Soviet goals on Finland did not just stopped by "to switch allegance". I and first of all Finland was figthing a Seperate war from the one of Nazigermany, clearlly showed by the halt of the Finnish army in the fall of 1941. Finnish army was the victorius one after the summer of 1944 battles. Dont try this cheap tricks.--Posse72 (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite your rudness and over-reliance on demagougery, I'll still reply. What would you suggest to be put as the result, Finnish victory? Stalemate? Ko Soi IX (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Stalemate military, perhaps Finnish political defeat as the situation forced Finland tyo bow to some certain Soviet demands in the Moscow peace treaty. Thou this MUST incloud that the Finnish arms prevent the worst of all FInnish fates a Soviet created Finnish democratic pepoles republic, dont for get that the FInnish army still after the war concentrated to defend its eastern borders, as for today!--Posse72 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Military stalemate and Moscow armistice" sounds fair to me; that covers the military and political halves of it without getting into the argument about whether the war was a Finnish or Soviet strategic victory. Which historians call it a military stalemate, which call it a Soviet vicory, and which call it a Finnish victory? --20:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stlemur (talk • contribs)


 * Norman Davies say on page 121 in No simpel Victory "Finland successfully negotiated an armistice in September. The Finnish historian Henrik Meinander states as Stlemur Stelmate followed by armistic and "Saved Finnish indepedence".The old Finnsih-jewish top diplomat and war-veteran Max Jacobson call this a Finnish "repel victory". The Finnish Historian Kai Brunilla and his co-wrigther end his Swedish langue 3-band work FInland in war 1939-1945 with: The thing that saved Finnish democracy was that the Soviet failed to occupy the contry.


 * Military slatemate?! You are talking nonsense as usual! Continuation War was a Soviet victory, although is wasn't an "unconditional victory". It had conditions (like Finland keeping its independence), but it was victory nevertheless. Unconditional victories are very rare. Saying that USSR didn't win in Continuation war is the same as saying that Japan didn't lost the WW2 (because it has conditions) and that there were no winners in WW1! -- mixer (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As anyone who can read its obvious that it wasnt a Soviet military victory, the Soviet offensive was beaten the summer of 1944 on all those places named (Tienhaara, Bay of Viipuri, Tali-Ihantala, Vousalmi, Netijärvi and Ilomatsi)You can check them out on wikipedia), as for your comparsion with Japan they surrenderd uncontidionally, that was not the case with Finland. Soo ill wonder who is actually talking nonsens .--Posse72 (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So which sources argue that it was a Soviet military victory, and do they say it was strategic or tactical? --Stlemur (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This the following from a quick Google Book search:
 * 1941-1944 The Soviet Union defeated Finland in the Continuation War. - The World Book Encyclopedia - Page 117
 * Nonetheless, for all the military prowess and daring of the Finns, sheer superiority in terms of numbers and military equipment gave ultimate victory to the Russians. Only with the greatest reluctance did President Kallio finally consent to submit to the draconian conditions of peace laid down by Moscow. - Helsinki: A Cultural and Literary History  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 03:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm president Kalio was president during the Winterwar 1939-1940 he died of a stroke the fall 1940, he was replaced by pressident Ryti who in order to make way for peace resigned to Mannerheim the summer of 1944.


 * Yes that source you proved is about the Winterwar, where that statement is true, regarding the continuation war the Finnish army was stronger in Tanks, Antitank weapons after the battles of the summer of 1944 than before, the Finnish airforce was much stronger and hade effectivlly challaged the the Soviet superiorty in the air. The Finnish tactic had improved alot, so Finland was far from being military defted the summer of 1944.--Posse72 (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the problem from a Russo-Soviet view was that Soviet hade Suffered casulties (in wonded and dead) at the same size as 30 redarmy division, and the summer offensive of 1944 had been stopped in all those places named above, in order to renew the offensive the Soviet Leningradfront and Karelianfront (or what you called it) needed new manpower to fil up the loses, that Stalin did not do (probebly) because he could not spear that amount in order to get to Berlin before the western allies. So havent the FInnish army defeted the Soviet offensive, i would probly sit in siberia and shared the same view as you.--Posse72 (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess we are getting closer here. I think that all agree, that the result wasn't a Soviet victory like Soviet achieved against Germany, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia. Right? Also, I guess also Posse agree, that Soviet Union was in a stronger position vis-a-vis Finland after the war as it was before. Correct? By referring both Tomas Ries ("Cold Will") and Max Jacobsson, also Finland exited from the war in a stronger position vis-a-vis Soviet Union as it was before the war. We should also remember, that Great Britain exited the war in much weaker position relative to other countries than it was before the war. It is clear by the text of the peace treaties, that Soviet Union won the war, but naturally, that is not the whole story... --Whiskey (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's a matter of definition. In a "traditional" sense, Finland lost the war as she was forced to ask for peace. In the special WWII sense, however, the Soviets did not win. The war was total, but the result was not an unconditional surrender. In all other cases, the war ended with the occupation of enemy territory and installation of a new government. In Finland, these did not take place. --MPorciusCato (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not keen on making to many special exceptions, besides Germany and Japan, every Axis Power (and Axis co-belligerent) had different, conditional circumstances for their exiting the war. If we start playing with definitions to much, then nations like Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary etc., didn't "lose" the war.  I doubt this strictly applies to WWII either, I'd imagine similar instances happened in other "epic" conflicts such as WWI and the Napoleonic Wars.
 * The infobox isn't a place to explain the intricities of defeat or victory, it's basically a few quick words to give the broad overview. It basically comes down to three options:
 * Soviet / Allied victory
 * Stalemate / Status quo ante bellum
 * Finnish victory
 * I think we can all agree that the last is most definitely not true. With Finland having to cede roughly 12% of its territory to the Soviets and agree to Soviet conditions (such as expelling the Germans from their territory), it can't be the second either.  Now, I don't think anyone is arguing it was a total or decisive Soviet victory, but it was a Soviet victory (at least a minor one) nonetheless.
 * Maybe the Finns were in a stronger individual position in 1944 then in 1941, but they were most definitely in a weaker overall strategic position; the Germans were clearly going to lose the war and without them, how long could Finland have really held up alone against the Soviet Union (not to mention potential involvement by the U.K.)?
 * It was basically a deal for both sides: Finland was spared being occupied, and the Soviets were able to concentrate on more important things, like advancing west as fast as possible.
 * So, what about the following: Soviet and allies victory; armistice? That way we not only show who won the war, but also the conditions of it ending (armistice instead of (un)conditional surrender). Oberiko (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As many Finnish schoolars as Max Jocobsson put it, the fight was for Finnish democracy and Finnish independence, who was serious treathende as late as the summer of 44 in thiere view the war was a Finnish victory as Finland didnot ended up as a the Balticstates or East Europe with a communist goverment. To put it as a an allied victory would that mean that UK was aginst Finnish democracy? Military Finland was never beaten. The results of this war narrows down in what view you have of this war, If you think it was just a plain stupid Finnish agresion in witch the Soviet/Russia hade no blame in (and they where the victems) of curse it was a Finnish defeat. If you see it as a long determent policey streatching from 1917 in order to regain former Tsar-Russian land where Finland was the consider the backyard of mother Russia where Finnish parlamentarian democracy next to Leningrad was threat to comunist, and aknowledge that the main goal for the Soviet was to destroy the Finnish state as we know it, this is very well a Finnish victory. --Posse72 (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not looking at the long term; we're only interested in the Continuation War, from 1941-1944. Every war (heck, every event) has the huge background of everything that happened before it; to start qualifying it in terms of things that happened previously gets messy very quickly.
 * I very much doubt that the war was started to preserve democracy or independance, the whole point of the 1941 offensive was to reclaim land lost in the Winter War. Why the Finns / Soviets attacked is for the article to explore, not the infobox.


 * The Soviet started the first act of war in this war, the 25th of june 1941 when they bombed Finnish cities.--Posse72 (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose for the U.K. to be there (as "allies") because they were involved, albeit in a relatively small capacity. There's no arguing against their declaring war on Finland and supporting the Soviets in this conflict.  Again, why they did is not for the infobox, but the main (or related) article.
 * Militarily, alot of countries weren't decisivly beaten; that doesn't mean they didn't lose the conflict or their opponents didn't win. Italy signed an armistice as soon as the Allies landed on the mainland, switching over to the Allied side, this means they won?  Of course not.
 * Finland lost territory. As a result of the war, they were worse off then before it started.  They gained nothing.  You're basically trying to argue that because they didn't lose as much as they could have lost, that they won.  In that case, almost every loss could be portrayed as a victory.  The Japanese people weren't all slaughtered (as their government told them they would be) when the Allies won the Pacific War; Victory! Oberiko (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here you miss the whole point, Finland got its indepedence and soviergnity secured after this war, that was not the case from 1939 until the armestic 1944.--Posse72 (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * They gained indepedence secured and lasting (1944-1991)regulatiopn on relation with USSR.
 * Your exampel with Japan and Italy is not valid, the situation was that Soviet with its supeority tried to conquer Finland once more, and failed. If you try to conquer something and fail, how can you call it a victory? And I want to stress out that this is the View from sevral schoolars in Finland Max Jacobson, Harry Järv etc. Its forexampel seen as the Finnish military victories the summer of 1944 made Soviet dropp the idea of annextion/occpation and to seeak an armestic. Maybe you dont have lived in a real democracy yet, so you dont have learned to preciate it?--Posse72 (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Continuation War being started by Soviet aggression (and Soviet aggression alone) with the goal of annexing Finland is far from a universal opinion, and totally discounts Finland's allowing Germany to utilize their bases and transport troops across the country. Applicable to the Winter War, yes, but this is a seperate conflict.


 * Seperate conflict? So why it bear the namn continuation war? (not accepted by russian nationalist) From a Finnish point of view its the same war in two ronds. And do you know any western books preferbly in english(Non Finnish) about this conflict who take a deep look? If you do know pleas let me know, alway this conflict is mentioned brife in books about the easternfront without any basic understanding of the Finnish-Russo conflict. My advice to you is to read John Lukac and Norman Davies, they doesint either go down in depth over this war, but certaintly does not grind down to the simpel conclusion that this was just a matter of Finnish aggresion. just seven month prio the war Molotov asked Hitler in Berlin to start war aginst Finland again so to say that USSR hade no intrest in Finland prio to war is pure ignorance--Posse72 (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time of the Continuation War, the Soviets weren't interested in conquering Finland, they were far more pre-occupied with their war against Germany. Arguing that the Finns gained independence would be implying that they didn't have it before the war started, which they did. The Soviets may have settled with Finland due to the Finnish halting of the Fourth Strategic Offensive, but it was because it was simply not worth the costs to pursue the offensive when they had bigger issues to worry about. Would you argue that Japan won the 1939 Border War with the Soviets because it went to armistice? The Soviets, again, simply settled (on terms agreeable to them) because there were other issues that demanded more attention (such as the partitioning of Poland).
 * The Finns won because the Soviets didn't get everything they wanted? So, does that mean that Finland wanted to lose 12% of their territory?
 * Both Germany and Japan gained democracy and powerful economies, in many ways, as a result of World War II, does that mean they won? The United Kingdom lost most of its Empire as a result of World War II, does that mean they lost?
 * There are different scales of victory. It's like you're arguing that anything less then a total, 100%, burned-to-the-ground-and-the-Earth-salted loss is not a loss at all.  Oberiko (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ill understand that this is your personal point of view, and it has nothing to do with the article text, the fact is that many finnish historians and writters have slightlly diffrent view of the event, saying that Finland beat of yet another dirty russian attack that aimed to conquer Finland. What the goverment in germany was after the war is of no concern as they surelly was aint a democracy before the war, Finland was. In the contniuation war from start to end Finland did just losse Petsamo.--Posse72 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're arguing a biased fringe view of events. The fact that you refer to it as "another dirty russian attack" clearly shows you are far from holding a Neutral point of view on the issue. Oberiko (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I think saying Posse72 argues a biased fringe view is extremely mild. Sorry for not helping you in discussion, Oberiko, but this particular user pisses me off to the extent I don't think I can contribute anything constructive and/or in a civil matter. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The truth hurts. --Posse72 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, that's why you are in denial about Finnish participation in the Siege of Leningrad? Or perhaps that's why you removed Soviet civilian casualties from the infobox after I put them there? Ko Soi IX (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I dont meant Soviet propagand carried away to the next level of Russian chavunism unsupported by anything than obscur Russian nationalism, what I mean was the fact that unhealty selfpicture of Russian history does not acknowledge any of its own faults or crims aginst humanity. The war stared due to Russian/Soviet imperial ambition and it ended first when Soviet was ready to aknowlede Finland as aan sovereign stat. This is not only my opinion but also the opinion from Finnish and western historians as Max Jacobson and Norman Davies among sevral.--Posse72 (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you see, the problem is, you are not at all familiar with modern Russian historiography - because if you were, you wouldn't claim ridiculous things like that it doesn't acknowledge any, as you say, "faults" or "crimes". It does. So instead of crusading, study what you critisize to avoid looking foolish. Of course, than there also is the pop version of Russian historiography, which is often no more objective than most of the opinions you push, but again, not nessesarily white-washing Russian past, sometimes quite the opposite (that was especially common in early 1990s). But from my experience, lack of objectivity is the problem of virtually all pop histories, Finnish as well. Ko Soi IX (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So witch Finnish books have you read aboute the conflict? Acctually i have read quit many Russian books and im disgust over how much Soviet propaganda togther with Russian nationalism rule those suorces. Your whining over a alledge Finnish participation in the siege of Leningrad shows that very well. --Posse72 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And your constant denial about the undeniable fact about Finnish participation in that terrible siege illustrates the faults of Finnish pop-history. Basically, I don't see a reason to keep arguing with you. It's not just your rudness; the mechanical parrot-like behavior that you exhibit shows that there is no point for me to be wasting my time on your shite; the bias that you have against Russians casts serious doubts about your ability to contribute anything objective to wiki on this matter. Have a good day. Ko Soi IX (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahem! Don't blame Finnish history research. The vehemency of Posse is nowhere near the mainstream of Finnish historians.--Whiskey (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whiskey, you got me wrong. I'm not blaming Finnish history research at all. Many of the "facts" Posse mentions are clearly not derived from any research. But he must get them somewhere. I think it's rather natural to assume that Finnish historiography is not free from pretentious crap (Russian historiography surely isn't) - hence "pop-history". With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, so you guessing again! Its funny I thought you at least have read this some where, but its free fantasy. Why so many pepole have made up there mind about this conflict without any backing of sources, strange. And if you have any doubt about my sources, just prove me! For the moment its not me but you who lack credible sources. You and Mixers View of holly Russia/Soviet 3rd Rome without fault or blame etc clearlly show that you both running a Russian ultra nationalist agenda her and are very much POV lobbing. That proves that you both is in NO condition to contribut. For exampel i havent seen 1 inch of accepting Soviet blame or aggresion in this conflict, just denial and Soviet appologism! You have not yet mentioned even one of your sources. And frankly, its no pleasure arguing with a person so poisoned by USSR propaganda --Posse72 (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Posse, could you please stop insulting people! You start to sound just like N. Baryshnikov, only from the other side of the fence. To Ko Soi IX, Posse in fact does have his facts right, just as you do, and it is not the facts what are the problem, but the selection and interpretation of those facts. And that is where everything goes overboard. Posse, frankly, your undiplomatic way to present issues and a habit to confuse facts and interpretations is doing a disservice to your point. I still think it is enough if we give just the facts and a few pointers for different interpretations here and leave it to the reader to make necessary interpretations. You can't beat the facts. And we should be polite in that! --Whiskey (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your right Whiskey, sounding like some N. Baryshnikov is not the way to go, so ill will withdrew from this discusion about the result of the war. Ill hope my counterparts at least find some decent source to back there arguments whit and that they not just follow popular myths and urban legends.--Posse72 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll
Just to get a quick straw poll here. List alternatives and which one(s) you support.

Options
 * Soviet Union and allies strategic victory; armistice
 * Soviet Union victory; armistice
 * Whiskey (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ko Soi IX (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * mixer (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oberiko (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Xyl 54 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Military stalemate; armistice


 * Finnish victory; armistice

Discussion

There's no need to artificially assign the result at all. Not every conflict has to have the winners. In this case both sides lost, and neither fulfilled its assumed goals. Davydoff (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Every conflict has intricities, and rarely are all goals fulfilled; stating both sides lost is over-complicating the siutation. The Finns ceded territory, had to legalize communist parties, expel all German forces, and had to pay war repirations; the Soviets, in return, stopped attacking.  Tell me, exactly how or what way did the Soviets lose?  Keep in mind there's a difference between "winning less then a total victory" and "losing". Oberiko (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As outside participation of this conflict was minimal - or better to be said nonexistent - by the Commonwealth countries, and as Finland wasn't at war with United States, I'd say it would be better to give whole credit to the Soviet Union. But how did Soviets lose? The first loss was already by getting totally unnecessary war at the north: There were a total of three occasions between the Winter War and the Continuation War when Soviets could have ensured Finnish neutrality, but by pursuing aggressive foreign policy managed to lose every one of them. The second loss was related to this, as they changed their foreign policy towards Finland quite radically as a result of the war. --Whiskey (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on the most of what you say Whiskey, thou some sources clearly interpret the war as a stalemate and that the Finns lost in the Peace agrement.--Posse72 (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll vote against just "Soviet victory", because it leads to the idea that the Soviet offensive was entirely successful, which is not accurate. Finland was not cleanly incorporated to the Eastern Bloc like elsewhere, where the Soviets actually had a victory. Rather, "Successful Soviet defence" or a variant - Finland was formally the attacker - would be more accurate. --Vuo (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I like to have this armstice qualifier in the result. Maybe it should be rotated to the form "Armistice; Soviet victory" --Whiskey (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Vuo, please add the option you wish to support and sign under it. We can't really vote against anything, but you can vote for something else. I would encourage against "Successful Soviet defence" though, as it is quite plausible to interpret that the Soviet Union (by its artillery bombardments) actually started the Continuation War. Oberiko (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is 10 pages long (38 kb); Is this make-our-minds-up time?

I would have gone for a simple “ soviet victory”; the Finnish success was in keeping it from “total soviet victory”. And it’s consistent with the view of this conflict being essentially between Finland and the USSR, which is implicit in the article.

However, if you think mentioning the armistice is important, then “Soviet Victory (Moscow Armistice)”. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage you to put your name under the option you like; if it turns the majority of us favour one particular one, then, really, the issue is mostly solved. I think you're right in that "Soviet victory" is the simpler choice, and sufficiently covers the situation (as oppossed to "Soviet Union and allies").  The "armistice" bit takes one word though, and puts a link to a page covering the conditions of said victory, something users could be interested in. Oberiko (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Can I suggest "Moscow Armistice", as opposed to "armistice", in the spirit of compromise? Though it doesn't matter if not. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, and I doubt anyone else does either. Since it looks like the vast bulk of us are in agreement, I'm going to go ahead and make the change. Oberiko (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had the energy to read through it all in detail, but considering the Soviets originally started all of this with their original unprovoked attack and did not wind up subjugating Finland as they did the Baltics (Finland having been offered the same terms of "mutual assistance" which they refused), I really can't see how from a practical basis this is a Soviet victory since they did not attain their original aim ("re-take" Finland, which had been a province of the tsarist empire). And to suggest "Soviet Union and allies" as victors implies that Stalin's original aggression was Allied-supported. —PētersV (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you do read it, as we addressed those points. For a start, the Continuation War is not the same as the Winter War.  Secondly, it's debatable who started the Continuation War, with valid arguments against the Finns as aggressors in their attempt to retake previously annexed territory. Oberiko (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A question about those Russian civilians who perished in Finnish camps
What does the phrase "During the last half of 1942 the number of detainees dropped quickly to 15,000" mean? Does it mean that the interned died? If so, how come the total toll is 4000-7000, not 9500? If not, than what happened to them? Basically, the wording is very inexact. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4000-5000 died, rest were released to their homes or to the villages considered safe from fighting and partisan infiltration attempts. One should note, that even during 1942-4 Finns detained a few thousend civilians more due to partisan activity, but it didn't increase the totals as at the same time people were released to the "safe" areas. --Whiskey (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We should include this in the article. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of operation
“…so Operation Kilpapurjehdus (Sail Race) was launched…”

“sail race “ is nice, and presumably an exact translation, but the English equivalent is probably "Regatta".

Anyway, I’ve seen this operation referred to as such, so I’ve changed it here, and on the other page as well.

Xyl 54 (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's ok. I don't think there exists established English name for this operation. --Whiskey (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll 2
Remove big parts of the UK involment to own article.


 * Let it stay
 * Remove parts to own article
 * Posse72 (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Stlemur (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whiskey (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

POV on the British Empire forces
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight this section gives to much weight to psuedo events!--Posse72 (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is done I who put the general POV mal on this article would have no problem too remove them both.--Posse72 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Posse72 makes a valid point. I'm in agreement. Oberiko (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also in agreement with Posse. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Allright, this question has been up for over a week, and no one is aginst the proposal, so Ill start moving the section of RAF to the RAF 151 Wing based at Murmansk article.--Posse72 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Finnish independence
''...furthermore the US did not declare war on Finland when they went to war with the Axis countries and, together with UK, pressed Stalin in the Tehran Conference to acknowledge Finnish independence. '' - eh, what's this? Did Soviet Union cease to recognize Finland at some stage of the war? --Illythr (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, What I have read from a Finnish book from 1980 + Max Jacobsson is that during the Moscow conference of the UK, US and USSR foreign ministers agreed on that seek nothing less than unconditional surrender from the countries from the axis-pact+ plus Finland was the responsibility of USSR. At the Tehran conference Churchill and Roosvelt approached Stalin and asked him not to annex Finland, he agreed, but said "Finland must be taught a lesson"

--Posse72 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in the link you provide, Stalin says himself that USSR won't annex Finland. And asked and pressed are two different things. Perhaps a minor rewording is in order... --Illythr (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes your right, Roosvelt never pressed Stalin on anything, this was a sloppy translation from me.--Posse72 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "pressed", have been changed to "approached".--Posse72 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Similarities between the UK and Finland
There seems to be great difficulties to understand the Finnish situation among English-speaking people who naturally have learned to see the WWII from the perspective of the allied. Every now and then I've seen somebody suggesting that the faith of theses countries during the war were quite similar: both countries were attacked by a dictator, both countries allied themselves with another dictator in order to fight the first one, and both countries, after a short more peaceful period, attacked the latter dictator trying to bring him down to his knees. Perhaps the biggest difference is that the UK succeeded in doing that. I don't know, perhaps this analogy would help to understand ... but then again it doesn't really sound "encyclopedic" enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.70.16 (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Determining perpetrators and winners, by Western view
Finns came out victorious from the battle fields of the Continuation War, but - after fire had seized - they agreed to some rather heavy concessions, to reach a solid peace.

Importantly - however -, Finland had succeeded in her goal to save her independence and sovereignty, by preventing the take-over attempts of USSR, launched by two massive attacks by the Red Army, one initiating the Winter War on November 30, 1939 - lasting until March 13, 1940 -, and another initiating the Continuation War on June 25, 1941 - lasting until September 19, 1944.

Out of all warring nations in Europe during WW2, west from USSR and besides England, Finland was the only one whose capital was never occupied during the entire World War. Furthermore, whereas all other European nations bordering USSR ended up either becoming part of it, or were forced into becoming it's satellites following WW2, Finland - despite of its longest border with USSR - continued as a sovereign democracy throughout WW2, and beyond.

USSR - on the other hand - fell far from its objective, conquering Finland, a goal set forth in Moscow on August 23, 1939, by signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between USSR and Germany. Two days before, Stalin had spelled out his plan to the Soviet State Duma.

To rescue Finland's second largest city from destruction, and to take the fighting to the nearby rural areas instead, the Finns had executed a strategic abandonment of Viipuri in just few hours' time on June 20, 1944, using delaying tactics. The day's fighting in Viipuri was brought to a halt by 16:40, leaving only 120 Finns dead or missing in action (Eeva Tammi, 8/2006).

Following the abandonment of Viipuri, all the war's final nine major battles were victorious for the Finns. Furthermore, ever since the start of the Continuation War, the Soviets had not been able to cross the preceding - 1940 - Finnish-Soviet border during the entire war, except for a short-lived moment in the very final major battle at Ilomantsi in 1944, where the Red Army suffered a devastating loss, when two of its divisions were fully decimated and shattered, as the Soviets were pushed back.

A narrow - but massive - Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus had been stopped earlier by the Finns in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. On other sectors, the Finns were on the Soviet soil when guns turned down at the war's end. Of the territory eventually ceded to USSR, the Red Army had won only a fraction in battles. Thus - from a military point of view -, Finland clearly came out a winner of the war.

Yet, if Finland were to be portrayed as an ally of Germany - an aim of the post-WW2 propagandist history interpretation of KGB -, Finland indeed could be viewed to at least have been on the losing side of WW2.

However, there never was an ally treaty or a pact signed between Finland and Germany. Although the two nations shared a common enemy, their objectives and strategies were very different.

Finns wanted to live, and to protect their sovereignty. In order to save themselves from the destiny of their Baltic neighbors, they knew there was no other choice - following the peace treaty of the Winter War - but to begin preparing themselves for another Soviet attack.

Another Soviet offensive was inevitable, unless the Finns were to surrender to all Soviet demands - and that would have meant disaster for Finland. Signs of a renewed Soviet attack were everywhere, as the Soviets had not paid much respect to promises disclosed in the end of the Winter War.

During the so called Interim Peace period - the short-lived truce between the Winter War and the Continuation War - the Soviets had lauched a campaign to manipulate the Finnish political decision making processes, including naming of the highest ranking Finnish government officials. What the Soviets had not been able to gain in the battles of the Winter War, they tried taking during the following truce, without firing a bullet.

At this point, the Soviet tactics also included numerous border violations against Finland. Additionally, the Soviets had began demanding control of strategically vital parts of Southern Finnish railroads, while - at the same time - the Red Army continued building up forces by the nations' border.

By now, all the Baltic nations and Norway and Denmark had become occupied by either the Germans or the Soviets. Even in theory, Germany now was the only place, from where the Finns could acquire material for their defense.

Reluctantly - left with no alternative -, the Finns now agreed to a minimum level of cooperation with the Nazis. However, the Nazis' key proposals for strategic cooperation were turned down by the Finns.

Besides not handing over any of the Finnish Jews to the Nazis (note: eight non-Finnish Jews seeking political asylum from Finland were turned down), the Finns refused to join Germany's - nearly successful - Siege of Leningrad, in one of the most critical operations of WW2.

Based on Mannerheim's orders, the Finns also held back from interrupting the Allied "lifeline" of help over Lake Ladoga, which delivered desperately needed supplies to the Soviet defenders of Leningrad. Furthermore - based on Mannerheim's orders -, the Finns freezed their counter-offensive to the level of River Syväri (Svir), a tributary to Lake Ladoga.

The Finns also held back from cutting down the Murmansk railroad near the Finnish-Soviet border, along which massive amounts of American materials were transported to the Soviets.

All this - and much more - was done on behalf of the Finns, not to interfere with the Allies' war against Germany, despite the fact that the Allied arms transported close by the Finnish border regularly ended up being used against the Finns themselves, not only against the Nazis.

In several ways, the Finns made an important contribution to the Allied war efforts against the Nazis. For the most part of the war, the Germans were engaged only to operations in Northern Finland, while - at the same time - the Finns themselves kept the Allied supply lines open in the South.

By not crossing the Finnish-Soviet border into Leningrad, and by allowing the Allied supply lines to operate freely by their borders, the Finns prohibited a full Nazi encirclement of the City of Leningrad - during over 900 days' siege, thus denying a huge stratecig and moral victory from the Nazis.

USSR's attempt to occupy Finland in the Winter War - starting in 1939 - had been pre-approved by Adolf Hitler, in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. On his visit to Berlin, November 12-13, 1940, the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov sought for a renewed Hitler's approval, this time for the continuation of the Winter War (to be named Continuation War by the contemporaries), a continued Soviet take-over campaign over Finland. Nevertheless, Hitler no longer approved.

During the following four years, it was up to the Finns themselves to show their own disapproval. By August 1944, it had finally been made clear to Joseph Stalin, that Finland could not be beaten militarily, and there would not be a Soviet occupation of Finland. The Finns had pushed the Red Army back behind their borders, and had held it there until the conditions for peace were to be negotiated and agreed upon.

On the critical Leningrad sector, however, the final battles had to be fought on the Finnish side of the pre-WW2 border - because the border ran along the outskirts of Leningrad, and because Mannerheim had given strict orders for the Finns to stay out of the city.

On June 17, 1944, before the anticipated summer offensive of the Red Army, the Finnish General K.L. Oesch - with Mannerheim's approval - made a final decision about the defensive line, where the Red Army would be stopped on the Leningrad sector.

Following the plan, - using delaying tactics - Finnish troops on this sector were withdrawn to the so called VKT- defensive line. Although the summer's Soviet offensive turned out to be extremely fierce, the VKT-line proved impenetrable for the Red Army, despite the unprecedented Soviet fire power which included an artillery bombardment in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala unlike never seen before in history.

Only after having suffered a loss in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala - not before -, the Soviets began pulling out the remains of their divisions from the Finnish front, to be joined with the Allied forces advancing towards Berlin.

Following the Continuation War - as a part of the Finnish-Soviet peace agreement -, Finns had a war against the Nazis next, who at this point had to be chased out of the Finnish Lapland (the Lapland War).

The Continuation War was a separate war from WW2. Therefore, its aftermath was dealt under an independent and conditional peace treaty, signed in 1944. The following year, the Nazis were forced into an unconditional surrender.

Unlike many Nazi leaders who received death penalties, Mannerheim had advanced to become the President of Finland on August 4, 1944, continuing in office until March 4, 1946 - 19 months after the ending of the Continuation War.

Finland had won - in only way a defensive struggle can be won - by a defensive victory.

C.G.E. Mannerheim, Adolf Ehrnrooth:
In his memoirs, Finland's Marshal Mannerheim emphasizes how Finland had prepared for a defensive campaign - not offensive -, prior to the Soviet opening attack of the Continuation War on June 25, 1941.

Because of this, rearranging the Finnish army to counter offensive formations to the north side of Lake Ladoga took total of three weeks - and another three weeks had to be spent to spread the counter offensive to the level of the city of Viipuri.

In his final interview - given to Pro Karelia on December 17, 2003 -, the famed Finnish General of Infantry Adolf Ehrnrooth discussed the outcome of the Finnish-Soviet wars, 1939-1944:

"I - having participated in both the Winter War and the Continuation War - can stress: I know well, how the wars ended on the battle fields. The Continuation War - in particular - ended in (Finland's) defensive victory, in the most important meaning of the term."

S.P. Platonov, Mauno Koivisto:
In the much praised Soviet book 'Bitva za Leningrad, 1941-1944' ("The Battle of Leningrad ...") - edited by the Soviet Lieutenant General S.P. Platonov, and published in the Soviet Union - the outcome of the 1944 massive Soviet summer offensive is revealed accurately:

"The repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and in repulsing all attacks of our troops ... During the offensive operations, lasting over three weeks - from June 21 to mid-July -, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them 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, in the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Finnish defensive victory in the crucial Battle of Ilomantsi, the very final attempt of the Soviet Union to crush the Finnish defences.

Koivisto - 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 (later a legendary US Green Beret under the name of 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 emphasized, but they "did not capitulate ... We succeeded in stopping the enemy cold at key points", the President continued, "and in the final battle at Ilomantsi even in pushing him back".

Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Boris Yeltsin:
The Cold War period history writing for schools of USSR was aimed at wiping out information about the Winter War, so that the causes for the Continuation War could be distorted.

The Finns were portrayed as the perpetrators, and the Continuation War (not called that in USSR) was tainted merely as a Nazi offensive against USSR. Nothing was said about the Soviets themselves launching the Continuation War by a massive air attack against Finnish cities, while Nazi targets were left alone. Nor was it mentioned, that the later Finnish operation was merely a counter offensive, to push the Soviets back.

The Soviet pupils were not told about the Finns having helped save Leningrad, or them having held short of interrupting the critical lifelines that brought help from the Allies to the Soviet people.

However - after the break-up of USSR -, President Boris Yeltsin became the first Russian leader ever to publicly admit that the Finnish-Soviet wars between 1939 and 1944 were triggered by Joseph Stalin's agressions.

In his memoirs, the post-WW2 Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev explains how the Soviet officials categorically "lied" to the Soviet citizens about the events leading up to the Finnish-Soviet wars, and about the casualties and the outcome of the wars.

However, in the Allied leaders' Tehran conference in 1943, Joseph Stalin correctly referred to the war efforts of the Finns as a "defensive" campaign. In 1948, in presence of high ranking Finnish government officials, he paid respect to the Finnish Armed Forces in Moscow:

"Nobody respects a nation with poor armed forces. Everyone respects a nation with good armed forces. I raise my toast to the Finnish Armed Forces !" ~ Joseph Stalin

WorldWars (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Kven! Back in business? Same old, I see? The KGB is still on guard around here, though. Try again in a few more years. --Illythr (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * WorldWars, I see that you want to NPOV this article by representing two different positions. That would be fine if you provided in-line citation supporting your text and "wikified" your text. If you do that, I would support your version. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're serious? :-) Take a look over there to see who you're willing to support. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Question on Russian Point of View
Why do Soviet and Russian historians see the Continuation War as part of the Great Patriotic War? Is it because they consider Finland to be in league with the Axis, or because their attack coincided with Germany's?

Also, if Russia accepted Finland's view that they were waging a separate war, would they still consider the fight against Finland to part of the Great Patriotic War? (Repdetect117 (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
 * The answer to this is already in the article, although perhaps a more consolidated description might be needed: from the immediate Soviet point of view (22.06.41-), Finland was freely cooperating with Germany, and its territory was used as a staging area by German forces. A general mobilization was declared in Finland and civilians were evacuated from the border regions shortly before Barbarossa began. Plus, there was that statement by Hitler that openly said that Finland is his ally. Further joint German-Finnish offensives, including Finnish participation in the siege of Leningrad (by blocking access to the city from the north and participating in raids on the Road of Life), further supported this perspective. --Illythr (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)