Talk:Finnish Democratic Republic

Puppet state
This article is in the scope of the WikiProject Former countries. Any historic political entity with its own article falls within scope of the project (or its sister project for subdivisions of former countries). This means that historical states, but also colonies, protectorates, client states, puppet states, satellite states, unrecognized states, provisional governments, governments-in-exile, etc. falls under its provisions including the infobox. Thus the infobox is not a question of either sovereignty or personal impression. Please feel welcome to join the project or address questions there. -- Domino theory 10:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This article concerns a puppet régime more than a puppet state. The so called state existed in area which at the moment, during the war, still belonged to Finland. Thus the Soviet Union had no legal right to declare it a state. It "controlled" quite a small territory which had practically zero inhabitans (the people living in the border region had been evacuated). The Soviet Union planned the Terijoki government to become the puppet régime of Finland, but this of course failed because the Soviets failed in occupying the country. Terijoki government would be a better name for the article because the relevant thing is the Soviet puppet régime. --88.114.252.193 13:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia calls it an unregognised Soviet puppet state on an occupied territory, I don't think it's saying it's more "legal". In fact, there are many articles which describe puppet states on occupied territories: Axis occupation of Greece during World War II, Independent State of Croatia and so on. Why I want the template? Because this article is listed as a part of the Soviet occupations, see the template here . It would be good if we have an article describing the occupation of Finnish Karelia. And the only period USSR occupied Finnish territories per definition, was 1939-1940, because it wasn't an occupation anymore when Finland had signed the Moscow Peace Treaty. Soviet Union also occupied parts of Finland in 1944-1945 (Petsamo), but this is the only article we can discuss the occupation. Finnish Democratic Republic had an own "army", currency and newspaper still. I know what you're saying, but adding this template won't turn the occupation any more legimate, it just makes it more clear that an occupation zone existed in Finland, in my opinion. So, do you have any problems if I add the template again and modify the text a bit to clarify few things? --Pudeo⺮ 21:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a few grammatical changes to the text to improve the clarity somewhat, but I was unsure at the intended meaning of the author in a couple instances. "The new agreement had few expections, as now the Soviet Union..." Is this supposed to be "expectations" or "exceptions"? As well, "The agreement was signed in Moscow, as ten days earlier draft, the signature location would be Käkisalmi and the Soviet signer Andrei Zhdanov." Does this mean the agreement was also drafted in Moscow? And how did they sign it in Moscow, but the signature location was in Käkisalmi? Some clarification would be great here. Thanks! --Jeff H. (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming et al.
Soviet Russia Today (Soviet propaganda arm based in New York) calls it the "Democratic Republic of Finland." That seems to have been the preference at the time (1935 to 1950 Ngram). The two appear to have settled into equivalent usage today, editorially I'd favor what it was called at the time as a tie-breaker. Also, the treaty of mutual assistance states it was made in two originals on December 2, 1939, however, to take effect upon signing; that signing appears to have been two days later on December 4. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a translation thing - "FDR" is word for word, whereas "DRF" is more 'English'. I'd personally prefer "FDR" due to the similarity with the German Democratic Republic, but won't oppose a rename either.
 * On the treaty - eh, where's the problem in the article text? --illythr (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On the potential rename, there's no particular rush, I'd like to see if we can get a bit more discussion on that. On the treaty the potential problem sentence is "Kuusinen and the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov signed the Mutual Assistance Agreement and a secret protocol on 2 December 1939." I don't have the source with me at the moment to quote directly, but according to the USSR's English-language source...
 * the document was drafted in two copies, Russian and Finnish, on December 2nd, this is indicated in the body of the agreement
 * the document is signed underneath (below the body of the agreement) by Kuusinen and Molotov, indicated in regular print, not an image
 * the date underneath the block of signatures—that would be the date signed—is shown in italic print and as being two days later, on December 4th.
 * At least with respect to itself (i.e., the USSR) in such matters, I'd expect Soviet Russia Today to be accurate. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This might be the date the article was printed, though, like here. One of the reasons secondary sources are better than primary ones. --illythr (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can see, however, where: "This Treaty shall enter into force upon its signing and shall be subject to subsequent ratification. Exchange of instruments of ratification shall take place in the shortest possible time in the capital of Finland - Helsinki. This Agreement is made in two originals in the Russian and Finnish languages, in Moscow on December 2, 1939." indicates the writing of the agreement is separate from and prior to the signing. Just need to do a bit more digging... That said, sources all do seem to say December 2nd. I'd like to see an image of the actual document, though! P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the gap could've been only hours long, or a case of Soviet kantselyarit. Might as well ask User:Peltimikko, who added the whole thing back in 2009, to check out his copy of Manninen's work. --illythr (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Unclear
The agreement was signed in Moscow, as ten days earlier draft. - can someone explain what this sentence refers to? The secret protocol? --illythr (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is an error in the text there, Käkisalmi should be Petrozavodsk. Some sources which i have read but do not have at hand (can't verify) right now state that draft document very similar to the agreement signed on 2 December in Moscow would have already been written ten days earlier - around 25 November - at Petrozavodsk. And also that it would have been signed by Andrei Zhdanov & Kuusinen. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just going to make the same inquiry but I see another user beat me to it. I'm going to run with W602's explanation and try make sense of the article text. Paavo273 (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Date format
1939.2.12 – 1940.12.3

Presumably this means 1939-12-02 -- 1940-03-12 i.e. December 12, 1939 -- March 12 1940, but the formatting makes it very easy to misinterpret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.110.157 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)