Talk:Simo Häyhä/Archive 1

Translation of Finnish reference
Sotasankarit-äänestyksen voitti tarkka-ampuja Simo Häyhä" (in Finnish). MTV3. Retrieved 30 March 2009.

Häyhä mainitaan usein koko maailman sotahistorian menestyneimpänä tarkka-ampujana. Hän ampui kiväärillä 505 puna-armeijan sotilasta. Suomen suurimmaksi sotasankariksi marsalkka Mannerheimin jälkeen on noussut talvisodan tarkka-ampuja Simo Häyhä, lempinimeltään Valkoinen kuolema. Hän voitti niukasti legendaarisen kapteeni Lauri Törnin. Kolmanneksi sotasankari.fi-sivuston äänestyksessä sijoittui Kollaan sankari, kapteeni Aarne Juutilainen alias Marokon kauhu. Sotasankarit-äänestyksessä annettiin lähes viisituhatta ääntä. Häyhä sai äänistä 29,2 prosenttia, Törni 28,7 ja Juutilainen heitä puolta vähemmän ääniä eli 14,2 prosenttia kaikista. Kärkikolmikosta vain Lauri Törni oli Marskin ritari. Mannerheimiä itseään ei saanut äänestää. Häyhä mainitaan usein sotahistorian menestyneimpänä tarkka-ampujana. Hän ampui eri tietojen mukaan kiväärillä 505 puna-armeijan sotilasta, varmentamattomat tapaukset mukaan lukien 542. Häyhän osumat kiväärillä olivat taistelutoverien ja laskentaan erityisesti nimitetyn tarkkailijan varmistamia. Lisäksi Häyhä surmasi yli 200 vihollista konepistoolilla. Häyhä käytti tarkka-ampujan tehtävässään suojeluskunta-asettaan, m/28-30 "Pystykorva" -kivääriä

Yhteistyössä Sotasankarit-sivuston kanssa tamperelainen kustannusosakeyhtiö Revontuli julkaisee kirjan Suuret suomalaiset sotasankarit. Se kertoo kahdestatoista suomalaisesta sotasankarista ja heidän ylipäälliköstään. Kirjan henkilökuvat on kirjoittanut sotakirjailija Robert Brandtberg.

Translated to English....

Häyhä is often mentioned in the military history as the world's most successful sniper. He shot with a rifle 505 Red Army soldiers.

Field Marshal Mannerheim declared that sniper Simo Häyhä (nicknamed the White Death) to be Finland's greatest war hero after the Winter War. According to the Sotasankari.fi site with nearly five thousand votes casted and he was voted the greatest War Hero. He was ranked just over legendary Captain Lauri Thorne. Third-ranked hero was Kollaan's Captain Aarne Juutilainen (aka the horror of Morocco). Häyhä received 29.2 percent of the vote, 28.7 went to Thorne, and Juutilainen recieved half as many votes or 14.2 percent of the total. Of the top three, only Lauri Thorne was made Knight Marshal. Mannerheim himself did not vote.

Häyhä is often mentioned in military history as the world's most successful sniper. He shot with a rifle according to various sources 505 Red Army soldiers, adding uncredited hits brings the total to 542. Häyhän rifle hits were comfirmed and counted by a specially appointed observer. In addition, Häyhä killed over 200 enemy with a submachine gun. Häyhä used a Civil Guard m/28-30"Spitz" rifle on his sniper missions.

War Heroes co-site with the Tampere-based publishing company will publish the book Northern Lights Large Finnish war heroes. It tells of two other Finnish war hero, and their chief. The book is written by portraits of war author Robert Brandt Berg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

any additional info on his later life?
Did he ever marry etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.118.185 (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He never married, preferring to live alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.206.181 (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

toy?
I don't understand the sentence:

Besides his sniper kills, Simo Häyhä is known to have made well over two hundred kills with a machine gun, a toy which he was very fond of.

Was the machine gun a toy? Did he consider it a toy? As a reader, I was confused by that sentence, which I think is a good reason for revision. However, I have no knowledge on the subject. I hope somebody else fixes it. --Rustam 20:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Although I am not sure whether or not Simo personally considered the machine guy a toy, the author wrote the phrase to show Simo's fondness for the gun, hence the term 'toy'. The gun was rather not a toy to be played around foolishly, but rather one that was used affectionedly. I hope that clarifies the sentence.


 * If the author was correct and Häyhä did develop some kind of fondness for a particular type of weapon for whatever reason, it was still wrong to call it a toy. A toy isn't designated as such because it's an object of fondness but because it is primarily something to be played with. Guns aren't toys unless they are toy guns. 'Toy' in any other sense is colloquial and probably even wrong. Gest 08:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * My guess is that the author who wrote "toy" meant "apparatus", "object", or "machine", just didnt find the word for it. --kooo 07:40, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)


 * I think a better word would be "tool" instead of "toy".


 * Maybe he just had a really old dictionary. "Toy" used to mean "object of affection", and not an object designed solely for play. People could be toys, even. However, it is not correct modern usage to use it that way. Identity0 09:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A Toy is something you play around with, be it intended for play or not, be it serious buissness or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.106.195 (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

When you translate Finnish to English the words do NOT have a direct meaning so you tend to have translation errors. If you look at the words in context, the words "...a toy which he was very fond of" would have been better translated as "...which was his favorite gun". Also, the word "konepistoolilla" means "machine-pistol" or "sub-machinegun". So.....Besides his sniper kills, Simo Häyhä is known to have made well over two hundred kills with a sub-machinegun, which was his favorite gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pronounciation of the name
How does one pronounce Simo Häyhä? --84.22.0.13 10:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Go to http://www.mikropuhe.com/demo.asp, then write "Simo Häyhä" to the white blank box, and click "Kuuntele puhe" -> You'll hear how the name is pronounced in Finnish. --213.186.255.129 18:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't get through to the site myself, 3.5 years after this last comment was posted. Either way, could someone put up an IPA pronunciation for the guy?  He kind of deserves to have his name known, IMO.  97.120.39.151 (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Finnish orthography is essentially phonetic, I couldn't resist doing my best effort. May a real Finn correct me if needed, or even better put up a sound file :) 86.179.48.162 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The beginning "Häy" is pronounced like "hay" (that cows eat) and the ending "hä" is pronounced like the "ha" in hay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.250.131 (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC) It was how the writer wanted to express the way he like the weapon its self. trying to make the information more exciting. Hope peoples seriousness of the subject cools. It's mearly an expression.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.171.128 (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the first comment (17 March 2011) is wrong, and the second (19 April) is beyond my comprehension. What is merely an expression? The name? Or the talk about cows and hay which is, in the end, just bulls***. The IPA symbols in the article are correct. The diphtong "äy" cannot be explained in English without a hammer and a toe linked with gravity and the act of dropping something. The "ä" in it is pronounced more like the 'a' in the word "bad". --Pxos (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"How does one pronounce Simo Häyhä?" One doesn't. The first name is simple: the first syllable 'Si-' is pronounced like "sick" without the "ck". The second syllable '-mo' is pronounced like "more" without the double "o" and "re". As in –How are you? –Mo(cough) si(cough)! but just reversing the words. The last name is totally out of the scope of English language, it is even slightly awkward in Finnish. But it definitely is not pronounced as hay-hay or hay-hah as the cow herder (in hayman's terms) claims... --Pxos (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

White Death
If you go to the article white death, it redirects to the Great White Shark page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KSava (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Kill record unique?
The article says that 5 kills a day is unique, but Vasily Zaitsev's article says that he killed 225 from 10/11/42 to 17/12/42, which is 6 per day. Furthermore, that article also says that "Zaytsev's remarkable performance was not unique" even amongst the Red Army. Häyhä's rate of kills per hour of sunlight may well be unmatched, but "many" of 505 over 100 days is not, or at least is contradicted elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'm wondering if this article has been the subject of uber-sniper fans or nationalist Finns using incorrect superlatives or simply needs to be better written and sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.188.245.218 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Vasily Zaitsev killed 6 per day during the Battle of Stalingrad which was only part of his career. Simo Hayna 5 kills per day were over his whole time in the field so I feel it is definitely worth mentioning.  This point is strengthened by the fact that it was worth mentioning the number of kills and the time range for Zaitsev although they didn't do they division for you it must have been notable to mention.  Its kind of like comparing maintain a .330 batting average for a career and a .340 for a couple of seasons.  I feel it should stay.  Sean0987 (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Sean0987

I doubt in Zaitsev "skills". Like other "advantages" of Soviet Unions it was probably pure propaganda. And Hayha killed enemies, Zaitsev and other Russians killed their allies (USSR and Third Reich were allies for most history of the latter). Last but not least, Hayha killed communists in fight for freedom. War between USSR and Third Reich was a war between two leftish diabolic regimes.


 * Remember, we're keeping an objective and encyclopedic mindset here. Calm. 78.147.25.66 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One guy taking out two hundred enemies with a submachine gun is more credible? One can't have it both ways (either we should be sceptical of both, or neither, or at least come up with a good argument). --206.248.128.184 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Häyhä is an obvious propagandaproduct from the finnish. No one can kill 200 enemies with a submachinegun during three month of war, and no one can get 5 sniper kills per day out in the woods. Zaitsev might have killed several a day due to the setting for his kills, but even him is exaggerated for propaganda reasons. And how could Häyhä become famous even in the red army during only 3 month? How could they have time to know about him and send snipers after him? This same propaganda is done in every war, look at the Juba sniper in Iraq, witch is obviously many snipers but claimed to be only one (and now he would beat Häyhäs suposed record). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.249.145 (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that Häyhä, unlike Zaitsev, worked in the very specific conditions of winter war, which involved human waves, blocked columns with no way of escape, encirclements of Soviet troops consisting of not very well trained conscripts etc. His record may be more likely than you might think. --213.129.142.252 (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well so did all Finnish soldiers and the ratio wasnt 800 russians per fin, it was 5 russians per fin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.249.145 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Many" should be "all"
Yes, it should be "All" of his 500+ kills happened during less than 100 day period. The Winter War lasted only for about 100 days and Häyhä was wounded before the war ended. So it was actually less than 100 day period.


 * That is correct, the Winter War lasted 105 days and Häyhä was wounded 7 days before the war ended. So all of his kills happened during less than 100 days time. --Ekeb 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

if these figures are correct, then i accept them--Manwithbrisk 17:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think comparing Häyhä to Russians is unfair. First of all, everyone knows how reliable Soviet sources are - worthless. They're all colored with propganda and imaginary figures. They should be omitted from the text. I'm quite sure, however, that it is possible the Russians had good snipers too. Only they did not create their record in about 90 days, but over the years. 91.154.252.213 (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Comparing Hayha and russians is absolutely proper. Remeber, Hayha is a product of NAZI propaganda, jsut like soviet snipers are product of soviet :). P.S. russians did not win the war, germans did, soviets lied about everything. I have a hint for you: something else is worthless, only I will not say what, otherwise you will be offended. --99.231.48.138 (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.


 * Hmm, there weren't nazis in Winter war, it was a war between democratic Finland and Stalins Soviet Union. In fact, Nazi-Germany was allied with soviets at that time. So no nazis here, get your facts and spelling checked. 81.197.64.2 (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that, while the Winter war was, strictly speaking, a battle between Soviets and Fins, there was a lot of foreign aid sent to Finland, including Fascist Italy and some transport of Hungarian aid through occupied territory by Nazi Germany, also mentioned in the Winter war article. That being said, lets let cooler head prevail here, and stop the needless flame war. Urbandale (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is really needless. Anyway, i can't help myself quoting what it says in Winter war: "Travel to Finland was very difficult, because the German Reich forbade transit of armaments and war equipment across its territory (including the occupied Polish territories)." This quote was about those hungarian volunteers, same goes to italian support, their help didn't reach Finland because Germany didn't allow it. Understandable, after all, Germany and USSR were allies at that time. Then again, Finland DID get some help from western powers, also, those hungarians did eventually made it to Finland. My point was only, drawing nazi card here is not only stupid and irrelevant, it's also factually incorrect. 81.197.65.47 (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * COMPLETELY UNTRUE! First of all the Third Rich and USSR wasnt allied, they had a pact of non-aggression witch means they were enemies (otherwise one doesnt need a pact like that). Second; Finland was allied with Nazi Germany! Finland got arms and equipment from Germany, Look at a finnish soldier from WW2, he looks like a german soldier. During the continuing war Germans and Fins fought side by side in Finland. (The fins later made separate peace with the Soviets and fought their brothers in arms in the Lappland war). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.250.131 (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, I wasn't saying his viewpoint was correct, I was just saying that both sides here cannot use absolutes. It IS fact that the Germans supported Finland via troop transport. From the same article, "The Hungarian battalion was embarked at Turku at 20th of May 1940, from where a steamboat sailed to Stettin, German Reich (now Szczecin, in Poland). They traveled across the German Reich by a special train with a German guard. The volunteers arrived at Budapest in 28th of May." Urbandale (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that was after the war ended... Like it says, from Turku to Stettin, NOT from Stettin to Turku. "They traveled across the German Reich by a special train with a German guard. The volunteers arrived at Budapest in 28th of May." AFAIK, Budapest isn't in Finland. 81.197.65.47 (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Germans and USSR had a pact of non-aggression but USSR and Germans also attacked together to Poland in 1939. In Winter war 1939 Finland was neutral and fought alone. In Continuation War Finland got arms and equipment from Germany and Finland was allied with Germany because USSR attacked in Finland and stoled some Finlands land in Winter War. Germans helped because Finland had the same enemy and Finland needed help to get own lands back. And finnish soldier from WW2 looks like a german soldier because Fins have german helms because they were cheap and good helmets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.176.169 (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Digg
Hit front page, incoming spammers! Lock this page! Troysteinbauer (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * http://digg.com/offbeat_news/The_Sniper_Who_Killed_505_Soviet_Soldiers_During_the_Winter_War

Where are the citations for his 505 kills, or almost everything else on this page? People are citing this as fact on digg. Is it? Somebody needs to verify this information and cleanup the article. - Noj r (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Party pooper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.64.74 (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I never knew the Finnish could be this awesome... - !Malomeat (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Awesome? Killing russian soldiers in what basically amounted to a shooting gallery when they were encircled. Look at Zaitsev, who fought in the bloodiest battle in human history. The total amount of kills does not show how good a sniper is. That plus the environment in which he operated shows, and environment in which Simo operated was not even half as dangerous as that in which Zaitsev operated. Just a note on "awesomeness" of Simo.99.231.50.118 (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

-4 to -40 degrees F isn't dangerous? MustangAficionado (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Try -50 degrees, plus enemy snipers, plus smart enemy tactics and strategy vs stupid soviet strategy at the time, starved and encircled soviet soldiers. Not to say Simo was a bad sniper, Simo is a sniper with one of the highest kill counts, but in no way is he one of the best snipers. That goes to people who had to do quite a bit more than just shoot at infantry soldiers who had been encircled and had very limited chance to respond.--99.231.50.255 (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Yes. Clearly the Finns had a vast advantage over the poor, outnumbered, under-equipped Russians in the Winter War. And clearly having an exceedingly high confirmed kill count using iron sights does not make you a good sniper. How cold it is outside does. This isn't a "Who is your favorite WWII Sniper message board" however. 216.203.80.125 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

unencyclopedic.
I first of all put a "disputed" note regarding the claim of the most kills in any war. Mikhail Surko is credited with ~702, quite a lot more than 542. Second, I deleted a bunch of unencyclopedic nonsense about soviet army calling someone unstoppable. Also, the article contradicted itself, saying soviets tried everything, but "best they did is left his coat damaged by shrapnel, leaving him unharmed", and the same article states he was injured by enemy rifle bullet. Please make up your mind. If soviet army (untrained as it was in 1940) would make up it's mind to destroy a single sniper, they would do it relatively quickly, please let us stop sensationalism. I would suggest keeping this article as an article of encyclopedia and not some sensationalist opinion forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.50.118 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't find any reliable source that would verify that Surkov even existed. He seems even more apocryphal than Erwin König and Sulo Kolkka. Prolog (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can show you photos. Photos do not do? Ok, Then I can not find any proof (reliable source) that Simo existed. Then I claim Simo is a product of Nazi propoganda. You see? I can take the same line as you do. You doubt Surkov existed? Soviet propaganda? Ok, Simo didn't either. Nazi propaganda. I am not saying we should believe whatever governments say, but there are references, photos, etc. Do not believe them, then we do not have an argument. Also, talking about references? Half of this article is not referenced, and has very visible inconsistencies, etc...

Also, Surkov is a recipient of Order of Lenin. As for why he is not so famous, the answer is simple. Not many important people in USSR were made famous. For example: the guy who is featured on the photo putting flag on the Reichstag did not do it, it was reenactment, in fact an absolutely different person did it, and he was never photographed until very recently.

Plus, here are some sources for you:

http://airaces.narod.ru/snipers/m1/surkov_m.htm

http://wio.ru/galgrnd/sniper/sniperru.htm

There are also some inconsistencies with Simo. When was he born? I heard two dates. Maybe he was not at all? Maybe he is made up? And references I posted above are just as reliable as those that are posted on the article on Simo. Ans there are a lot of questions about Simo as well. Some put the record at 505 soldiers, which would mean that Vasiliy Shalvovich Kvachantiradze (534 confirmed kills) had more. Also, how exactly are kills confirmed?

--99.231.50.118 (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.


 * Simo Häyhä the sniper did exist, but Simo Häyhä the unbelievable successful sniper never existed. He was a product of propaganda. And it is to exaggerated to be trusted in any way. A 105 day war, Simo participated during 98 days, of witch he was on duty for 90 days. Sunlight for approximately 5 hours a day and 6 kills a day, makes more than one kill per hour. You know, snipers usually move very slow and most of the time they just wait for a good opportunity. All successful snipers moves after each shoot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.249.145 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The highest vs one of the highest.
Could we please stop editing that Simo is absolutely HIGHEST, I know how much some guys do not like USSR and would like to have Simo as the highest absolutely, but as long as this might not be the case, we should leave one of the highest. He was one of the highest, with some soviet snipers claimed to have more or very similar amount of kills. Let us be a little more objective here.--99.231.48.138 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.


 * Please stop citing the websites of Russian military hobbyists. Unlike this article by The Daily Telegraph, these are not reliable sources. If you do not understand WP:V and WP:RS and/or still want to use these sites as sources, you need to find a less serious online encyclopedia. Prolog (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when is Daily telegraph a reliable source? Since when is Wikipedia serious encyclopedia? Does the article cite any sources? For all I know, Sean Rayment pulled the numbers out of his behind, excuse me for my french. So, please, let us stop citing the website of western military hobbyists and media articles, and put things as they are, not as some people would like to make them look.--99.231.50.255 (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

tell me where is the proof that this man killed so many enemy soldiers, where is the proof that he even killed one soldier? I think that this argument should be discarded, war isn't about killing enemy soldiers it's about keeping enemy soldiers from killing you and your freinds. Perhaps we should remember more the fact that both Vasily and this man were both fighting for their lives, and at the time were'n't worried about, or even cared about being "THE BEST?" Further more, look at Carlos Hathcock, I'm not comparing his level of skill, or his amount of kills. But think, during his career as a marine all he wanted was to get the job done, so shut up, take a breath and realize that you're all arguing over dead people, rather than argue over who was better remember what they were fighting for and respect them for that, not how many people they killed. Besides there are plent of "unknown" snipers or soldiers that killed as many if not "more" people than either of them. Thank you!

Naive question
How were the Russians aware that this sniper in particular was so effective? --Tigerthink (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was written about in Finnish news papers. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So many lies
I'm honestly glad to see that the sad lies that so many IP users here have been spewing about this great man have had no influence in the article itself. I mean really "he didn't exist"? He "didn't get that many kill"?

No, these are CONFIRMED kills, not "did he shoot that guy? I think he might have shot that guy. Hey Bjorn! Did he shoot that guy?". That whatever bigoted reasons so many have for complaining about this great man have not made it into the article is a testament to true Wikipedians. Keep it that way. 203.59.189.173 (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

About the use of term "Nazi propaganda" in relation to finnish propaganda
Use of that term in relation to anything published in Finland is simply wrong, because as we all know, finland was and is a Republic. So it would be quite appreciated that whenever you talk about stuff you think is propaganda you would use either term "finnish propaganda" or "democratic propaganda". Thank you... :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.48.184 (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hahahaha! "Democratic propaganda?" Propaganda is propaganda, my friend, no matter who creates it. There's no such thing as a democratic lie.67.193.201.42 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

HAHAHAH! To yourself! I quess youve never heard of irony. But so you know, propaganda =! lie.

Count again
What's the deal with the Finnish article saying that the correct number of kills was 200? Is there a definitive Finnish source on this? --Illythr (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Date of picture
"It took several years for Häyhä to recuperate from his wound" - Which happened in 1940, yet the picture states the picture was from 1940. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.224.180 (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. The picture itself did not have date. Re-dated "unknown". Peltimikko (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Eating Snow
I can't find any reliable source on Simo actually putting snow in his mouth to conceal steam. This sentence should probably be removed, since it has now spawned a wave of blogs and websites that got their information off of Wikipedia. It seems likely that someone will eventually use one of these websites to replace the citation needed caption. I am posting this here to forewarn future editors.

After seeing this comment, I want to raise the issue that this article may be in dire need of very serious scrutiny. This is usual surrounding outstanding things with few credible sources.

68.2.114.156 (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In Finnish wikipedia, the "snow eating" is sourced to this article in Helsingin Sanomat, a major newspaper. The article requires subscription and it is in Finnish, however I wouldn't dismiss the snow eating stuff as urban legend. It seems it can be properly sourced, especially if someone reads Finnish. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it 505 kills or 542 kills?
The snipercentral reference gives 542 kills, yet is being referred to state 505 kills. This article also states that Hayha killed 542 Soviet soldiers. Shouldn't the article be amended? Thanks Tinpisa (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Our article is correct. Look at the thread at the top of this page, "Translation of Finnish reference", and you will see that he has 505 confirmed kills. The numbers above that were never confirmed. Our article states the number of confirmed. Sniper central isn't a real ref and wouldn't stand up to WP:RS. The Telegraph ref is correct. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  16:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

caption of the picture
Underneath the picture it says his jaw was deformed by a bullet while in the article it says it was one of his own bullets. Which version is true now? In the German wiki they also say he was injured by a Sowjet bullet... --141.70.81.136 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is now correct, he was injured by a soviet bullet 195.148.128.35 (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Color picture?
Is it possible to use picture which has been post-processed in color instead of the current black-and-white photo? 195.148.128.35 (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Traffic peak
According to WMFlabs tools, this article had a massive 50,000 views peak on August 1, 2014. Out of curiosity, any ideas where that was from? --Pudeo' 00:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm suspecting the reddit community looking up the article after a topic started there or similar. 86.60.214.232 (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

His photo has been photoshopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:3D00:44B:DD7D:2C43:79E1:AA04 (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

7.62x53mmR vs 7.62x54mmR
Currently, the text states: "Häyhä used a Finnish militia variant of the Russian-made Mosin-Nagant rifle, the White Guard M/28-30 'Pystykorva' (literally Spitz, due to the sight's resemblance) chambered in 7.62x54R, the Finnish Mosin-Nagant cartridge, because it suited his small frame (5 ft 3 in/1.60 m)." On the face of it, the uncited assertion here appears to be at odds with the uncited assertions made in the section of the Wikipedia article 7.62×53mmR in which the differences between the 7.62×53mmR and the 7.62x54mmR are asserted. If the assertions made in 7.62×53mmR are correct, and if the White Guard M/28-30 "Pystykorva" was chambered for the Finnish variant of the Mosin-Nagant cartridge, then it would seem that it was in fact chambered for the Finnish standard 7.62×53mmR cartridge rather than for the Russian standard 7.62x54mmR cartridge. 58.165.123.47 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The 7.62×53mmR-article claims the round was made for the M/39 "Ukko-Pekka". Looking that rifle up at [] gives the quote "Only 10 rifles were completed by the end of the Winter War". Hence it is unlikely Häyhä's rifle was chambered for the Finnish round, so unless some expert-level source emerges I'd say 7.62x54R stays. BP OMowe (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph "jokes"
Someone filled the first paragraph with online gaming slang.

Could someone restore the proper text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristitia (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

SMG kills
We need better sourcing than what we had to establish the SMG kills. With only a single source, this may be undue weight and we may be propagating a myth by leaving it in the article. Also, the previous link to the single article does not work now. I do not consider MTV3 as reliable enough on their own to substantiate this as fact. If we can find another RS then we may have something that justifies this inclusion. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ...according to this source, it was Sulo Kolkka that was credited with the 200 SMG kills and not Hayha. That is why we need a better discovery of sources before committing things to the article. ⋙–Berean–Hun<b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  18:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki article that you linked to also said...

"However, there was a nationally fairly well known war correspondent, Sulo "Simeoni" Kolkka, who sometimes reported of Simo Häyhä's deeds to other domestic and foreign war correspondents. It has been assumed, that a foreign journalist mixed the names of the sniper and the reporter, thus giving birth to a legend without a base in reality. Kolkka becomes another legendary sniper apocryphal."

...We should also be careful not to discount infomation based on a single (possibly flawed) source. In Finland, every schoolboy knows who Simo Häyhä was…not to be cliché but he is as famous as Jesus Christ and the Beatles. The problem is that for various reasons including a lack of reporting, language translations, and the fact that Finland allied itself Germany (the bad guys) after the Russian invasion he is not well known outside of Finland.--71.22.156.40 (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also every Counter-Strike and DotA player knows who Simo Häyhä was, to cite him against invadent russian players.--79.16.246.2 (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of doubt over the actual number of the kills he managed to get. Not many actual historians agree on the 500 to 700 kills. In the Finnish photo archives, sa-kuva.fi, there are photos of the ceremony where Häyhä is given the decorative rifle. The photos are taken on 20th of February 1940 and the original title says he has 219 kills at that point. He was wounded on 6th of March, so he would have had to kill 300 people in just few weeks. SA-photo reference number is #5202. --91.155.179.116 (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The point on the reporter only really work in one direction. That the reporter Kolkka was misreported as the sniper Häyhä does not in any way suggest or support that the reporter had 200 SMG kills and that Häyhä was then mistaken for Kolkka, particularly when you consider the absurdity of a reporter would have 200 kills with ANY weapon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.173.237 (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any reliable sources that credit Hayha with 200 SMG kills?

From Finnish military records and government records can be found that Finnish Defense Forced assigned an official military kill-accountant to travel with Simo Hayha. However, the Defense assigned the calculator atleast 3 weeks after the war had already started. Therefore Simo Hayha real kill count has to be 505+110 for the uncounted 21 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoFilppula (talk • contribs) 10:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed kills
In the lead text it says he has 505 confirmed kill, now this would tell the viewer that it is 100% certain that he actually killed 505 men. How were his kills confirmed? By dogtags or simply by him and his spotter? Imonoz (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

From Finnish military records and government records can be found that Finnish Defense Forced assigned an official military kill-accountant to travel with Simo Hayha. However, the Defense assigned the calculator atleast 3 weeks after the war had already started. Therefore Simo Hayha real kill count has to be more than 505+110 for the uncounted 21 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoFilppula (talk • contribs) 10:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The original sources are sketchy at best. There are many ambigiuous statements in the journals from his lieutenants and squadmates. Given that there would normally be no access to the body of an alleged victim of the sniper, it'd be very difficult to fully verify the kills even when there was an accountant with him. In a writing by a Finnish history docent, Risto Marjomaa, the number 200 is given as a more likely one. It was customary to exaggerate the amount of fallen enemies to boost morale. If you shoot towards an enemy and he falls down (even if he only did so to seek cover), he'd be consiredered fallen; if you hit an airplane and it started to smoke, it'd be considered dropped; if you threw a grenade at the tracks of a tank and it halted, it'd be considered destroyed. From all that I can tell, the number 505 is likely to be an exaggeration. Tzaeru (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my very late response.. I appreciate your answers. I too understand that it was common to exaggerate the prestige, both for an individual both also for an army perspective. Perhaps the article of Risto Marjomaa and his estimation should be mentioned in this article as well as the common number of 505+? Imonoz (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Re the latest info from Häyhä's recently found personal diary cross-reffed with a former view from 1942, the final number is likely to be 542 and at least over 500. See the Google Translated page and the original page from Yle News. Manelolo (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So, as I understand, Rantamaa credited Simo with 259 sniper kills, in 1940. And after the war he indicated the 542 figure, in his book, 1942? KiL92 (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Totally unreliable figures
Simo Häyhä was an excellent sniper but his record of kills as a sniper is a nonsense. The golden standard of history is to use data from both sides to esteemate and confirm casualities. Russian primary sources (records of regimernts and division that sustained Simo Häyhä's work) did not show that he realistically could kill even a hundred of Soviet soldiers and officiers. Loook here, for example - https://warspot.ru/4183-simo-hyayuhya-chelovek-legenda-ili-chelovek-mif. The source is in Russian but the gist is very telling: 1) Finnish primary sources (records of his battalion) did not mention his achievements (that is very strange as he supposedly killed at laest 5 men per day). 2) Soviet primary records (56th rifle division) also did not mentioned that a sniper bothered them (but other Soviet records in different places mentioned other snipers so the most reasonable inference is that they did not notice Simo Häyhä as a threat) 3) If we compare total casualities of Soviet forces at the place and time and Simo Häyhä's claims the situation would be absurd: he should be responsible for the death of every one of four or five killed. But that is totally unrealistic. Look and the table in the article that shows this vividly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.193.107.230 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Beginning of the article is now messed up
Looks like someone edited this article, but the first section is messed up - it contains stuff like "d=R948DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT35&dq=simo+hayha+219+kills&hl=en&sa=X&". Looks like someone pasted their URL to the page and ruined it, perhaps not intentionally. Anyway does anyone know easy way to fix this? Or to restore some previous version where the text was correct. I am not so familiar with editing Wikipedia to do it easily - it's been a long time since I wrote anything to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isonenä (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, looks like someone fixed it. Thanks to whoever did it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isonenä (talk • contribs) 22:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions
Professionally colourised photo of him, same as post war portrait in the article

https://themindcircle.com/colorized-historic-photos-marina-amaral/

https://i0.wp.com/themindcircle.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/colorized-historic-photos-marina-amaral-10.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.18.52 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Dubious
The cited source ("Warspot" forum) is far from being reliable. However, this is the only source in the article that contains some Soviet data. So, instead of removal, I decided it would be better to let this stay and place the template until a better source is provided. KiL92 (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

New text. Link to Simple History.
"The "White Death" has been suggested to be a name created entirely by Finnish propaganda, and it would not have been originally invented by the Russians. The "White Death" of the Russians was, according to information from the prisoners, a severe frost in the deep snow forest. For Häyhä, the nickname "White Death" came up only in the Finnish Winter War literature of the late 1980s." - This text needs to be corrected. I translated it from Finnish with Google Translate. "On 21 December 1939, Häyhä achieved his highest daily count of 25 kills." [22] - Simple History is a cartoon for kids, and by no means should counted as reliable source! New source needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CypressL (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)