Talk:Winter War/Archive 2

inconsistency (300 man unit loses 800 men)
The Finnish "Kontula detachment" (a unit of 300 men (?) ) lost an amazing 800 men during their actions, according to the article. What were the actual numbers?

--Kim Bruning 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kontula detachment stopped the Soviets, but it was 9th division which cut it into pieces and destroyed them, so there is no inconsistencies. --Whiskey 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Numbers of Soviet POW
The figures of Soviet POW is based on Soviet figures. Who at best could be misgudied. Acording to official Finnish source 5600 Soviet soldiers where captured during the war. An intresting fact is that after the war when Finland turned over the the POW back to Soviet no one has ever heard of them, and they disepperd without a trace.--83.254.193.197 18:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * source for this fact? 70.49.116.115 08:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo of the monument
Please, insert in this article my photo commons:Image:The monument to deceaseds in Soviet-Finnish War (Saint Petersburg).jpg -- 11:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC) ru:Участник:Sergey kudryavtsev

Fighting
The section on the fighting desperately needs to be expanded. Now the article mostly concentrates on intentions and consequences. Colchicum 12:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
Oh come on! At first the introduction tells you how badly the Finns were outnumbered, both in men and equipment, then the very next you read about the Red Army being crippled? Nothing wrong with that though, if the article is supposed to make you laugh.

This aricle claims in the end of introduction:
 * "The Winter War was a military disaster for the Soviet Union. However, Stalin did learn from this fiasco and realized that political control over the Red Army was no longer feasible.[citation needed] After the Winter War, the Kremlin initiated the process of reinstating qualified officers and modernizing its forces, a crucial decision that enabled the Soviets to eventually resist the German invasion."


 * Is that justified by any reliable sources? If not, this probably should be excluded.Biophys 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is justified. Sourcing it is of course needed, the statements are very strong. --Drieakko 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So, it would be interesting to look at the sources. As far as I know, some of these statements are questionable, whereas the statement about "political control over the Red Army no longer feasible" is simply wrong. This political control was in force during all existence of the Soviet Union.Biophys 17:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need this many "citation needed tags" In some places they're very useless, like it is common knowledge that USSR was expelled from the League of Nations due to the war of aggression. We could put those tags after every sentence in Wikipedia, so should we spare them for the most questionable claims? --Pudeo⺮ 22:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Pudeo. I think the tags (or, better, references instead of them) are really necessary. They are not intended to question validity of the article. Rather, I'd like to see it improved further. The article is quite ok from my point of view (albeit far from comprehensive as of now). However, the problem is that the expulsion of the USSR from the League of Nation etc. is not necessarily a common knowledge for those who are not familiar with this particular field of knowledge, i.e. essentially for the target audience of encyclopedias (Also note that some unorthodox views exist, however strange: ). Unfortunately, I am pretty sure that many (most?) Wikipedia readers have never heard of this war at all. And in any case it would be very useful (and certainly not harmful) to have a reference to the official decision etc. So I would strongly suggest to reference the article more extensively (at least from Vehviläinen, Van Dyke and official documents available online). Also, the better the article is referenced, the less it is prone to vandalism and POV-pushing, which wouldn't be totally unexpected for such a topic. Colchicum 20:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree, as I said, we could put those tags after every sentence in Wikipedia. But please go ahead and put the unreferenced template at the top of the article if you like. I know they were added in good faith, but the article looks messy. --Pudeo⺮ 12:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think introduction is the correct section for this:
 * "Soviet Union had just recently seen a drastic purge in 1937 that had crippled the Red Army, reducing its morale and efficiency just before the German invasion.[10] With up to 50% of army officers executed, including the vast majority of the highest ranking officers, the result was that the Red Army officer corps in 1939 had many inexperienced senior officers."

Please remove the part or move it into more preferrable section. The article should be NPOW so if you add text such as that one you should write about the purges and reduced efficiency of the crippled Finnish Army aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.165.128.200 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "the purges and reduced efficiency of the crippled Finnish Army aswell. " What do you mean by this? There wasnt purges in Finland during 1930s.Korppi76 —Preceding comment was added at 10:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a civil war fought in Finland between 1914–1918 there was plenty of purges during the war and they did continue in some scale until the point Finland was under attack again from the East in 1939. All in all, Finland did not have a decent army when the Soviet Union started the invasion. Reading Finnish history preceding the Winter War would really help putting up a more realistic article. If there's going to be speculations of possible reasons how can a small country beat a superpower, then make a section for it. There's also some video footage available, for example in YouTube, showing the Soviet Union was indeed well prepared for invading Finland. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeyMYdnYVRU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiiUiHRSInA No need to type excuses in Wikipedia. The Soviet Union didn't do too well in Afghanistan either and there were no purges preceding that war.

Timetable for foreign help
"The estimates of how long the enemy could have been held in these kinds of retreat-and-stand operations varied from a few days to a couple of months, most averaging around a few weeks, too little time for any foreign help to make a difference."

The highlighted text seems to be controversal in Kurt's opinion, so I explain why it is included.

Two to four weeks were an estimate by Marshall Mannerheim in the beginning of March, and he presented it to the government. British and French governments were promising help, but when asked more closely what kind of help they would give the numbers started to dwindle and the forces would arrive near the end of April. Sweden had announced that it cannot give more men and material, so it is logistically impossible to transport necessary amount of troops and their material to Finland in two weeks. Even today, with the help of modern aircrafts, it takes several weeks to transport necessary troops on location even across friendly waters and airspace.

There is an example during the Winter War of high priority material delivery from Britain to Finland, but even thought it consisted only few rail cars, it took several days to travel from Narvik to Tornio.

Kurt, could you please explain how it is feasible to presume that Britain and France could have transferred enough men and material to Finland in two weeks? --Whiskey 10:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli?
Casus belli is "justification for acts of war", Shelling of Mainila was exactly that for Winter War. Nowhere is stated that it can not be staged, and in this case it actualy was. So what is wrong with putting it into infobox?--Staberinde 11:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it was not an actual event? The casus belli could as well be "Soviet propaganda", because Shelling of Mainila is exactly that, and did not happen in reality, thus can't be justification for war. I'd say it's very confusing, as it would inform a bit more careless reader that USSR had actually a reason to attack. --Pudeo⺮ 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actualy war can be(and in this case was) justified with something that never happened. Although I guess it may indeed confuse average reader.--Staberinde 15:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "it would inform a bit more careless reader that USSR had actually a reason to attack." The USSR did have a reason to attack. They had tried to get what they wanted and thought they needed to defend themselves against Germany through negotiations. Finland kept saying no to anything of consequence and in the political climate of 1939, the leaders of the USSR may well have seen no other alternative than to take what they want by force. Backing down would have shown weakness, something they could not afford at that time. Things didn't go as planned, but hopefully no-one imagines that the USSR bullied and then attacked Finland because they had nothing better to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.81.166.62 (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalin would have invaded Finland no matter what. Stalin's plans for the military occupation of all of Finland begun as early as 1933, if not earlier. This was just one of his first steps to realizing his dream of world conquest. I suggest you watch the document "The Nordic War - The Battle of Finland's Independence". Here's the link to its "intro":. There are both Finnish and English versions, both as DVD and audio versions of the documentary available. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact only enabled him to invade Finland without provoking Germany, nor the Allies with their focus on Germany. The phony casus belli was a poor attempt to justify the criminal invasion. Nobody outside the USSR actually believed the Soviet "casus belli". 84.248.10.87 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Weather update
It was not -40 C during the winter war more like -20 at tops. Read more here: http://www.winterwar.com/other/weather.htm#avg3940 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.85.77 (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You've interpreted the information wrongly, those figures are monthly averages --Darkwand (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * -40?! Do you think Finland fought in Siberia or something? (that was what mad dictator Stalin planned for Finns btw: take Finland and deport Finns to Siberia) Not for so many months ago it said in Finnish newspapers that the -40 C thing was a myth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.102.43.193 (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen it get down to -40 in Tampere. I've been outdoors in it. I was wearing two pairs of socks and three pairs of underwear at the time... --Stlemur (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Winter 1939-40 was one of the coldest recorded in Finnish history. Durin those days -40 wasnt rare. Especially on the eastern Finland climate is much colder than on coastal area where temperature seldom dips under -20. I live in central Finland and i can remember some 2-3 week periods with temperature continuously lower than -30 and even colder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leksus (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Still nowadays temperature could be near -40 degrees (or even more) on winter time here in Finland. And during the winter war on December it was extremely cold and that it's very well known fact. So please, if someone could update the weather, I would be pleased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.219 (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.8.39 (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

evil and mad
I rephrased those sentence because it 1. made the article sound non-objective and 2. because nobody referred to any sources regarding the state of mind of Stalin. I also erased the "innocent" Finns phrase because of similar reasons as well as it makes no sense to say innocent about something when one doesn't explain why the Finns are innocent in this particular case, as the reason for the war was yet to be explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihun84 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good! We need neither "evil" nor "mad" nor "innocent". The readers can read those adjectives between the lines, and don't need them explicitly painted on their noses. Said: Rursus (☻) 12:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Åland Defence Plan
One thing that i notice is not in the article is the Åland defence plan, the plan was a joint venture between Finland and Sweden where both sides would send troops to guard the island from invasion as well as deploying a number of minefields in it's surrounding waters. The Swedish govenrnment backed down from the plan as hostilities broke out and all that was implemented where a coordianted effort to mine the watest leading past Åland and up into the gulf of botnia. The fact that military cooperation ahd occured in this matter not only formed bonds between the Swedish and Finnish oficer corps it most likely led the Finnish side to expect more from Sweden then what was given. --Darkwand (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalin was a DICTATOR
And Finland was innocent. If you can prove me wrong i will NEVER edit anything again. And thats NOT pushing the POV. If you need POV watch RUSSIA TODAY TV channel! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.102.43.193 (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A better pastime would be translation from fi:Talvisota. --Vuo (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, continue editing, but instead of Wikipedia you should take a look at Encyclopedia Dramatica. :) Suva Чего? 13:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me where Stalin had free executive, legislative and judicial powers. You fail at life.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.53.98 (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm! Maybe, but it should preferrably not be mentioned in the article, because of the neutral tone of an encyclopedia. Every reader should be allowed to discover that by themselves. Please read WP:NPOV, and more specifically WP:NPOV! This neutrality also provides a method for opposing views to collaborate constructively in sensitive matters, so it is a valuable social skill to be learned from the Wikipedia process. Said: Rursus (☻) 12:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

2nd Finnish film based on the Winter War other than Talvisota (film)
This was made after Talvisota but I can't recall the name of it. Does anyone know? -- Broken Sphere Msg me 16:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Must be "Tali-Ihantala 1944" where Finland, Germany, Sweden and Norway joined forces and killed every f*cking Russian war criminal that mad insane dictator STALIN sent once and for all. Those ruthless Russkie thieves stole the Karelia from Finland. Give it back you vodka drinking bastards or there will be trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.102.43.193 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong war. --Whiskey (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Karelians and other Finns payed tribute to Novgorod the Great. Give back Helsingfors, you stubborn brave people, or we'll do nothing about it and continue trade and other mutually beneficial things. Ko Soi IX (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To brokensphere: I think you mean film: Ambush! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.102.43.193 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Casualties and Krivosheev
Krivosheev is cited improperly (or from an earlier edition). The number for total irrecoverable losses for the Soviets (inlcuding KIA, MIA, dead of other causes) is not 226,875 dead or missing, it's 126,875 (http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/total.html). I will alter the infobox accordingly. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately some joker keeps to changing the number, I've changed it back couple of times already, despite the given source. --Whiskey (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In documentary "Fire and ice" Nikita said that as much as 1 million red bandits died! (youtube)


 * No, the higher figure is closer to being accurate. The Finns slaughtered the Soviets... I mean SLAUGHTERED them. Casualty figures that present lower numbers are largely due to the fact that Stalin folded many of the casualty figures for the Winter War into the numbers fighting against the Nazis, because he didn't want to make it appear as though Red Army forces had been embarrassed THAT badly.  Stalin did this rather routinely with casualty figures.

Sadly, there is no "real" figure available, we can only go by the reports we have from Stalin, but it might be a good idea to make a not of that.


 * supersoulty (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Fire and ice documentary, STALIN killed 90% of his generals and 80% of his colonels
Shouldnt this important fact be mentioned about insane mad dictator STALIN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.102.43.193 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep comments in English
A couple of edits have been explained in Russian. Keep in mind that this is not the Russian edition of WP!--itpastorn (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Article.
Simply the best War Related article in the wikipedia despites some bias but its a A class for me. Best wishes Miguel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.146.244 (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory?
It is listed at Pyrrhic victory article as such and it have already been discussed there as well. If it can not remain in here, it should be removed from there as well. I just found it quite confusing that one article is saying it is such and the article itself is saying something else. Thank you. 88.113.64.234 (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove please
Most sections are entirely or partially unsourced. --S ABER E XCALIBUR! 14:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Victory
Regarding this edit, what Grand strategy are you referring to, Kizor? I would sincerely like to see the documents which show the Soviet Union using its  entire economic resources and man-power to fight Finland. Regards, Bogdan що? 14:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To the best of my possibly flawed understanding, something doesn't need to happen on a grand strategic level in order to affect things that do. That is, the attack on Pearl Harbor did not involve Japan's entire economic resources and man-power, either, but it was still a part of - and a failure in - the grand strategy of World War Two. Someone seasoned in military theory could likely think circles around me, so yell at me if you disagree. --Kiz o r  13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So what affect did the war with Finland have on the Soviet Union - on a grand strategic level? And where was the failure? Bogdan що? 02:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Red Army's poor performance in The Winter War was a major confidence booster for Hitler to begin Operation Barbarossa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.18.174 (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Failures: Battle of Tolvajärvi, Battle of Suomussalmi, Battle of Kollaa, Battle of Salla (1939).. eg. all major military engagements. --Pudeo⺮ 10:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Volunteers
I think that the nationality and numbers of volunteers sent by other nations should be added into the infobox, otherwise for someone with lack of skill in the subject might think it was only finnish soldiers or finnish related offsprings from other nations that volunteerd. - Halmstad (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Have made this as a example. --> Halmstad,  Talk to me  16:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How the war ended on the ground: Soviet victory
The following is from "Claws of the Bear". It is strange that the article does not acknowledge that the military campaign ended as follows:

"The second Soviet assault started in February. The Finns, never more than 200,000 strong, could not resist the pressure of 1.2 million men, five Armies, supported by 3,000 aircraft and an overwhelming weight of armour. Although the French and British considered sending an expeditionary force to help the Finns, they did not have time to dispatch one. Voronov witnessed from a forward observation post the 'hurricane of our bombs and shells' descend on Finnish positions. Nevertheless, the Kremlin was so reluctant to believe the change in fortune that Voronov had to repeat his news of the advance three times during a telephone call to Moscow.

''The Finnish forces on the Isthmus were slowly overrun. Red army units cross the ice Viipuri Bay despite bombing and strafing attacks by the remaining Finnish bombers. A Soviet bridgehead was taken close to Viipuri and reinforced by columns of tanks, infantry, and sledges crossing the ice. One 3 March 1940 Finland sued for peace."''

(page 87, "The Claws of the Bear", by Brian Moynahan, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989)

These are the indisputable facts...no history books deny that the war ended in this manner. It was a Soviet victory. Why does the article not acknowledge this?

Kenmore (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately they are not. The words "overrun" and "remaining" do not give factual situation correctly. During the last two weeks of the war, after the Finns had been retreated to the rear position of the Mannerheim Line, Soviet forces were able to advance only 100-200 meters daily in the best directions. And the city of Viipuri stayed in the Finnish hands to the end. The whole picture is much more complex than can be handled in a single book trying to present the whole history of the Red Army.


 * I don't have a strong opinion about the result, it depends heavily how you try to define it. In a narrow tactical sense it was a Soviet (pyrrhic) victory, but in a strategic sense it was a major Soviet catasthrope. --Whiskey (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But clearly the Soviets had assumed the dominant upper hand in the conflict and they could have overrun all of Finland had they chosen to. It is absurd to deny this reality, or to deny that this was why the Finns sued for peace.
 * Viipuri would not have remained in Finnish hands had the war continued much longer. To deny this is to misunderstand the nature, effects and implications of the military situation on the ground in March, 1940.
 * To me it seems absurd to comment on the subject without even reading the article completely. I am referring to the part "Franco-British plans for a Scandinavian theatre" here. And to overrun a country may look simple on a paper, but definitely isn't in real life. Even if a country has been occupied, it's command structure destroyed, people can always move to unconventional warfare and prolong the war another 10 years, frustrating the invaders to the point they can't take no more. (I think this actually happened to Red Army in Afghanistan) Breaking through a line, even a crucial one, does not automatically grant a victory. You're doing a lot of hypothetical speculation about the outcome of a different scenario, a scenario where the Allied had not offered their help.


 * The Finns were in an even worse position in 1944.
 * Mostly due to the fact they were on the Axis side, which was losing. Moreover, this has nothing to do with the Winter War.


 * Kenmore (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * BS. There was never any doubt of the final outcome if Finns and Soviets were to fight in isolation. But they were not. The Soviets didn't any longer control the war, and every day it continued risked increasing probability to drag SU to the war with other major powers. During December and January there was no willingness on the Soviet side to make peace or even negotiate with Finland. It changed during February. - In their fight Finns forced Soviets to the negotiation table, and Soviets had to abandon their initial objectives of the war to get the peace.


 * (Viipuri) So what? Define much longer? Day? Week? Month? How is it relevant? The fact is it remained in Finnish hands until the end of the war.


 * (1944) I'm really interested to hear your reasoning to this statement. --Whiskey (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your statement about Viipuri is analogous to saying that the Germans won WW1 because, after all, Berlin remained in German hands until the of the war. Obviously, this kind of reasoning doesn't work.
 * Unfortunately I fail to see your logic. The control of Viipuri is irrelevant to the fact who won, as I have indicated above. The only fact is that it remained in Finnish hands to the end. Any speculation what would have happened after a day, a week, a month later is just that: speculation. It is called contrafactual history.

As for the Soviet lack of will to negotiate in December and January, this is because the Finns were winning the war at that early stage of the conflict. The Soviets certainly weren't going to negotiate on Finnish terms. In February, however, the military situation changed dramatically in Moscow's favor. This explains Moscow's willingness to finally negotiate, as it now had the upper hand at the peace table.
 * Have you read about Kuusinen government? The puppet government Soviets created for Finland the same day the fighting started? During December Soviet Union vehemently denied internationally that it was in war with Finland - on contrary, several treaties with "Finnish government" were published about territory exchanges, military and political co-operation.


 * In December and January Finns were not winning the war; they were bleeding the Soviets. Due to lack of AT-, AA- and artillery armament and ammunition Finns were only able to conduct limited offensives and even those had to fully use old maxim of "strategic offense, tactical defence".

Regarding foreign intervention, that wouldn't have helped Finland at all. Britain and France were planning to send no more than 60,000 soldiers to Finland. That would not have been enough to turn the tide against 1.2 Soviet troops.
 * Where do you get that number, as it is much bigger than any I have seen? Most sources I have place the number to 20,000.


 * But that is also irrelevant. The relevant thing is that Stalin knew through his intelligence network, that French only were sending 200,000 men to Finland and was planning the air offensive against oilfields in Baku. We know that Stalin was mislead by his spies, but at the time Stalin had to make his decisions based on that knowledge.

In fact, Mannerheim himself was so pessimistic about the efficacy of British and French help that he urged his government to capitulate as soon as possible, before the Finnish military situation deteriorated further. Kenmore (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mannerheim was realist. He was also a former general of the major power army, and so was fully aware of major power politics. He was fully aware that he was fighting a loosing war from the beginning, and the only thing he could do is to delay inevitable and buy time for politics. The only way Finland could have won the war was if other major power would start a war against Soviet Union.


 * So, Finland didn't win. Does that mean that Soviet Union did? No.


 * Before the war, Soviet Union leadership -both military and political- considered their army strongest of the world. Also in other countries it was considered among the three strongest of the world. Now a third class minor with serious shortage of all military supplies and outdated equipment (some declared obsolate already before the First World War!) has humiliated it by fighting it to the standstill. With the usage of 80% of it's total military might Soviet Union was able to start gaining ground but painfully slow. The war-fighting capability of the Red Army was seriously put into the question, and internationally Soviet military standing plummeted; the deterrent effect of the Soviet military vanished. The war weakened Soviet military and political standing so tremendously that it cannot be seen as Soviet victory. --Whiskey (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Earlier you cited Finnish possession of Viipuri at the war's end as evidence that they "won" the war. Now you are saying possession of Viiupri was "irrelevant". Need I go on?

Kenmore (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't claim such thing. I refered to Viipuri because it was mentioned in your book, and as it was right in the frontline after Finns had retreated to the rear station, it was subject to continuous Soviet offensive. As Soviets were still capable to advance only few houses daily, it is not factual to claim that Finns had been "overrun" by the Soviet offensive as your book claims. The control of Viipuri is irrelevant, but the speed of Soviet offensive is not. Please, go on. --Whiskey (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Earlier in this conversation you claimed that the Soviets must not have been winning the combat because Viipuri remained in Finnish hands when the Finns capitulated. Anyone can see it written above.

Kenmore (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn! How much I read this text I fail to find the location where I make such a claim! I only manage to find one claim I made about the victor:"In a narrow tactical sense it was a Soviet (pyrrhic) victory, but in a strategic sense it was a major Soviet catasthrope." Could you please help me by quoting my text where I made the claim you state I made?


 * As you are not commenting my other text (sans Viipuri), can I presume that you agree with me? --Whiskey (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I agree with you on is that the war was a huge moral victory for the Finns. They fought a superior enemy to a standstill before being forced to capitulate because of the enemy's vastly superior resources. That was no cheap accomplishment for the Finns.

But in practical terms, the Finns lost. For the Soviets it was a pyrrhic victory, but a victory nonetheless. That's history.

I'm sure you are correct that at the time of the armistice in March 1940, the Finns had still not been routed. They had been forced to a rearward position under duress, but still not completely defeated. However the Finns' capacity to resist was eroding, and the French and British were not in any position to trouble the Soviets.

When you reply to this message, please type your response below, so my post doesn't get chopped up. Thanks.

Kenmore (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

When a country of 186 million people (Soviet Union) attacks a country of 3 million people (Finland) and cannot occupy the country like the plan was and like all the Red Army soldiers were told, I simply cannot see how this would have been a Soviet victory. Not even a military one.

Soviet objective - Occupation of Finland - failed. Finnish objective - Remain independent - was successfully completed.

Thus there are many ways to see if the Victory was Soviet/Russian or Finnish. That should be also included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.80.150 (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

internet meme
Just thought you guys might be interested in knowing of this internet meme that's been going around. &mdash; Eric Herboso 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a meme, it is simply a captioned picture. A meme is an entirely different phenomenon. TheXenocide (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Led by Joseph Stalin"
I was wondering if the four words "led by Joseph Stalin" are neccessary in the first sentence. It's misleading - it creates the impression that Stalin rode in front of the Soviet troops on a horse or something, or at least planned the attack personally (which he didn't, I believe?). It also indicates that the Winter War wouldn't have happened if someone other than Stalin was in charge of the Soviet Union. I'm not quite sure if this is a good thing or not. On one hand, the war stands as a typical example of Stalinist foreign policy and Stalin's personality and actions are important to understanding it, but on the other hand, it wasn't the first time Russia invaded Finland and can perhaps be seen as a continuation of the trend of the Soviet government trying to reclaim former Czarist territories, from Poland to Mongolia. This trend began with Lenin and thus existed long before Stalin came into power. To conclude, I'd say that "led by Joseph Stalin" gives too many indications and is too individual-centered to appear in the introduction of this article. So I'm in favour of removing it and will do so unless anyone protest here. 96T (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Italian help
In article it reads: "Italy therefore promptly responded to requests by Finland for military assistance and equipment for use against the Soviet government. The Italian Air Force sent 80 modern Savoia-Marchetta bombers, and 35 Fiat G.50 fighters, while the Italian Army supplied 94,500 new M1938 7.35mm rifles for use by Finnish infantry."

Terms 'respond, sent, supply' here are exaggerations. The weapons weren't just sent to help the Finns as a respond to their requests.


 * Finland signed a deal with Italy to BUY first 25 Fiat G.50 fighters in October 23 1939, that's over a month before the war started. Remaining 10 were were bought later. 26 of total 35 planes were delivered before the war ended.


 * 94,500 rifles were sold to Finland in a cheap prize, as Italy decided to keep their old service rifle model instead of m1938's. As the negotiations to buy the weapons took a long time, first shipment arrived in June 1940, few months after the war had ended.More here

I don't know more about those bombers, but I think these parts should be removed. --Ukas (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Volunteers
Added Category:Volunteers in the Winter War for foreign volunteers (units and individuals) Hugo999 (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Stalin quote
I vaguely remember my dad or a teacher telling me that in referring to this war, Stalin said something along the lines of:

"Today was a good day in war. 100,000 Russians died, 10,000 Fins died.  Ha, ha, ha... pretty soon no more Fins!"

Again that's a vague recollection... anyone have the real quote? Do you guys think a quote similar to this actually exists? David Bergan 05:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Most likely such a quote doesn't exist. With respect, Ko Soi IX 10:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Most likely it DOES! That is VERY Stalin-esque. John 03:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are so misinformed about Stalin :)
 * Oh really? Then prove such a statement wouldNOT have been in his nature, the same man who said something like "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of one million is a statistic." I believe you are the misinformed one, or at least some naive supporter of him or one of those brainwashed modern russians who still view Stalin as a "great patriot" regardless od the horrible things he did. Oh and please sign your comments next time, coward.

John 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Stalin didn't say that. Erich Maria Remarque did. Ko Soi IX (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's almost all of Russia's losses and almost half of Finland's losses during the entire war. Either the troops spent almost the entire war relaxing, only actually engaging in hostilities for a couple of days, Stalin couldn't count his way out of a paper bag, or that quote is entirely fictitious. 194.100.223.164 (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Swedish name
The name in Swedish is relevant, as a large minority in Finland speaks Swedish and because 8 260 Swedes participated voluntarily. In addition Sweden provided foster homes for large numbers of Finnish children.--itpastorn (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur place names in finland are marked in both Swedish and Finish in maps and the like. 78.69.235.131 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for initial state of Soviet troups?
The second para of the intro says:
 * With up to 50% of army officers executed, including the vast majority of those of the highest rank, the Red Army in 1939 had many inexperienced senior officers. Thus, the Finns were able to resist the invasion of their country with great success and for far longer than the Soviets had expected.

While correct, there probably was other factors that was equally important, such as for example the Finns having better logistics, having much better geographical knowledge, having much more effective means of transportation and better camouflage (white suit and skies). This should be stressed, otherwise tactics and strategy gets an undue weight. Said: Rursus (☻) 12:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the exact impact of the Great Purge is debatable. I have here a book that shows pretty conclusively that the Great Purge is much, much overrated in its significance. I may change this intro. GrimmC (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the book? The existing statement wasn't sucked out of the little finger by some Wikipedian either, so a careful analysis of these conflicting POV might be in order first. Not to mention, an expert's attention. --Illythr (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actual numer of russian casualties?
When Brezhnev became the soviet leader he tried to find out how many soviets actually died in the winter war. He came to the conclusion that the actual figure is about 1 million dead on the soviet side, not the 250.000 or so that is often referred to as the deathtoll. Now... who had acess to ALL the wartime documents? Well, that would have been the soviet leader and he really had no reason to make up bigger losses./ Everybody knew that the world was flat...
 * Actually, it was Khrushchev in his memoirs. He had to show that Stalin was very very bad, whereas the rest of the apparatus was nice and fluffy. The exact number of Soviet dead and captured has been indeed determined in a highly detailed study by Krivosheev - it's 87,506, as stated in the article. --Illythr (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Krivosheev calculates MIA and POW together, and as we know that the number of POW were somewhere between 5468 (Soviet sources) and 5572 (Finnish sources), the rest are MIA who were killed in combat. (Minus a few who managed to flee and disappear to the civilian population...) --Whiskey (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Hey, apropo losses - anything on Seppala there? --Illythr (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are WAY off!!! In the article the numbers for the soviet side are quoted as being:

87,506 killed and died

(what is the difference exactly between killed and died??? Is this suppose to signify a combination of exposure and combat fatalities?)

188,671 wounded & contused

(again this seem an overly complicated phrasing)

39,369 captured and missing

(also know as prisoners per WIKI sop?)

58,370 sick

(now what does this mean EXACTLY - sick... from what and related to the war or rather from non-combat injuries, if so then this number seems insanely high)

17,867 frostbites[7]

(overall I have a really hard time differentiating between "wounded & contused", "sick" and "frostbites". This does not seem like a stringent medical appraisal) 2,268+ tanks[8]

What about cannons, trucks, airplanes or the rest of what a military briefing entails?

Overall the numbers as well as the typology seems overly convuluted and inconsistent.

BUT THE PRIMARY PROBLEM IS THAT THESE FIGURES ARE CLOSER TO THE EARLIEST OFFICIAL SOVIET FIGURES - WHICH ARE AND WERE CLEARLY A BLATANT LIE AND PURE PROPAGANDA.

This is so far off by any account that it seems doctored by someone actively trying to downplay the actual size of the russian tactical defeat - no serious historian believes these numbers as they stand in glaring contrast to the actual events. This is OBVIOUSLY someone - presumably pro-soviet - who is trying to create a very false document. This being contrary not only to normal academic good conduct but also to the very essence of WikiPedia!

The soviet were forced to shift army-group sized assets to the finnish front and their losses were so significant that many of the units were decimated by the war. The complete annihilation of The Russian 44th Division and the 163rd Russian Division along the Raate Road contribute in itself around 40.000 dead. These are just part of the facts which in this particular detail of WW2 are not that hard to ascertain as both period and events are weel-documented in numerous histrical dissertations and papers.

I AM NEITHER PRO-FINN IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM NOR REVISIONIST, BUT THE FIGURES DO NOT EXPLAIN WHY AMONGST OTHER THINGS HITLER DEDUCED THAT JUDGING FORM THE WINTER WAR AND THE POOR SOVIET PERFORMANCE, THEN OPERATION BARBAROSSA WAS A SOUND MILITARY ENDEAVOUR. Nor does it explain why a senior military commander were stripped of his command OR in fact why the war dragged on for so long despite the fact that USSR had finished it ekspansionist plans with regard to both Poland and the baltic countries.

These are just some of the internetbased sources that put the soviet DEATHTOLL in EXCESS of 200.000 men, AND probably in EXCESS OF 250.000: http://finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=25937 or http://www.kaiku.com/winterwar.htmlhttp://www.kaiku.com/winterwar.html OR http://www.winterwar.com/War'sEnd/casualti.htm#soviet or http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles1900today/p/winterwar.htm or http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/winter_war/ OR http://www.feldgrau.com/wwar.html OR http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Chew/CHEW.asp

The actual numbers are probably around 250.000 dead with another 600.000 - 800.000 wounded/missing/AWOL/MIA

As a matter of fact then numbers quoted in is "Casualties in 1939–40 include the following dead and missing, Battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939 (8,931); Invasion of Poland of 1939 (1,139); Winter War with Finland (1939–40) (126,875).[" ALSO with the apparently universally applicable Mr. Krivosheev, but here with a different result.

Either somebody will correct these numbers closer to an internationally historically acceptable level OR I WILL - because this is undiginifed for Wikipedia or anybody with even a tinge or historical correctness. This is definately not to embellish the finnish side OR make the soviets somehow seem stupid, but merely to BRING THE FACTS IN LINE WITH REALITY!!!Nick-bang (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Krivosheev's study is based on name lists of soldiers enrolled into the Soviet army. Winterwar.com and militaryhistory.about.com cite his book. The rest are estimates, some badly outdated. In short, Krivosheev's book has been accepted as the most authoritative source on Soviet casualties available today. --Illythr (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

From the standpoint of a historian then I can only start by asking the following: regarded as the most authoritative source by whom? Secondly then its bad practice academically as well as logically to use ONE source only as an infallible guide - especially as his figures are so divergent from most other. I quite simply do not accept the premise that Krivosheevs work should have enough weight to refute countless other academic papers and dissertations. To start with then I would sow serious doubt of the validity of using name lists of soldiers enrolled into the Soviet army, there are countless reasons why they could be inaccurate not the least being Stalins need to hide the facts surrounding what is probably the most poorly conducted campaign by the Red Army during WW2. Furthermore then i could easily project the case where soldiers was shifted from the baltic countries or Poland without necessarily leaving a paper trail. No matter what then having to conduct such a sweeping examination as mr. Krivosheev's will force him to make some rather large assumptions. This can be seen in his very odd and convoluted way of counting and registering dead and wounded.

Finally then 87,506 by pure logic seems completely idiotic considering that USSR had de facto 2 full divisions annihilated in just the battle of Raate road which were a part of the greater Battle of Suomussalmi whic is equal to around 20.000 in itself.

For that reason alon I simply cannot accept his conclusions on face value. Nick-bang (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because Krivosheev's work isn't an estimation (regarding Soviet losses) and, considering that his sources come directly from the (relatively) recently declassified Soviet archives, the most accurate one possible. The irrecoverable/sanitary counting method was the standard in the Soviet army. Note also that this article uses just the official Finnish data for Finnish losses without any problem. Anyhow, since on the English Wikipedia I can be easily confused with a Stalinist KGB POV-pusher, I can only recommend you to submit Krivosheev's work for RS review either here (a page just for that) or at the relevant MILHIST noticeboard. Alternatively, you can just google around for reviews. For example, this negative review on Amazon criticizes his political tone and secondary stuff, but praises the authors for their work on the focal topic of the book. --Illythr (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why the fact that his sources come from soviet archives lends any special credence to his claims - per my prior objections. Claiming that its NOT an estimation and therefore completely accurate is just silly- no matter what the method employed as a historian you will always be forced to make estimations: just as he has clearly done with regards to the different classification of dead/wounded etc. I dont claim that the finnish records are entirely accurate however by an order of magnitude clearly the soviet are more debateable. Nor do i claim that other sources can accurately describe the actual fatalities - however the point being that its arguable wheter the firgures are accurate.

I would like to add that removing the objectionable label from the figures while this discussion is unresolved is not only in poor taste but only lends credence to my objections and makes the figures seem even more like soviet-style propaganda. Actually I have never claimed that you are anything like a pro-soviet anything. That is none of my business anyway. However I DO claim that the validity of the figures are in serious doubt - something that should NOT be confused with a personal attack on your person which I would find in poor taste and completely irrelevant. If I somehow sounded like this was not the case, then I am sorry.

Wikipedia in genral and the historically oriented articles in particular SHOULD benefit from open and honest discussions in which the truth sometimes is found in neither of the debaters claims but rather in the synergy between the two, ie. the truth often lies somewhere in between.

Therefore I would suggest that we get this discussion back on track and try to downplay the personal comments in lieu of a more fatc-based discussion. I will submit Mr. Krivosheevs work per your instructions, but until the resolvement of that would suggest that we keep the article´s status as debateable as I - with all due respect - am not convinced by the strength of your arguments.Nick-bang (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The data from the Soviet archives remained top secret for so long for a reason - it wasn't meant for the public or propaganda, but for an accurate assessment for the top brass in the Soviet military. Thus, equating it with propaganda right off the bat is an unreasonable way to start a discussion. It is also quite clear that you're unfamiliar with both the author and the book's reputation and yet are very quick to jump to conclusions. By the way, I wasn't the one to remove the tags, although I disagree with their placement in such a gratuitous manner. Anyhow, my suggestion holds - the best way for you to resolve this other than by own research is to post a request at the RS or MILHIST noticeboard (the latter guys are more likely to be familiar with the book). --Illythr (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, then I simply dont acknowledge that the fact that they were classified, somehow exempts them from academic scrutiny or analysis. Which is not the same as having one scholar - regardless of standing and capabilities - presenting HIS analysis of the sources. Therefore I do not find it a valid argument that the secrecy somehow makes them unfallible. Actually I did not claim that they were propaganda - what i said was that as a historian who have studied the period through numerous sources, then the figures was so far off in comparison to others as to be suspect. One of the problems here is that all the sources and links you have given are in russian, which off course means that they are unaccessible for most western scholars, thereby negating all efforts at critically analysing both the results as well as the way in which they were gathered and processed. Therefore you are quite right: I am unfamiliar with Krivosheevs work, however I am familiar with a lot of other. Bottom line is that he MAY have a point allthough I seriously doubt that the numbers are as low as he claims, but as he has not come forward with an international academic publication (to my knowledge at least), then he has NOT opened himself to the scrutiny and debate which are REQUIRED in you want to have your work recognised internationally. No matter what then the botton line here is that the figures should be in the format of : "between xxxx and YYYY", as ONE unopposed source is not exactly valid and unfallible.

You have a point - it did border on harassment to put the tags in the way I did, however a tag should be in place until this case is resolved to mutual satisfaction - which I will do per your suggestion.Nick-bang (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you decided not to follow the link to Amazon I provided, otherwise you might have found that 1) This book has been translated into English and has been available for critical analysis for quite some time (over 10 years; in fact, the ISBN on this page is provided for the English version, how else could I claim that it is accepted as an academic source anywhere outside the Russian speaking sphere?) and 2) Krivosheev is just the lead editor of a team of six researchers (besides himself). The fact that the link here lead to the Russian version, means that only this version is publicly available online. By the way, you can remove at least the "verification needed" tag - Russian uses the Arabic numbering system meaning that the numbers there are easily verifiable (you can use google translator as well). --Illythr (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, however I have not come across it before now - neither have any of the scholars and historians I have spoken to. I will remedy that soonest. Regarding the fact that he is a lead researcher explains to some extent the breadth of his work, but does not in itself make him infallible. Your point about verification is valid following your input, and consequently I have removed it. It seems that somebody have in the meantime placed a lot of tags around the article -  presumably Peter558 aka. Piotr, but that is not my doing. Nick-bang (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actual numer of russian casualties?
"(what is the difference exactly between killed and died??? Is this suppose to signify a combination of exposure and combat fatalities?)"

Difference between killed and died is very simple - died = died of wounds + died of illness + died of frostbites + died of natural causes. Krivosheev gives 71,214 for killed and 16,292 for died in hospitals "Finally then 87,506 by pure logic seems completely idiotic considering that USSR had de facto 2 full divisions annihilated in just the battle of Raate road"

In fact, thinking that to anihilate a division you have to kill all of its soldiers is idiotic. First of all - even when a division suffers 50 - 70% casualties (including both killed, wounded, captured POWs, ill and sick, frostbites, nervous breakdowns, etc.) it can be considered as completely destroyed.

"188,671 wounded & contused"

"(again this seem an overly complicated phrasing)"

This is not a complicated phrasing. I just counted wounded and contused together - Krivosheev gives these numbers separately (he gives one number for wounded and another one for contused) - check on your own - Krivosheev's book can be found in the internet - here is the link:

http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/

Winter war statistics can be found in chapter no. 4:

http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter4_8.html

"The actual numbers are probably around 250.000 dead with another 600.000 - 800.000 wounded/missing/AWOL/MIA"

Mannerheim said: "We have butter but we don't have guns". Do you think that "without guns" - so without enough firepower - an army is able to inflict so extremely heavy casualties to the enemy - even if this enemy uses completely obsolete tactics, has got completely poor commanders, not experienced soldiers and fights in such an extreme weather conditions like in Finland in 1940?

Anyway - Soviet forces in Finland had got around 1,000,000 soldiers IN TOTAL - so they could not lost 1,050,000 soldiers (250,000 killed + 800,000 wounded) - because it would be over 100% !!!!

"The complete annihilation of The Russian 44th Division and the 163rd Russian Division along the Raate Road contribute in itself around 40.000 dead."

It would mean that these divisions lost 100% (or even over 100% - how strong were they? - 20,000 each?! - I don't think so!) dead - which is just your private fantasy! They could lost up to a dozen or so (more probable that "just" several) thousand men - both killed and wounded and captured and sick and missing and even deserters, dispersed soldiers - etc. Remember that first line infantry in an infantry division is only around 50% of the total men strength of the division! And to eliminate a division is basically eliminating major part of its infantry.

Another basic fact is that when an army suffers casualties, it always suffers around 2 to 3 times more wounded than dead - so even if you eliminate 100% soldiers of enemy's division (which is just impossible) - only around 33% of them can be dead! Wounded soldiers are also eliminated and are not able to fight - as well as all other kinds of casualties (including non-combat casualties).

Peter558 (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"In fact, thinking that to anihilate a division you have to kill all of its soldiers is idiotic. First of all - even when a division suffers 50 - 70% casualties (including both killed, wounded, captured POWs, ill and sick, frostbites, nervous breakdowns, etc.) it can be considered as completely destroyed."

Have you even studied the battle of Raate road or the battle of Suomussalmi?? Which was just a rhetorical question really, as you have clearly not. Where exactly do you get those figures that you refer to? The fact is that the 2 divisions in question was basically annihilated. Period. Only scattered remnants of both made it back to their own lines.

"This is not a complicated phrasing. I just counted wounded and contused together - Krivosheev gives these numbers separately (he gives one number for wounded and another one for contused) - check on your own - Krivosheev's book can be found in the internet - here is the link:"

Actually it IS since in english a CONTUSION is the same as a BRUISE ie. a VERY minor injury and certainly one most soldiers can fight on with. Therefore it is basically meaningless to the point of being ridiculous. This must be a case of wrong translation alternatively it simply makes no sense. Regarding your link, it is in russian and therefore unusable. That is not to say that its wrong per se, but it needs to be in a format and language that lends itself to academic scrutiny.

"Mannerheim said: "We have butter but we don't have guns". Do you think that "without guns" - so without enough firepower - an army is able to inflict so extremely heavy casualties to the enemy - even if this enemy uses completely obsolete tactics, has got completely poor commanders, not experienced soldiers and fights in such an extreme weather conditions like in Finland in 1940?"

Is this supposed to be an argument and if so, then for what? From a unsubstantiated quote taken out of context you extrapolate an estimation of the potential for losses incurred by the red army?? To put it gently then that leaves something to be desired with regards to the logic as well as the scope of the argument. To put it less gently then that is an utterly meaningless claim that substantiates NOTHING. The fact is that they did inflict VERY heavy casualties indeed on the Red Army - which off course is one of the primary reason why Finland managed to secure an somewhat acceptable peacetreaty with USSR despite losing the war in the end. Something Stalin did with NO other country that the Sovietunion attacked during the 30´s and 40´s.

"Anyway - Soviet forces in Finland had got around 1,000,000 soldiers IN TOTAL - so they could not lost 1,050,000 soldiers (250,000 killed + 800,000 wounded) - because it would be over 100% !!!!"

Actually that is also part of what is challenged here, other sources put the number at around 1.200.000 with additional troops being allocated and withdrawn througout the conflict therefore making ANY accurate estimation of the total number of deloyed Red Army troops impossible. Furthermore besides the problem in accurately recreating event that took place 70 years ago, then this particular war has been the object of concerted and persistent Soviet propaganda and rewriting of history as it WAS AN UTTER EMBARRASMENT - partly due to the fact that the campaign took as long as it did while the rest of the world watched and partly due to the MASSIVE losses that could not be covered up indefinetely. A situation in that aspect actually quite similar to the war USSR lost in Afghanistan. With regards to the specific numbers then what i WROTE was: "The actual numbers are probably around 250.000 dead with another 600.000 - 800.000 wounded/missing/AWOL/MIA" ie. the number of dead were probably around 200.000 - 250.000 and the number of wounded or otherwise incapacitated were probably around 600.000 - 800.000, which is just an estimation. The important point being that the 600.000- 800.000 were not nessecarily PERMANENTLY out of the fight. In other words it is quite possible for a soldier to be wounded more than once or for that matter to be wounded and then killed at a later time. That having been said then the dead are dead as it is very rare for anybody to die twice. To put it in another way then the total number of incapacitated at any one time during the war were never 600.000 - 800.000. For all these reasons your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

"It would mean that these divisions lost 100% (or even over 100% - how strong were they? - 20,000 each?! - I don't think so!) dead - which is just your private fantasy! They could lost up to a dozen or so (more probable that "just" several) thousand men - both killed and wounded and captured and sick and missing and even deserters, dispersed soldiers - etc. Remember that first line infantry in an infantry division is only around 50% of the total men strength of the division! And to eliminate a division is basically eliminating major part of its infantry."

You formulate your answer as a question because you do not know: "how strong were they?": Actually the frontline INFANTRY divisions of the soviet era were around 15.000 man strong, while motor-rifle divisons were around 12.000 and panzer division were around 10.000. That means that WITH divisional support troops (artillery, medical, engineering etc.) the combined strenght of the two divisions were probably around 30.000 - 35.000. As they were practically annihilated (say 90%?), then YES the figure would be between 27.000 and 31500 - or somewhere in that neighborhood. Granted then that is not 40.000, but what I said was around 40.000 - and THAT stands! What you THINK is hardly interesting nor much of a argument in any case. As for your strange statement about it being my "private fantasy" it is both infantile, irrational and completely off-topic. As for the rest of your claims then they are simply YOUR private claims and thoughts - completely unfounded by facts and arguments, and frankly makes no sense.

"Another basic fact is that when an army suffers casualties, it always suffers around 2 to 3 times more wounded than dead - so even if you eliminate 100% soldiers of enemy's division (which is just impossible) - only around 33% of them can be dead! Wounded soldiers are also eliminated and are not able to fight - as well as all other kinds of casualties (including non-combat casualties)."

Basic fact of what exactly - the computer game from where you seemingly get the majority of your information? You seem unable to grasp the fact that wounded in the arctic vinter means dead unless you are extracted from the zone of combat and subsequently quickly treated! With regards to your cock-sure statement of what is possible and impossible, then I will just add that it has been done numerous times - most resently by the coalition vs. some Iraq divisions in the southern zone of combat in the first gulf war. And again - the arctic will finish you if you are unable to reach the lines of your own side or shelter in some form.

To sum up, then your whole text is - at best - basically nothing more than a POV-input, which are seriously lacking in arguments and attempting to make up for it in personal attacks and speculation. It does not change nor challenge my objections rationally or through use of actual historical facts nor does it seek to specifically counter my arguments with objective counter-arguments. Therefore my objections stand completely and as they were formulated.

Finally I will add that I must presume that it was you who removed the tags - which is a very poor way to argue but a very GOOD way to underscore my point that the numbers and its proponents are questionable. It is also bad behaviour with regards to wikipedia: the tags will remain as long as the data is debated and in question. Following the discussion in the post above, then the matter will be settled by refering it to external resources

Nick-bang (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again - why do you think that if a particular division was eliminated, it lost 100% of its soldiers KIA? This is just ridiculous.

As long as there is no any other more reliable data than Krivosheev's ones, his figures should be considered as the closest to the truth - not your funny estimations - sorry!

If you want to prove your claims, I suggest to visit all cemeteries in Russia and count dead during the Winter War on your own - because all of them must be buried somewhere - they did not dissapear!

As long as you did not do that, I suggest you accept figures given by Krivosheev, because you should distinguish between propaganda and archival data - which is not falsified because it was created for internal use of the Red Army - they were not so stupid to fool themselves by giving lower numbers of casualties in internal top-secret reports than factual casualties were!

If it comes to wounded in action - maybe you don't know, but relatively rarely wounded soldiers come back to ranks again - especcialy in such a short time like the Winter War - number of wounded given consists only hospitalized wounded (wounded which did not require hospitalization were counted as slightly wounded = injured - and were returning to duty after several days or faster, so they were not even being counted as casualties - because there was no purpose to do so!) - and really big percent of them was seriously wounded.

Another thing is that you try to forget that the Red Army finally won that war - it was a pyrrhic victory but a victory. Your arguments saying about 1,200,000 involved of which 1,000,000 were casualties are just very funny - because it would be a catastroph, tragedy and complete defeat and total annihilation of the whole army - not a pyrrhic victory.

"From a unsubstantiated quote taken out of context you extrapolate an estimation of the potential for losses incurred by the red army??"

No - it is you who do so! You quote some episode from one battle - and say that "they had to lost 40,000 dead there, because 2 divisions were eliminated there" - which is funny an completely naive!

"Regarding your link, it is in russian and therefore unusable. That is not to say that its wrong per se, but it needs to be in a format and language that lends itself to academic scrutiny."

Well, I though that Russian is a well-known language. I am not Russian and I don't live in Russia, but I know basics of Russian language and can understand it - it is not my fault that you can't. But - if you can't - you still can use internet translators - like this one for example:

http://translate.google.com/

It is very easy in use!

"As they were practically annihilated (say 90%?), then YES the figure would be between 27.000 and 31500 - or somewhere in that neighborhood. Granted then that is not 40.000, but what I said was around 40.000 - and THAT stands! What you THINK is hardly interesting nor much of a argument in any case."

They could suffer 90% CASUALTIES - but NOT 90% dead! Where are these soldiers buried? Can you answer this question?! If they were killed in Finland, they should be buried there - so please tell me when can I find 30 - 35,000 graves of soldiers from these two divisions?! Show me 30,000 graves - and you will have a final proof that Krivosheev is unreliable!

"As for your strange statement about it being my "private fantasy" it is both infantile, irrational and completely off-topic. As for the rest of your claims then they are simply YOUR private claims and thoughts - completely unfounded by facts and arguments, and frankly makes no sense."

No - I am basing on what Krivosheev wrote - use this "google translator" - and read what he wrote - and you will see what does not make sense, and what does make sense,

"It is also bad behaviour with regards to wikipedia: the tags will remain as long as the data is debated and in question."

Very good - I also added tags to the Finland casualties - because these numbers are also from internal archives of Finnish Armed Forces (similar to Krivosheev's ones - which are from internal archives of Russian Armed Forces) - so they are certainly as reliable as Russian figures are. I will make a smiliar statement and use a very similar argument as you - in my opinion Finland lost 150,000 killed, because Russian forces had got too big firepower for just 25,000 killed. Amen.

Best regards!,

Peter558 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am at the point of leaving this debate as it is shallow and runs in circles and your arguments are non-existant, however I feel compelled to rectify some of your more glaring mistakes:

1) "Once again - why do you think that if a particular division was eliminated, it lost 100% of its soldiers KIA? This is just ridiculous."

Actually the only ridiculous thing here is your abject lack of valid arguments and childish way of debating a subject. The 2 divisons were annihilated. End of discussion - take it somewhere else if you want to debate it. For it makes no more sense than to debate wheter water is wet. The matter is fully covered in numerous military and historical papers.

2)"As long as there is no any other more reliable data than Krivosheev's ones, his figures should be considered as the closest to the truth - not your funny estimations - sorry!"

Nonsense! Its not my "funny estimations" you challenge but rather genarations of historians and meters of archival matter. Which is okay and fine if its done in an academic and valid way - but to CLAIM that Krivosheev is infallible just because you say so is a completely non-scientific and irrational approach, and something which I can hardly take serious.

3) "If you want to prove your claims, I suggest to visit all cemeteries in Russia and count dead during the Winter War on your own - because all of them must be buried somewhere - they did not dissapear!"

They could suffer 90% CASUALTIES - but NOT 90% dead! Where are these soldiers buried? Can you answer this question?! If they were killed in Finland, they should be buried there - so please tell me when can I find 30 - 35,000 graves of soldiers from these two divisions?! Show me 30,000 graves - and you will have a final proof that Krivosheev is unreliable!

Here is where I lost the last respect for your standpoint: if this is supposed to be a serious argument then I dont know how to explain to you that what you are expressing are so far from a valid way of counting casualties that I dont know where to begin with regards to explaining basic historical research methods. Aside from that fact do you seriously claim that counting headstones ia accurate - assuming that not too many are interred in unmarked massgraves, like hundreds of thousand soldiers who died in the mudfields of the west front during WW1. Finally then you claim that you are not russian, but do you claim that YOU have visited ALL the military graveyards and thereby have gleaned some special insigt???

The last quote is just childish and not really worthy of wikipedia

4)"As long as you did not do that, I suggest you accept figures given by Krivosheev, because you should distinguish between propaganda and archival data - which is not falsified because it was created for internal use of the Red Army - they were not so stupid to fool themselves by giving lower numbers of casualties in internal top-secret reports than factual casualties were!"

Even though this probably makes sense in your own mind then it absolutely no sense in mine, and as for your claim that i therefore should just ACCEPT his numbers are completely off the hinge.

5)"If it comes to wounded in action - maybe you don't know, but relatively rarely wounded soldiers come back to ranks again - especcialy in such a short time like the Winter War - number of wounded given consists only hospitalized wounded (wounded which did not require hospitalization were counted as slightly wounded = injured - and were returning to duty after several days or faster, so they were not even being counted as casualties - because there was no purpose to do so!) - and really big percent of them was seriously wounded."

You have no concept of what you are talking about. At all. You have no sources to substantiate the wild claims that you fling about. And you will not find them as you are completely wrong. The winter war lasted 3 1/2 months - a broken leg can mend in a month and there are literally HUNDREDS of other MINOR injuries that require only a short hospitalization. Again you confuse YOUR opinion with scientific and historical fact.

6) "No - it is you who do so! You quote some episode from one battle - and say that "they had to lost 40,000 dead there, because 2 divisions were eliminated there" - which is funny an completely naive!"

Some episode from one battle... what you lack in arguments you make up in energy and anger. However that does not make what you say true. And what is it exactly that you say here?

7) "Well, I though that Russian is a well-known language. I am not Russian and I don't live in Russia, but I know basics of Russian language and can understand it - it is not my fault that you can't. But - if you can't - you still can use internet translators - like this one for example:"

You still do not understand it which I guess is probably because you have not attended university (or so it seems to me from that way you write). This in itself does not make any arguments less valid - but the problem here is that you do not seem to understand that historical facts are verified by a process where other researchers validate data. Therefore if Krivosheev has not been tested by other scholars, then his work is debateable - and I dont care if hes a historical folk-hero in Russia.

8)"Another thing is that you try to forget that the Red Army finally won that war - it was a pyrrhic victory but a victory. Your arguments saying about 1,200,000 involved of which 1,000,000 were casualties are just very funny - because it would be a catastroph, tragedy and complete defeat and total annihilation of the whole army - not a pyrrhic victory."

Here is where I got angry: you seem unable to grasp that I am neither finnish NOR have some need to make the red army seem like fools or losers. Do not put words in MY mouth when you clearly have enough trouble making sense of the ones coming from your own mouth! I have not claimed that the war was a finnish win. I grow tired of repeating myself and trying to keep this at a reasonable and relaxed level - when you seem intent of provoking rather than deliver A SINGLE COHERENT ARGUMENT. If you wre able to understand what I wrote then my point was exactly THAT the numbers DID NOT mean an annihilation of an army-group.

9)"Very good - I also added tags to the Finland casualties - because these numbers are also from internal archives of Finnish Armed Forces (similar to Krivosheev's ones - which are from internal archives of Russian Armed Forces) - so they are certainly as reliable as Russian figures are. I will make a smiliar statement and use a very similar argument as you - in my opinion Finland lost 150,000 killed, because Russian forces had got too big firepower for just 25,000 killed. Amen.

Fine - everything should be crossexamined and verified, and if you think that I should somehow be angered by that then your are even more detached from reality than i suspected. As I believe I have said a few times then I am not pro-finn, I am only pro-truth. However your reason for doing it is just childish

I will end this post here for my part as your arguments are non-existant, your reasoning childish, your manner provocative and simply not in tune with the reality of what happened during the winter war. The way you are behaving is exactly why western scholars are somewhat sceptical about russian historians in general and the results they publish regarding WW2 in particulae, as it often seems more like an attempt of glorification of Russia rather than an attempt at objective historical research. Pretty much in tune with your words and attitude.

If you were able to formulate your opinions in an enlightened way like --Illythr, without trying to insult anyone who disagrees with you, then i would be forced to take your seriously. However as it is then I am forced to the conclusion that any debate with you would be a complete waste of breath and time, as you are clearly beyond the reach of logic and reason. So I will end my debate with you here and leave you to scream to yourself.Nick-bang (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well... Krivosheev is generally accepted as the best available and is used as a source by modern military historians like David Glantz (Siege of Leningrad, Stumbling Colossus, etc.) or Olli Vehviläinen (Finland in the World War II).


 * But it is also true, that his book is not full story, as there seems to be missing units and peculiar dates which limit the casualty reports. (See Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Operation talk page for an example.)


 * All in all, Krivosheev's numbers are the best available estimation about Soviet casualties available. All other are made by those who didn't have any kind of direct information about Soviet casualties - and generally they tend to over estimate them as a rule. The same can be seen from US estimates about German casualties after the D-day, which were typically over the top eventhough US forces controlled the battlefield after the action. Only after German sources became available, these "guesses" were corrected. I strongly recommend using Krivosheev's numbers in the table, and presenting other estimates only in the text.--Whiskey (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally a voice of reason: I NEVER said that everything Krivosheev said was false or that it was a systematic lie. Nor did I claim to have another source which were infallible. What I DID say was that Krivosheev's numbers needed to be discussed in a calm and rational fashion, as I agree in your statement that external sources (probably) tend to somewhat overestimate the soviet casualties.

However with all due respect, then I must say that a lot of the translated russian history books and dissertations that I have read, seem to have been written with a clear agenda of either downplaying soviet mistakes/warcrimes/casualties OR rationalize them - there seems to some extent to have existed a paradigm here, which to some extent did not end with the fall of the Iron curtain.

An example of this allthough not in context with the present article, is the historical debate around the sinking of Wilhelm Gustloff, where several russian historians still try to (irrationally) rationalize what is probably the worlds worst maritime disaster ever, as a legitime sinking of a vessel carrying secret weapons... Something not only thoroughly and completely unfounded by any historical fact but also completely nonsensical and plainly stupid considering she was sunk in Jauary 1945 at which point Germany was utterly unable to develop, prooduce or field any new secret weapons.

That off course does not mean that I claim everything made by russian historians are wrong or made with an agenda!

At all.

However it does mean that I as well as other historians get very suspicious when we encounter figures that are SO far from most other figures available - as seen in the figures submitted by Krivosheev.

In other words I believe that the actual truth is somewhere IN BETWEEN, as I still believe from the actual events that total soviet deathtoll of less than 90.000 MUST be off, by quite a bit actually - not because i have a hidden agenda but because that figure simple does not fit the facts. This is just one of the reasons:"Ohto Manninen, Talvisodan salatut taustat, 1994, ISBN 952-90-5251-0, Kirjaneuvos, using declassified Soviet archive material, Manninen found 12 previously unrecognized infantry divisions ordered to Finnish front". Which is around 170.000 men PLUS corps and divisional assets. Which does not in itself sow doubt about the number of dead, but it DOES sow doubt about the number of deployed Red Army troops and hence changes the context of the deathtoll

Now this is not a unique source nor is it alone - there are plenty of valid corroborated scientific papers which draw a picture where the ONLY certain thing, is that there are some very UNcertain aspects of the winter war, especially with regards to the red Army.

There is also the challenge of trying to make sense of Krivosheevs differentations and segmentations - which at best seem strange. Perhaps due to translational differences

The consequences the war had for the Soviet army command also speaks volumes, just as the length of the war does and indeed the troop displacements under and following the war.

Therefore as the issue is clearly disputed, I suggest a intermediate solution where the information is given in the format of (between XXXX and YYYY), where YYYY would be represented by another source that enjoys scientific respect AND NOT just the source with the highest deathtoll.

In other words then i recognice Krivosheev as being an important source BUT NOT that he can be accepted as the sole source, as the whole area is subject to academic dispute in general - hence my standpoint Nick-bang (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "They could suffer 90% CASUALTIES - but NOT 90% dead! Where are these soldiers buried? Can you answer this question?! If they were killed in Finland, they should be buried there - so please tell me when can I find 30 - 35,000 graves of soldiers from these two divisions?! Show me 30,000 graves - and you will have a final proof that Krivosheev is unreliable!"

Just wanted to answer this one as the person seems not to know about memorial that was build to remember those russian soldier who died in the battle on the Raate Road its in Suomussalmi and around it there is several places where there is Soviet soldiers buried. Tombstones you can't find because nobody knew who they were and they were burried in mass graves. Its mainly build to remember the soldiers that were left in Finland by Soviets after the war when they only took 300 bodies with them because they said they only lost that many troops there. So those other about 24.000 confirmed bodies were left there to be buried by finnish people. It took them two years to bury all the bodies as they found most of them during summer when moving in the forest where the soldiers died. So the graves of the soldiers are in around the raate road as they were not moved far from the place they were found to be buried and counting the exact number of graves now is impossible as they were buried in mass graves and many of the grave sites are now growing trees on, but can still be seen as grave sites as the trees are younger on those areas. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Krivosheev's figures in English version
Here is an English version of Krivosheev's figures available - especcialy for Nick-bang:

http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd/casualti.htm

Peter558 (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Raate road
According to wikipedia Russian casualties during the battle of Raate road were 17,500 killed or missing and 1,300 captured - not 40,000 dead.

But surprisingly Finland captured only 6,000 rifles during this battle - which suggests that Russian casualties were in fact much lower (around 6,000 killed, wounded, died and missing). Russian commander also survived the battle!

Peter558 (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah! But there was only 25,000 men in the battle at the Soviet side (44th RD and NKVD regiment). Also, there was only 14,000 rifles issued to the rifle division. Not all rifles survive the battle in working order, like Soviet RD has 54 AT-guns, but Finnish booty was only 29, a little over half. --Whiskey (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also if you mean that commander that was later put in front of a firing squad because he deserted his troops to die on the road. That guy left almost immidiatly after the fight started with a airplane so its not really miracle that he survived. Also as Whiskey stated quite a lot of equipment and vechiles were destroyed during those battles on the road as it was not just single fight but drawn out battle with several differen surrounded enemy forces. --Wezqu (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How very illogical. A rifle can be put out of operation by it getting shot at, burned, bent... the list goes on. What was the point exactly here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.77.158 (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbers of Red Army
How about finding some sort of figure of the Red Army during the Winter War. If we could not get better source, then we could use figures Illythr suggested: Soviet men: 425,640–760,578 ...and use current reference, and also bury the word "Finnish view". ...further we could add note: "425,640 men on 30 November, 550,757 men on 1 January 1940 and 760,578 men in the beginning of March (out of a nominal 916,613)." One of the reason for my change views, it the latest figures in book "Talvisodan taisteluja" in 2007, where professor Y(J)uri Kilin presented lower number of divisions (only 21 divisions plus tank brigades; See "Soviet order of battle") than earlier book sources. Soviet figures are quite low, but possible. Peltimikko (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply mentioning 425,640–760,578 would be wrong. These are numbers of the standing forces during the various time periods. They don't include casualties (at least, irrecoverable ones; Krivosheev provides a report stating that some 75% of the sanitary losses were back to duty by 15.03.39), which means that this estimate of the total number of Soviet troops is too low. This may be amended with explicitly giving the time periods as you suggest, though. --Illythr (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I read a book "Stalinin kiusa - Himmlerin täi" (2002) by Ohto Manninen, were he wrote the Soviet had 730,000 on Karelian Isthmus on 1 March 1940, and last days of the war, two weeks later, even 30,000 more, making 760,000 men. The Karelian Isthmus was the main theatre of the Winter War during February-March, though other "main" assault was in the north of Lake Ladoga, while other fronts were quiet. According to Manninen the Finns had 100,000 men, were in the front line battles were 50,0000 men. At least the Finnish figures seem quite low, as the Finns had probably deployed almost half of its strength on the Isthmus. Manninen do not mention the source of this information, as the book itself is actually collection of his writings in different history science papers. Peltimikko (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a good idea would be, then, to give two separate figures in the infobox: both standing forces on 30.11.1939 and on 01.03.1940 using own data for each entry. Other estimates can be added to the "Casualties of the war" section. --Illythr (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Provocative style of writing?
Does anyone else think the wording of the article is a bit inflammatory? Even as a finn, some wordings and quotes seem to glorify the finnish side of the conflict, and some even degrading the soviet side. This is a typical of viewpoints expressed in finnish history, but I think the wording of an encyclopedia should be as neutral as possible. Anyone agree?

-- p


 * I agree with you. The "results" box doesn't even list the result as a Russian military victory, which is the indisputable outcome of the war. The narrative describing the military action is incomplete; it basically focuses only on Finnish victories, and ignores the reality of the final Soviet offensive which broke the Finnish defenses and forced a conclusion to the war. The Soviet break through of the Mannherheim Line -- the decisive action of the war -- is mentioned almost as an afterthought much deeper down in the article, in a section which doesn't focus on military details.


 * This article seems to perpetuate the weird idea (held by many Westerners) that the Finnish actually defeated the Soviets, then accepted peace rather than following up on their "victory". The reality, of course, is that by the end of the war the Soviets could have occupied all of Finland, even in spite of British and French intervention.


 * Take a look at the numbers. No matter how you spin the numbers, it wouldn't look like a Soviet military victory. The Red Army got badly beaten and the result put the Finns in a position for negotiations. Finland didn't want this war in the first place. The reality according to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is that the Soviet Union wanted Finland, Estonia and Latvia. What happened to Estonia and Latvia? Everyone with brains can do the math here. The Finns were already negotiating in Moscow when the "final" Soviet offensive took place in. Finland actually did follow up on their victory in The Continuation War. Who's reality are you talking about anyway?


 * 68.166.236.91 (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The reality is that in February-March, 1940, the Soviets – after recovering from some initial defeats – finally succeeded in breaching the Finnish Mannerheim Line. This event was a Soviet victory and a Finnish defeat. It severely compromised Finland's military position.


 * They succeeded only because the Finns were already in Moscow for negotiations. The Soviet breakthrough did not compromise anything, the Finnish plans was to open a dam to flood the Soviet troops if the Soviets come too far over the Mannerheim line. Finland allowed the Soviets to do what they want during those days, so that the Finns could sign the pact. Finns didn't have a chance to sign the pact before killing enough Soviet soldiers. Thank Stalin for that one.

The fact that the Finns won some heroic victories at the beginning of the war does not change the fact that they were defeated. The Soviets had the upper hand militarily: the Finnish position was hopeless.
 * The Finnish position was hopeless since the very beginning, but even so Finland kept it's independence. So, Finland was not defeated as Finns only wanted to keep their independence. (which they did keep and still have)

It is impressive that the brave Finns inflicted vastly more casualties on the Soviets than vice versa. However this does not change the fact that the Finns capitulated because they were losing the war.
 * What sources, evidence, proof you have the Finns were about to lose?

True, the Finnish army was not decisively defeated in February, 1940, but it was being slowly overwhelmed by relentless, inexorable Soviet attacks. If the Finns had not sued for peace in a timely manner, then eventually their entire army would have been overwhelmed and destroyed by the Soviets.
 * Actually it was the Soviet troops being slowly overwhelmed by the Finns, using the now world famous "motti" tactics.

Von Mannerheim advised his government to accept peace on Soviet terms in 1940 for the same reasons that Luddendorf advised the Kaiser to capitulate to the Allies in 1918. In both cases, the defeated side capitulated before losing all capacity to resist the continued attacks of the victorious belligerent.
 * That's cool, do you have some sources for it?

The Moscow negotiations were not forced on Moscow because of the early Finnish victories. On the contrary, the Finns sought negotiations in February, 1940, because they realized their military situation was deteriorating. Negotiations were held on Soviet terms, which were harsh, as the Soviets realized they had the upper hand militarily. http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd.htm
 * On the contrary yeah right. Finland didn't want this war. A small country, alone, wants a war with a superpower? Really? Use common sense please. Finland had only one goal: to negotiate with the Soviet Union. Without this war Finland had been a communist state. The Soviets had the upper hand militarily, nobody is trying to deny that.

The Continuation War was not a Finnish “follow up” on their 1940 “victory”. Quite the opposite: it was a failed attempt to rectify the effects of their 1940 defeat.
 * Failed in what sense? Finland lost the war in the same manner manner France won. Finland was on the loosing side, France on the winning side. Finland had no choice but to agree with the peace treaty.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did not stipulate that the Soviets would conquer or annex Finland. It mandated that Finland would be regarded as being within the Soviet “sphere of influence.” This led to what is known as “Finlandization” in diplomatic circles. 68.166.237.107 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. You are trying to rewrite history, contradicting reality. Finland was leaning to the right quite a bit after this war (hence the cooperation with the NAZIs), also you can be quite sure Finland never was a communist state, but a neutral one trying to listen both sides.


 * This is my last post on the subject, because you are very difficult to reason with. Your most recent posts are easily refuted by information available in any basic history book (respected by professional historians) on this subject. Essentially, your argument is as follows:


 * 1) Finland defeated the Soviets militarily.
 * 2) Next, the victorious Finns forced the defeated Soviets to annex huge amounts of Finnish territory!


 * Your argument is completely irrational...it would earn you an "F" in any high school history course.


 * 68.166.238.227 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry about the "F" my dear teacher, but I just can't reason how this war could be a Soviet victory. The Soviet plan according to Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact was to occupy Finland and overthrow the government. The founding of the Finnish Democratic Republic i.e. "Terijoki government" support this claim. The Finnish plan was to keep sovereignty. The outcome of the war seems to be quite close to the Finnish plan. If the Soviets knew they were about to win the war, why not go along with their original plan? Would you like to know? Read the part "Franco-British plans for a Scandinavian theatre" in this very article. Finland was "saved by the bell", she had done enough and the outcome of the war was a defensive victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.18.174 (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, soviet plan was to occupy Finland in few weeks. They thought they could just simply walk over finnish defences especially after they saw how fast germany won the war with poland. Instead they lost 391,783 men, wich is more than whole finnish army before war and they only got small parts from finland. Thats quite far from orginal plan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.145.238 (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Although the Finns fought against all odds and performed probably better than any other nation in the world would have (opinion clearly), this was a Russian "victory." Pyrrhic victory, sure, but a clear victory. Finland lost many economically valuable possessions in the war, which are detailed in the Moscow Peace Treaty article.

"Deviation from the original plan" does not really constitute a military defeat in this case. And it's not like Finland planned to lose valuable land either.68.163.249.192 (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What plan? Last time I checked there was no plan on the finnish side how the war should end. Everybody knew there was going to be payments of some sort and higherups always knew that they would be lucky if they manage to keep Finland independent. I don't really care if its called Soviet victory as that it was but still its was an empty victory as even today Russians like to keep quite of the war as its seen as somekind of embarassment as they didn't manage to conquer one small nation. --Wezqu (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The accusation was made, near the beginning of this section, that the article's infobox glorifies Finns by giving the war's outcome as "Interim Peace" rather than a Soviet victory. Hopefully the above mess shows that no glorification is necessary. "Interim peace" is just the only phrase that editors have been able to agree on. This has come up repeatedly since 2005. --Kiz o r  11:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions
Anyhow, I'm doing a (largely cosmetic) overhaul of the article (first three section so far) and here are the strange things I've noticed:
 * 1) Russian troop figure is suspiciously round. Also, the Russian wiki cites an archival entry that gives 425,640 as the total number of Soviet troops participating in the initial offensive. This article gives 630,000. Anybody has an idea where this discrepancy might have come from?
 * 2) In 1920s and 1930s Finland was politically rich. - what does this mean? "Politically diverse", perhaps?
 * 3) Not sure if this counts, but didn't the Soviet Union renounce that non-aggression treaty? Why then the article states the treaty was violated by the outbreak of hostilities? --Illythr (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) The section "Background of the Winter War" has a subsection "Soviet offensive". This is kinda bad, because the offensive is no longer a part of the background. I suggest renaming section two into "Initial Soviet advance" and merging "1.6 First Soviet offensive" with "2.3 First battles". --Illythr (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. If Russians deployed 27 divisions and one rifle division had 17,500 men, so that would be 472.500 men plus other units, making 630,000 men possible. The Finnish figure 337,000 men is correct (or do anyone doubt it?). For some reason I have seen 250,000 Finns in many sources but it is not correct. Anyway, 337,000 Finns against 425,640 Soviet would not be a very good idea from the invader, as defending is easier than assaulting. 630,000 Soviet would make more sense. And later February, the Soviets even doubled their number of troops on the Karelian Isthmus and Ladoga Karelian. Furthermore, I would be very careful with the offical Soviet numbers. Maybe studies of Grigoriy Krivosheyev would be better?
 * 2. "Diverse" is also acceptable.
 * 3. See Background of the Winter War. And furher explanations: 1) See Shelling of Mainila 2) Case Gleiwitz incident 3) just a few days before the Soviet assault, some decent term of notice would be more acceptable. 4) League of Nations judged the Soviet assault as illegal. But overall, I have not seen any deep analyses of this case. And a person who mentioned this was Juho Kusti Paasikivi briefly in his personal diary (secondary source information).
 * 4. No opinion. As long as this article is easy to understand for readers. And the overall size is quite long, so we should use more subarticles. Peltimikko (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. As with divisions of other armies at the time, the divisions might not have been at full strength. Also, a mechanised division might not have had as many personnel as an infantry division.
 * 2."Diverse" is the one.
 * 3.Stalin was the master of deceit, so it makes sense.
 * 4.Illythr, you mean First Soviet offensive? I think it fits quite well with the background section. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Mmh, well I'll look if Krivosheev has something to say on Soviet troop strength in this war...
 * 3. Erm, this isn't about Stalin's motives or the legality of the whole thing, but about how the Soviet Union was able to violate a treaty it had already renounced.
 * 4. Think about it: Background information is something that happens before the main event, or is indirectly connected to it. The Soviet attack, however, is definitely in the foreground, being the first strike of the war. As for shortening the article, while I agree, I prefer to leave the brutal part of cutting it up to someone else. --Illythr (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. According to the quite new book, "Mannerheim-linja: Talvisodan legenda" by Antero Uitto and Carl-Fredrik Geust (both are authors of many books and articles dealing with the Winter War), the Red Army had deployed troops (7th Army) on the Karelian Isthmus as follows: 250,000 men, 2,000 artillery, 1,490 tanks and 1,300 aircraft. The Finns had deployed 130,000 men (7 divisions).
 * 3. ...and officially the Soviet Union was not war with Finland, as it had already made an agreement with the "only legal government" Finnish Democratic Republic signed 1 December 1939. These hat-tricks did not fool international community. Peltimikko (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. There were two more attack points, though. Krivosheev's book is of no particular help here, as it says nothing about Soviet troop strength on 30.11.1939. It does, however, note that the participating Soviet divisions were severely understrength (due to Finnish fighting capabilities being badly underestimated) and had 550 757 men on 1 January 1940 and 760 578 men in the beginning of March (out of a nominal 916 613).
 * 3. This still doesn't answer it - relations with the puppet FDR are of no consequence to the renouncement of the non-aggression treaty. 3-a. Say, Krivosheev's book mentions one last offer of peace made by the USSR on the 30.11 to the (real) Finnish govt. Any info on that?
 * 5. Another question: Is there a source about Molotov saying that the bombers were only delivering bread to Helsinki? I'm trying to fix that part in the ruwiki, but lack of sources makes this annoying. None of the enwiki articles have a ref to his reply as well. All I could find was Molotov's response to a protest by the US, where he denies the bombing, but says nothing about bread (might've been an excerpt, though). --Illythr (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(od)Re: "last offer of peace made by the USSR on the 30.11 to the (real) Finnish govt. Any info on that?" D. W. Spring in 'The Soviet Decision for War against Finland, 30 November 1939'. (Soviet Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr., 1986), pp. 207-226) describes the events as follows:
 * "''The negotiations with Paasikivi and Tanner in Moscow emphasized the commitment of Stalin still to a peaceful solution. He had good reason to expect this. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had excluded the possibility that the Finns would remain unresponsive to Soviet strategic requirements in expectation of German support, which had been the fear for much of the 1930s. And the evidence of Hitler's continued aggression seemed to make incontrovertible Soviet claims that they needed to improve their security by controlling access into the Gulf of Finland in the face of evident future dangers. In these circumstances the Soviet demands were, as Upton notes in his excellent study of the Winter War, 'both rational and moderate'.4 The Soviet expectation that a settlement could be reached and was desirable was shown by the tone of the negotiations, which were generally friendly and not threatening. Stalin and Molotov attempted to convince by their arguments rather than by the weight of Soviet power. The priority given to a negotiated solution was shown by the involvement of Stalin himself in most of the discussions, and by a significant flexibility in the Soviet negotiating position, even though there remained the essential points of a base at the entrance to the Gulf of Finland and of the removal of the frontier on the Karelian isthmus further away from Leningrad. Stalin did not insist on a mutual assistance treaty which had been imposed on the Baltic states. He sought to find ways by which the proposal might be made more acceptable to the Finnish parliament and to give assurances on the evacuation of a base at Hanko at the conclusion of the war between Germany, Britain and France. After Molotov had seemed to bring the discussions to a close on 3 November with the statement that as there had been no agreement 'the matter will have to be handed over to the military', Stalin still showed a readiness to compromise. He returned to the discussions on 4 November and when the Finns firmly resisted any arrangement on Hanko, he dropped the idea and proposed an agreement for a base on any of the islands off the Hanko peninsula. Even when this was rejected by the Finns in the final session on 9 November, Stalin still sought to find another island in the vicinity which the Finns would be prepared to concede by lease or sale, but without success. Stalin's commitment to a negotiated settlement, for whatever reasons, right up to 9 November at least, thus maintaining a particular image of Soviet policy, emphasises the importance of the decision to use military force against Finland, made between that date and 30 November .''"
 * In other words, the decision to attack Finland was made on or before 30 November. The most likely that the offer Krivosheev refers to was made just pro forma.
 * BTW, additional two sources may be helpful. The first one evaluates the Spring's work as "interesting":
 * (Timo Vihavainen. The Soviet Decision for War against Finland, November 1939: A Comment (Soviet Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 314-317)):
 * "D. W. Spring (Soviet Studies, XXXVIII No. 2 (April 1986) pp. 207-26) has written an interesting article about the possible factors which influenced the Soviet decision to attack Finland on 30 November 1939. His central thesis, which holds that the attack was not a result of Stalin's commitment to the revolutionary cause, but of more complicated circumstances (p. 209), is quite convincing."
 * The second article tells more about the Soviet's motives:
 * (Kalevi J. Holsti Strategy and Techniques of Influence in Soviet-Finnish Relations (The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Mar., 1964), pp. 63-82):
 * "The Soviet military demands on Finland in 1939 were motivated, I believe, by a desire to secure the safety of Leningrad against a Nazi attack through Finland, and the attempt to communize Finland by establishing the puppet Kuusinen regime during the Winter War was only a means to the achievement of this military objective. These demands, which included the fortification of Finnish islands in the Gulf of Finland by Russian military officials, the leasing of naval bases on the Finnish southern coast, and other territorial adjustments, were typical manifestations of traditional Russian perceptions of military requirements in the Baltic area."

I believe, these sources should be in this article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call. I'm probably too lazy for that, though. --Illythr (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. The Finns departed Moscow November 13 (See also: Background of the Winter War), and after that either party did not make any offers (And Stalin was preparing to make agreement with the "Terijoki governement" anyway). In the end of negotiations, Finland was ready to cede village of Terijoki in its counteroffers in October 23 and November 3, which was far less Molotov/Stalin had demanded. There were two reasons why Finland did not want cede/lease more territory: 1) The public opinion among Finns was that the Russian should not have even an inch of a Finnish soil. Paasikivi, Mannerheim and Tanner, knowing the weak military situation of Finland, were also willing to give the Suursaari islands in the Gulf of Finland. 2) If the Finns would give with the Soviet Union wanted, there would not been "neutrality" of Finland. It probably would had happened same as in the Baltic states, where countries first gave military bases to the Soviet Union. After that, they lost their neutrality and independent in the eyes of international community. And next step, the occupation and annexation of the Baltic states next year was much easier.
 * And where Krivosheev would make this idea of last day offer? Read Aftermath of the Winter War, maybe from Molotov speeches as they were used as the basis of analysing the Winter War. Nowadays, there are better books of the Winter War in Russia by Russian authors (examples from the Finnish book "Mannerheim-linja" were authors introduced some of lately published Russian books: "Prinimay nas, Suomi-krasavitsa", Balashov; Stepakov "Liniya Mannergeima" (2002), Aptekar: "Sovetsko-finskiye Voiny" (2004), Osmathko: "Krasnaya Armiya v lokanyth voynah i voyenneh konfliktah", "Tanki v zimney voine", Petrov; Stepakov: "Sovetko-finlyansdaka voine 1938-1940.) So, basicly I would be very careful when using Russian (or Finnish) sources published before 1990.
 * 5. I do not remember seeing any source of "bread giving missions" (except of propaganda leaflet below) of the Soviet aircrafts. But I have red, when the Soviets used military bases in Estonia against Finland, the Soviets give explanations to the Estonians that aircrafts did not actually bombed Finnish cities, they were just flying. The explanation was probably just rude humour and both parties knew that. And also the Soviets dropped leaflets (after they had heavily bombed cities first), where some of them had text: "Don't starve! We have bread!". The following is an example from Edwards book p. 121: Peltimikko (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 3. While, Krivosheev is an excellent source of Russian and Soviet casualties, the narration in his book mainly follows the Soviet POV (with some neutralization), so the non-topical info he provides is of lower quality. However, the statement about one last offer on 30.11 seems too verifiable to be an outright lie. Hm.
 * 5. Well, problem is, the sentence about Molotov making such a statement is currently located in several enwiki articles, and has two Russian sources on ruwiki (one of them Aptekar). If it indeed proves to be Finnish (British?) propaganda, this may become a bit awkward. --Illythr (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5. The sentence about Molotov could be from anywhere. I have not red all Finnish books about the Winter War, but ones which I have red do not mention this "bread" incident. I just checked earlier book by Eloise Eangle and Lauri Paananen (the Winter War, page 22) in 1985 and I found this one (after description of the first air-raid in Helsinki):


 * During the Winter War, there was lot a foreign reporters in Finnish Lapland and in Helsinki. Maybe some of them had misunderstood the leaflet? Peltimikko (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5. The most logical explanation seems to be the one present in the Molotov bread basket article (sort of) - Molotov's snide denial of the 30.11.1939 Helsinki bombing coupled with the claims that the Soviet army comes in peace (and offers bread), as well as the advent of the Molotov cocktail seems to call for a natural "dish" to "come with the drink". Ascribing it to Molotov probably seemed like a minor overstatement at the time. --Illythr (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Moar
--Illythr (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Soviets on the whole had proper winter clothes, but this was not the case with every unit. - From what I've read, this was not a by-unit problem, but a "time related" one: initially, the war was expected to end within a few weeks, so no winter clothing was deemed necessary for what was supposed to be a quick march to Helsinki. Only when the first offensive had failed (by January or so) did the Soviet command begin to dress the troops according to the weather. Or so he says here (6:50).
 * The Soviet soldier had no choice etc, seems to be right off a propaganda leaflet. Might be best to reform the passage as a direct quotation.


 * I read the Soviets had logistics problems as winter clothes were holding in the Leningrad because of bureaucracy. The first wave offenses were made within the first three weeks of war in December. The original date for victory parade in Helsinki was Stalin's 60th birthday 21st December (BTW. Trivia: Stalin received only two birthday congratulations from head of states outside the Soviet Union. The first was received from A. Hitler of Germany and the second was received from O.W. Kuusinen of Finnish Democratic Republic.) January was actually quite calm, as the Russians were making massive preparations on the Karelian Isthmus.
 * I write a direct quotation from the book "Winter War" by Engle and Paananen, page 108-109: "...Furthermore, the surrounded forces dug in and also built defense fortifications of barbed wire and trenches around the perimeter. Although the troops inside did defend themselves with astonishing tenacity, they seldom tried to escape despite the cold and hunger. Meanwhile, a handful of Finns, who soon became bored with their detail, skied around the perimeter periodically to make sure no one escaped. At first, the surrounded Russians were well supplied with food and ammunition, undoubtedly made available because of their heavy casualties. Due to the Finns' lack of anti-aircraft artillery, Soviet planes could airdrop packages of supplies, and while some the bundles landed in Finnish hands, the fact they were dropped at all gave hope to the beleaguered Russians. But as time went on, and days became weeks, the lack of food and material became critical; horsemeat was the daily diet for the unfortunate motti populace. Sometimes when one group had exhausted it supplies, it did try to join a larger group nearby, but these attempts ended sadly for the would-be escapees." The book did not mention that some of Soviet soldiers also did man-eating. The Finnish photos were released in 2006, as they were classified for over 60 years (see Commons). Peltimikko (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a little mistake there, should've been "Only after the first offensive had failed did the Soviet command begin to dress the troops according to the weather (by January or so)."
 * No-no, I meant this passage: The Soviet soldier had no choice. If he refused to fight, the politruk would shoot him. If he would try to sneak through the forest, he would freeze to death. And surrender was no option for him; Soviet propaganda had told him how the Finns would torture prisoners to death., and not the factual content, but the weird wording (theatrics). It probably should be replaced with appropriate parts of the passage you quote, or simply attributed like this: "The American historian William R. Trotter describes the plight of the Soviet soldier in his book A Frozen Hell: The Russo-Finnish Winter War of 1939-1940 thus: [full quote]" (especially since the book's description doesn't make it look particularly neutral). By the way, that section of the article mentions that airlifting had eventually ceased, but doesn't mention how the Finns managed to stop it without sufficient AA guns. Might need a sentence there. --Illythr (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "The Soviet soldier had no choice...." etc seems to be a propagandistic bullshit. Roger R. Reese (Lessons of the Winter War: A Study in the Military Effectiveness of the Red Army, 1939-1940. The Journal of Military History, v. 72 (July 2008): 825–852) states the absolutely reverse. His major thesis is that the Red Army performed much better than Western, Nazi and Soviet analysts used to think, and that fact explains absolutely unpredictable failure of "Barbarossa". Concretely, Soviet soldiers demonstrated much higher morale that they expected to. They had no fear of surrender to the Finns, because they didn't recognize them as a hostile nation. They didn't believe they would be treated as traitors if they surrendered, because less then 100 Sofiet POWs refused to be repatriated after the war. However, they fought bravely in mottis and Reese does not confirm the story of politruks, that seems to be a projection of the Order No. 227 on the past. I can present large quotes from Reese on demand.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I try to separate questions and answer them one by one: 1) Red Army courage or morale: I do not question troops bravery or ability to fight, and all sources give credit to troop courage. The Soviet soldiers did not surrender easily (or at all) unlike for example Italian forces during WWII. But, there was a problem with the Red Army commanders, as they make huge mistakes. One of the biggest one was that they "allowed" troops to be encircled and trusted too much of own superiority resources (troops, tanks, artillery etc.). For example, the Finns were not encircled during the Winter War, as the Finns were allowed to retreat and regroup if the situations turned to bad. "Defend till the last man" orders were normal in German and Soviet army, but not Finns (of course there were exceptions). That is why there were not many Finnish POWs. 2) The Role of the Politruk: The war against Finland was not only patriotic war, but also ideological war against "the Fascist oppression" (by Mannerheim, Tanner etc.). Unfortunately, many straight-forward in open fields against heavy fortications lost lot of Soviet troops lifes, as a Politruk made the decision, not a professional army officer. However, the Soviets learned from mistakes and improved their tactics, and reduced a role of Politruk. And after the Winter War the Red Army was reformed (see Aftermath). 3) The Red Army executed (or in best case they were just send imprisonment to Siberya for years) its own soldiers if they tried to escape. The Red Army, as all armies of dictatorship, was very cruel. 4) Soviet POWs were returned to the Soviet Union as a part of the Peace of Moscow agreement, so POWs did not have any choice. Their fate in the Soviet Union was also cruel (death or imprisonment for years). 5) Lot of mottis were in the north of Lake Ladoga. There were bigger and smaller mottis, and some of them the Red Army soldiers managed to break out and escape. And some of them were still encircled to the last day of the war. There should be Russian memorials by individual soldiers telling what was life inside motti. 6) And finally, there are lot of sources saying what were options of individual Red Army soldier in a motti. 7) I did not expect readers to question this section as it is quite "common knowledge". Anyway, I add more references later and try to introduce different views. Peltimikko (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To avoid a needless conflict, I have to stress that I (at least) question not the factual basis of that passage (didn't read enough for that), but the form of expression, the wording of it. This style makes for a nice atmospheric touch in a book, but is out of place in an encyclopedia. Therefore, I suggest to either rewrite it keeping all the facts intact (unless Paul can refute it with his reference) or simply transform it into a direct quotation, which seems to be the best solution, as it requires the least amout of editing. --Illythr (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Even moar
(od)Dear Peltimikko. Thank you for concrete answers. I believe, some of what you write is correct (e.g. the role of the RKKA high command), but something is out of balance. I think the Red Army related sections should be re-examined for neutrality. I propose to use the works of prof. Reese (Texas University) who wrote a lot about the Red Army and whose works got very positive reviews in academic journals. (In addition, he is neither Rissian nor Finnish, that warrants more neutrality). I expect both you and I to be heavily involved in the MRP article during next weeks, however, after that I propose you to return to that question. Agreed? Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Based on the reviews on Reese's books (that looks quite positive) I consider him to be a good scholar, and, therefore, neutral. His works must be added to the article (although, obviously, the section cannot not be bases solely on them).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, from what I have seen over the years, for the purpose of impartiality in Soviet-related matters it doesn't matter at all whether an author is Russian or not. What may be more important is whether he is, uh, left-leaning or not (unsurprisingly, most western professors, especially if they are interested in Russia, are). Anyway, neutrality is not about finding a middle ground or the only and correct point of view, which would amount to original research. Rather, the policy requires us to represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Colchicum (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't read my post carefully. I didn't make stress on the Reese's nationality: this sentence was in parentheses as some auxiliary piece of information. With regards to leftist-righists, sorry, but it is an absolute nonsense. Firstly many western professors working on Russian related aspects of history are anti-Soviet and anti-Communist. Secondly, the major pillar western science rests on is neutrality, and, every reputable western scholar must be considered neutral, unless the opposite is demonstrated. This is a major difference between journalists, or political writers, who by default are either leftists or rightists, and scholars who cannot express their political views in their books and articles (otherwise they are not scientists)
 * Nobody is neutral, that would be a nonsense. Once again, neutrality in the sense relevant here has nothing to do with middle ground. And there is no need to tell me how western universities work, for I have seen it.
 * Here on Wikipedia if a reliable source claims that the Soviet troops maintained high morale and another reliable source claims that they didn't, it is not up to us to decide between them. Let alone the fact that your interpretation of sources at times happened to be very peculiar. I am not impressed by such twists as "This policy affirmed the Soviet concerns", "documents ... show that western historians have been mistaken" and so on. Please observe WP:NPOV carefully. This is not about Reese, just a general notice. Colchicum (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right now I would be very careful adding new issues, however new sources are okay, for two reasons: 1) The lengthy of the article. Right now it is near 100kb, and we have to try keep it below that point (unless more subarticles created). 2) Also, we have separate articles analysing the Red Army, so this is not best place to deepen its structure and ideas too much. And further I would add these views: 3) There are lot of recent academic studies of the Winter War in Russia. Though Finnish sources heavily critize Russian books, especially older than ten years, there are some very recent books mentioned (see earlier discussions) with positive/interested reviews. And now, a Finn have co-written book with a Russian ("Talvisodan taisteluja", 2007), another book has used a Russian expert ("Mannerheim-linja: Talvisodan legenda", 2006). BTW. Russian television channel produced good programme about the Winter War (only one fact error: "bread-incident"; see earlier discussions). I recommend to watch in youtube: (in Russian with Finnish subtitles) 4) I would use ANY book written more than ten years ago very carefully, as the history science makes progress all the time. I have use some older sources, but corrected them if a newer one have better information. Peltimikko (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't propose to add new issues, just to make some adjustments to make the article neutral. I didn't examine the article carefully, but I have already notices something that caught my eye. For instance, the article says:
 * "For many of the encircled Soviet troops in a pocket, (motti in Finnish), just staying alive was an ordeal comparable to combat. The men were freezing and starving, and endured poor sanitary conditions. The Soviet soldier had no choice. If he refused to fight, the politruk would shoot him. If he would try to sneak through the forest, he would freeze to death. And surrender was no option for him; Soviet propaganda had told him how the Finns would torture prisoners to death.[50]"
 * Whereas Reese (ref 13 in the article) writes:
 * "Given the above qualifications, the dearth of surrenders was especially remarkable for several reasons. First, weather conditions were absolutely frightfully cold, and surrender meant warm shelter and hot food. Second, the Russians had no fear of being murdered or mistreated by the Finns if they gave up. Third, the Russians had little if any hatred of the Finns that would drive men to fight to the death in hopeless situations. Fourth, although there were the official sanctions against surrender, being surrounded with little or no capacity to resist seemed to offer a legitimate excuse to give up. Fifth, there were many opportunities and situations where surrender seemed quite reasonable; from a tactical standpoint they could be interpreted as being caused by the combat situation, such as the battles of the mottis. Finally, liberal and modern Finland looked very inviting indeed if a soldier were disaffected by the Stalinist state’s social policies, and according to Sarah Davies many people were indeed disaffected by the regime’s failure to implement the promises of the socialist revolution19 - the miseries of collectivization, rapid urbanization or industrialization and the very difficult conditions of life they had created, or the terror of the purges and Gulag camps, or political alienation. Yet, few Red Army soldiers pursued that alternative."
 * Definitely, the article directly contradicts to this neutral, reputable and recent (2008) source. That should be fixed.
 * Another issue is the Soviet motives. I already presented three sources that argue that primary Soviet motives was security, not territorial expansion. Reese discusses both motives and concludes:
 * "The Soviet motivation may have been two-fold: first, Stalin had mounted a campaign to restore the pre-World War I boundaries of the Russian Empire, beginning in Poland, then in Finland, the Baltic states, and Bessarabia; and second, Stalin had a genuine fear of attack by Nazi Germany and suspected, quite incorrectly, that Finland would ally with the Germans and provide a springboard for a Nazi attack on northwest U.S.S.R. and Leningrad in particular. That Stalin sought more than just air and naval bases but intended to absorb Finland in toto is reflected in his creation of a puppet government in exile of communist Finns to be installed after the victory, and in Soviet invasion plans, which called for the complete conquest and occupation of the country. In the end both diplomatic and military intelligence failed in the war with Finland. Until attacked by the U.S.S.R., the Finns had had no desire or intention to join the Axis or allow Germany to use their territory to attack the Soviet Union. After the Winter War Finland did indeed reluctantly ally with Germany out of fear of further Soviet aggression and a desire to regain its territory lost to the U.S.S.R.."
 * The article tells nothing about that, as well as about the reason of the Soviet demands. However, the article tells in details about Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe. This story takes ~50% of the "Soviet-Finnish prewar negotiations" section, although these two topics are not directly related.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Soldiers in mottis: Shootings and cruel punishments were normal in the Red Army, and people were used to these during Russian Civil War and Stalin's Purges. So politruks and officers shooting regural soldiers for even small reasons, such as theft, was not exceptional. A Red Army soldier did not necessary afraid of Finns, but its own officers as well. Finland was not a dream land for a soldier, as it was "Fascist" according to the Soviet propaganda, and this was easy to believe as most of soldiers did not know anything about the country. Lot of troops were all over the USSR, and for example troops in the Raate road were from Ukraine. There were only some thousands of Soviet POWs. Overall, this issue needs more research and confirms first, as Reese's writings alone do not convince as that form.
 * 2) The Soviet motives: This is correct. If you read the deeper article Background of the Winter War, these motives are listed there. Again, the problem is the length of the Winter War article. But I do not have anything against (only for) if you add something of motives and concludes to BOTH articles. Peltimikko (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "Shootings and cruel punishments were normal in the Red Army" This is correct for Civil and Great Patriotic wars. However, it was not necessarily true for the interwar period. I'll check it.
 * Re: "as it was "Fascist" according to the Soviet propaganda". Again, Soviet propaganda called them belofinny, not fascists.
 * Re: Background of the Winter War. AFAIK, this is a current article's daughter article. To avoid WP:CFORK "the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article". I'll try to fix that in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your sources are half right. Belofinny means White Guard, almost the same as Suojeluskunta. The Soviets thought that the Finns were divided two pieces, White Guards (Bourgeoisie) and Red Guards (Workers). During the Finnish civil war in 1918, the Finnish leftists revolted against the government, and tried to start revolutions. The leader was O.W. Kuusinen who escaped to Soviet Russia after the lost war. The White guards used terror against lost Red guards killing more people after the war than during the war, this caused lot of bitterness among working-class people. Later his career in CCCR was succesful, becoming the head of Comintern. Kuusinen was "yes-man" and so he survived Stalin's purges. After the Finnish civil and before Winter war the Finnish left changed as Väinö Tanner promoted parliamentarism, and his party was time to time in the Finnish goverment. During the Winter War, Kuusinen still lived his Finnish civil war times, and tried to use same arguments against the Finnish workers, but time were changed they rejected his ideas. That is why the Soviet propaganda used arguments were they were not on war against the Finnish people, but "the murders of the White Guard": Mannerheim, Erkko, Tanner etc. Peltimikko (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no contradiction between what you and I say. The only my question is, do you know if Soviet propaganda really used extensively the word fascists to characterize "belofinns". My sources do not confirm that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right. I do not find a word fascists either - the word "white-Finns" (or belofinns) is used a lot. Interesting. Maybe a lack of word "fascist" is due fact that the Soviets had with Nazi Germany in that time? The Winter War had some volunteers from Fascist Italy, but (almost) nothing from Nazi Germany. Furthermore, for example Robert Edwards mentions Poland and Finland being accused on fascism during the 1930s. Peltimikko (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Edwards seems to be partially right. Some contemporary general history books (I mean the books written and issued in the west) contain maps where pre-war Poland, Lithuania and Latvia are marked semi-fascist countries, whereas Finland is not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, some mention of "Fascist elements in the Finnish government" can be found in postwar Soviet sources, like Falsifiers of History. During the Winter war, however, Soviet propaganda seems to use terms like "reactionary" and "bourgeois", stressing the "whiteness" of the opposition. Here's that original Pravda article, "A Buffoon Holding the Post of Prime Minister", that set the tone for the propaganda wave back then. It notably says that the actions of the "bourgeois" Finnish government are dictated by "militant (British) imperialism" and doesn't mention Fascism at all. Perhaps something from the pre-23.08.39 time, but that's out of scope of this article. --Illythr (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Post-war sources are irrelevant because the question was how did the war time propaganda treated the Finns. The fact that it didn't call them fascists is in agreement with what I know on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Still more
As I'm working through on my grammar/readability refinement, I had one paragraph that I could not touch: the first paragraph of "Soviet order of battle." Is the "He" that begins the third sentence Stalin or some other commanding general? This was sufficiently ambiguous to prevent me from correcting the paragraph because I'm not entirely sure what it's trying to say. If someone who knows (Peltimikko?) could clear that up, I'll get that paragraph and then move on with the rest of my project. Dj09ou (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I corrected "he" to "Stalin". Peltimikko (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This article needs language improvement
this article reads as if the text was translated by someone other than a native English speaker. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but many ambiguities remain, leaving meaning often uncertain. But oh well. Trigley (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I confess. And please ask, I can try to answer uncertain edits, and explain those in best of my ability. Peltimikko (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO Peltimikko is doing great work. It's for us others to pitch in and do some proofreading and fact checking. Will try to do my part when I have more time. Mikko H. (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * +1: Peltimikko's edits are quite good. It's all the fault of the English language with all its weird articles and things. :-)


 * I am in the process of working through the grammar issues and making it more readable. I'm not planning on tampering with the organization or big things, but I'm going to do my best to put it in GA English. :) Dj09ou (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good work. This will help readers. Peltimikko (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've largely finished with grammar, spelling, and readability updates. I also added a new section, "Finnish tactics" for some orphan information that needed a home. There might still be some isolated grammar issues that I didn't catch, but I think readability and flow have both been improved. Dj09ou (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Molotov cocktail
It contained a bottled blend of gasoline, kerosene, tar and chloride
 * Chloride doesn't make much sense here. Where is this taken from? Potassium chlorate maybe? Colchicum (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Anyway, these details are excessive here. Wouldn't it be enough to say that it was an improvised bottled incendiary device? Colchicum (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The contain is from William Trotter's The Winter war: The Russo–Finnish War of 1939–40. But you are right, shorter version is better. Please, make proper changes. Peltimikko (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Battles of the Winter War
I think there should be some changes what battles should be listed and created subpages. Now we have: Tolvajärvi – Suomussalmi – Kelja – Taipale – Summa – Raate road – Kuhmo – Honkaniemi – Kollaa – Salla – Petsamo

I suggest we should list: Karelian Isthmus Taipale (1939) - Summa (1939) - Kelja - Taipale (1940) - Summa (1940) - Vuosalmi - Vyborg bay - Vyborg North of Lake Ladoga Ruhtinaanmäki - Kollaa (1939) - Tolvajärvi - Ägläjärvi - Motti battles (incl. Lementi and Kitilä) - Kollaa (1940) Northern Finland Suomussalmi - Raate road - Kuhmo Finnish Lapland Pelkosenniemi - Joutsijärvi - Petsamo Comments and suggestions? Peltimikko (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Krivosheev in English
Did I already provide you the link to Krivosheev's book in Enlish? Probably not. So here it is:

Pages 95 - 108:

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/SovietLosses.pdf

This is the old edition (not the new one published in 2001), but if it comes to the Winter War, not much has changed since the previous edition. Krivosheev also provides interesting figures concerning Finnish casualties during that war on page 108 of his work, quotation:

"According to Finnish sources (see: "Abroad", No 48., 1989), Finland's personnel losses in the war were 48,243 killed and 43,000 wounded."

Peter558 (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he cites a mistranslated interview of Helge Seppälä, where the unknown translator has added the 23,000 military casualties with 25,243 total casualties (including civilians). Because the translated article was published in an authoritative Soviet journal, this "citation error" has become fairly common in Russian scholarly works, including the one by Krivosheev. --Illythr (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Real Soviet casualties during the battle of Raate road
Finnish estimations exaggerate Soviet casualties during that battle to great extent. Russian sources give much lower losses, they also say that over 50% of soldiers from 44. Division and majority of soldiers from 163. Division managed to escape the pocket. But 40% of those who escaped, escaped without their rifles (they dropped or lost them during the retreat) as well as other equipment.

It should be noted that a rifle division of that time numbered around 11,000 - 13,000 men (including rear & support services and stocks). If it comes to 44. Division, one artillery regiment and divisional hospital managed to escape the pocket in full strength (these units were not destroyed nor dispersed). All infantry regiments were destroyed, but remnants who managed to escape - as I wrote before - numbered over 50% of personal strength of these infantry regiments (this includes 1057 wounded and frotsbitten). Losses of 44. Div. in the pocket amounted to 1,001 killed, 2,243 missing (this includes both POWs and dead) and 1,430 wounded - in total 4,674 men. Equipment casualties were of course much bigger - almost all equipment was lost. To this we must add also casualties of 163. Division during the battle of Raate road - they amounted to 537 killed, 929 wounded, 300 frostbitten and 500 captured - and of course major part of divisional equipment. Links to sources can be found here:

http://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=696&p=1396823#p1396540

http://www.dws.org.pl/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=696&p=1396823#p1396794

Use google translate if you don't read Russian:

http://translate.google.com/#

Additionally these sources also provide casualties of 163. Rifle Division before the battle of Raate (in period 20.12.1939 - 01.01.1940) - they amounted to 353 killed, 486 wounded, 107 captured (this includes only fully confirmed captured), 346 missing and 65 frostbitten. The number of missing during the battle of Raate road is not given (unless they are not included in the 500 captured figure).

PS:

These Russian sources also say about very hard situation of Russian soldiers inside the Raate pocket, terrible frost, lack of food - especially warm food, lack of water; some units were not receiving any food and almost any water for 3 days or more - despite this extremely hard situation they were resisting for as long as 9 days and some were strong enough to get out of the pocket after all of that.

Peter558 (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I edited the article Battle of Raate road. The source was the Finnish book "Raatteen tie" (2007) by Mika Kulju. Thank you for your questions, because otherwise these issues would not been noticed. Peltimikko (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Some more stuff
I've copyedited the first six sections so far. Here's what I've noticed:
 * Note 5: "Kilin upgraded his calculations in 2007 to 134,000 dead" - I have already fixed the error in presenting Krivosheev's figure of 126,875 as just "dead". Could this be that Kilin's data also stands for "irrecoverable losses" - that is, dead and MIA (Krivosheev's actual number of confirmed dead was 87,506 the rest being MIA)?
 * The government was also called "The Terijoki Government", since the village of Terijoki was the first place liberated by the Red Army in the Soviet propaganda. - perhaps change this to The government was also called "The Terijoki Government" named after the village of Terijoki, the first place captured by the advancing Soviet army''? - avoiding the POVish formulation "liberated/propaganda"
 * In that case, the manpower ratio would favor the attacker by a ratio of 3:1. The true ratio was much higher;... - Um, "At the beginning of the war, the Finns had 337,000 men." USSR deployed 425,640 (due to divisions being severely understaffed), this makes the ratio much lower. 1,26:1, to be exact.
 * Soviet units attempted to cross the ice of the Gulf of Viipuri to come up behind the city, but the Finnish coastal artillery fired its heaviest guns to break the ice under the Soviets and prevent a clean breakthrough. - And? What happened?
 * [Finland ceded] much of Finland's industrialized territory - how much? A broad approximation will do. --Illythr (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Kilin upgraded...". The exact word was "dead., but it was only shortly mentioned in a 2007 book (Sodan totuudet). This is also a reason why it is only mentioned in notes - because this number would require more exact charts. However, Yuri Kilin is very reliable historian, so I am just waiting for a new book / article from him.
 * Terijoki: You are right. Fixed.
 * Ratios: seems as the article is changing all the time, some outdated data is still there. Anyone is free to fix this info.
 * Actually, now you mentioned this in that way, maybe it is not correct. Or at least I have not found it any source, though I have not really search for it. Could be removed for now until a source. Peltimikko (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As to the last point, no, don't remove it, maybe even elaborate, it is important (to the Soviet industry too, btw). I vaguely recall that the figure is on the order of 10-20% (of what? Finland's industrial output/capacity? Depends on how you measure it, I guess), and sources shouldn't be difficult to find. But "industrialized territory" sounds awkward here. Colchicum (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That point refers to the guns/ice thing. The last point certainly must not be removed - only made more specific, as "much" is a bad quantifier. I (just as vaguelly) recall... oh., the lead: "Finland ceded about 9 percent of its pre-war territory and 20 percent of its industrial capacity to the Soviet Union". I'll fix this right away. --Illythr (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, BTW, lead says about 9 % of territory was ceded, "Peace of Moscow" section says over 10%. --Illythr (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Original source did not give exact numbers, but Edwards did. fixed. Peltimikko (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The second half of the "First battles on the Karelian Isthmus" has very little to do with the Karelian Isthmus. Colchicum (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to just "First battles" --Illythr (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Last batch:
 * The Finnish Karelians evacuated from the ceded areas established an interest group Karjalan Liitto. The group was to defend the rights and interests of Karelian evacuees and to find a way to Karelian question in Finnish politics|return Karelia to Finland. - eh, they vied for the "return" of all of Karelia, didn't they? - no, they didn't, but I'll fix the "which Karelia?" confusion.
 * The Soviets did not capture the city during the war; hence, the Soviet propaganda distributed pictures of the conquered city afterward. - did Soviet propaganda claim that it was captured in battle? Otherwise it's unclear what purpose this sentence serves.
 * Furthermore there is a quite impressive painting called "Conquest of Viipuri" (or something). I tried to "google" it, and unfortunately I do not have that Finnish book, where this painting was presented. The book was called "The Winter War by the Red Army" (Finnish: Talvisota puna-armeijan silmin). Peltimikko (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * During the Interim Peace, Finland allied with Germany... Technically, there was no alliance, was it? Perhaps use a softer term, like "became aligned" or something? --Illythr (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Allied" or "Co-belligerence". Both are used in literacy. "Separate" is buried. Maybe I should create the article "Finnish–German relations during the Continuation War". There are lot of recent Finnish studies, especially "Aseveljiä vai liittolaisia?" by Markku Jokisipilä 2004 was very interesting in my quick look. Peltimikko (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the sentence is to say that Finland "drew closer" to Germany in the interim. "Allied" (de facto) was the endpoint of this process. --Illythr (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Terijoki govt - wasn't it named so because Terijoki was its (provisional) seat rather than just the first occupied town? And for sure Terijoki wasn't the first place occupied by the Red Army, it was the first town on their way. Colchicum (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, both - the "govt" was formed in the first inhabited place. As soon as you can come up with a good translation of "населённый пункт" other than "town," which is already used in the sentence, we can easily replace "place" with it. --Illythr (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There were quite a number of inhabited localities between Terijoki and the border. Terijoki as a municipality was possibly the first municipality captured by the Soviet Union (though Metsäpirtti or Kivennapa might well be captured few hours earlier, as if it matters), but the town itself wasn't the first settlement on their way. Colchicum (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, perhaps use "administrative center," or just "municipality," then? The basic idea is to say "first place of administrative value," preferably with a single word. --Illythr (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside
Oh, dunno if anyone cares, but the archival code from the (former) foot note 8 reads as follows:
 * РГВА — Российский Государственный Военный Архив — Russian State Military Archive
 * Ф.37977. — Фонд — Repository
 * Оп.1. — Опись — Inventory
 * Д.595. — Дело — File
 * Л.57—59, 95 — Лист — Page --Illythr (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Viipuri
Actually, what did happen at Viipuri? This Russian source says it was conquered on 13 March 1940 in a frontal attack. Meltiukhov, on the other hand (linked to in the article) writes that Soviet forces entered the city on 12 March, and there was heavy fighting on the following day that lasted two hours after the ceasefire went in effect, but Soviet units were unable to capture the city centre. --Illythr (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Soviets did conquered lot of surban areas of Viipuri, BUT the Red Army did not conquer the city centre. The Finnish flag fluttered on the top of Vyborg Castle when hostilities between Finland and the Soviet Union ended. Have you watched the Russian documentary of the Winter War in YouTube ? The Soviets really tried to conquer the city in last days. Peltimikko (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Narkomfin & Finkelshtein, hehe. Thanks, I saw the docu, but it's been awhile, so I forgot. Might be a good idea to add a sentence or two about the fighting there. --Illythr (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Red Army controlled approx. one-third of Viipuri—the south-eastern suburbs—when the war ended. At 11 am. (Finnish time) on 13 March, the Finnish front line ran just southeast of the city center at the Patterinmäki hill. See my postings (with sources) beginning at . Mikko H. (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This topic might be good expansion material. --Illythr (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

For decision: US English, UK English, Australian English, Indian English...
Wotcher, Which English to Use. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, UK English is a good choice, because Finland and the Soviet Union are/were European countries. Peltimikko (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Peltimikko - UK is geographically closest and the Brits have even, eh, almost participated. --Illythr (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Stalin and Stavka
There is a doubt that Stalin was not one of the "architects" of the Winter War. According to Ohto Manninen in 1994, the Main Headquarters ordered a military planning task to the Leningrad Military District leader Meretskov in 1939. Merestkov wrote in his memoirs that Stalin himself gave a him task to plan different "counterattacks" against Finland in June 1939. Merestkov wrote a memo, but it was critized by Stalin and Voroshilov in July 1939; as they wanted that the conquer of Finland would take not more than two weeks, and they promised that Meretskov would receive more troops outside of Leningrad Military District. After the conquest of Poland, troops were moved along the Baltic states and the Finnish border. Assault plans against Finland were dated "October" (the exact date was left open), and the last plan was dated 16 September 1939. The main troop deployement along the Karelian Isthmus started at the begin of October; the exact combat order n:ro 1 was announced on 8 October by Duhanov (deputy of Meretskov).

According to Manninen, only after three days of fighting, 2 December, the High Command of the Red Army (Voroshilov and Shaposhnikov) noted that the Soviet troops are moving too slowly. The General Staff Supreme Command, Stavka, took all troops under its command on 9 December, and Meretskov was adjourned as Commander of the 7th Army. In the end of December the Stavka (Voroshilov, Shasposkov and Stalin) gave order to air bombings of targer in deep Finland. For some reason, Manninen does not mention Stalin in first sentence, but other he includes Stalin as a member of Stavka.

According to Robert Edwards (who is not as reliable a source as Manninen); Quotation: "... overall the overall control of the campaign now passed to the General Staff Supreme Command (later known as Stavka), directly under Stalin and Voroshilov, eagerly but ineffectively assisted by Lev Mekhlis...". So, seems we have three different possibilities as a member of The General Staff Supreme Command in December 1939. Peltimikko (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

264,908 Soviet wounded, basing on Krivosheev
We have got this figure of wounded given in the article, and in the footnote Krivosheev is listed as a source. But the fact is that Krivosheev doesn't write that there were 264,908 wounded, this is wrong.

He gives the following figures of Soviet losses:

killed and died in stages of the medical evacuation - 71,214 died of wounds and injuries - 16,292 missing - 39,369 (number established 10 years after the conflict basing on reports of units and accounts of families of missing - this also includes died in captivity) wounded, injured and burned - 188,671

frostbitten - 17,867 sick - 58,370

The last two categories - frostbitten and sick - are NOT wounded and are clearly non-combat losses.

Thus the number of wounded given in the article should be corrected.

Among the total number of wounded, wounds were distributed by type in the following manner:

gunshot - 68% wounds from artillery shells - 31,6% wounds from mines - 0,3% from nonfiring weapons - 0,1%

On the other hand Finnish sources give Finnish losses as:

killed - 20,158 died from wounds - 3,671 missing - 1,727 unknown cause of death - 363 died in captivity - 28 wounded - 43,557

died by accidents or disease - 715

Peter558 (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The shelling of Mainila
I have now twice removed what for all the world looks like Soviet-style propaganda and distortions from this section. That it was the Soviet Union which shelled its own people, as way to set Finland up for the subsequent invasion, is the established opinion of historians. The Peltimikko version seems weasily worded and deceptively ordered to suggest that this is not the case. Peltimikko euphemistically calls the shelling "a border incident", as if the event is some trivial event still being investigated. Soviet-style phrases like "the Western historiography" seem intended to cast dispersions on the accepted view of historians. His use of the phrase "Western historiography" also seems designed to suggest some sort of comparison with (and equality to) Soviet historiography. He writes "Soviet historiography saw the incident as a Finnish aggression". However, soviet historiography sees nothing - Soviet historiography was an ideology that existed to represent the policies of the Soviet state. I don't understand why Peltimikko wants the article to contain such wording given that it so obviously contradicts the spirit of his own words in the GA Review section: "I think the Shelling of Mainila is not nowadays disputed, as Russian histography admits it". Meowy 16:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The main problem with the shelling is that, while circumstantial evidence strongly points to it being staged by the Soviet side, there is no conclusive evidence that it was (as opposed to the Katyn massacre, for example). So all we have here is opinions of historians, which must be phrased as opinion and properly attributed.
 * Peltimikko's version describes the facts, consequences and opinions separately. From his version, it is quite evident whose opinion is most likely correct. He's just being neutral about it. I'm sure he enjoys being called a "cold war communist Russian," though.
 * See also Soviet historiography. --Illythr (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Soviet historiography did not see, it presented. It was not at all clear from Peltimikko's version whose opinion is most likely to be correct. In his version the Soviet claim, that "Finland did it", is repeated twice before the majority viewpoint, that "the Soviet Union did it", is stated (stated without making clear it is the majority opinion, and stated using weasel-like wording that would suggest it is a dubious opinion with a political or ethnic bias - quote "the Finnish and the Western historiography"). Then the Soviet view is stated yet again, and then it is stated a fourth time (with wording that implies it is still the majority opinion amongst Russian historians). My version is a more neutral version because it clearly explains the event and the reasons it happened, and places the most important information and the most widely accepted opinion first. Meowy 21:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think "presented" or "described" would've been better.
 * "Finland did it" is very clearly stated as a Soviet claim. This is important because it (the claim) was one of the key events that led to the war. Who did it is actually less important because regardless of that the event was used by the USSR to start the war.
 * I don't see "the Finnish and the Western historiography" as weaseling - it's simple attribution, no more and no less than "Soviet historiography". That Soviet historiography has a bad reputation doesn't mean every other historiography does. Also, the original version follows a timeline - the event, immediate reaction, later views, post-Soviet views.
 * "Still refusing to accept" is sheer POV. And "claimed that the Finnish response was hostile and the non-aggression pact." is just mangled. Meh, I'll try rewrite it so that suits everyone later today. --Illythr (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think nowadays, what I have read and seen in recent television documentaries (for example "Sota ilman voittoa"/"Война без победы" the Finnish-Russian joint tv-documentary), the incident is seen in Russian historiography mainly as Soviet casus belli to start the war against Finland. Of course, there are still "traditional" views as I have written in the article Aftermath of the Winter War, and for example recent computer game's, Talvisota: Icy Hell's, background sections give very soviet-traditional picture of the war. Nevertheless, I believe Illythr can write a balanced section. Peltimikko (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I rewrote the section. Now I'm not sure paragraph three (about Soviet historiography) is needed in this article at all. Anyhow, comments welcome. --Illythr (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:World War II
I removed category World War II because category Winter War is already a sub-category of that category. --Dodo19 (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Result not a Soviet victory
So is there any reason not to call this a Soviet victory? -YMB29 (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Kurt Leyman has been more insistent than anyone else about it? --Illythr (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, so he is the only one objecting? -YMB29 (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to belive that the Winter war was just a Soviet Victory. If anything it was a Pyrrhic Victory for the Soviets as they were not able to conquer the entire nation and it took several thousand lives for the soviets just to gain a handful of sq miles.-- Coldplay   Expert  17:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are some relevant discussions. Of course, there was no consensus in any of them:
 * "Decisive Finnish Victory"??? (hehe)
 * Soviet-Finish victory - "Pyrrhic Victory"
 * It's not that simple "Moscow Peace Treaty"
 * Victory - "Soviet strategic victory, Grand strategic failure; Interim Peace; Continuation War"
 * How the war ended on the ground: Soviet victory - "Soviet pyrrhic victory"
 * --Illythr (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * why dont we just call it Pyrrhic Soviet Victory? or we could say it was a Tactical Soviet Victory and a Strategic Finnish Victory.-- Coldplay   Expert  22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or is ti the other way around?-- Coldplay   Expert  22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not a tactical nor a strategic victory for Finland. You are assuming the USSR wanted to conquer Finland? The Soviets got the land they wanted, so it is their victory even though their losses were heavier. -YMB29 (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Originally the USSR did want to conquer Finland. But they reassessed the war effort in the beginning of 1940 and changed goals. Still I agree that the result should state unambiguously that it was Soviet victory. In a way it was a moral Finnish victory, but that doesn't count in the Wikipedia. Mikko H. (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Soviet Victory. Other issue: The Soviets did want to conquer WHOLE Finland. If you are interested in reading contemprorary Russian books of Winter War, there are some mentioned in the article Aftermath of the Winter War under section "Russian literature". I recommend to read writings of Yuri Kilin. Peltimikko (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Soviets wanting to occupy Finland looks more like speculation than an actual military goal. -YMB29 (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Speculation? See e.g. the Terijoki government, which is discussed in the article. Also the Red Army armies in the north received orders to advance to the Finnish-Swedish border, and—IIRC—the armies in the south had Helsinki as their final goal. But as I said above, all this changed in when the Soviet leadership decided to reassess their goals from late December 1939 on. Perhaps this needs to be better reflected in the article. Mikko H. (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And you are certain of this because...? Anyway, the Red Army was given an order to proceed to Helsinki 2 weeks and (assaulting with 163rd, 54th and 138th Divisions) to Oulu within 15 days. Maybe you find the figures also in some contemprorary Russian book of Winter War? Peltimikko (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well again we can speculate what the Soviets wanted to do with that Terijoki government (put pressure, legitimize military action, or occupy). However the clear Soviet goal were the territories that were ceded, especially around Leningrad. -YMB29 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to speculate - the Soviet Union recognized the Terijoki government as the only legitimate government of the Finland and announced that any official Soviet-Finnish talks will be conducted with that government. Eh, it's all there in the article, go on, read it. --Illythr (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Read what I wrote; recognizing the government does not mean that they wanted to occupy. -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 50%/50% that they wanted or didn't want. However it is Soviet victory, but Moscow Peace Treaty in result is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.113.180.95 (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since their losses were higher, can't it be a Soviet Pyrrhic Victory?-- Coldplay   Expert  11:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Losses don't matter in this case. -YMB29 (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, while you're at it, please consider contributing to the same discussion in the Continuation war article. --Illythr (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So there is an agreement that it should state Soviet victory for both wars? I don't mean to be picky, just that excluding it from the results is misleading. -YMB29 (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that mentioning Soviet victory as result of war is pretty misleading. Usually in wikipedia war articles victory means that winning side of war has conquered losing side, or losing side has completely surrendered and became controlled by winner. But when you look at Soviet success in Winter War, it was pretty far from victory both politically and military. There is no doubt (REALLY no doubt to day) that Winter War was the war of aggression by Soviet Union, and SU's main goal at the beginning of war was to conquer Finland (whole Finland) or make Finland as its puppet regime (lead by communist Terijoki government). Military goal was to destroy finnish army (in less than three weeks). Beating of finnish army was planned to do by five major offensives to Finland (conquer of Petsamo, cutting Finland in half at Oulu region, flanking finnish forces around lake Ladoga, conquering Vyborg (and after that Helsinki), and by landing to Åland and islands near Turku (this one was canceled when war broke up)). All offensives failed, in spite of huge material and men power superiority. Red Army lost practically all major battles of war, and suffered over five times more casualties than finnish army(71,400 vs 391,800). Conquering of Finland failed, and so was failed to put communist Terijoki puppet goverment to legal finnish government. It is clear that if the war had lasted longer, then sooner or later Soviet Union had totally won it because of vast superiority of military (at beginning of Winter war Red Army had about 425,000 men involved in attack and at the end of war number was 700,000 - 900,000 men). But the things went as they went. Soviet Union didnt want to start war against Great-Britain and France by continuing offensive, and Finland didnt want to take risk that western allies would not have sent troops in on time to support Finland (at 13th March finnish situation was so critical that army couldnt defend country on its own longer than month). Of course Soviet Union demanded as much land areas as in peace negotations (or as much as it was appropriate when not trying not to interrupt western allies too much and not to make peace terms too harsh for Finland to accept). Soviet Union also wanted buffer zone around Leningrad. Its then different thing can you call these terms of peace as Soviet victory (not even pyrrhic victory), when all operations and plans and the main goal of war were failed in past months? But what about looking outcome of war from finnish point of view, or from finnish army point of view? Goal of finnish army was to defend the independense of Finland. Finnish politicians had practically same goal as army (protect Finland from falling into the hands of foreign power and try to get to peace aggreement as soon as possible). Finally, the war ended to the peace aggreement (not surrender) and Finland remained as independent country. Finland's objectives in this regard were successful (especially when remembering that Soviet Union didnt even wanted to negotiate about peace until the war had lasted three months). Problem in peace negotiations at finnish view was of course that Soviet side was the one that made terms of peace, and Finland's part was only to accept or decline them. Other thing is that were unsatisfactory peace terms and land losses the lost of war for Finland, when main objective was reached and independense of country remained after the war (against worlds largest military at that time). Winter War was in many ways something entirely different than victory for Soviet Union (not even pyrrhic victory). These are only my opinions. If someone have good reasons why Winter War should be mentioned as Soviet Victory rather than for example draw (or just Moscow Peace Treaty as result in article), then I want to see them too.62.240.87.240 (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this are your opinions. I don't think that victory as result is misleading.62.113.180.95 (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the best description of the end of the Winter War would be a stalemate that was solved by the Moscow Peace Treaty. According to most Western historians using the secret Soviet documents revealed to the public during the final days of URSS, he original intention of the Soviet invasion of Finland was the same of the intentions behind the 1939-1940 invasions of Romania, the Baltics and Poland: to regain most of the former European Imperial territories ceded by Soviet Russia trough the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.--MaGioZal (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So where are your sources about the occupation of Finland? -YMB29 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well… the text of the Soviet-German Pact itself!--MaGioZal (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It *would be* a Soviet victory if…

 * …the territory of Finland became another Soviet Union republic, as the way that happened with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia;
 * …or the Finnish Democratic Republic became the sole government of all Finland and turned it into a pre-1945 Soviet satellite state like Mongolia.

As none of these things ever happened, the result could not (and is not, according to most Western scholars of World War II) be classified as anything like a “Soviet victory”.--MaGioZal (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that a war must end with complete subjugation of one party for the other to be considered victorious? That would invalidate quite a few victories in the history of warfare... Anyhow, here are some Western sources explicitly mentioning a Soviet victory in the Winter war:,  , , , . How about Väinö Tanner's "We bow to superior force"?  --Illythr (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I’m not saying anything. What I am using as reference is the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that were discovered by the United States and [[West Germany only after World War II and recognized by the Soviet Union only in 1989. So the people who described the events by the time of the Winter and Continuation Wars didn’t know about the real intentions and goals of the Stalin’s Soviet Union.--MaGioZal (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And some ≠ most of the important.--MaGioZal (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that all five sources are post-1990 (and Tanner's book is post-1948), so I'm not sure who are you referring to by "people who described the events by the time of the Winter and Continuation Wars". In any case, the secret protocol cannot be used as a reference for Soviet intent to conquer all of Finland because it merely stipulates an "interest" in the area, without clarifying what this "interest" might be. What can be used instead is the formation of the Finnish Democratic Republic, a puppet government meant to rule the conquered country. Soviet abandonment of FDR has been indeed a victory for the Finns, albeit a political one: The USSR only toned down its demands and settled for a smaller gain. From military, strategic and economic perspectives, however, the Soviet Union was still the winner. Here are some more modern (post 2000) Western sources that describe the outcome as a Soviet victory . Note that the last one makes a distinction between an absolute victory and a limited one, stating that the latter was the case in the Winter war. Perhaps that ("limited Soviet victory") would be a compromise acceptable to all? --Illythr (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We must be aware that excluding Finland all of the “areas of interest” marked in the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact became part either of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. “Limited Soviet victory” could be an acceptable compromise term, even tough personally I believe “stalemate” could be a good description of what happened.--MaGioZal (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There was no stalemate (don't confuse this war with the Continuation war, which did end in a tactical stalemate) - just read the Last days of war section. As for the result - perhaps we should wait for some input from other regulars here. --Illythr (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When talking about Winter War, we got to remember that it was so much different conflict than any other during the 1939-1945 timeline. Greco-Italian war was very remarkable war, where forces of Greece actually *almost* stopped Italians. Still, the strenghts on both sides were "pretty close" each other (550 000 Italians vs 300 000 Greeks). In addition, italians had 450 airplanes and 150 tanks. Still, no one believed that Greece can defend itself against Italy longer than month.
 * What about Winter War then. 350 000 finns with very limited airforce and almost no tanks against one million Soviet soldiers with over 6000 tanks and 4500 airplanes. No one, not even finns themselves believed they could hold up the longer than couple of weeks maximun. Nazi-Germany prevented all aid to Finland (all they were able to prevent), Nordic countries didn't wanted to risk their own safety by helping Finland officially. Even western allies weren't interested in Finlands situation until the first month of war was passed. Situation was more than hopeless in Finnish view. If same kind of situation with same military strenghts happens today to any country in the world, that country will immediately surrender, no doubt about that (those numbers and that situation are just so unveliavable)!!
 * Finnish government set only one goal to war; retain independence and sovereigthy. Until february 1940 soviet goal was to occupy whole Finland. Mid-february things changed when peace negotations started.
 * Winter war ended 13th March 1940, exactly 70 years ago. If the war had continued just couple days longer, it would have led Soviet Union to war against France and Great Britain (and turned Soviet situation to disaster). If there havent been threat of war against western allies, Soviet Union would had probaply continued offensive until Finland had surrendered and thus reached its goals. "Unfortunately" this never happened and Finnish government reached its own goals.
 * So, if the war was "limited soviet victory", it got to be "limited finnish victory" too. Or just keep result as it has been last couple of years, or so...Esgorde (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * History doesn't suffer conjunctives. When historians seek to evaluate the results, they look at, well, the results: Finland sued for peace and ceded territories - this clearly marks the war as a Soviet victory. That the Soviet Union could achieve more with better planning or something else might happened is the realm of alternative history. Also, in a war, there can be only one victorious side. According to sources, that was USSR. --Illythr (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * History knows many wars with no winner. Latest was probably Iran-Iraq war, even when Iraq was almost all the time stronger and dominating side in the war, and managed to capture some small areas from Iran. Still, Iraq's own losses were so heavy that the war wasn't really victory for it, not even so called pyrrhic victory. In Winter War soviet losses were unbelievable high when comparing them to finnish casualties. There is no other war in history of modern warfare (both countries using "modern" eguipment) where differense in casualty numbers is as high as it was in Winter War. But anyway. To main thing im trying to say.. In the end of the Winter War both countries were kind of forced to make peace! Both countries were still able to keep on fighting if they would have liked. For Finland the decision was of course more critical. French and british forces had arrived to Finland in couple of weeks, but it wasn't sure was Finland able to defend itself that long anymore. This was the main reason why Finland decided to sign the peace agreement. What about Soviet Union then. USSR wanted to avoid war with western allies by all cost. Continuing the war had been too risky gamble for Soviet Union. This was the reason why Soviet Union signed the peace agreement. There still was no possibility that Soviet Union had signed the agreement without still demanding land areas it demanded before the war. In many ways this was still side issue. This sentence tells it all (straight from this wikipedia article): "The Soviet forces did not accomplish their objective of the total conquest of Finland but did gain sufficient territory along Lake Ladoga to provide a buffer for Leningrad. The Finns, however, retained their sovereignty and improved their international reputation.". We can also say it this way: "Finland was winner in very same game where Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania were losers." Its very difficult to neutrally define winner of Winter War, because in Russian perspective gaining of that buffer zone from Carelia means victory of war, while in Finnish point of view just succesful defense of independence of the country against overwhelming enemy was victory. So, I still suggest we keep only "Intermin peace" as result. Ugh, I have spoken :D Esgorde (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the USSR's goal was to conquest Finland, the war's result was by no means Soviet victory. However, taking into account that many authors believe that Hanko and the land around Leningrad were the genuine Soviet goals (and that the decision on full conquest was made only when it became clear that peaceful solution of the issue was not possible), one can interpret the war's results as a full (although costly) Soviet victory. In addition, "interim peace" is simply incorrect, because the war ended with full scale peace treaty, not with truce.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There still was no possibility that Soviet Union had signed the agreement without still demanding land areas it demanded before the war. - that's the point: USSR was in a position to make demands (and as Soviet war effort continued beyond the Mannerheim line, these demands kept increasing), Finland wasn't. The peace agreement was signed when Soviet demands were satisfied, not Finnish. The result of this war is determined by qualified secondary sources (non-partisan historians), where "(limited) Soviet victory" is given.
 * Paul Siebert: Note that the source I used is well aware of the Terijoki government and its intent. Reiter differentiates between a total victory and a limited one, concluding that the latter was the case in this war. --Illythr (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. However, I don't remember if anybody here proposed to present the Winter war's result as decisive victory. Of course, although Stalin conquered what he needed, it was not what he expected to get because a conquered territory is not as safe as the same territory that was ceded peacefully. Nevertheless, the victory was bloody, costly, limited, but it was a victory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I understand all the opposition to "Soviet victory" here is because people confuse it with "total/decisive Soviet victory," so I used "limited" to make the difference obvious. Oh well... --Illythr (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

English vs Russian "Winter war"??
I was quite surprised when I noticed that both English and Russian versions of Winter war articles had received "good article" -status even though they are almost completely different. There are huge differences in for example casualties, outcome, and background of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.216.127.93 (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Russian Wikipedia reflects its long history of different, and even crossing, views in histography. A good thumb of rule: later sources are usely better than old ones. Some of these issues are handled in Aftermath of the Winter War under sections "Soviet literature" and "Russian literature". Peltimikko (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this pic from the Winter Wars?
, Thanks, Marasama (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Franco-British plan
The peace treaty thwarted the Franco-British plan to send troops to Finland through northern Scandinavia. I think what thwarted the plan was how long it took the Western Democracies to act. By the time the Finns gave it they had almost nothing to fight with. Jokem (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Franco-British plan
'The peace treaty thwarted the Franco-British plan to send troops to Finland through northern Scandinavia. '

I think what thwarted the plan was how long it took the Western Democracies to act. By the time the Finns gave in they had almost nothing to fight with. Jokem (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Soviet objective
"The Soviet forces did not accomplish their objective of the total conquest of Finland". It wasn't primary objective. Of course, you may say about Finnish Democratic Republic and Otto Kuusinen: "Why did Stalin create puppet government?" But Stalin described goals in his speech before generals. Let's open 14th volume of Stalin's "Works". "Speech at meeting of high commanders on generalization of experience of operations against Finland".

"We offered Finland: "Choose between two evils. You may cede us a lot, otherwise we'll wipe you out, establish Kuusinen's government and let him rip you". We said so to Finnish bourgeois. They choosed to cede to avoid people republic."

You see, Stalin declared objectives to his generals: first would be cecession, otherwise - debellation. And what source would prove that debellation was primary target? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.36.202.8 (talk • contribs)
 * Got a credible source for that? Postwar statements tend to be a sour grape ploy. --Illythr (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Read it more carefully. Stalin spoke with his High Command, not with public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.52.80.53 (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Professor Yuri Kilin of the Petrozhavodsk State University states (in Talvisodan taisteluja by Raunio & Kilin, pp. 16-17) that the original Soviet aims were:
 * - In November 1939 the Leningrad Military District under Kirill Meretshkov made plans for the offensive against Finland. The Leningrad Military District, together with the Red Bannered Baltic Fleet and Northern Fleet, was to destroy the Finnish ground and naval forces in as short a time as possible.
 * - The 7th Army in Karelian Isthmus was, in cooperation with the Red Bannered Baltic Fleet and Lagoda Military Fleet, to beat the Finnish forces in the Isthmus and take the Finns' main defense line (aka. the Mannerheim line). After reaching the level of Viipuri (Vyborg), the 7th Army was to continue its offensive, together with the 8th Army, towards Lahti, Hyvinkää and the Finnish capital Helsinki.
 * - The mission of the 8th Army north of Lake Ladoga was to destroy the opposing Finnish forces and to reach the level of Sortavala (Serdobol) - Joensuu in ten days. Afterwards one part of the army would advance to Mikkeli and another to Kuopio.
 * - Further north the 9th Army would cut Finland in half by taking first Kajaani and then Oulu on the western side of Finland.
 * - In far north the 14th Army's mission was to take Petsamo (Petschenga) and prevent any Western Allied invasion of Kola Peninsula and any attacks from Norwegian territory.
 * If that wasn't a plan to conquer the all of Finland I don't know what would have been. Mikko H. (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a minor technical correction to make. In the map showing the Soviet armies at the start of the war, the Ninth Army is denoted with the symbol VIIII while in fact it should be IX. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr2011 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In the map showing the Soviet armies at the start of the war, the Ninth Army is denoted with the symbol VIIII while in fact it should be IX. Thanks. Mr2011 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The army numbers are wonky also in other ways. XIIII? VIIII? 62.183.251.50 (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Soviet Army numbers updated. Peltimikko (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Soviet objective was to take entire Finland, period! Either thats the truth or im gonna sue every ww2 historian on this matter. No wonder really why Finland put up such a stiff resistance. And trusting Stalin and a word he said, hmpz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.31 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Soviet objective was to secure Leningrad - by conquering all of Finland, if possible. --Illythr (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The object was to take entire Finland. 1) Molotov-Ribbentrop 2) Objects of Soviet armies (VI -> Helsinki & IX -> Oulu) 3) Baltic occupation later (etc, etc.) Contemporary Russian historiography is still mixed, but there are younger generation historians who are bold enough to do proper research . Peltimikko (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing, just a matter of perspective. Once the war was on, the military goal was clearly to take over the whole country. However, in order to determine whether a Soviet takeover of Finland (including the Terijoki govt) was an end in itself or the means to an end (create a defensive buffer in the northwest) would require an analysis of the motives of the Soviet leadership, which is somewhat difficult without documents and protocols of their meetings. --Illythr (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually we dont need any documents here, just look at all Soviet "liberated" Eastern European countries for proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.26.223 (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion has a tendency to original research on the part of wikipedians. Find what the historians say the motivations were, sort the historian's account of the motivations into literary traditions, and then say, "The historians of group X, writing largely before 1989, believe the objectives were Y.  However, since 1990 most historians, such as A, B, C, believe the objectives were D." and cite from high quality reliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

World War II
Winter War has been discussed at Talk:World War II recently. Editors with access to specialist sources may be able to help. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What kind of white washing of history is this??
I object to the starting phrase which says: "The Winter War (Finnish: Talvisota, Swedish: Vinterkriget, Russian: Зимняя война)[18] was a military conflict between the Soviet Union and Finland."

Just a mere "military conflict", eh? Finland fighting for survival, +100,000 dead and just use phrases like "military conflict", i thought it was a Total war. A war that actually was more of a military conflict was the one that happened between Russia and Georgia 2008. One can always wonder what veterans from this war thinks about the term which is used here: "Military conflict" WAR is WAR its as simple as that, what do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.31 (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note where Military conflict leads. "The Winter War is a war" is a very bad definition. --Illythr (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It leads to article WAR, but thats not always the case in reality: See: Russia vs. Georgia 2008. That was a true military conflict that never developed into a full blown total war as the winter war did (If theres someone with enough time on their hands i hope they could make an article about the difference between a military conflict and WAR) But there are even more outrageous names: Did you know that WW1 was called the great war before 1948? Well aint that just great! No wonder why they changed its name to WW1. Not only is it offensive to Finnish and Russian Winter war veterans to call this a "military conflict" but i have never heard Finnish or Russian soldiers refer to the Winter War as anything but WAR. So incase you dont mind ill change it to war (And trust me i can easily find at least find 10 RS that refers to it as Total war) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.31 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that one is classified as a war as well (in the form of armed conflict ). And what's wrong in calling WW1 "Great War" before WW2? It was indeed the greatest (as in "largest and bloodiest", not "best") war in the history of humanity at that point. Of course, after WW2 that name lost its meaning and was discarded.
 * Yes, I would mind, because using recursive definitions is bad. Note that World War I and World War II are both called a (global) military conflict. --Illythr (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * True! It actually says here that ww2 was a "military conflict"! It must be one of these Wikipedia only names because i have never heard a ww2 veteran calling it anything but WAR. A military conflict is in my opinion very short and with a low death toll just like the one between Russia and Georgia 2008, unlike ww2 that lasted from 39-45 and caused the death of 50 million people. "And what's wrong in calling WW1 "Great War" before WW2" it was wrong because the word GREAT is mainly associated with nice positive things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.31.51 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The primary meaning of "great" is something large-scale or strong, for example, "great pain". See also Great Northern War. In fact, most pages beginning with "great" are about large things that aren't all that nice, like "Great Depression", "Great Fire" or "Great Plague".
 * The way I see it, "war" and "military conflict" are synonyms and provide no information about their scale by default (see the Anglo-Zanzibar War for instance). They thus are used here to avoid recursion, which is present in the "X War is a war" form. --Illythr (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Im aware that the word "great" refers to both something nice and something big. So why was it changed to WW1 in 1948? Couldnt they have called WW2 The greater war? The word "Great" may have started out as a word that referred to something big, but thats no longer the case. Same thing with the F word. But it sucks you know, World war 2 has now been downplayed to a mere "military conflict", but i find comfort in the fact its a wikipedia only thing, because nobody in real life uses words like that, and as a matter of fact most ww2 veterans refers to ww2 as "THE WAR". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.31.51 (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that you do not really gather the meaning of a recursive definition, it is improper in english to use a term to define itself. Aside from that, firstly military conflict is also used to denote the categorization of a war, for instance an info war does not refer, necessarily, to a military engagement involving information. Secondly, the Winter War was not total war. Thirdly, 'Military Conflict' is an often occuring term in many historical sources, such as texts, articles, and online sources. Finally loss of life has absolutly nothing to do with this discussion. Changing the term from Great War to the First World War, is simply do to the fact that at the time the 'Great War' was the only instance of total warfare to have occured ever, and to occur on a global scale. It referred purely to the magnitude of the conflict. The removal of the use of the term 'Great War' in 1948 was due to the fact that it was no longer the only conflict to have occured on that scale. As to loss of life, the terms were developed in the western world, and on the western front of WW2 the loss of life was a fraction of what it was in WW1 as such loss of life can have no bareing on this argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.192.232 (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Notes in the diagram
get rid of all those blue links in the small text somehow. I don't know what I am reading for crying out loud. 83.160.28.188 (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

1.4 War preparations
"On 5 October 1939, the Soviet Union invited a Finnish delegation to Moscow for negotiations. ... Following the failure of negotiations, the Soviets started an intensive mobilisation near the Finnish border in 1938–1939."

Considering that negotiations were ongoing till the end of 1939 "Following the failure of negotiations" does not seem precise enough. Either mobilization was parallel in 1938-39, perhaps in several stages in response to failed negotiations, or even took part regardless of negotiations, seeing as Finland was placed in the Soviet sphere of influence by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Or would this go into too much detail? Can somebody familiar with the subject clarify, please? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricbep (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I tried to fix timeline. Soviet intensive mobilization started summer-autumn 1939, though mobilization had already started in 1938 in a small scale by building necessary infastructure (for example gulag prisoners built roads). Soviet troops started their "world tour" from Poland in summer, after that moved near border of Baltic states early autumn and finally same troops continued near border of Finland. Peltimikko (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Does the title fit the content? There is no discussion of actual military preparations. Before your edit the Soviet mobilization was here, now there is no mention of military preparations at all. Ricbep (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Weapons
Does anyone object to me adding a section on weapons used by the belligerents during the war? I've done it before in a number of other articles, see for example I think it would be a positive addition. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to - I wouldn't object unless the listing gets totally silly but I do not know others will thing about it... Given the haphazard nature of Finnish armaments - for example some artillery pieces dated to 1877 - you'll end up with awfully long list though unless you are careful how to limit it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Soviet KIA and MIA
Regarding this revert by Peltimikko, the estimate of 250,000 KIA should be included in the infobox though perhaps with the qualification that it is a Finnish estimate. As for the source, I don't think that anyone can find fault with the Los Angeles Times--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a few more points and sources regarding Soviet KIA. According to Khrushchev, the Soviets lost 1,000,000 KIA. While this staggering amount might be an exaggeration, it lends greater credibility to Finnish estimates of 250,000. Moreover, in his book, A frozen hell: the Russo-Finnish winter war of 1939-1940 (Algonquin Books), William R. Trotter cites a figure of between 230,000 and 270,000 Soviet dead (page 263). In light of the above-stated, I think that it would be to the article's detriment to omit an alternative figure.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * During Khrischev's times it was not unusual to publish the figures that had little relation to reality. Krivosheev's data are considered reliable and are widely used in English literature. Regarding the Los Angeles Times, it is hard to compare a serious archival research with the brief newspaper article. In addition, these LAT figures could come from some pre-Cold War source that was written before the Soviet archival data became available.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not stating that we should cite Khruschev's figures. What I am saying is that the Finnish figure of 250,000 is often cited and is not so far-fetched in light of Khruschev's estimation. Moreover, your response completely ignores Trotter's cited figures of between 230,000 and 270,000 Soviet dead. You might not agree with Trotter but the figure should be included becasue it is an RS and is verifiable per WP:V--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the Trotter's figures roughly coincide with Finnish estimates, it is natural to propose that he used Finnish figures as a source (if I am wrong, please provide the source used by Trotter). It is generally agreed that the opponent's estimates should not be used for losses if reliable data are available from the side that sustained these losses: for instance, Krivosheev is used for Soviet losses, Overmas for German, etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there are issues around figures for Soviet losses, we cannot assume archives are always accurate or complete. Also, it doesn't matter when Trotter gets is information if we believe him to be a reliable source. For all we know, Krushchev's estimate could be accurate especially if we compare to other large losses in similar theaters considered somewhat non-strategic where the drive to Berlin was concerned (Courland pocket). P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 19:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Khruschev's (and his team) figures are widely used. I have also seen reliable figures by Yuri Kilin and Ohto Manninen. There are no radical differences between these historians. Otherwise we just have to wait until Moscow will fully re-open its WWII archives. Peltimikko (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * William R. Trotter is a noted historian and scholar with impeccable credentials. His book, A frozen hell: the Russo-Finnish winter war of 1939-1940, (ISBN 978-0-945575-22-1) has been vetted and subjected to peer review. It complies with WP:RS and is verifiable per WP:V. There's no valid reason to preclude the casualty figures he cites.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes there is: there's no need to use outdated estimates when more recent research based on actual archive data is available. Uh, Peltimikko, you surely meant "Krivosheev's" there, didn't you? :-) --illythr (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Peltimikko (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The book was published 46 years after World War II. How is that outdated?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The research by Krivosheev's team (1993) uses previously classified Soviet archive material to determine the exact numbers of Soviet losses and works with name lists. Trotter's work (1991) appears to use Finnish estimates from the 1940's. With new data being available, there's no need to use what was superseded by it. Alternatively, we can follow the example of the ruwiki page and add a "Other estimates of losses" subsection to "Aftermath", which would describe the various estimates preceding Krivosheev's work.   --illythr (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever works for you my friend. I have no interest in arguing the point. I just think that equal weight should be given to Finnish points of view.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a rule, more weight is being given to the Soviet/Russian point of view when we speak about Soviet/Russian losses, to the German point of view when we discuss German losses, to Finnish point of view when we discuss Finnish losses, etc. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which convention fails when embarrassing aka politically damaging losses are suppressed. We should represent all reliable scholarship. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 01:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, explain why this case should be an exception from the common rule (by contrast to majority of other cases)? I see no reason to consider Soviet losses during the Winter War as more "politically damaging" than Soviet losses during other phases of WWII. Let me also point out that overall validity of Krivosheev's figures has been confirmed by independent Western scholars (e.g. Ellman & Maksudov).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It’s really not a question of “politically damaging” it’s more a matter of reliable sources and inclusion of a range of sources. Krivosheev's figures are often cited and meet the criteria for reliability and verifiability. But other casualty figures from equally reliable and verifiable sources are also often cited. For example, as noted above, Trotter, who’s a well-known historian and respected scholar, cites a figure of between 230,000 and 270,000 Soviet dead. Martina Sprague in her Swedish Volunteers in the Russo-Finnish Winter War, 1939-1940, McFarland (2010) ISBN 978-0-7864-3981-2, p.175, also cites a figure of 230,000. In Under Three Flags: Exploits of Special Forces' Captain Larry A. Thorne, Pathfinder publishing (1998) ISBN 0-934793-4, H.A. Gill, at page 32, cites a slightly lower figure of between 175,000-200,000 but still well above Krivosheev's numbers. And of course, there are Khrushchev’s memoirs of 1,000,000 Soviet dead. While this figure is almost certainly an exaggeration, it is often cited in other reliable publications such as The Winter War: the Soviet attack on Finland, 1939-1940, Stackpole Books (1973) ISBN 0-8117-2433-6 @ Preface VIII. So in sum, relying on one source to the exclusion of all others is to the article’s detriment. There’s really no harm in providing a range with Krivosheev being at the low end and Trotter at the high end.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP policy says: " In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." It is clear from the Krivosheev's book that the figures presented there are the result of detailed analysis of the formerly classified data that became available after the "archival revolution" of 1990. The figures from this book are considered reliable by most Western scholars. An additional proof of reliability of Krivosheev's data are the works of some Western scholars, e.g. the Ellman & Maksudov's article ("Soviet Deaths in the Great Patriotic War: A Note" Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 4, Soviet and East European History (1994), pp. 671-680) where they present their own, independent studies that confirm that the overall number of Soviet KIA was ca 8 million, close to what Krivosheev says. By contrast, it is not clear from the refs provided by you where did the author obtained his figures. Did he do his own archival research? Did he rely on pre-Krivosheev data? Did he use the data obtained by another scholar, who used more recent data that were not available for Krivosheev? To continue, we need to know the answers on these questions. I personally failed to find where the Gill's figures were taken from, because this book simply contains no references. Therefore, it is highly plausible that the Gill's source was some Finnish work made before Krivosheev. Taking into account that this book is not specifically devoted to the casualties issue, that is highly plausible.
 * Re Khrushchev, his figures are (i) obsolete, and (ii) questionable (remember 20 million Soviet people killed during WWII, the number that became official until 1987).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument concerning policy provides the best justification for inclusion of the numerous sources that are noted above. For example, the publishing agent McFarland & Company which published Swedish Volunteers in the Russo-Finnish Winter War, 1939-1940, maintains a strong vetting process and carefully scrutinizes its works before publishing. Following, the publication, the book undergoes peer review subjecting it to further factual scrutiny. The same holds true for Algonquin Books, which published A frozen hell: the Russo-Finnish winter war of 1939-1940, by noted historian William R. Trotter and to a lesser extent Pathfinder Publishing (Under Three Flags: Exploits of Special Forces' Captain Larry A. Thorne) and Stackpole Books (The Winter War: the Soviet attack on Finland, 1939-1940). These works have undergone a vetting process and peer review and as such, comply with Wikipedia policy as it pertains to reliable sources. Inclusion of multiple alternative reliable sources will only serve to enhance the quality of the article while excluding this information will be to the article’s detriment.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, do what I asked: present the quotes from Trotter and Gill to demonstrate that these books used not earlier Finnish estimates, but newer, post-Krivosheev sources. If these these books were written based on recent studies of Soviet KIA figures, I see no problem to include them. However, if they just reproduce old Finnish estimates, we cannot discuss them seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Trotter cites Finnish historians as do others. Please see this where noted historian Dr. Warren H. Carroll refers to Trotter's numbers and calls them "the best current estimates" of Soviet casualties. Also see this  at note 12, where Elizabeth Roberts cites both Krivosheev's as well as Trotter's numbers giving equal if not more weight to the latter's figures. Trotter appears to be an authority here and many historians concur with his research. My point is that no harm is done to the article by including a range. I won't act unilaterally here and won't make the edit without consensus from you but I think you should at least consider my position. My only consideration is to improve the article's content and provide the reader with a bit more information. Thanks,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Carroll (in 1995) referred to the Trotter's book (1991) calling it "the best current estimates". Obviously, the Trotter's book was written before Krivosheev's data had been published (1993), so by calling these estimates "current" Carroll demonstrated unfamiliarity with the later data published by Krivosheev. Regarding Roberts, she mentions 'recently released Soviet statistics' (obviously, the Krivosheev's figures), however, she notes that the article where she found these figures does not give the source for this information. In other words, she does not give more weight to the Trotter's data, she simply states that, since she doesn't know the source for the Soviet figures, she cannot make a conclusion about their reliability. In summary, both Carrell and Roberts seem to be simply unfamiliar with Krivosheev's data, therefore their conclusion hardly can be taken into account. In addition, as I expected, Trotter used earlier Finnish estimates, which hardly can be considered reliable after exact statistics (Krivosheev) has been published.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever works for you. I have no vested interest either way. I just thought that inclusion of alternate sources, which many historians adhere to, would improve the article. But like I said, I won't act unilaterally. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I cant BELIEVE that this is being resurrected again - we had a HUGE discussion spanning more than a year. The conclusion of which was that there was many serious historians which for a number of reasons argues that Krivosheevs book is an important piece of research but NOT an infallible piece of gospel. In other words the form as was is a MUCH more accurate representation of the academic debate whereas the figure of 125.000 is much more in live with the Soviet propaganda viewpoint of the conflict. The fact is that with the forces involved and the material losses that the figure of 125.000 is very unlikely - considering that 3,543 tanks and 261–515 aircraft was lost!
 * Also I can see that another silly revision have been made, namely to reaccept Krivosheevs strage idea of "wounded, injured or burned" in stark contrast to all normal casualty figures.
 * Finally in response to Paul Siebarts position ""Please, explain why this case should be an exception from the common rule (by contrast to majority of other cases)? I see no reason to consider Soviet losses during the Winter War as more "politically damaging" than Soviet losses during other phases of WWII. Let me also point out that overall validity of Krivosheev's figures has been confirmed by independent Western scholars (e.g. Ellman & Maksudov).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC"
 * Then THIS is the point exactly - that there is a revisionist pressure on ALL pages regading soviet losses - both pre WW2 AND after. A pressure to downplay the losses across the board - presumably to attempt to make the soviet union seem more effective in matters military. A viewpoint that was prevalent during the cold war where soviet "scholars" was NOT taught to assess historial sources critically but rather to be critical of anyone who challenged the dominant soviet wievpoint. The fact the the USSR consistenly edited photos etc. to underscore this is just one example. So with regard to rivosheev who used many opened archives then I dont challenge the way he did his research BUT the archives he used !Nick-bang (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Defence of the Mannerheim Line - bad link: Summa
In the section titled "Defence of the Mannerheim Line", third paragraph ,there is a line "Soviet units faced the Finnish line at Summa". "Summa" links to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa which is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. The village of Summa has no apparent wiki article. However it may be appropriate to create a link for "Viipuri" to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viipuri.
 * I don't really think Viipuri is proper for that. Though I'm not sure what to do with that. One option could be to remove the reference to the location altogether or replace it with something like 'on Western side of the Karelian Isthmus'. Or then place coordinates as a note or something to allow reader to locate the site. Or link it with the relevant battle of the Winter War (Battle of Summa) and provide coordinates for that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Change the summary box so that it tells the truth
The facts/summary box needs to be changed so that it tells the truth. The result of the war is that the Soviets militarily defeated the Finns and annexed Finnish territory. It is absurd to summarize the war without stating these facts. That the Finns skillfully avoided a decisive defeat does not change the reality that they were defeated. That the Finns won spectacular victories early in the war does not change the fact that they were ultimately defeated. That Finland retained it's independence does not change the fact that it was defeated and forced to make huge territorial concessions to the Soviets. That the war in some ways was a moral Finnish victory does not change the reality that it was de facto won -- militarily and diplomatically -- by the Soviets. 74.104.47.207 (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Originally, I was so disgusted with the author's summary of the war that I edited the summary/facts box to reflect the reality I explain above. Afterwards, I reversed my own edit because I see that, in many ways, it is a finely written article. The author (or authors'?) clearly worked hard on this article and doesn't deserve to have his/her work edited or changed unilaterally. But still, my original point stands: why don't you state the reality of the Soviet military and diplomatic victory in the summary/facts box?
 * First, note that a core rule of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Second, all the fighting around the outcome in the infobox has exhausted everyone's patience and the box was just left as it is. See here, here, here and, hehe, here. In fact, it's probably the single most discussed topic on this page. --illythr (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Credit. I noticed that the introduction clearly states the military outcome of the war and the territorial changes. The more I read the article, the more impressed I am with it.74.104.34.114 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, can you apprise me as to what is the evidence that the Soviets intended to completely conquer Finland? As best as I know, this is a new interpretation of history. For decades, the historiography was that the Soviets intended to force the Finns to make massive territorial concessions, but not to conquer the country. If I am wrong, please show me your sources. I would like to review the sources myself. I see that you have supported your claim by referencing Van Dyke, but what exactly does Van Dyke say, and what are his sources? 74.104.47.207 (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here. --illythr (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No credit. Your link merely points to an argument between Wikipedia editors regarding the Soviets' war aims. The link does not give a list of credible sources supporting your claim. By "credible" sources, I am talking about respected academic studies, books, articles, etc. Wikipedia editors may be good amateur historians, but they are not experts, and thus need to back up their arguments by referring to respected studies. Again, I am emphasize that you merely need give me a list of credible studies supporting your claim. I'll go to the library if necessary and review the books myself. Nothing personal, but you should consider editing the article by removing the claim that the Soviets intended to conquer Finland. Doing so would make the article that much more balanced, objective, and coldly analytical than it already is (except for a few flaws).74.104.34.114 (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Olli Vehviläinen, Finland in the Second World War, p.50, Baryshnikov et.al. Finliandia vo vtoroi mirovoi voine p.79-81, O. Manninen, Molotovin Cocktail - Hitlerin sateenvarjo p.94-100. --Whiskey (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * M.I.Semirjaga, Neuvostoliittolais-suomalainen sota 1939-1940 kansainvälisen oikeuden näkökulmasta, p.186, LVO directive 4717 TsGASA 34980-14-57, P.F.Vashtsenko, Jesli by Finljandija i SSSR, TsGASA 25888-11-17 p.232, TsGASA 34980-5-3 p.1-7 --Whiskey (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I need English language sources.206.34.122.70 (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I took Scandinavian history in college (taught by an excellent professor, too). That was during the 1980s. I don't remember ever hearing or reading that the Soviets' objective was to completely conquer Finland. I question whether the sources listed above are mainline studies of the war; possibly they are new theses that have not, and may never, win widespread acceptance by experts. If these more recent studies (that you list) have not yet won full respect from leading scholars on the subjects of Finnish history, Sovietology, the Winter War, European diplomacy and World War II, then you should not record the newer books' theses as established fact in the article. It would appropropriate to footnote the article with references to the new studies, and to explain the new studies' theses, of course. But for the time being, nothing more than a footnote regarding these sources is warranted. Remember, in the footnote, you can expound at length about the possibility that the Soviets intended a full conquest. Footnotes do not need to be short; they can be quite long and detailed.74.104.34.114 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those texts, be it English, Finnish and Russian, were based on the opened Soviet era archives after the fall of the Soviet Union, so they were not available to Western historians before 1989. In fact, the sources given as TsGASA were direct references to Soviet military archive locations, consisting orders given to different Soviet formations at the beginning of the war.
 * Unfortunately, Western scholars had used almost exclusively Soviet sources when handling the Winter War. And what is even more surprising, is that they continue to do so, even as there is much better Russian ones available, for example Montefiore uses in his Stalin biography (2004) Soviet and Finnish loss figures which were given by Molotov 1940, when Finnish losses would had been easy to check from any Finnish historian, and better Soviet figures were published already 1997 by Krivosheev.
 * And another source in English: Cold Will by Tomas Ries (1988). --Whiskey (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The amount of tanks
How can Soviet Union's army have 2,514–6,541 tanks? If their losses were 3,543 tanks they would have had at least 3,543 tanks then. Shouldn't it then be 3,543–6,541 tanks or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.98.64 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * These are the figures for the start and the end of the war. --illythr (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Franco-British plan
The peace treaty thwarted the Franco-British plan to send troops to Finland through northern Scandinavia. I think what thwarted the plan was how long it took the Western Democracies to act. By the time the Finns gave in they had almost nothing to fight with. Jokem (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Viipuri/Vyborg naming RfC
For editors who are interested, there is an RfC over at Talk:Continuation War about which name we should use for the town of Vyborg/Viipuri during World War II. This will affect this article, as well as quite a others on the Finnish/Soviet conflict. Some of the other articles affected include Continuation War, Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, and Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945). If you could comment, it would be very much appreciated. The RfC thread can be found here. Regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Conflict or war
It's described as a "military conflict" in the article. Can a conflict in which gets wounded/died over 400,000 people and is every way a total war to the other participant and which lasts for almost half year described as a conflict? It's written as a war in almost all available sources and therefore I think the term conflict is misleading and even propagandic. --Lihapulla1 (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Soviet casualties
I think those Soviet casualties are too low and the source is Soviet, so it cannot be trusted. If Soviet casualties would have been so low, Russians would have just walked over Finland. --Taistelu-Jaska (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Then provide more solid figures. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nice bit of information regarding Soviet loss reports in the notes section - which refers to Manninen's "Molotovin cocktail - Hitlerin sateenvarjo" book. The book in question however concludes that it is very difficult to get accurate number from Soviet archives and notes that even Russian historian (?) Pavel Aptekar acknowledges that 1940 information of Soviet losses of the Winter War is not reliable. Regardless of reliability of his source materials trusting Krivosheyev is at times also a bit difficult since the section regarding Winter War starts with references to Finnish German military co-operation in the years leading to the Winter War and goes of describing Mannerheim line as 90 km deep defensive zone and how Finland declared war on Soviet Union etc. etc. (which to put to it bluntly is utter bull). However regardless of reservations - however well founded they might be - those seem to be the best currently available sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Krivosheyev is so full of shit that his writings smell of manure. Entire soviet divisions were wiped out in single battles. The ice in Ladoga and the ocean were blown up at large attacks.. and tens of thousands drowned. There are tiny little islands that saw total chaos during the battles.. with thousands of soviet bodies still left there, just below the surface. Add to that the daily battles and it is quite clear that Krivosheyevs makebelieve numbers are total bullshit. Even the earlier accepted estimation of about 250.000 dead soviets would be a rather mild estimation. Chrustjev actually mentioned 1 million dead, even though he had reasons to miscredit his predesessor.

Hello, Finnish warior-patriot, in fact Finland was smashed and territories were taken, too bad Stalin stopped the attack exactly when the whole Finland could be easily conquered and the shit like you annihilated. Go take a piss and then jerk off well, Finnish idiot.

Well hello there russian illiterate son of a rapevictim. Does the truth hurt so much, until this day? Just do like everyone else in your cabbage-stinking garbagedump of a country, drink yourself to death with bad vodka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.60.155 (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added an alternate, sourced figure that incorporates a Finnish perspective.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This was discussed before, with your participation. Outdated estimates have no place in the infobox, but can be added to Winter_War (Finnish) or Winter_War (Soviet), if dated and attributed to individual researchers. --illythr (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Its Not The Size Of The Force That Counts, But How Its Used!
For those that served in the military (regardless of which nation) they, for the most part know that "not having enough assets, e.g. "purged" (men, equipment, etc.)" is part of life (war). And that any leader (officer) that uses that "excuse" is probably not a good leader. Some examples come to mind: General U. S. Grant during the American Civil War took many casualties and when the doves among President Lincoln wanted him removed, Lincoln replied, "I can't get rid of that man...HE FIGHTS!" By the same token Lincoln removed (relieved) General McClellon for not being aggressive enough. During WWII everyone (almost) wanted Gen Patton removed (relieved) because he slapped an enlisted man in the ETO. Gen Marshall, Secretary of War Stimson, and Gen Eisenhower needed a fighting commander; Patton was retained. During the battle of Guadalcanal in WWII Adm Nimitz relived Admiral Ghormley and replaced him with Adm Halsey because Halsey would fight!

So the statements "the Soviets were purged" and couldn't win the Winter War so quickly is what those in the 20th century military used to term, "lame excuses!" The Alamo was outnumbered 3 to 1 (3,000 men to roughly 200 men). Before they went down they took nearly a thousand enemy troops with them. The IJA at Tarawa was outnumbered 35,000 US Marines and Soldiers to 2,600 men. Tarawa was taken, but the allies paid a dear price for it. Its the leader that counts, not "we didn't have enough...such and such." During the WWII Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 USN Taffy 3 task force beat off battleships and heavy crusiers, all because of aggressive leadership and they took the initiative.

The Soviet purge counted, yes agreed; but the political use of Stalin's favorite officers verses those who could really do the job counted far more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.25.34 (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Cox (1941), not reliable. Peltimikko (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The cited source is Coox (1985), not Cox. Regardless i would argue against inserting the section in question to the article lead. However it is relevant and sourced information which contributes to the article so it should stay somewhere within the article. The current location however may not be the best choice (it is currently under '2.1 Soviet military plan'). Options are, to leave it where it currently is, to move it to some earlier section (possibly '1.4 War preparations' or '1.6 Soviet political and military offensive'), or alternatively to split the paragraph into separate, sourced, statements which could be placed individually to the relevant sections of the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As I wrote, not reliable. Soviet archives opened in late 1980s and early 1990s. Peltimikko (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Peltimikko:Its Wikipedia's policy to use reputable sourced material. It does not set a restriction on dates of publication.  Furthermore, many reputable sources use references that were published prior to 1990; i.e. the bibliography.
 * Additionally, most works coming from behind the iron curtain prior to the Berlin Wall coming down in 1989 were considered communist propaganda; another words information had to be dissected and filtered. Not quite reliable sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.165.89 (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to beat a dead horse, but editing an article by citing the wrong reference source is not conducive to a contributor's creditability. That in itself is sufficient grounds for a revert.  Again, regardless, focus on the last sentence of the 2nd leading paragraph which states in part, "Because of these factors..."  Emphasis is on the word factors.  Its plural.  Consequently, the Nomonhan/Zhukov paragraph, the subject of this discussion, should be reverted back to its original location, as this information is part of "...these factors."  It is, according to the paragraph, one of the reasons that the Finns resisted for so long/or one of the "factors" as to why the Soviets took so long to win.

For further reading: Nomonhan, 1939: The Red Army's Victory that shaped World War II. By Stuart D. Goldman. Published by Naval Institute Press in 2012. ISBN 978-1591-1432-91. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.204.10 (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Soviets broke two principles of war during the Winter War; Unity of Command and indirectly broke the second by not attacking in mass when they failed to employ General Zhukov, who specialized in that tactic.  Zhukov was on a deadline from Stalin; clean-up the IJA affair at Nomonhan so that Stalin could concentrate on affairs in Europe.  By keeping Stalin constantly informed, the Soviets were able to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by the evening of 23 August 1939, within 24 hours of that signing Zhukov had the IJA 6th Army trapped.  The Nomonhan Affair was completed in time for the Poland invasion by Germany and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact allowed the Winter War to occur.

=It is questionable whether or not this "purge para" is even as valid as the Nomonhan material. According to Stuart Goldman's new book published in 2012 titled...well it already noted above, it is using current newly released former Soviet archival sources, which author Coox never had access to. Page 75 of Goldman's book states, from a US military attache and US Army General Joseph Stillwell that the Red Army had recovered from the purge (by 1938) and proved itself dependable, capable of extreme valor, and that their equipment was both operationable and adequate. Stillwell stated that the Russian troops fought well at Nomonhan and that anyone who believes that the Red Army is highly inferior had better rethink their thoughts.

Naturally those that were nowhere near the front lines like Britain, France, and Germany disagreed with the US Military attache and General Stillwell (ref page 75 and 167). Consider this, Zhukov, while not trying to promote him...simply stating facts...defeated the German Army on the Russian Front...the very same General which earned his spurs at Nomonhan in 1939! So who was right Stillwell and the attache or Britain, Germany, and France? Stillwell and the attache were!

Goldman is a highly credible author, a PhD man from Georgetown University, a research analyst with the Library of Congress, and an acquaintance of Pulitzer Prize author John Toland, who reviewed Goldman's book. As far as publishing houses go, the Naval Institute Press out of Annapolis Maryland is known for its professionalism in the military and naval field. For those reasons, coupled with comments from others, if no one can counter the knowledge from those noted authors Coox and Goldman, among others, this it is proposed that a compromise be met to include both purge and Nomonhan reasons be included together same lead paragraph. And thats stretching it; because as noted above, the purge must not have been that bad...the Red Army whipped the IJA and the German Army!= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.176.154 (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Psuedo-historical Anti-Soviet propoganda
This article is in need of a complete re-write. In its current state, it is little more than anti-Soviet propoganda.

According to the article:

-- On 5 October 1939, the Soviet Union invited a Finnish delegation to Moscow for negotiations. J.K. Paasikivi, the Finnish ambassador to Sweden, was sent to Moscow to represent the Finnish government.[50] The Soviets demanded that the border between the USSR and Finland on the Karelian Isthmus be moved westward to a point only 30 km (19 mi) east of Viipuri and that the Finns destroy all existing fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus. They also demanded the cession of islands in the Gulf of Finland as well as the Kalastajansaarento peninsula. Furthermore, the Finns would have to lease the Hanko Peninsula for 30 years and permit the Soviets to establish a military base there. In exchange, the Soviet Union would cede two municipalities with twice the territory demanded from Finland.[50][53] Accepting Soviet demands would have forced the Finns to dismantle their defences in Finnish Karelia.[54]

The Soviet offer divided the Finnish government, but it was eventually rejected. --

The Soviets never wanted to annex the entirety of Finland. Leningrad was less than 40km away from the Soviet-Finnish border, and considering the Finland Government's openly pro-German sympathies, the possibility of a German assault on Leningrad was very real indeed. Furthermore, by 1939, artillery technology was at a point where Leningrad could be bombarded from inside the Finnish border.

“We cannot do anything about geography, nor can you. Since Leningrad cannot be moved away, the frontier must be further off.” -Stalin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.133.190 (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Strategically, the Soviet Union was faced with a possible catastrophe unless the Soviet-Finnish border is moved away from Leningrad. When negotiations failed, they had only one choice; to invade Finland and take the land by force. This article paints the war as one of blind Soviet aggression, not as a calculated geopolitical decision. This does a great disservice to the public, who trusts Wikipedia to provide accurate information about the world that we live in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.133.190 (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Finnish government and Finland as a whole did not have any longer in late 1930s good relations with Germany, those relations had started to degrade already in 1933. Open slandering of Nazi government in Finnish newspapers (just like elsewhere in Nordic countries) was commonplace and relations eroded to a point that Germany openly and officially made note of this before the war in late 1930s. Finnish government was pro-British if anything else rejecting German non-aggression pacts in late 1930s. Artillery technology to shoot beyond 30 km existed already in WWI era, however Finns did not posses any such mobile artillery pieces, for Finnish guns to reach Leningrad they would needed to close more than half the distance and then place the guns on the borderline or alternatively anchor the coastal defense ship to Kronstadt. The Soviet leadership also had an option to not to engage in war at all so in the end the war was nothing but Soviet aggression regardless of claimed goals. Using geography as an excuse for the war does not change the matter. Also given that Soviets officially stated that they would no longer recognize the government of the Republic of Finland and instead only recognized the Kuusinen's puppet government and as Soviet forces carried orders with them that instructed them not to cross over into Sweden it is rather curious to state that they never wanted to annex the entirety of Finland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Wanderer602 that the article as currently written is objective, balanced and accurately represents reliable sources. I am not sure the unsigned comment from an ip is even worthy of reply. An idea that Soviet Union was under a threat from Finland is laughable. Stalin wanted to take over the whole of Finland just as he took the Baltic states. Geopolitical? Yes. But unprovoked invasion nonetheless. All of this is hardly relevant however. The aritcle is based on sourced information, and anyone can add alternative points of view using reliable sources. - BorisG (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's quite simple, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania "accepted" pacts of "mutual assistance" under threat, Finland did not. The Soviet propaganda machine denounced the Finnish prime minister as a clown (or similar) for not "accepting" the choice for "peace" made by their neighbors, then invaded. The notion that Finland posed a military threat is as ludicrous as the Soviet charge that the Baltic states had formed a secret military conspiracy against the USSR. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The most important thing is that the article accurately represents the preponderance of appropriate reliable sources, which here is scholarly history. Novel interpretations of Soviet opinions and necessity do not trump the preponderance of scholarly opinion.  If valid interpretations within the accepted historiography exist which aren't represented, then they should be included, with their prevalence in the scholarly literature and their historiographical background included (if discussed in reliable sources).  Again, we don't create articles out of our feelings or interpretations, but out of the most appropriate sources for a topic.  (I think this is a pretty clear consensus against IP98.221's suggestions.) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the opinion that there is only one way of looking at history is fundamentally flawed. The third dimension of history is opinion. Historians may agree on facts but their interpretations of these vary. IMO this article is loaded, in the customary manner, to paint the situation as simply one of victim and aggressor. While such a view should be addressed, it is by no means the whole story. As the article is locked there's nothing I can do about it at the moment but one simple thing that should be done imo is to redress the balance of its first paragraph. There the article links the Russian invasions of Finland and Poland, painting the European situation at the time as one of Russia's making. It fails to mention that Nazi Germany had invaded Poland two weeks before and that it was that invasion that began WW2. By such minor tweaking of facts, those that are presented and those that are not, the picture given is changed substantially. Black and white portraits do nobody a service, least of all modern day Finns. History is anything but black and white. Palataan. LookingGlass (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Article is semi-protected to prevent IP address hopping editor(s) from vandalizing the article. It does not prevent any one with registered username (more than 4 days old & with at least 10 edits, WP:SEMI) from editing it. Besides even in such a case you are welcome, and indeed encouraged, to participate into discussion as to how exactly the article could be improved. However it might be best if the edits would first be discussed on the talk page before committing them to article. As to the actual points you were making, Winter War was very one sided in this regard, there was just one clear instigator for the war. So i don't really see why showing that one party was aggressive and other was not is causing trouble with the article, especially when such information is based on reliable sources. And situation for the smaller European states (ie. shift in power balance due to M-R Pact) was for large part created by the Soviet Union which did not seem to care with whom it stroke a deal with as long as the Soviet Union gained free reign to act in the neighboring countries. After all Soviets had tried to form a treaty with British to allow free hands in neighboring countries but that was something West couldn't agree to since it would have undermined the sovereignty of the said countries. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "It fails to mention that Nazi Germany had invaded Poland two weeks before and that it was that invasion that began WW2" You do realise that Germany and the Soviets were collaborators at this point as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty...? They had agreed to partition Poland and the Baltic countries and let the USSR invade Finland. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)