User talk:Jaan/Archive 4

Continuation War
Пишу по-русски, так как знаю его много лучше чем английский, и вы говорите, что знаете русский язык. Мне понятна ваша приверженность подачи истории в варианте, как её подавали в СССР, где старались максимально приуменьшить значение Финляндии в войне. Но факты – есть факты. Финляндия перешла границу 1918-1939 годов (даже на Карельском перешейке), оккупировала территории, которые никогда ей не принадлежали (Петрозаводск, Олонец…), вместе с Германией участвовала в блокаде Ленинграда, перерезав множество коммуникаций. Жертвы блокады – результат действий осаждавших, как Германии, так и Финляндии. Это ни хорошо и ни плохо, просто отражение факта, и к национализму не относится.--Germash19 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can read Russian, that is fine, but I can not answer in Russian.
 * Along the Vyborg-Leningrad railway and highway, Finland stopped exactly at its pre-war border (see File:Continuation-War-defensive-lines.png). In the rest of the Karelian Isthmus, Finland merely stood at the straight line between pre-war border crossings at the Baltic and Ladoga. And how were Petrozavodsk and Olonets strategically important for Leningrad? Germany cut the Volkhov railway, so the Finnish occupation of Petrozavodsk had not a slightest impact on the siege. If you want facts, then a fact is that Finland had no military goals beyond the Finnish borders and Karelia. You cannot call standing before your border, which was the case in the Vyborg-Leningrad line, active participation in the siege. Otherwise you can include Sweden as an active participant in the siege as well. The only part when Finland actively participated, was during the start of the war, which the Finnish headquarters coordinated with the German command.
 * You are trying to erase a sourced fact: "A two and a half year standstill followed, during which Finland refused to actively participate in the siege of Leningrad and to cut the Murmansk railway...". In order to do that, bring forward reliable sources that discuss the Finnish participation after the campaign of 1941. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Границу 1918 года Финляндия перешла повсеместно, а могла этого не делать. На Карельском перешейке можно было спрямить линию обороны, не переходя границы. Финское спрямление повторяет линию Карельского укреп. района. Что вы хотели сказать, упоминая границу на Карельском перешейке, что Финляндия не участвовала в блокаде? Я говорил о железных дорогах, не автомобильных (у них была небольшая пропускная способность). По суше Ленинград мог снабжаться по железным дорогам, две из них шли через Петрозаводск: одна севернее Ладожского озера, другая – южнее. Обе оказались перерезаны войсками Финляндии. Были перерезаны White Sea – Baltic Canal и Volga–Baltic Waterway (основной довоенный маршрут доставки грузов водой в Ленинград). Ну и морская блокада города – без неё суда нейтральных стран (например Швеции) в нейтральных водах могли дойти почти до Ленинграда. Блокада вообще не предполагает активных действий, здесь важно сдерживание противника – Финляндия не вела активных действий в блокаду потому, что СССР не вёл активных действий против финнов. То, что Финляндия, возможно, отказывалась от активных действий типа наступления, атаки против СССР ( не Ленинграда) вопрос отдельный. От того как воевала Финляндия – активно или пассивно количество погибших в Ленинграде не уменьшится. В данном виде формулировка не нейтральна, и будет изменена. Повторяю, Финляндия перерезала Кировскую ж. д. (Мурманскую) в 1941 году. В статье достаточно источников, где сказано, что до 1944 года Финляндия не освободила оккупированные территории, и не сняла (со своей стороны) блокаду Ленинграда.--Germash19 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Finland did not cross its pre-war border on neither the Vyborg-Leningrad railway nor the Ladoga coast. Are you seriously saying the capture of the Steklyanny village, which was the only large borough Finland captured beyond the border in the Isthmus, had an strategic impact on Leningrad? Please support your case with reliable sources.
 * Finnish occupation of Petrozavodsk had no impact on the railway connections with Leningrad, as Germany cut the railway between Leningrad and Volkhov, in the southern coast of Ladoga. With or without the Finnish army, the German railway blockade was there.
 * As for the sea blockade, until you provide reliable sources for your case, it is your WP:OR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Финляндия – страна-агрессор (как СССР в 1939 году) перешла границы как 1940, так и 1918 годов. Конечно, вы можете считать нормальным, если сейчас Россия завоюет Финляндию или Эстонию, не переходя при этом старых границ Российской империи. Я уважаю вашу позицию, но не стоит её навязывать другим. В осаде стратегическое значение имеет нарушение коммуникаций. Финны прекрасно это делали 3 года. Я говорил о ж. д. именно севернее Ладожского озера, через Suoyarvi на Петрозаводск. Возможно, у вас есть источники подтверждающие, что перерезание Финляндией коммуникаций не повлияло на снабжение Ленинграда? Их следует представить в статье, иначе это ваш WP:OR.--Germash19 (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding your recent revert... See ru::Кировская_железная_дорога.. Сентябрь 1941 г. в эксплуатацию сдан участок Сорокская — Обозерская.. At least ru wiki seems to think the Murmansk railway was redirected/rerouted so that though Finns cut a rail leading to Murmansk they did not cut the Murmansk railway which now run from Murmansk to Sorokka and from there to Obozerskaya where it linked to Arhangelsk rail. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Again regarding your recent revert... The result of the war was Finnish capitulation, so how was the army never defeated?. Finland and Soviet union signed a peace treaty after negoatiations - by keeping that in mind it is equally valid to call it a Soviet capitulation as it is to call it a Finnish capitulation - however best would be to call it as it was, a negotiated peace treaty. Finns chose to exit the war since it had became apparent that Germany would fall sooner or later. As it was also apparent that any war which unsupported Finland and Soviet Union would fight would eventually end in Soviet victory Finns chose to exit the war before being defeated especially after the problems of the Spring 1944 negoatiations (ie. time limit for expulsing Germans and cutting the war reparations to half) and Summer 1944 'negotiations' (ie. the one which Finns understood that demand for unconditional surrender) had been rectified. Saying that the Red Army defeated the Finnish Army is factually wrong as the 'defeated' Finnish Army was perfectly capable of repulsing and even driving back Soviet attacks. In fact the Finnish Army had never been stronger than after the Soviet offensive. What is true is that Red Army defeated some units of the Finnish Army, however it failed to defeat the Finnish Army. - 80.220.36.118 (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the result of the war, we have been through this discussion already on the talk page of the article. You are welcome to re-open the discussion on the page, if you have new arguments. Until you do, the result remains a Finnish capitulation, and the Soviet Union got each of their demands as presented in February 1944 (except for the size of the reparations). The latter did not pay huge reparations, did not cede territories nor did she jail her former president for anti-Finnish policies. So don't act stupid. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't after the result of the war, so please do not try derail the discussion. However as you so nicely put either present evidence that the Finnish Army had been defeated or "don't act stupid". You can also try explaining how the defeated army was still capable to stopping Soviet assaults led by Guards units cold or decimating two Soviet divisions in Ilomantsi - would be nice to hear your version of just how the defeated Finnish Army was able to accomplish that... - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive was not a Soviet victory? Then go on and try to change that article, because the infobox says otherwise. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Had you read the article you tried to link here you would have noticed that it is no way telling that the Finnish Army would have been defeated. Quite contrary it explicitly states that Finnish army was stronger after the operation than before it. Soviets broke through Finnish forward defence lines but were in turn stopped (and occasionally driven back) by the Finnish Army. So are you perhaps arguing that the defeated Finnish Army defeated the Red Army - as pretty much all the battles after the loss of Vyborg (hence the tactical Soviet victory) ended up as Finnish successes or even outright victories (strategic stalemate part of the result)? - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The offensive was Soviet tactical victory over the Finnish army. Period. Don't try to add anything to contradict that. And don't confuse defeat with destruction. Pick up a dictionary, if necessary. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then please describe how the 'defeated' Finnish Army was able to defeat the attacking Red Army? As Tali-Ihantala, Vuosalmi, Ilomantis (amongst others) were clear Soviet defeats (as were all the final battles of the Continuation War). - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I beg you, pick up a dictionary. After a defeat, one is still capable of winning victories in next battles. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC
 * Which in turn - by your definition - means that Finns defeated the Red Army (so how can the defeated - again by your defintion - Red Army win?). Which is utter folly. Just like your claim. What is closer to the truth is that some units of the Finnish Army were defeated. However assigning blanket comment like yours that the Finnish Army would have been defeated is just rubbish. Finnish army was far from being defeated or destroyed by the end of the Soviet summer offensive of 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which part of "The Soviet Union won a tactical victory against Finland in the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive" don't you understand? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand it perfectly well - I also happen to understand how it is limited which is something you fail to grasp at all. You seem to be having odd view that the Finnish Army (ie. the whole of it - as it is understood when using that particular phrasing) would have been defeated in it - which is false. Say for example during the Nazi Germany's attack to France & Benelux and the events that followed in Dunkirk... British armed forces suffered a defeat. British expeditionary force was defeated. However British armed forces (as a whole) were not defeated in it. In exactly similar manner Finnish Army suffered a defeat but they were not defeated (nor destroyed). - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Suffered a defeat but were not defeated as a whole in it? What a mess. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to point out that the Finnish Army had not been defeated nor destroyed. Instead Finnish Army defeated and routed Red Army units in the final battles of the Continuation War (by your logic this would mean that Finnish Army defeated the Red Army - see for example Battle of Ilomantsi). Giving ground or withdrawing is not the same as being defeated mind you. By generalizing the events you are no longer using facts instead you are using presumptions and suppositions (your very own OR). - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Ilomantsi
The battle ended with a decisive Finnish victory, as the last major Soviet attack against Finland was stopped here. says the article. I'd gather the victory was decisive in saving Finland from occupation. Pitke (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source brings no evidence that occupation of Finland was an objective at the time of the battle. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result in Battle of Ilomantsi only refers to the result of the BATTLE OF ILOMANTSI (just to make it clear) - not to the result of Soviet 7th Army's offensive, not the result of the Soviet Karelian Front's offensive, not the result of Soviet Strategic Offensive against Finland in 1944, nor the result of the Continuation War.
 * A decisive battle is one of particular importance; often by bringing hostilities to an end, such as the Battle of Hastings or the Battle of Hattin, or as a turning point in the fortunes of the belligerents, such as the Battle of Stalingrad. A decisive battle can have political as well as military impact, changing the balance of power or boundaries between countries. The concept of the decisive battle became popular with the publication in 1851 of Edward Creasy's The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World. British military historians J.F.C. Fuller (The Decisive Battles of the Western World) and B.H. Liddell Hart (Decisive Wars of History), among many others, have written books in the style of Creasy's work. - []
 * Battle of Ilomantsi was the 'highpoint' of Soviet offensive so it does represent the turning point (ie. the end) of the Soviet offensive - it was the final notable action of the war which ended in the only Soviet troops reaching the 1940 border been forced to retreat through dense forests abandoning all their equipment. It also represents a turning point since it was the first 'true' (advancing back to the ground 'taken' by Soviets) Finnish victory in the summer of 1944 (other Finnish 'repel victories were only tactical Finnish victories) So it was a battle of particular imporantance - which alone makes it 'eglible' for 'decisive battle' name. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And what are your sources that claim this battle was of decisive importance for the Soviets? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does the battle has to be of decisive importance to the Soviets? Is it not enough for it to be of decisive importance for Finns? Or are we using strictly Soviet POV?
 * Soviet offensive ended with the battle of Ilomantsi - it stumped out the last Soviet hope for military victory against Finns. Lets start with just google book search Commemorating war: the politics of memory By T. G. Ashplant, Graham Dawson, Michael Roper, page 158. Then lets move to the actual books section. Ilomantsi - lopultakin voitto By Juutilainen, Antti, isbn 951-95218-5-2, for example in chapter 'Voitto', section 'Voiton merkitys suomalaisille' p. 148. describes the huge effect on morale the victory and desctruction of 2 Soviet divisions had. Kun hyökkääjän tie suljettiin By Moisala, U.E. & Alanen, Pertti, p.128 describes the battle and Soviet desperate attempts to relieve the divisions as well as the final flight of the Soviets from the encirclements. Russian/Soviet side seems to be avoiding discussing that particular battle since it 'only' concerned 2 divisions and it had rather embarrassing result. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a Soviet offensive. Hence, the Soviets dictated the course of the campaign. We cannot judge the results of the battles if we do not critically assess the Soviet goals. The sources you have cited make no attempt to do that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that statement makes no sense what so ever. First the page is about the battle of Ilomantsi not about Soviet offensive of 1944 - you seem to be losing the scope of the article in question. Second according to you only the one who's operation it belonged to is allowed to determine how succesful the operation was? Opposing side is not allowed to comment the matter at all? Besides i posted Soviet goals several times in wiki talk pages already - unless you have other sources then please use the ones that have been posted. And Soviets failed to reach them. Also i fail to see what benefit more sources would make. Ilomantsi was the final push of the Soviet offensive of 1944 and it got crushed by Finns and remnants of Soviet divisions were driven back to east through forests and wilderness. All which according to the wiki page makes the battle notable and as it terminated the Soviet offensive it clearly had immediate & obvious military effect so that it can be stated to be a decisive victory. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are pushing the perspective of the defensive side, which is insufficient and not neutral without the attacking side's intentions. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, please provide something that would oppose anything that i have stated - books i used for sources rely both on Finnish and Soviet accounts. Otherwise what you stated is just your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please provide new sources if you want to contradict sourced material. Pitke (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What sourced material? You have not provided the Soviet goals for the battle, only Finnish speculations on them. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about that? It fits perfectly to the smallest detail with the what Kun hyökkääjän tie suljettiin By Moisala, U.E. & Alanen, Pertti claims as having been goals for Soviet offensive of 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check that tomorrow. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is (used to be) and online source of that - that is there should still be accessible link in one of the related talk pages. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The STAVKA orders contain nothing that implies the battle was a turningpoint in the campaign. They only list the tactical goals. The mainstream scholar view, as represented by Glantz, Erickson, Gebhardt interprets the campaign as a Soviet victory so I am still asking, what did the battle decide? According to the STAVKA order, the Karelian Front went on strictly defensive positions on 10 July. I can quote p. 15 Finland at War 1939-45 by Philip Jowett, Philip S. Jowett, Brent Snodgrass: "July to September: Fighting continues throughout the summer but on a much reduced local scale; local Finnish tactical successes do little to change the overall strategic situation." --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say it would have had. What i stated was it determined the END of the final part of the Soviet offensive against the Finns. However the offensive did not really change anything either. Both before and after the offensive should Soviets have concentrated on Finland any defences Finns could have mustered would have fallen. You are representing the offensive as if it alone had been the whole war - just answer to these. IF (according to your sources) Soviet offensive pushed Finns to negotiating table then WHY did Finns start negotiations full year (fact) before the offensive even started?. IF Soviet offensive was so successful (according to you) then WHY did Soviets make their peace terms more lenient (fact) exactly on the items of the agreements which had been the primary reason for Finns to reject spring 1944 proposal? IF Soviets were in stronger bargaining position after the offensive then WHY did they make the treaty terms more lenient compared to ones they had offered from 'weaker' position?
 * Whole offensive was just colossal waste of effort from SU as they could have gotten the very same result just via negotiating (and in the end did). - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahem! In your given quote, the forces were of the Leningrad Front (on the Karelian Isthmus) and not the Karelian Front (which were on the Ladoga Karelia). So although Leningrad Front was ordered to defensive, Karelian Front continued it's offensive. --Whiskey (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In that statement, I cited the direct Stavka order: "ДИРЕКТИВА СТАВКИ ВГК № 220193 КОМАНДУЮЩЕМУ ВОЙСКАМИ КАРЕЛЬСКОГО ФРОНТА НА ПЕРЕХОД АРМИЙ ЛЕВОГО КРЫЛА К ОБОРОНЕ 29 августа 1944 г. 01 ч 50 мин Ставка Верховного Главнокомандования приказывает: 1.Наступательные действия войск 7-й и 32-й армий приостановить и перейти к жесткой обороне на достигнутом рубеже." Sorry, my mistake, the date is 29 August instead. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wanderer, regarding the battle of Ilomantsi, you are confusing "decisive" with "final". --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the peace talks, the earlier negotiations are irrelevant because these were dead and buried already since April 1944. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Soviet peace terms, note that at the start of the campaign, Finland was not ready to accept any peace treaty. After the offensive, it was. However, I would be ready to read critical comment on the development of the Soviet draft proposal during the campaign. Dr. Martti Turtola appears to have published a mid-june Soviet draft of unconditional surrender in his "Mannerheim-kirja". I have not been able to verify it but that sounds like an essential document on the real Soviet objectives, which seems to be missing in the American and naturally the Russian official works. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Provide sources proving Finns were willing 'to accept any peace treaty'. Last i checked Finns did not accept the terms without negotiations - not even in September 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote: "Finland was not ready to accept any peace treaty." --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And immediately after that you had written "After the offensive, it was." - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Finland sued for peace eleven days into the offensive. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, exactly same way they had done in spring as well as in June 1944. Your are claiming that in September 1944 Finns would have been ready to accept any peace treaty. What i ask is you to prove it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not written that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then i must have misunderstood. I thought you meant that with "...Finland was not ready to accept any peace treaty. After the offensive, it was." - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Juridica article
Jaan,

do you still have access to the Tartu University Library? Would you be able to get your hands on a copy of Herbert Lindmäe paper "The political activities of Professor Jüri Uluots during the German occupation and their implications in the context of constitutional law" published in volume II, 2000, edition of Juridica? Here is a link to the summary. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The library is closed for summer. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert on continuation war page
Though i understand the need for the revert i do however need to ask was it really necessary to revert all the changes to the article instead of just the one currently contested section? - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The general rule is to revert to the last stable version. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)