User talk:Noiseemitter

This was interesting edit: "(the Grand Duke of Finland in Sweden meant only a royal title not a really existing autonomy)." I am afraid that you are not familiar with the article Grand Duchy of Finland. Meanwhile, I reverted your edits of the Winter War. The background is already too long for general debate, and your edits do not meet the sources I am familiar with. Well, maybe there are some "traditonal" Soviet sources (usually they more non-academic opinions) which do not have real academic background - even in modern Russia. Sorry about that. Peltimikko (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Peltimikko, You did a bad thing. The article is biased and needs editing. There are - unnecessary passages, e.g.: - about the Finnish perception of SU (where only the stances of the negotiation parties should be dealt with, not the 'lyrics'); - comments on the SU internal politics (collectivisation - why? it's an article on foreign affairs!), - wordings indicative of a purely one-sided look (Finnish), - incorrect data (the up-to-date documented statistics show some 12000 men were repressed in the Soviet Army, not the 30000, of the number several thousands were later restored in the army. though i didn't touch this section). - sheer propagandist lies.

Etc. The article has little to do with academic sources, you must be kidding. The article must be objective, not Finnish or Russian-biased.

As regards the phrase "the Grand Duke of Finland in Sweden meant only a royal title not a really existing autonomy" - it's the thing exactly stated in the beginning of the article Grand Duchy of Finland. Read it carefully, it reads that Finland had no autonomy under Sweden. The Finnish statehood started from the 'conquest' by Russia, that's a commonly recognized fact.

I think you used this as a pretext to revert my edits. You must state what is incorrect specifically, not the general allegations.


 * Yes. You are correct about the "the Grand Duke of Finland in Sweden..." - somehow I quickly read the sentence wrong (without Sweden). There was no "Finland" before Russians created the concept (under Imperial Russia). However, I disagree with your argument that the Winter War article is one-sided. The article has used Western, Finnish and Russian (which are written in Finnish) sources. I am aware of Soviet and Russian histography, and some of those issues are handled in the article Aftermath of the Winter War under sections Soviet literature and Russian literature. The Finnish historian Timo Vihavainen commented in television programme a sometime ago, that modern Finnish and Russian academics agree with main points of the Winter War, but there is a minority (he used a word Stalinists) in Russia who still keep old, "traditional" views alive. Peltimikko (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See, in editing the article I followed not my personal opinion (had it been so, I would have had to change every sentence). I only tried to make the atricle more objective. The information I added or stresses I made are very important for the reader who would like to understand what the war was. For example, the passage that Stalin wanted to conquest the whole Finland is a precarious undocumented claim, but OK, let it be, but to be objective you MUST write that it's only suspicions that really might be very widespread in Finland (and are being promoted now by the power wielders). Meanwhile, the proven goal of the USSR was to move the border. Without the nuance the whole article becomes pure propaganda.
 * I suggest that you review the edits and try to comprehend the implications. You just have acknowledged your mistake about the Grand Duchy. But it was the main grounds for the reverses. You write that you know Russian sources that are published in Finland. But these are authors who are sponsored by the Finns! Is this the freedom of speech and thinkng that you are promoting?


 * There is no document saying why Stalin stopped the invasion on 13 March 1940. The reason was probably Franco-British plans for intervention. However, Stalin had many reason to conquer the whole Finland and there are some evidences: (a) The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact where Finland was under the Soviet sphere of influence. The Baltic states were at first forced to give military bases in 1939, and next year they were occupied and annexed by the Red Army (see Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940)). (b) The Soviet commander Kirill Meretskov publicly announced that the Red Army will be in Helsinki 2-3 weeks. (c) Stalin set up a puppet regime, Terijoki government, as the future regime for the "Soviet Finland" - not just small part of Karelian Isthmus. (d) Stalin was ready to resettle Finns elsewhere (See Aftermath of the Winter War -> bottom). (e) At first the Red Army goal was to liberate Finnish working class. Nobody believed this. So, the Stavka changed the main object: "Protection of Leningrad" and a issued it between December 1939 and January 1940. (f) Andrei Zhdanov commissioned a celebratory piece from Dmitri Shostakovich, a theme to be performed as the marching bands of the Red Army would be parading through the Finnish capital Helsinki. Summa summarum: Without the war, Finland would met the same fate as the Baltic states. Peltimikko (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. You put forward a theory that of course has the right to exist, just like other ones. On my part, I say to you that some of the points you listed stand to no criticism. Furthermore, there are reasons that overthrow the stance altogether, which you don't mention at all. However, now only one question. Why do you think that in Wikipedia only YOUR opinion and only ONE approach to the matter has place?


 * I follow non-fiction books. However, sometimes different books emphasize different subject, and one have to decide which facts are most suitable for the article. Still, I think the Winter War and its subarticles follow the mainstream of these books. Do your have different sources? If so, please use them to make your edits. Peltimikko (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)