Talk:Continuation War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Continuation War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 3, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Russia / History / Military (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
 
WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Finland (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Finland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject European history  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


"Reconquest of ..." etc[edit]

Some titles look as if the article has been written by the Finns and for Finnish readers only. Thus, "Reconquest of Ladoga Karelia", "Reconquest of the Karelian Isthmus" etc imply a reader stand on pro-Finnish positions, and they perfectly knows who reconquered them. Actually, these territories were reconquered at least twice: firstly by the Finns in 1941, and then by the USSR in 1944. In my opinion, the title should clearly say the section discusses Finnish offensive. In connection to that, I changed the title from "Campaign of 1941" to "Finnish advances in 1941". --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

When I wrote it, it was "1941: Finnish offensive", but somewhere during the 2010 Jaan changed it to the current one. In my original writing of the article, the idea was to divide the war to three phases: Finnish offensive (1941), War in trenches (1942-3) and Soviet offensive (1944). So I strongly support your renaming of that section. --Whiskey (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Current one (one from Paul) is better than what there was previously but given how the other entries are written the "1941: Finnish offensive" would be fitting as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer Whiskey's version ("offensive"), as "Finnish advances" looks like some sort of international courtship to me. --illythr (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I didn't know the article's history, and I also prefer the Whiskey's version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
"Re-conquest" is a valid description since it relates to Ladoga Karelia and the Karelian isthmus. Do read up on the history of those areas. It does not express a "Finnish" view as you suggest. It represents the view of the international community and the League of Nations at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.4.126 (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source in infobox[edit]

WP requires that we faithfully represent what sources say. If someone insists on using the source as it appeared in the infobox B4 I just deleted it, there will be no choice but state it the way the source does: limited Soviet victory or limited war outcome. Paavo273 (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Quotes added to the article[edit]

General Platonov observes, "The repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces from the bridgehead failed to gain results. The enemy was able to significantly tighten the formation of its forces in the area and to fend off all attacks of our troops... During the offensive operations, lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them on the orders of the Supreme Command, issued on June 21. Our forces did not succeed to advance to the Finnish-Soviet border and to clear the Karelian Isthmus of enemy forces. By moving enough reinforcements to the area, the Finnish war command stopped the attack of the Soviet forces from the Karelian Isthmus to deep inside Finland."

The article already says that the offensive was stopped before it reached Finland. There is no reason to add the entire quote to this article (see WP:QUOTEFARM).

General Adolf Ehrnrooth: "The Continuation War ended in a (Finnish) defensive victory in the most important meaning of the term."

Is this general a historian? There is no reason to quote him. I can also quote Soviet generals about how they beat Finland... Then the article's quality would suffer.
Also, that section (1944: Soviet offensive) is not the right place to make conclusions about the whole war.

-YMB29 (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Published material of key players' analysis is relevant to the subject and belongs in the article. Granted, there might be an even better location. Paavo273 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Paavo273. These quotes and sources belong to this article (although I am not against placing the info in another spot). The Soviet objective to penetrate "deep inside Finland"[1] and to "conquer"[2] Finland and the Soviet failure to achieve this central goal is best explained by the Soviet war plans sourced in this segment, and by the statement of the Soviet general, in the book which he edited and which pertains to this particular theater of war. The book was published in the Soviet Union in 1964. These sources are essential for the understanding of why the result of the war in this article must not be marked as a "Soviet victory". Below is the segment which YMB29 would like to remove while leaving the result of the war as a "Soviet victory". Following the example of the Finnish Wikipedia article, I will proceed to revert the result of the war back to "Moscow Armistice", leaving the old sources untacked and including these sources (others can be added).
Below is the part removed by YMB29 (statements of the veteran generals must not be separated from the war plans' source):
Soviet General S. P. Platonov (1964) confirms the Soviet purpose still in the summer of 1944 to have been to penetrate "deep inside Finland"[1], as was envisioned in the Soviet 1940-1941 war plans[2], finalized in May, 1941. General Platonov states the following of the summer 1944 battles: "The repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces from the bridgehead failed to gain results. The enemy was able to significantly tighten the formation of its forces in the area and to fend off all attacks of our troops. ... During the offensive operations, lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them on the orders of the Supreme Command, issued on June 21. Our forces did not succeed to advance to the Finnish-Soviet border and to clear the Karelian Isthmus of enemy forces. By moving enough reinforcements to the area, the Finnish war command stopped the attack of the Soviet forces from the Karelian Isthmus to deep inside Finland."[1] Finnish General Adolf Ehrnrooth witnessed the summer's battles as the commander of the 7th Infantry Regiment (JR 7) of the 2nd Division on the Karelian Isthmus. In 2003, Ehrnrooth stated: "Continuation War ended in a (Finnish) defensive victory in the most important meaning of the term."[3] Ehrnrooth was awarded the Mannerheim Cross. --Christinaxx (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c General S. P. Platonov: "Our forces did not succeed to advance to the Finnish-Soviet border ... the Finnish war command stopped the attack of the Soviet forces from the Karelian Isthmus deep inside Finland." 'Bitva za Leningrad, 1941-1944' ("Битва за Ленинград"), p. 178. Editor: General S. P. Platonov. Publisher: Voenizdat Ministerstva oborony SSSR. The Soviet Union. 1964.
  2. ^ a b Manninen, Ohto (2008). Miten Suomi valloitetaan: Puna-armeijan operaatiosuunnitelmat 1939-1944 ("How Finland is Conquered: Operational Plans of the Red Army, 1939-1944" (in Finnish). Helsinki: Edita. ISBN 978-951-37-5278-1. 
  3. ^ Statement by General Adolf Ehrnrooth: "The Continuation War ended in a (Finnish) defensive victory in the most important meaning of the term." Pro Karelia. December 17, 2003.
See the points I made above. You have not addressed them.
Advancing deep into Finland does not mean conquering it. If you say it is, it is your original research, which is not allowed here.
It does not matter what the Finnish general says. He is not a historian. Like I said, I can also quote Soviet generals. Do you want that?
As for Soviet victory, it is ridiculous to claim that it was anything than a Soviet victory when Finland had to pay reparations, was forced to turn on its German ally, and agreed to many other terms demanded by the Soviets.
The sources cited directly say that it was a Soviet victory. There is no ignoring that.
This has been discussed too many times. -YMB29 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, if you want to quote Platonov's book, the other things written there should be quoted too, such as:
Despite the defeat of its army, Finland continued the war. The Soviet army had to achieve new victories in South Karelia, Belorussia, the Baltics and other directions of the Soviet-German front to force the Finnish reactionary government to accept the conditions of the Soviet government and exit the war from the side of the Hitler's Germany.
This shows that Platonov and the other authors of the book, don't say that the Soviet government wanted to conquer Finland, but only to force it from the war. -YMB29 (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, including Christinaxx and YMB29,
Rel YMB29's statement, "As for Soviet victory, it is ridiculous to claim that it was anything than a Soviet victory when Finland had to pay reparations, was forced to turn on its German ally, and agreed to many other terms demanded by the Soviets," there is on the contrary substantial authority, including (1) sourced discussion in the article, (2) the sourced material Christinaxx has reasonably added, and (3) one or more sources I introduced previously that indicate this was a Finnish victory rel the only issue that mattered, i.e., avoiding being swallowed up by the USSR. I previously cited an RS that called it a "limited Soviet victory." That at least gives some indication that the result was not what the Soviets were after.
As it stands, given the sourced facts and opinions discussed in the article, it IMO stains WP's reputation for accuracy to state this as an unqualified "Soviet victory."
To say that the published analysis of high ranking military officers in the conflict does not belong seems IMO like a case of WP:I don't like it. There is also substantial OTHER authority already cited in the article as to the Soviets' motives. Paavo273 (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Most sources don't support the claim that the Soviets wanted to conquer Finland.
As for quoting the Finnish general, he was not even a high ranking military officer during the war. -YMB29 (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Detailed Soviet war plans from the late 1940 to 5/1941 with analysis by a well-known historian Ohto Manninen is an appropriate source for the Soviet intent to conquer Finland. Platonov (a source in the article already before) confirms that by 1944 the Soviet intent to attack "deep inside Finland" had not changed, and that the Soviet forces of the critical "right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them", and that the Soviet "forces did not succeed to advance to the Finnish-Soviet border". The Mannerheim-Cross-awarded General Ehrnrooth, who led Finns in the front as a colonel in the summer of 1944, confirms this and calls the end-result "a (Finnish) defensive victory in the most important meaning of the term." In his memoirs (1970), the Soviet Premier (General) Nikita Khrushchev explains that the post-WWII Soviet officials "lied" about the Soviet objectives and the end-results of the Finnish-Soviet fighting waged during WWII. The previously removed info was cropped slightly and placed differently, with the Khrushchev info added, including a source (KHRUSHCHEV REMEMBERS. Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev. Little, Brown and Company. 1970.). -- Christinaxx (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
That does not mean that Khrushchev said that it was not a Soviet victory. He is not even a reliable source on this, especially when we have better sources.
It does not matter if the Finnish general got the Mannerheim Cross or not. He is not a historian and was not a top military commander during the war.
Again, Platonov does not say anything about conquering Finland.
You need to stop trying to add your changes that are based on misinterpretation of sources. -YMB29 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with YMB29 - the quotes by Manninen and Platonov refer to strategic planning and tactical engagements and do not touch the overall result of the war (whereas all the other sources do). Ehrnrooth's quote reflects the popular "Finland had lost the war but won the peace" sentiment, with peace and continued independence being the "most important meaning of the term" (also corroborated by David Kirby ("The Soviet Union won the war, but Finland came in a good second") and other researchers). The historical perception of the war in Finland (both popular and in historiography) is a good topic for article expansion, but it has no bearing on the objective result of the war (as established by reliable third party sources). As for Khrushchev, you might want to watch what you cite, heh. --illythr (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Biased[edit]

Added template POV template . The article title itself is based on Finnish point of view.Sarvagyana guru (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, for the Soviets it was just another front (and not the most important one) but for Finland it was all. It's no surprise a big chunk of reference literature and the name Continuation War (jatkosota) is Finnish. --Pudeo' 16:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Finland had declared war against United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia, Australia, Canada, India. Nothing about is mentioned in this article. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
False, those countries declared war against Finland. And the United Kingdom is mentioned even in the infobox as a "minor belligerent" as they conducted one air raid in the Artic. The United States, on the other hand, never declared war on Finland. Regards to your objection to the name "Continuation War", it gets plenty of results from Google scholar. It is the most used name. --Pudeo' 10:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Russians use the term Great Patriotic Wat or Great Fatherland War for World War 2, but other than them nobody else uses that term. Similarly the term Continuation War was coined by Fins, therefore it is better to use a more neutral sounding name such as Finn-Soviet War of 1941-1944. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME says we should use the most commonly used English name, not the most neutral or politically acceptable. (Hohum @) 16:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)