Talk:List of wars involving Finland

Untitled

The treaty of Tartu does not end the civil war. It's placing in the list is misleading, a better place would be after the early skirmishes between Finland and Soviet-Russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.252.5.66 (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You really call this a list? I say all these four wars really involving Finland (Civil War, Winter War, Continuation War and Lapland War) should only be mentioned in the articles of Finland and History of Finland. This "list" is needless—it's unlikely going to grow since Finland is unlikely going to "involve" herself in any more wars. And what comes to the speculation of if she is... there is going to be maximum of one war since it's very likely that Finland does exist no longer after that :) --Pahoinvointivaltio (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Did remove the mentioned, cuz they were private conflicts. During that Mäntsälä thing they didn't even open fire. - Bassman--81.175.209.78 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Result of Winter War

This has been much debated over several years on the main article talk page, and what was agreed on for a result was "Moscow Peace Treaty". Period. It needs to conform to what the main article says. Also the source cited here, i.e., "Edwards p.18" is totally inadequate--a dead source and a dead link in THIS article. That is why I deleted it altogether. It may refer to White Death... I dunno'. But the other objection stands in any case. Paavo273 (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No one is arguing the Finns won the war. But some are questioning what the Soviets really want, and if stiff Finnish resistance made them increase their demands or back down on their demands. Regardless of what the Soviets -really- wanted; the Finns preserved their independence, but 12% of its population lost their homes. The Finns probably got the best outcome they could have, but that's it - the Winter War was a Soviet military victory, end of story. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Fundamentally, per WP rules and common sense, an edit needs to reflect the source used to support it. The cited article is a somewhat competent brief discussion of the issue. I don't see the word defeat anywhere in it. In fact it paints largely the OPPOSITE picture, describing a country that retained its independence when sovereign states all around the continent, including next door, crumbled, swallowed up, directly or through the Warsaw Pact by the Soviet Union for the next 45 years or more.

2. Another at least equally important issue that would have to be overcome for an editor of this article to label the result DEFEAT is the matter raised at the top of this heading. It has been widely debated; and a consensus or at least a stalemate has been reached, ON THIS VERY ISSUE in the Winter War article itself. In other words, even if you find a source that depicts Finnish defeat, which probably some Sovietist/NeoStalinist sources in fact do (which as you and the article you cited point out depends on actual Soviet intentions and therefore the MEANING of victory or defeat), there are plenty of other compelling sources that describe, such as the article you cited or in even stronger terms, an astounding Finnish VICTORY, or at least something far from defeat. Paavo273 (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What kind of victory is it when you are forced to cede 12% of your territory? Finland retained its independence, but had to (as you know) cede more territory to the Soviets than the latter had demanded at the beginning of the war, and absorb a flow of refugees as a result. The Interim Peace went down in history as a very depressed time in Finnish history, and Finnish president Kyösti Kallio even said about the Moscow Peace Treaty: "May my hand, which is forced to sign such a paper, wither". The Soviets got outperformed, humiliated and lost morally, but ultimately were the ones that could stake demands. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What kind of victory is it when you invade a country with the intention of annexing it, but come away with only 8% of it? The bottom line is that the Soviets intended to absorb Finland into the USSR. The end result was that the Soviets failed to do so and Finland remained an independent nation. The Soviets achieved more of a tactical victory than a strategic victory - see the Wikipedia articles on these subjects for a description of each. Regarding strategic victory: "A strategic victory is a victory that brings long-term advantage to the victor and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage a war. When historians speak of a victory in general, they usually refer to a strategic victory.".

Not only did the USSR fail to annex Finland, but this failure led directly to Finland allying with Germany and attacking the USSR in 1941 - the very thing that the Soviet invasion of Finland was supposed to prevent. If the fact that the Soviets obtained some territory from Finland constitutes a victory, then we can just as easily say that the Finns preventing the Soviets from annexing their country also constitutes a victory. Hence why the entry for the Winter War in this list is neither marked as a Finnish victory or defeat. Betelgeuse X (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan

The question is not whether ISAF is a combatant (which of course it is), but whether Finnish forces specifically participated in combat (non-strictly necessary actions of self-defense) or not. So far, I've seen no evidence on this. If anyone has any information on Finland's involvement, feel more than free to add it here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Finnish forces have regularly been involved in combat in Afghanistan, see for examples here [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], ect.XavierGreen (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

If so, are Heimosodat also something we should add to the list?--Velivieras (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Mäntsälä Rebellion

I deleted this section because this is a list of wars. Mänstälä rebellion was not a war and it hardly count even as a rebellion.Velivieras (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Winter War: defeat or not?

The Winter War of 1939–40 resulted in Finland having to cede about 10% of its territory to the Soviet Union, and to let the Soviet Union establish a military base on its territory. It seems to me that's a pretty clear defeat, so I updated the article to reflect that. Nevertheless, the edit was undone because "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam on the Winter War talk page. Given the USSR's objective for the war and failure to reach said objective, considering the war to be a Soviet victory / Finnish defeat is inaccurate."

Sure, the USSR did not reach all of its objectives, but imagine the result having gone the other way: for example, the USSR ceding everything between Archangel and Murmansk and north of Leningrad to Finland, and letting Finland establish a military base near Leningrad. Any doubts that Finns would not have been shy to call that a victory for their side? Teemu Leisti (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

None of what you listed were Finnish objectives, what was being fought over was Finland's sovereignty. The war would be considered a clear Finnish victory had it ended with no border changes, and a clear Soviet victory had the USSR installed its Terijoki government into Helsinki and annexed the country. An analysis of a war should consider reasons the war started, and compare that with the end result.

Sure, if your proposed Soviet territorial concessions had taken place then it also would have constituted Finnish victory. But Finland wasn't concerned with annexing Soviet territory and thus this likely never would have happened, regardless of how well Finland defended against the invasion. Betelgeuse X (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

When nations go to war, they fight over many things. Certainly Finland's sovereignty was in doubt, and its defeat could have been much worse. But to call the result a non-defeat because Finland "only" lost territory but not its sovereignty seems to me a case of rationalization.

I certainly understand that Finns have their national pride, just as other nations do; and that the Winter War was a landmark event in the national psyche, and that the result could have been much worse for Finland. However, I hope that over 80 years after the fact, we could try to look at the facts of the matter with objectivity.

I suppose neither of us is going to change the other one's mind on this subject. But does anyone else have any opinions on the matter? Teemu Leisti (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Who said anything about national pride? Are you sure that your own pride isn't affecting this discussion?

Multiple historians have concluded that the Winter War was a Soviet fiasco and failure. This has been discussed in the Winter War talk pages. Labeling the Winter War "Soviet victory", when the USSR failed to achieve their reason for starting the war, is simply not an accurate assessment of the war's outcome. Hence the "inconclusive" label in this article. Betelgeuse X (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I said "national pride", because that seems to me the most likely reason for refusing to look at the facts of the matter objectively. Two nations go to war; one of them loses 10% of its territory to the other. Whatever the objectives of the nations at the outset, is that a victory, defeat, or a draw? Wars are not graded on a curve.

I'm a Finn, and I'm certainly glad that Finland did so well in the war. I also wish reference works such as Wikipedia to be objective. Teemu Leisti (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the side favoring Soviet victory in this debate is the one constantly bringing up irrelevant points, such as questioning one's national pride, etc.

Multiple historians have concluded that the war was anything but a Soviet victory, which can be found in the Winter War talk page as I mentioned previously. I would consider the options of published historians to be fairly objective.

You're right that wars aren't graded on a curve. They're graded on objectives and success in achieving said objectives. When a country invades another with the intention of removing its sovereignty and annexing it - and is unable to accomplish this, the operation has been a failure. Equating failure with victory is nonsensical. Yes, the USSR did gain territory per the Moscow peace treaty, but this wasn't the goal the Soviets had at the beginning of the war. Finland was able to keep its sovereignty, which was its objective. Clearly, the ceding of Finnish territory means that the war should not be considered a Finnish victory, but not inserting its puppet government into Helsinki implies the same for the Soviets. Hence, the result was not a clear success for either side. None of this is rationalization. It's fact. The objectivity you refer to can be seen in the opinions of published historians who conclude that the war was a Soviet failure. Betelgeuse X (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I see your point, as Finland signed the Treaty of Moscow on Soviet terms, though whether it was a Soviet victory or not still seems to debated. It should ideally reflect what the Winter War article says and I am sure that has been discussed a lot in the talk page over the years. I would suggest Talk:Winter War but I doubt consensus will develop to change that. Mellk (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It certainly was not a total Soviet victory, nor an achievement of all of USSR's objectives. However, take a bird's-eye view: Two nations go to war, and as a result, one of them loses 10% of its territory to the other. Were this any other war, what would that be classified as? If, say, in 987, the Khanate of Dorforbom attacked the Emirate of Bazikistan, and the war ended in the former gaining 10% of the latter's territory, how would the box on that war be coloured on Wikipedia? Victory for Dorforbom, inconclusive, or victory for Bazikistan? This just seems pretty straightforward to me. Teemu Leisti (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

What was Dorforbum's reason for attacking Bazikistan? Did they intended to conquer it? Did Bazikistan prevent this from happening? If the war results in no territorial changes should the result be considered a draw? After all, if border changes are the only way to judge failure and success then the answer must be yes, meaning that any unsuccessful invasion cannot be considered defeat. Betelgeuse X (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, fine, I give up. Whatever, dude. But if indeed "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam on the Winter War talk page", one could conclude that it's not uncontroversial. Are you sure that all published historians agree with you? Teemu Leisti (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree that it's a controversial topic. And that's why the result box says "Moscow peace treaty" and nothing more, since that was the literal result of the war.

No, I don't know if all published historians share the same opinion of the war. But I do know of several who regard it as a Soviet failure. Betelgeuse X (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)