Talk:Continuation War

Finnish involvement in Hitler's plan Barbarossa and the Siege of Leningrad

File:Part north region Operation Barbarossa.png

Plan of north region of Operation Barbarossa.
Finns to attack Soviet Union from the north.
Germans to attack from the west.

[

Quotes

1. Britannica: "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [1]

2. "The Siege of Leningrad" a chapter in the book "World War II" By H.P. Willmott, Robin Cross, charles Messenger. Dorling Kindersley, 2004. ISBN:978-0-7566-2968-7

Page 152: "On Hitler's orders in September 1941 the German Army Group North and its Finnish allies had stopped on the outskirts of Leningrad, rather than become involved in a costly city battle... The Axis forces had begun to besiege the city, subjecting it to constant air and artillery bombardment. By October the population of 3,5 million had only enough food to last 20 days. Savage food rationing left five hundred thousand people with no entitlement, and people were driven to eat their pets and birds. By January 1942 the daily death toll had risen to five thousand. There were incidents of cannibalism. There was one loophole in the blockade. The large freshwater Lake Ladogafroze in November, a road was created over the ice that provided the last link in a 240 mile (380 km) route from beyond the German lines in Tikhvin." The map on page 152 shows full encirclement of Leningrad with Finnish army holding the northern perimeter, and Germans - the southern perimeter.

3. The story of World War II. By Donald L. Miller. Simon Schuster, 2006. ISBN: 10: 0-74322718-2.

• Page 67: Leeb's armies were sweeping north to Leningrad, and within two months these armies, together with Finnish forces under Marshal Carl Mannerheim, the Finnish commander-in-chief, all but completed the encirclement of the city.

• Page 68: Witness account by William Mandel, an American reporter in Russia, who was in besieged Leningrad.

• Page 69: Witness account by Peter S. Popkov, Chairman of the city council during the siege of Leningrad.

4. Scorched earth. Leningrad: Tragedy of a City. Lake Ladoga. Between Volkhov and Shlisselburg. (pages 205 - 247) By Paul Carell. Schiffer Military History, 1994. ISBN: 0-88740-598-3

• Anything that happened between the Polar Sea (Arctic Ocean) and Lake Ilmen after September 1941 concerned Leningrad. (p.205) (Because the Finnish forces in 1941 blocked the Murmansk - Leningrad railroad in Karelia and thus severed the supply route to Leningrad.)

• Hitler had accurate information about Leningrad. Finnish intelligence was particularly helpful in this respect. (p 208)

• Map 22. For nine hundred days Leningrad was besieged by German and Finnish troops. (p. 209)

• "In November 1941 another attempt was made to close the ring round the city by linking up with the Finns on the Svir." (pp. 209)

• "Hitler pinned down the entire German Army on sentry duty to a single city., an important centre of war industry, and the naval base of the Baltic Fleet. He continued, as the Finnish leader Field-Marshal Mannerheim so well put it, to "drag this heavy rusksack along on his back right through the war." (quoted from Mannerheim's letter, pp. 209-210)

• Hitler's plan to strangle and starve the city into submission had failed (1943). Finnish confidence in their German allies was shaken. Their military plans collapsed. Finnish Marshal carl Gustav Baron Mannerheim had planned, as soon as the beleaguered city fell, to switch his corps, which were bogged down along the Karelian isthmus encirclement front, over to attack against the Murmansk railway, the route by which the huge American supplies were arriving. The loss of this American aid would have put Russia in a difficult economic situation, and deprive ... of its offensive momentum. (p. 240)

5. The siege of Leningrad. By Alan Wykes. Ballantines Illustrated History of WWII, 3rd edition, 1972.

• chapter titled: The attackers. Photographs of Mannerheim, Leeb, Bock, and Runstedt. (pp. 9-21)

• 22 June 1941. "German troops attacked.... Similar attacks have also been made from Finnish territory." (pp.29-31)

• Map of the siege for Sept 25, 1941: Beloostrov and other northern suburbs of Leningrad are shown occupied by Finnish forces. Southern suburbs Peterhof and Pushkin - occupied by Germans. (p 52) (Beloostrov is 30km from Leningrad's center)

• Hitler had no intention of feeding 3 million citizens even if they could be persuaded to throw themselves abjectly upon his mercy by surrendering. They were to be massacred or given, complete with their city, to Finland as a 'pour boire' for Finnish help in the Eastern campaign." (pp.62-64 with photos)

6. The World War II. Desk Reference. Eisenhower Center Director Douglas Brinkley. Editor Mickael E. Haskey. Grand Central Press, Stonesong Press, HarperCollins, 2004. ISBN0-06-052651-3. Page 210.

• German forces advancing into Russia reached the outskirts of Leningrad in August 1941 and, supported by Finnish troops attacking from the north, began attack to capture the city. The Russians managed to halt the Axis advance by late September, and ... a siege lasted for approximately 900 days. (p. 210)

More facts are known to people who live in St. Petersburg, or been on locations of the siege: in St. Petersburg and suburbs, in museums, and destroyed palaces and mansions. Ilya Repin's home in Repino was vandalized at the time of Finnish presence, the art collection was looted, and the villa of artist Repin was burned to ashes. It is a popular museum now, but Repin's original art did not survive the siege. After the war, Finns donated some money for restoration of the main building, but the original art is still missing.

The norhtern suburbs of St. Petersburg were villas of intellectuals, artists, like Repin, writers, like Gorky, Chukovsky, Anna Akhmatova, and all those villas were burned down during the Siege of Leningrad - northern suburbs were occupied by the Finnish army. They did not advance closer to the center of the city, because of resistance, but the Finns kept the perimeter blocking Leningrad from the north, that of course did not help the suffering survivors and victims who died there.

The Continuation War formally was seen as a separate war by both Moscow and Helsinki

In fact, Hitler was eager to sign more resolutions between Finland and Germany, as shown by the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement of 1944.

"The Continuation War formally was seen as a separate war by both Moscow and Helsinki," in the sense that treaties were signed separate from, and earlier than the treaties with Germany and Italy. But Moscow, in fact, and Russians today, sees the battle with Finnish and German divisions on the Finnish front as part of the greater "Great Patriotic War." However, it is ok to say that Helsinki saw it as a separate war.

So, please explain in what sense Moscow sees it "formally" as a separate war? As you might know, Russia also signed "separate" treaties with other Axis coutnries too, like Bulgaria, which declared war on germany too as the tides turned. (Rakovsky 01:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

I wonder that also. It is understandable that Finns consider it separate, and it is understandable that Russians consider it just a front in GPW. The Moscow Conference (1943) demanded unconditional surrender from axis nations and when both Romania and Bulgaria fronts collapsed and both countries were occupied by Soviet forces, unlike Finland, they could be seen signing surrender unconditionally. Also, both Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary were signatories of Tripartite Pact, unlike Finland, so there are some differencies, although I guess the official Soviet point for consider Continuation War separate stems from the necessity to sign less than unconditional peace with Finland at the time. --Whiskey 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Moscow never saw the Continuation War as separate from the Great Patriotic War. (Repdetect117 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

I think Finnish political government saw the Continuation War in different aspects in different times. In reality the was was neither alliance nor separete fully. Recently Helsingin Sanomat asked 28 Finnish historian professors the question. The answer was the majority of profesors saw the Continuation War as alliance with Nazi-Germany [2][3][4] (in Finnish) Peltimikko (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Finland's official policy remains today that Continuation War was a separate war from WW2

It ought to be added, that during WW2 - besides Finland and USSR, and many other nations -, also USA saw Finland's war as a separate war from WW2, as in the links above by user Peltimikko it is stated.

User Peltimikko:

Having followed the related development somewhat closely, I have not come across any suggesting that "now majority of historians see Finland as an ally for Germany". In your link No. 2, above, it is correctly stated that still currently today Finland's official policy remains that Continuation War was a separate war from WW2 (Editor in Chief Janne Wirkkunen, Helsingin Sanomat).

In you link, Janne Wirkkunen states: "Virallinen Suomi on edelleen erillissodan kannalla, mutta tutkijoiden nuorempi polvi näkee asian jo toisin". That is Mr. Wirkkunen's personal view, of course, and in my view he falls into over-generalizing in the latter part of that sentence. There are a few vocal younger researchers, who have been given quite a lot of air time, as their views are seen as rather radical and therefore also interesting.

In your link No. 4 above, it is stated: "Näin ajattelee enemmistö 28 historian professorista, joilta Helsingin Sanomat kysyi, onko perusteltua puhua erillissodasta" (i.e., majority of the group of 28 professors chosen by Helsingin Sanomat think this way). Yet, this statement appears to have been given as a bait for the new discussion topic on that page, and no information is offered as to who these chosen 28 professors in question are, and no further details are offered.

Please note the wording of the question which had been pointed to the alleged group of professors. They were not asked whether or not Finland was an ally of Germany, but instead they were asked if they saw the term "separate war" justified. There's a difference. Boris Novikov (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I read the Helsingin Sanomat article, and I became convinced of the alliance immediately. Afterwards I quickly read the book "Aseveljiä vai liittolaisia?" by Markku Jokisipilä. Furthermore, he wrote an excellent article "Kappas vaan, saksalaisia!" into book "Sodan totuudet". He writes that "ajopuuteoria" as well as "erillissotateesi" are historical myths. Those have no scientific background. Among recent Finnish book I have only met a separate war theory (100% pure) in a book "Hitler, Stalin ja Suomi" by Jukka Seppinen (the book was quite unscientific anyway with lot of assumptions without references). Anyway, undestanding the Finnish alliance with Germany does not make the Continuation War any less important or rejected, but deepens our understanding of the war. After the Winter War receives the FA-status (hopefully), a natural continuation for my edits would be the Continuation War (heheh). Peltimikko (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, in the situation where Finland was, it could have not been 100% either way. Wishing you best of success and luck in all that you are involved with ! Boris Novikov (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Finnish army helping Germans in the Siege of Leningrad

The Finnish forces were stopped by the 23rd Army under Marshal Govorov as they crossed the old Soviet-Finnish border on the Karelian Isthmus.

The Finnish attacks repeated several times during September-December of 1941 upon German pleas for attacks on Leningrad.

This caused Britain to declare war on Finland on December 6, 1941. ref Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia. By Olli Vehvvilainen. English translation by Gerard McAlister. Palgrave, 2002, pages 100, 101, 104.

The Finns temporarily took, but failed to keep Beloostrov, they also advanced further south from the River Svir in the occupied East Karelia, but failed to establish the second circle of siege in conjunction with Germans.

1. Facts of active Finnish participation in Siege of Leningrad in the book "Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia." By Olli Vehvilainen. English translation by Gerard McAlister. Palgrave, 2002. (the book is available in libraries)

Page 89. One day before the Operation Barbarossa began, president Ryti stated to a parlimentary delegation... "If a war now breaks between Germany and Russia it could be to the advantage of the whole world."

Pages 98 - 101. Finnish forces crossed the line of Finland's 1939 border, and occupied Russian territories north and east of Leningrad.

Page 100. Churchill appealed to Mannerheim in a personal letter: Surely your troops advanced far enough for security during the war and could now halt and give leave. (Note: Finns did not leave, but blocked the railroad connecting Leningrad with Murmansk and crossed the Svir River trying to connect with Germans to form the larger "second circle" around Leningrad. At the same time Finland expelled all British diplomats from Helsinki.)

Page 100. On 6 December, Great Britain declared war on Finland. This was followed by declaration of war from Canada, Australia, India and New Zealand.

Page 104. Hitler proposed a Finnish border which would run from the White Sea to the Svir River and the Neva River. Hitler's proposal was supported by Ryti who announced in the Finnish Parliament the plan of conquering more lands in the east for the Greater Finland.

Page 104. ..plans drawn up in the Finnish Headquarters in summer 1941, it was the task of the occupation authorities of eastern Karelia to prepare the region for permanent integration with Finland as part of the plan for the Greater Finland.

Page 105. Russian place names were replaced with Finnish ones. The population was segregated into 'nationals' and 'non-nationals'... and the latter were to be deported

Page 107. ... the fate of prisoners of war was even more horrible. In 1941 over 65,000 soviet soldiers had been taken prisoner by the Finns. ... during the first winter, over 10,000 prisoners died of hunger and disease in the overcrouded camps. all in all, over 18,700 men died ... while in captivity in Finland.

Page 108. As hopes of a German victory evaporated, so also public references to a "greater Finland" wained.... in June 1944, ..a massive offensive by the Red Army forced the Finns to withdraw from the area (Eastern Karelia, north-east of Leningrad). Then the dream of a Greater Finland was finally buried.

Page 109. For two-and-a-half years the Finnish Army occupied the positions it had captured in autumn 1941 in Eastern Karelia and north of Leningrad.

2. Fact from Encyclopedia Britannica "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [5]

Please be diligent! Please be wise! Grow to the task. Do not rush to argument without reading the books from the list of sources diligently page by page.

Nobody wants Wikipedia contradicting with facts from Encyclopedia Britannica: "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [6]

Finland as part of Hitler's plan Barbarossa and the Siege of Leningrad

Attack on Leningrad was one of three strategic goals in Hitler's plan, codenamed Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's strategy was motivated by Leningrad's political status as the former capital of Russia and the symbolic capital of the Russian Revolution, its military importance as a main base of the Soviet Baltic Fleet and its industrial strength, housing numerous arms factories. By 1941 the city was responsible for 11% of all Soviet industrial output.

The siege was conducted by Wehrmacht's Army Group North, with assistance from the Finnish Army, as part of Barbarossa, which was launched on June 22 1941.

By August 1941 all railway lines to Leningrad were severed, and the city was encircled on land by Finnish armies on the north and German troops on the south.

On August 6 Hitler repeated his order: "Leningrad first, Donetsk Basin second, Moscow third."  From August 1941 to January 1944 anything that happened between the Arctic Ocean and Lake Ilmen concerned the Wehrmacht's Leningrad siege operations.  Arctic convoys using the Northern Sea Route delivered American Lend-Lease food and war material supplies to the Murmansk railhead, but the Murmansk - Leningrad railroad was cut by Finnish armies. After Britain and Canada declared war on Finland, Winston Churchill demanded that Mannerheim and the Finnish armies restore the Murmansk–Leningrad railroad for humanitarian reasons, to allow food supplies to reach Leningrad's civilian population.

File:Part north region Operation Barbarossa.png

Plan of north region of Operation Barbarossa.
Finns to attack Soviet Union from the north.
Germans to attack from the west.

By August 1941, the Finns had advanced to Sestroretsk and Beloostrov northern suburbs of Leningrad, threatening the city from the north, and were also advancing through Karelia, east of Lake Ladoga, threatening the city from the east. However, Finnish forces were stopped by the 23rd Army under Marshal Govorov as they crossed the old Soviet-Finnish border on the Karelian Isthmus. This caused Britain to declare war on Finland on December 6, 1941. This caused Britain to declare war on Finland on December 6, 1941. The Finnish attacks repeated several times during September-December of 1941 upon German pleas for attacks on Leningrad. This caused Britain to declare war on Finland on December 6, 1941. The Finns temporarily took, but failed to keep Beloostrov, they also advanced further south from the River Svir in the occupied East Karelia, but failed to establish the second circle of siege in conjunction with Germans. In the southeast, Germans captured Tikhvin on November 8, but failed to complete the second encirclement of Leningrad by advancing further north to join with the Finns at the Svir River. A month later, on December 9 a counter-attack of the Volkhov Front forced the Wehrmacht to retreat from the Tikhvin positions to the River Volkhov line.

In 1942 the International Naval Detachment K (with boats from Finland, Germany, and Italy) was deployed on Lake Ladoga. During its patrols, the Detachment interdicted the Leningrad supply route in the southern part of the lake, sinking barges with food. Bombing and artillery shelling of Leningrad continued from August 1941 onwards.

Hitler with Finland's Marshal Carl Gustav Mannerheim and President Risto Ryti; meeting in Imatra, Finland, 200 km north of Leningrad, in 1942

On the 6th of September 1941 Mannerheim received the Order Of The Iron Cross for his command in the campaign.Germany's Chief of Staff Jodl brought the award to him with a personal letter from Hitler for the award ceremony held at Helsinki. Mannerheim was later photographed wearing the decoration while meeting Hitler. Jodl's main reason for coming to Helsinki was to persuade Mannerheim to continue the Finnish offensive. During 1941 Finnish President Ryti declared in numerous speeches to the Finnish Parliament that the aim of the war was to gain more territories in the east and create a "Greater Finland"

In November and December 1941, Finnish forces made another advance towards Leningrad and crossed the Sestra River, but were stopped again at the Sestroretsk and Beloostrov settlements 20-25 km north-west of Leningrad's center. There is no information in Finnish sources of such an offensive and neither do Finnish casualty reports indicate any excess casualties at the time. On the other hand, Soviet forces captured the so-called "Munakukkula" hill one kilometer west from Lake Lempaala in the evening of November 8, but Finns recaptured it next morning.  Later, in the summer of 1942, a special Naval Detachment K was formed from Finnish, German and Italian naval units under Finnish operational command. Its purpose was to patrol the waters of Lake Ladoga, and it became involved in clashes against Leningrad supply route on southern Ladoga

Improving the article with inclusion of facts from all-sources

Improvements to the article may be done only with inclusion of facts from various international sources.

Example: Fact from Encyclopedia Britannica "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [7]

Nobody wants Wikipedia contradicting with facts from Encyclopedia Britannica: ...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII. [8]

References

• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference[9]
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference

Bibliography

• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference[10]
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference

External links

• (Youtube) Leningrad blockade part1 (Retrieved on June 29, 2008)

In Russian: "Continuation War" or "Soviet–Finnish War"

How should we translate "Continuation War" in Russian? We have two paths: either we translate directly as "Война-продолжение" or we use a version "Советско-финская война 1941 – 1944" (literally: Soviet–Finnish War 1941-1944). Finns use always a name Jatkosota (Continuation War), and Russians use, probably, the name "Soviet-Finnish War", "Карельская кампания" (Karelian campaign) or even this disputed "Continuation War". What the third party sources use? Google found 88 500 hits as "Continuation War" and 5240 hits as "Soviet–Finnish War". Peltimikko (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And further: in Russian Война-продолжение (614 000 google-results) vs. Советско-финская война (59 500 google-results). Peltimikko (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems here: 1) Война-продолжение is a very search-unfriendly term, as Google refuses to recognize the dash as a critical symbol and returns all sorts of irrelevant stuff like (translated) "The war: continued", or "war is a continuation of politics" etc. 2) As the article states in the lead, the Soviet Union did not consider this military engagement as a separate war, thus it has no name in Soviet historiography, being instead referred to as "Finnish participation in the war against the Soviet Union" (Here's an example), or individual Soviet campaigns in the region, like the Karelian Campaign (or Front). The war became target of specialized research only relatively recently (since the 1980s or so), and there doesn't seem to be a consensus as to how to call it. 3) The current presentation in the article is self-contradicting - seeing as how the name "Soviet-Finnish war 1941-1944" "is preferred by Russian historians", why then use another name as the main one?

Here's a link to the article "Finland" in the Great Soviet encyclopedia, as another example (in Russian, alas). Relevant excerpt:

В конце 1940 между финл. и герм. командованием была достигнута договорённость о сотрудничестве в подготовке войны против СССР. 17 июня в Ф. началась всеобщая мобилизация. 22 июня 1941 Ф. вступила в войну против СССР на стороне фашистской Германии, хотя формально объявила войну только 26 июня. 30 июня 1941 финл. армия перешла в наступление [...]

It explicitly mentions the Winter war as "Soviet-Finland war 1939-1940" a little earlier, but the Continuation war is described as Finland entering the war against the USSR on Germany's side. --Illythr (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Still, the direct translation of Continuation War is Война-продолжение, but you have a point. How about this way: "Russians have named the war Soviet–Finnish War (Russian: Советско-финская война) or Carelian campaign (Russian: Карельская кампания) as a part of the Eastern Front." Peltimikko (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A majority of soviet/russian historians do not see the so-called "Continuation War" as a separate conflict, just as they don't see say Romania's participation in the same war as "Soviet-Romanian War" or anything like that. This is not limited to strictly russian view anyways, for instance, David Glantz in his "The Battle for Leningrad, 1941-1944" deals with Soviet operations against Finnish forces. Thus claiming that "Russians have named this war "Soviet-Finnish" or anything like that represents a minority view, and probably shouldn't even be included in the lead, just explained later on in the article. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest Finnish academic publishing of "moles" during the Continuation War

I red a interesting article in Helsingin Sanomat where political journalist Unto Hämäläinen gave review of a new book Pettureita ja patriootteja (in english Traitors and Partriots) 16.6.2009 page C1. The book is written by professor Osmo Apunen and academic researcher Corinna Wolff. According to the journalist Hämäläinen, the book is a good comment to the lately had discussions, where especially a younger generation of Finnish historians have question the doctrine of the "separate war" (See also my comments in above talk page). According to the book it was clear by the end of the 1942 that Germany will not win a war. Stalin and Molotov also thought a Finnish war front for a while, and it was decided that Finns should be separated from Germany and turned against it. The first thing was to find Finns who where willing to do co-operation with the Soviet Union. The operation was lead from the Embassy of the Soviet Union in Stockholm, and Swedes sincerely gave help in these peace-efforts.

The most important "mole" the Soviet Union recruited was a ex-communist Eero Wuori (1900-1966). During the Finnish Civil War he fought by "Reds", he was a one of the founder of the Finnish Communist Party, later he turned to Social Democratic Party of Finland and he moved up to the political elite in Finland. After the war Wuori was a minster in two different Finnish governments. In the beginning of the Continuation War, Wuori supported president Risto Ryti, but from the year 1942 he became more critical and began to find the pathway to the peace. Wuori forwared confidential information directly to the Soviet Union. The information included top-secret political discussions of the terms of peace. Wuori had discussions with Mannerheim, Paasikivi and Kekkonen. Peltimikko (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

German losses in infobox

As the German forces in Finnish Lapland are given an entry of their own in Strength, shouldn't the Germans also have an entry in Casualties and losses in addition to Finnish losses? 62.183.251.50 (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Casualties.

Why does this article commit a typical mistake by citing russian casualties not from russian sources? Not from Krivosheev for example? Why is some foreign author used? It is widely acknowledged that the most accurate count for soviet casualties is done by Krivosheev, and not by any other author. Should I calculate the casualties that Krivosheev estimates and add them or someone else will do it? Because as of now, the numbers in the infobox for example are plainly funny.--99.231.50.255 (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov

It is because Manninen has used Krivosheev's numbers as a starting point, and added sections Krivosheev has left out by going through Corps level 10-day casualty reports from STAVKA archives and added those numbers to Krivosheev's figures. As Krivosheev also presented Leningrad front as a single entity, Manninen also separated it to the northern (Finnish) and southern (German) sections and estimated respective casualties. (See Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk_Offensive for specific dicussion about the issue.)

If you feel you are able to do the counting in a better way, feel free to do it. Or I could add the explanation to the reference.--Whiskey (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, but I thought Krivosheev's work is the most respected work. He calculated the total numbers for the whole war. Not sure Manninen was right in adding anything to Krivosheev's numbers. After all, if Manninen added something somewhere, shouldn't something be subtracted elsewhere? I mean, did Stavka have a report for total number of killed and wounded? Something like that would be useful to check Manninen's estimate. How does Manninen know Krivosheev left things out? Don't get me wrong, the reason I am so critical is that it seems that by 1944, the soviets would be losing much less troops than finnish (same as happened with gemrans for most battles starting 1943-44), the reason being the better tactics and strategy (certainly better than in 1940), plus overwhelming materiel advantage. And I don't think anyone will convince me that finnish were better equipped or trained than germans, even discounting the terrain difficulties so characteristic for Finland. Yet, the casualties given by Manninen suggest exactly that conclusion, that finnish fared against soviets better than germans did. Seems strange to me. Anyway, I still think that solely Krivosheev's numbers should be used for soviet casualties, after all, that seems to be the general rule of thumb. Otherwise, next thing you know, there will be a russian historian adding things to Manninen's estimates, claiming Manninen left something out. --99.231.50.255 (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Yes, it is the most respected work available, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have any deficiencies. In this case, Krivosheev himself writes in his book that the casualties he is giving for Leningrad front are between June 9 and June 20: By selecting a certain cut-off date to the casualty reports, while offensive was still going on three and half week after that date (to July 15) is a clear admission from Krivosheev's part that his statistics are not complete. The total losses for all Soviet forces or total losses of Leningrad Front forces at a given timeframe Krivosheev gives are the best we have, but the only place he separates losses against Finns and against Germans for Leningrad Front is this Vyborg-Petrozavodsk-offensive. All the "missing corpses" are included in the total number of losses of Leningrad front, where it cannot be determined which one were happened against Finns and which against Germans.

There is no surprise that Finnish-Soviet casualty ratio was so much better than German-Soviet ratio. There are two reasons: First, Red Army never managed to achieve deep breakthrough against Finns and never managed to encircle larger than company sized units. Second, Finns never used no-retreat orders: If there was a threat for an encirclement, the unit was always allowed to retreat. (Well, there were two occasions, when Red Army managed to cut road connection to the Finnish infantry regiment, but Finns were able to retreat through the forests, leaving only their heavy equipment.) --Whiskey (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

1)Well, since we are concerned here with total casualties, and not the casualties against Finns and Germans separately, we should include only Krivosheev's numbers, and include the total, not some estimation by finnish historian. That is, include the total number that Krivosheev gives for offensives that happened (btw, which ones are we including into Continuation war?), and leave it at that, and use, I want to stress again, Krivosheev's and noone else's numbers. As soon as you start using finnish historian for russian casualties, you get bias there regardless. It is better to include more, and cite both finnish and german casualties for the Axis side (finnish from finnish source, german casualties from Overmans, then add them), and cite solely Krivosheev's casualties for the soviet side for the front, and that's it, and note to invent some silly criteria or try to separate the numbers for the parties involved on the Axis side. 2) I think you are confused. Krivosheev gives numbers for defensive operations and offensive operations, I am not aware of him giving numbers for the front. Or do you mean the defensive operation? Or the offensive? He gives the number of casualties for The Leningrad-Karelian DEFENSIVE operation as 67265 killed (and more wounded etc., but let us concern ourselves with killed only for now), numbers are given from 29 June, to 10 October. 3) the fact that finns had good tactics did not cancel out that soviets had overwhelming amount of artillery. Just by looking at german accounts, they (germans) were sometimes losing 50% of units in the preparation alone. Considering there was no tanks involved (difficult terrain), soviet artillery preparation would have to be even more powerful than usual. 4) You have to understand something: you can not give numbers for finns against soviets, simply because it is impossible to estimate them, you have to give total german+finn vs soviet numbers. Any attempt to take solely finnish numbers vs soviets would make it strongly biased against soviets, for a simple reason that finns would stand no chance against soviets without german help (at least material), the evidence of which we saw in the fact that Finland ended the war in a smart way and with good timing, i.e., before its soldiers were thrown into the water (which would happen if soviets would keep pushing and not encircling finns). So, my advice is not to invent anything, and just give total numbers for germans + finns against soviets, and if we are considering the Leningrad defence as part of continuation war, we should add mroe germans to picture. If we are only considering the soviet advances into the Finland (two operations), then we should give casualties only for them, which Krivosheev has, and not include Leningrad front. --99.231.50.255 (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

1)No. German casualties south of Leningrad do not belong to the scope of this article. Krivosheev doesn't separate Leningrad front casualties (http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_11.html) to those which happened south of Leningrad and those north of Leningrad. We are here only interested to casualties north of Leningrad.

2)Check http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_11.html for front casualties.

3)Not necessarily. The terrain was very sandy, so it would have dampening effect to the shells. Finnish divisional units never reported such loss ratios. Even the losses of Infantry Regiment 1, which was at the breakthrough point, were only 30% from total numbers (Naturally there were platoons, which were almost annihilated...).

4)South of Kestenga was only one two regimental German infantry division (122.) and one half-strength German Assault Gun brigade (303.), and they were only one month during summer 1944. Similarily North of Kestenga there were only one battalion and few separate companies of Finnish troops among Germans. So it is quite easy to separate Finnish and German units and their losses. And it would be quite straightforward to do the counting for opposing Soviet forces.--Whiskey (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the Finnish book of Continuation War "Jatkosodan pikkujättiläinen", year 2005, in page 1161, where Pekka Kurenmaa and Riitta Lentilä refer generally to new studies of Soviet archives. The total lost were 757,500 men (including death, wounded, frosbites and prisons). However, the number is missing losses of naval and air forces. In year 1941, losses were 230,000 men, where on Karelian Isthmus 51,000, Laatokka-Syväri 65,00 and in east Karelian 113,000. In year 1944, the Red Army lost 125,000 men in the Karelian Isthmus alone. But this section is poorly referenced, so it is unclear whose studies orginally these are. Peltimikko (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not interested in finnish books here, we are interested in estimations for soviet losses, which should come solely from soviet (russian now) sources.--99.231.50.255 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.¨

Which source in the Soviet Union / Russia should we use - perhaps the ex-Premier, the leader of the entire Soviet nation ?

The post-WW2 Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev put the estimate of the Soviet casualties in the Winter War alone in one million. In his memoirs he explains how the Soviet officials outright lied about the Soviet casualties.

If the Premier of the Soviet Union himself claims the Stalin period Soviet casualty figures to be falsified, why should the world now rely on such "estimates" ? War began with Soviet offensive (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note that in Wikipedia, we do not strive for the "truth". We strive to present all sides of the argument fairly and compassionately. For obvious reasons, the Finnish historiography has centered much more heavily on the Continuation war than the Russian historiography. For the Finns, the war shows as a separate thing, for Russians, the Continuation War is just one front of the Great Patriotic War. Consequently, even Finnish casualty numbers for the Russian side are notable. --MPorciusCato (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Casualties. Again and again...

The casualties figures seem misleading. Since the source for Soviet casualties is Finnish, can someone who reads Finnish translate the relevant section of the source? Or give an explanation of how the author arrived at the casualty figures? -YMB29 (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of using operation related tables from Krivosheev's book (as you have done), Manninen used Front related tables from the same book. Purely against Finland operated Northern Front (up to Aug 23rd), Karelian Front (from Aug 23rd) and separate 7. Army. He took their casualties directly into account.

The Leningrad Front was much more problematic, as it fought against Finns north of the city, and against Germans south of the city. In the book, these casualties were not separated. Fortunately, daily casualty reports of 23rd Army, which operated only north of Leningrad are available from the Moscow Ministry of Defence archives and Manninen used those to determine Soviet losses at the Isthmus. He has also used 10-day summaries of Corps casualty reports to determine Soviet losses at the Isthmus during the Soviet offensive of 1944. When the Leningrad Front was created at Aug 23rd, Finns were still north of River Vuoksi except the bridgehead at Vuosalmi and haven't yet even captured Vyborg, so there was still a lot of fighting happening there...

So, what is the problem here? That a Finnish historian has published his research in a Finnish publication? That is doesn't matter that he has used solely Soviet/Russian primary/secondary sources in his research? --Whiskey (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this is English wiki and you only want to use a Finnish source, which we can't read and you don't translate so we don't know how accurate and objective it is. What is the problem with using a Finnish source from Finnish wiki and a Russian source from the Russian wiki?

Using front casualties is not any better. The Soviets fought against both Finns and Germans in the Northern and Karelian fronts. It is not that easy to separate casualties caused by the Germans and those caused by the Finns. And should this even be done at all since the Germans are also participants? There is no clear understanding of what fronts, battles, casualties should be included in the Continuation War, so why not leave two casualty figures for objectivity (like is done for many other wars/battles)? -YMB29 (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Continuation War is not sexy enough that historians from Russia or West bother to research it properly. The only place in the world where seems to an interest to dig deeper into the issue is in Finland. Ohto Manninen, who has conducted this research, is one of the most respected Finnish war historians. Also, eventhough he and V.N.Baryshnikov are commonly opposing each other's conclusions, I haven't never seen or heard Baryshnikov complain Manninen's use of archive materiel. (And based on how bitterly they fight, if there would have been even the slighest misdeed, it would have been noted in their battle.) But shortly: There is no available reliable sources in English or in Russian. They are all too old and/or one-sided. And my translation doesn't help: If you don't trust my word that it says so and has used these sources, how would you trust my translation which says exactly same although with a lot more words.

That would mean that we support two different truths(tm) on the same issue. Not a good idea.

Finns had always accepted that all casualties happened along the Finnish border, from Arctic Sea to Gulf of Finland, belong to the Continuation War, eventhough some of them happened against Germans fighting in the northern Finland. So it would be very straightforward to do the separation. It is even quite simple, as Soviets never lost army or even corps HQ or their archives in the battles against Finland, so their reports are available in Russian military archives.

And again no. It is not for objectivity, if you claim casualties from some limited area and timeframe to present all casualties of the war. --Whiskey (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Other sources too old and/or one-sided?? The source you are referring to is from 1994 and by a Finn who counts the casualties of the Soviets... So your source is not exactly new and neutral. It would be nice to read how the author explained this.

There is no one truth. When there is a dispute it is helpful to present both sides; this is what Wikipedia is about.

Separating Finnish casualties is easy, but not the Soviet ones. Soviet fronts fought both against the Germans and Finns. I am for including all casualties, including those of the Germans. However, it is unclear what battles and other fighting for the Soviets should be included in this war.

Data of both sources is not perfect, but you can't only have one because you like it more. Look, I am not deleting your source but just adding an alternative one, so there is no need to edit war. When there is a dispute on the accuracy of sources, it is best to present both. -YMB29 (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As it seems we cannot reach a solution, I'll ask the third opinion (WP:3).--Whiskey (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion: Casualties

Following views disagree:

Whiskey: My source (Manninen), although in Finnish, has used Krivosheev's front level casualty figures for the whole duration of the conflict, not only some space or time limited operation figures which present only few months of the conflict as my opponent wish to add. In case of Leningrad Front, which operated both against Finns and Germans north and south of the city respectively, Manninen has used Corps and Army level casualty reports from the units which were fighting against the Finns. These reports are available from the archives of Russian Ministry of Defence. The battlebox should contain the most reliable figures which present the casualties of the whole conflict, not the figures of some limited portion of it. --Whiskey (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

YMB29: There is no clear understanding of what fighting should be included in this war, so there is no accurate data for the casualties. There are no figures that separate Soviet casualties caused by the Finns from those caused by the Germans, which is what Whiskey is trying to do. His source is a Finnish book from 1994, and since most in the English wiki can't read it, it is unfair to use it above other sources and claim that it has the most accurate figures for the Soviets losses. This Finnish source supposedly uses unit casualties but assumes that the units only fought the Finns. Russian figures from the Russian wiki are from casualties lists for operations (defensive and offensive) that were against the Finns. Both are not perfect in separating Soviet casualties against the Finns, so it is best to just leave both Russian and Finnish estimates. Again, I am not deleting his source, but just adding an alternative one.

Also there is a wider issue here with Whiskey. In articles related to Soviet-Finnish conflicts he actively tries to push his Finnish POV and often acts like an article owner. He even has gone over to the Russian wiki to control what is there. [11][12] Calling me his opponent is further proof that he treats this topic as a battleground. -YMB29 (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No clear understanding? Eventhough literature in English fails to dig deeper into the issue, none of those books have trouble to define which area of fighting belonged to the Continuation War. And even in the Soviet side certain units are issued to the certain locations, so there is no trouble at all to find these units and their casualties, if one just bothers to do some digging in the Soviet archives. If the unit is located on the Karelian Isthmus, it is ridiculous to claim it is fighting and suffering casualties in Demyansk. Using Krivosheev's operations data covers on few months of fighting, and leaves most of the war uncounted. Using the same Krivosheev's book but it's tables for Front casualties by year, shows that Karelian front lost more men 1942 than 1944. 1944 was conducted that Petrozavodsk offensive by the forces of the Karelian front.

Just like in Talk:Continuation_War/Archive_4? You give me and my none-existent Russian skill too much credit in Russian wiki.;-) Ah! We have different opinions and we are jousting them to find out which one is more credible in an academic sense. Refreshing, isn't it? --Whiskey (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? I was not involved in this article before.

Don't act like you don't know what I meant. Fighting in the Karelian Isthmus in July, 1944 was clearly against the Finns, however, for other fighting earlier it is not clear what was against the Finns or the Germans (like for Karelian Front in 1942). To you this war is only about Soviets vs. Finns, right? My point is that you can't just separate the Germans, and say that a figure is the most accurate number for how much casualties the Soviets suffered purely against the Finns, according to a Finnish author. Does the author even say that he calculated this pure figure? See that is the problem, I and others don't know what exactly is in your Finnish source.

You talk like you dug in the archives yourself... The operations data is incomplete but it covers the major fighting against the Finns. And again, only going by front/unit casualties is not accurate too, so there is no perfect data.

Probably the best way is to include casualties for fighting where Finns were definitely involved, but also include German casualties or at least mention them (when the Soviet losses caused by them cannot be separated). -YMB29 (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that number of German casualties should be included. I'll dig about it... --Whiskey (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Illythr: (Note that since I have worked with the article and user Whiskey before, this probably doesn't count as a third opinion. Therefore I'm labeling it as a comment.) Regarding Whiskey's behavior, I'd say Whiskey's a pro-Finnish POV-pusher no more than he's my sockpuppet or Stalinist (look here for the context). His comments on ruwiki talk pages hardly amount to "attempted control" either (and he was absolutely right there). As for the content dispute - I am inclined to agree with Whiskey: Krivosheev's data concerns two short periods only: 29 June - 10 October, 1941 and 10 June - 9 August, 1944. On the other hand, the way Whiskey describes it, Manninen did a very thorough job there and I have no reason to suspect him of nationalist bias just because he's a Finn. Compared to the way things are presented here ("German victory" achieved by losing Narva and massive Soviet casualties derived from Krivosheev's work via a "garbage collection" method), I would describe this article and Whiskey's role in developing it as highly positive. --01:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought that Whiskey is more or less objective until he started saying that Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive was not a Soviet victory... The terrible shape of other Soviet-Finnish articles which he edited also made me doubt this. -YMB29 (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• More than 2 people, so 3O isn't appropriate. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Er, I probably don't count. An outside opinion would be definitely welcome. --Illythr (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We must tell what happened

We must present all important events that occurred. Then we can analyze why these events, and other things that were triggered, took place.

Since there was a decisive Soviet offensive against Finnish targets in Finland on June 25, 1941, it must be revealed. Neither the Soviet offensive nor the Finnish offensive that followed can be left untold.

When a nation has become under attack, and when it attacks back, the widely accepted and commonly used term for it is 'counter-offensive'. War began with Soviet offensive (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

These facts are already in the article, in the very next chapter. Please check it first before duplicating them. --Whiskey (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Headline must reflect the text that follows / 2. Major events deserve their own headlines

This block of text in question discusses the major Soviet attack against Finland on June 25, 1941, and minor related events before it. Not a word is said about a Finnish offensive - which is fine, as the Finnish offensive came after this and as it is been discussed in the next editable blocks.

Thus, the headline is wrong. The headlines must reflect the text that follows as well as the historical timeline of major events. Furthermore, all major events that took place deserve their own headline, and in right order.

Only the next editable blocks discuss the Finnish offensive, in stages. Those blocks can be under the main headline, 'Finnish offensive'. The block before, however, which discusses the Soviet offensive, must be under the headline 'Soviet offensive'. Boris Novikov (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Art Dominique. You're getting better, but still too obvious.--Illythr (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User name changed, per request

I changed my user name 'War began with Soviet offensive' to 'Boris Novikov'. Boris Novikov (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Finnish target: Securing the Finnish-Soviet border on the outskirts of Leningrad

Little over one year after the Finns had been able to stop the Soviet take-over attempt of Finland in the Winter War, the Finns came under a renewed Soviet attack on June 25, 1941.

Thus, the Finns - and most observers outside USSR (now Russia) - saw/see it justifiable that the Finns at this point pushed the Red Army behind the pre- Winter War national borders, including on the outskirts of Leningrad where the nations' border ran.

On some other sectors the Finns saw it strategically important to keep the Red Army far enough behind the border, a safe distance away, until the final peace would be negotiated.

On the Leningrad sector, for the Finns - primarily - it was a matter of returning to the legal pre- Winter War national border, and not an attempt to participate in a siege of Leningrad as such. Here, the Finns wanted to stay away from the major battle of the city.

Yet, it is only natural that there were skirmishes on both sides of the nations' border here as well. The Soviets would have wanted to push the Finns deeper into the Finnish side, while the Finns - on their behalf - tried to secure the critical spots of the border area.

On the nations' border on the outskirts of Leningrad, the trouble spots on the Soviet side included Beloostrov (Finnish: Valkeasaari), a strategically important border-crossing area, and Sestroretsk (Finnish: Siestarjoki), 35 km northwest of the center of Leningrad.

Sestroretsk had been a part of the 'Grand Duchy of Finland', but was traded with Russia to the area of Petsamo. The Soviets had occupied Petsamo in the Winter War and were in charge of a part of Kalastajasaarento there when the Continuation War began. 87.95.43.79 (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Need input from others in resolving edit war

Why are you ignoring requests for you to reason your reverts of the 'Soviet attack' from the headline of the related text

Killing Vector: Despite requests, you have refused to give any reasoning for your reverts, whereas I have explained my edits. Do you not agree that the Continuation War started with a major Soviet attack against Finland on June 25, 1941 ?

If you agree, that this is where and when the Continuation War began, why in your opinion this fact - perhaps the most defining moment of the entire war (as it launched the war) - does not deserve to be included in the headline of the block of text which discusses the topic ?

I ask you kindly once again - please explain your reverts - can you not offer any reasoning at all for you doing this ? If you can't, please allow the war-initiating Soviet offensive to stay in the headline where it belongs.

I wait for your answer, before reverting your revert. If you decline to offer any acceptable reasoning for your reverts, or if you continue giving no explanation at all, I believe others agree that your reverts are unjustifiable and your removal of the Soviet attack from this headline should not be withstood.

My suggestions for the headline in question are: Initial stages - Soviet offensive starts war - - or - - Initial stages - Soviet air raid begins war - - or - - Initial stages - Soviet air offensive launches war - - or - - Initial stages - Soviet Union attacks Finland - - or - - Initial stages - Soviet offensive, June 25, 1941 - - or, perhaps the best - - Initial stages - Soviet offensive of 1941.

The 'Initial stages' was a suggestion from user Illythr, so I left that part in the headline - since this block indeed discusses the initial stages as well, besides the Soviet attack. Boris Novikov (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Any other suggestions for this headline - leaving the Soviet attack in ? Or, does anyone else wish to state why in their opinion this war-initiating major Soviet offensive should not be in this headline ? Should the Finnish offensive not be in the following headline either ?

In my view, the most appropriate phrasing for that following headline is: Finnish counter-offensive of 1941, as that is what it was - a counter-offensive. Yet, I am also ok with the current headline there, Finnish offensive of 1941, as long as the prior Soviet offensive is stated in the headline before this. Boris Novikov (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My initial view was, that the escalation to the war were to be included into the "Path to War"-chapter. If you want to have alternative names, then try something like "Escalation to the War" or "Guns begin to talk".

The major chapter names define the general outcome of that/those years; For 1941 it was the Finnish offensive, 1942-3 it was war in trenches and 1944 it was Soviet offensive. I don't see any reason to add "counter"s or "counter-counter"s to the headlines. Soviet air offensive was a defining moment of the war, as it was the First open, large scale act of war between Finland and Soviet Union; after that, there was no turning back. It also defined the climate where the war was fought. But it was an end point of gradual escalation, it was not followed by planned land offensive and it's military effect was minimal so it doesn't need it's own chapter. --Whiskey (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. Yet, the aggressive war-type of escalation in Finland happened really only from the Soviet bombing of Regatta to the Soviet Bombing on June 25, 1941 (besides the Soviet Air Force, other Soviet forces were involved in the attack then as well - the Soviet artillery and the Soviet Army in particular, although not in a very large scale). On Finland's behalf, there was no aggressive escalation - only ongoing defensive preparations.

I am suggesting for the 'Initial stages' to be kept as the heading for the text which discusses the initial stages, and to have 'Soviet offensive of 1941' as the heading for the part which discusses the Soviet attack of June 25, 1941. Is this agreeable to you, user Whiskey ? Boris Novikov (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Boris is right! Still nearly 70th years after the war we dont now anything abouth the real reason, decision making and preperation of the Soviet attack. Proffesor Otho Manninen did find out that the Soviet air attack was the first stage of an grand offensiv against Finland that never materialized. So it could no supricingly be so that the Soviet had a plan to knock out Finland in case of war with Germany.--Posse72 (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, Posse. Every military has plans for all kind of situations. The Soviets simply took first part of that offensive from their playbook, but they didn't have forces to follow it according to the original plan. So it's importance is not so big. --Whiskey (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi all - and thank you for your input. User Whiskey, I believe that you'd agree that this major Soviet offensive was a significant event, as it launched the war.

Besides, at no point during the entire war did Finland - nor would Finland have been able to or willing to - mount similar type of bombardment against a large number of Soviet cities (at any one given time nor over a longer period), including as targets the current and past capitals of the nation (note: in Finland's case, both Helsinki and Turku were among the many Soviet targets in this war-initiating attack).

I suggest, that - as compromise - we'd go for now with user Illythr's 'initial stages', added with 'Soviet offensive starts war', like this: Initial stages - Soviet offensive starts war.

All of us know - and everyone interested about this subject certainly knows and/or can easily find out as well - that this massive Soviet attack took place. We must stop trying to cover it up and to hide it in the little detail. After we have laid down the major 'defining moments' of the war, we can try to begin analyzing together what led to these events, why they happened. That'll be more fun - but let's get there first, in unison!

If we are not clearly telling what clearly happened, we are not doing a favor to anyone, anywhere - and this article will remain less interesting read than a telephone book, and it will remain a waist of anyone's time, including ours. Boris Novikov (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, this reminds me of GLaDOS. "You will be fed and there will be cake". Creepy. --Illythr (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Strategic stalemate?

The result of war cannot be a "strategic stalemate, Soviet victory" - it's sounds absurdly. The situation when one side pay reparations, jailed own president, ceded more areas is not stalemate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.243.229 (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the final operation did end in a stalemate. Perhaps "Tactical stalemate. Soviet strategic victory" or something like that? --Illythr (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove Soviet victory? This is not complicated, just look at the final outcome... Stop making it harder than it really is. -YMB29 (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what you consider the Soviet objectives. The Soviet archival material clearly shows that the Fourth Strategic Offensive was supposed to push all the way to Saimaa and Kymenlaakso, destroying the Finnish Army in the process. This failed, and although Finland sued for peace, she maintained her independence. So, if the Soviet objective was limited to borders of 1940 and to a separate peace with Finland, this was successful. On 23rd June 1944, the Soviet Union had informed Finnish government that it would require unconditional surrender, nevertheless. So: if the ultimate Soviet objective for war was only a peace with an independent Finland, she was clearly successful. However, if the Soviet Union required the unconditional Soviet dominance over Finland, she was unsuccessful. --MPorciusCato (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Again you put too much weight into the theory that they wanted to occupy Finland. The peace conditions offered by the Soviets before the Soviet offensive were not much different from the final conditions. Even if the objective was to occupy Finland, it still does not matter. Finland was on the losing side since its army was pushed back to the 1940 border and it had to accept unfavorable peace demands. -YMB29 (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the demand for an unconditional surrender makes a pretty big difference, if you ask me... But yes, the accepted demands were quite harsh nonetheless. --Illythr (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that whatever we decide, it should be similar definition here and the Winter War article. Anyway, Soviet victory in both wars was clear, but what kind of victory? Peltimikko (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a pyrric victory. (sorry that it is spelled wrong)--Coldplay Expert 22:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case I would disagree: Finland was knocked out of the war, had to sign a separate peace obliging it to disband its own army while kicking out remaining Germans at the same time and after all was done still had to pay reparations... While a good argument that the Winter war was a Pyrrhic victory, as the USSR's gains in it were rather small and losses (including what remained of international goodwill) rather high - in this case it was both a military and a political victory for the Soviet Union. --Illythr (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)