Talk:Battle of Tali–Ihantala

Noskua vs Ihantala

Something which seems to be quite usually ignored.. The attempt of Soviet 23rd Army's 6th Army Corps (13th & 177th & 382th RD, supported by (not exclusive list) 2 Guards rocket artillery regiments, 3 mortar regiments, 2 AT-gun regiments, a cannon brigade and a regiment, 2 howitzer brigades and 3 armored regiments) to push towards Antrea on the west side of the Vuoksi (between Noskuanselkä and Vuoksi) on 21 to 30 of June (just when Tali-Ihantala was being fought). That is it happened along the line starting from Vyborg and ending to Vuoksi but on east side of 21st / 23rd army operational boundary. Should it be included to the Tali-Ihantala? Or it does it have any 'better' name assuming it would be handled as separate? - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the monologue... As the Tali-Ihantala page lists that Pajari's 3rd Division was part of the Tali-Ihantala then it also sorta requires that Noskua battle would be included to the Tali-Ihantala. Problem lies in that are the values - losses - currently listed only for the 21st Army or for the whole Leningrad Front. That is according to 'Jatkosodan torjuntaisteluja 1942-44' (Raunio, Ari; Kilin, Juri) 23rd Army's 6th Corps had 7 905 casualties between June 21 - June 30 (of which 1458 KIA, 288 MIA). - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested citations...

To date, it is the largest battle in the history of the Nordic countries.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice: p.306: "The fighting which had taken place in the Tali-Ihantala area northeast of Viipuri over a three-week period, is referred to as the largest battle in Nordic history. It ended in a Finnish defensive victory which undoubtedly had its impact on later political developments. The fighting had been carried out successfully against vastly superior enemy and the margin between success and failure had often been razor-thin."

One of the reasons leading to the Soviet failure was that the Finns were able to intercept the Soviet radio messages and to forewarn and prompt the Finnish Army to put up a firmly resolved defense.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice: p. 306: "A Finnish intercept of Soviet radio traffic indicated that several elite guard and tank units were a decisive attack in the direction of Ihantala. The concentrated all the artillery they could lay their hands on - about 250 pieces." .. "The planned Soviet attack was completely frustrated."

At the same time, the Soviet 59th Army attacked across the islands of the Bay of Viipuri from July 4 on, but the attack on the mainland was thrown back to the sea by the 122nd Division of the V AK on July 10.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice, p. 307: "The Soviets successively captured the small islands in the Gulf of Viipuri. The two islands of Teikarinsaari and Melansaari were defended tenaciously by the 22nd Coastal Artillery Regiment beween July 3 and 5, but Soviet' vast superiority eventually prevailed." .. "The Soviet operation was a complete failure as the Germans attacked and repelled the landing force"

Further defensive victories were achieved at the Bay of Viipuri and on the northeast side of Lake Ladoga, and in the Battle of Ilomantsi the Finns were able to encircle two Soviet divisions

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice, p. 299: "General Raappana commenced operations on July 30 and the Finns were able to encircle the two attacking Soviet divisions - the 176th and 289th. The Soviets brought in reinforcements but these were also encircled. Most of the encircled Soviet troops managed to slip out of the trap but had to abandon much of their equipment. General Erfurt claims that four Soviet regiments were destroyed in this action.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice, p. 307: as above regarding the Bay of Viipuri.

On July 12, the Soviet troops received an order to stop their attempts to advance and to dig in. Soon, the Finnish scouts noticed trains with empty trucks advancing towards the city of Viipuri to take troops away from the Finnish front. They were needed for the great push towards Berlin.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice: p. 306 - 307: "On July 13 Marshal Govorov was ordered to transfer five fully equipped divisions to Leningrad because they were needed in southern Russia. Govorov ordered his troops to end their attacks in the Ihantala sector. Finnish intelligence noted that although Soviet strength on the Karelian Isthmus had grown to 26 infantry divisions and 12 to 14 tank brigades, some of the best guard units had begun withdrawing and were being replaced by garrison troops. While Soviet attacks ended northeast of Viipuri, operations in the Bay of Viipuri and at Vuosalmi continued.

In addition to the defensive victory gained at Tali-Ihantala, the Finnish front line held fast at Kivisilta and Tienhaara to the north of the Bay of Viipuri, and at Vuosalmi on the shores of the River Vuoksi.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice: p. 289: The 61st Infantry Regiment, under Lieutenant Colonel Alpo Kullervo Marttinen, arrived at Tienhaara in the afternoon of June 22 and established itself along the shore. German aircraft from Group Kuhlmey carried out bombing attack against the amphibious craft assembled by the Soviets on the other side of the bay. Troops from two Soviets divisions attacked across the bay in the evening of June 22 following a heavy artillery barrage. The attack was repelled but new attempts were made throughout the night.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

POV

The POV tag should remain until this article is more balanced. -YMB29 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also some other issues:

However, Russian histography states the Soviet command never intended to conquer Finland with this offensive. According to Marshall Vasilevsky, already on June 17 it was decided that after taking Vyborg and the Vyborg Bay islands, the offensive would stop at the line Elisenvaara-Imatra-Virojoki (or at most at the Kymi River which was located far beyond the 1940 border), Soviet forces would switch to defense, and the main forces of the Leningrad Front would be concentrated on reconquering Estonia. The goal was to create a threat to Helsinki and other major political and economic centers in Finland. After transferring most of its available forces to the Karelian Isthmus and receiving significant aid from Germany, the Finns managed to slow down and stop the Soviet offensive on the Isthmus before it reached the Finnish border. This boosted the morale of the Finnish troops, who were previously constantly retreating. Some Russian historians claim that Finnish propaganda turned battle into a victory, and that after the war this claim of achieving a victory in stopping the Soviets from conquering Finland became the official theme in Finnish historiography, however this view is not widely supported.

The goals of the offensive are well known and written about by historians outside Russia, like you don't know that...

It is equally known that that the offensive failed by historians outside Russia and Finland - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Like who? We have been through this countless times... -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

For starters... Lunde is neither Finnish or Russian. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Where does he say that the offensive failed? He is not Finnish but he does stick to Finnish sources. -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read through his bibliography section before you make such claims. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok quote the bibliography then... Of course he probably uses sources other than Finnish but to make the conclusions he does he uses Finnish sources (what others can he use? Soviet/Russian or German?). -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are so interested then perhaps you need to actually buy the book, i can't copy all the book here. Lunde uses primarily German sources (such as Ziemke and Erfurt). He does use some Finnish and Russian sources as well but only those translated to English. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This still does not mean that he does not parrot Finnish historiography for his conclusions about the offensive... In the preface section he clearly says that he uses mostly Finnish and German sources, and his use of Russian sources is limited.

And again where does he say that the offensive failed? -YMB29 (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

He actually states that his usage of both Finnish and Russian sources is limited. In the very same section you refer to. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No his use of Finnish sources is not nearly as limited. He mentions books by Finnish authors that are available in English. He also writes that a certain Finn helped him translate Finnish sources that are not available in English and understand the Finnish views on the war. -YMB29 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That is only your deduction and also it happens to be original research on your part. The listed sources include few Finnish and Soviet or Russian sources but are predominantly from elsewhere. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No it is not my deduction. Read the preface section... -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

In preface he states quite clearly that his usage of both Finnish and Russian sources is limited because of the language barrier. You did read the whole of the preface and not just single paragraph? - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No unlike you I read more than that...

Two books by Finnish-Americans, John H. Wuorinen, and Leonard C. Lundin, deserve mention... The most recent work translated into English of which I am aware is that written by the Finnish historian Olli Vehvilainen in 2002... Jukka Juutinen, a Finnish national, has helped with the translation of passages from Finnish sources and answered numerous questions that I had over the past year. By making available Finnish views on various aspects of the war he has made a valuable contribution.

So you still going to deny the obvious? -YMB29 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That still does not mean in way - other than your OR - that he would be writing according to Finnish historiography.

My own difficulty in reading Finnish has served as a limitation on the use of Finnish sources. ... My use of Russian sources has basically been limited to works that have been translate to English.

Clearly he has been limited in using either of Finnish or Russian sources. But again, regardless of those mentions it does not turn his book into Finnish historiography - that part is your OR still. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you have the book... Look at the sources he uses for this battle. Again, him using non-Finnish sources in his book does not make him represent a non-Finnish historiography when it comes to views about this battles or the war. -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And from the citations of the chapter which handles the Soviet summer offensive 1944 we can see he used primarily Ziemke and Erfurt as his sources for that chapter. Non-Finnish sources in other words, your claim of him representing Finnish historiography still remain your own OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No denying that he represents Finnish views when there is a source that states that such views are Finnish is your OR. -YMB29 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-Finnish author using primarily non-Finnish sources and you state he represents Finnish historiography. That is - to say the least - very interesting point of view. I suppose by that logic any sources which contradict the ones you provide are Finnish historiography then? - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok so Lunde represents German historiography when he says that this battle was a Finnish victory, even though he most likely bases this on Finnish sources?? The concept of a Finnish victory is not from Finnish historiography? -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'most likely bases this' part is already your OR as are rest of your conclusions based on that assumption. Unless you have source for it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So the concept of a Finnish victory is from German historiography? You need to prove that. -YMB29 (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually i do not. The proof of burden lies on the one who makes the allegation. You made the allegation that Lunde's work is of Finnish historiography, now you need to prove it, no one else does. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No you are making the claim that he is independent of Finnish historiography and therefore proves Baryshnikov wrong, so you need to find proof of this. -YMB29 (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are claiming that if an non-Finnish historian comes to the same conclusion as Finns then he must be following Finnish historiography even when his list of references (proof against your point) shows that he was using primarily non-Finnish sources. Besides you started with the allegations of him being of Finnish historiography so now you need to provide sources to support that claim. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Read what I wrote again; you are making the claim about him not using Finnish sources for his conclusions. I did prove my point using the preface section. -YMB29 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So far you have not been able to show that he would have been part of Finnish historiography - his preface section clearly states that he had difficulty in using both Finnish and Russian sources so he ended up using mainly other sources. It is all there. The fact that you rely on - a single paragraph which only states that he had some help with Finnish sources - does not mean that his conclusions would have based on the Finnish data. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

He not only got help by getting translations but he also got to know Finnish views. Furthermore, he names specific books by Finnish authors. So your claim that he looked at both Russian and Finnish sources equally and came to his own conclusions is very weak... -YMB29 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not say he looked at them both equally just that he states that his usage of Finnish and Russian sources were both limited. However that does not change the matter, it still does in no way show that he would be using Finnish conclusions. That is your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You are making the claim that he can't represent Finnish views just because he is not Finnish and uses a lot of German sources in his book, so this is your OR. -YMB29 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying he would represent any views. All I'm am saying is that from the book there is no case to claim him to use Finnish historiography for his conclusions. Any such claims are OR and nothing else. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It is OR for you to claim that Baryshnikov is wrong based on that. -YMB29 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can establish a source which proves that those non-Finnish authors used Finnish conclusions without making their own conclusion (regardless if they reach the same conclusion or not) you have nothing but OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Establishing a source is your problem since you try to insert your OR into the article. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No since it was your claim that he would be non-Finnish author(s) had been following Finnish conclusions. Your claim and your burden of proof. You can't set that task for some one else. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You insert your claim into the article so the burden of proof is on you. -YMB29 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You stated that the claim is used by Finnish historians (according to Baryshnikov) - so far nothing wrong - but then you extend it to non-Finnish historians which reach the same conclusion by claiming that they either 'follow Finnish historiography' or 'use Finnish conclusions' - depending on how you got to the result it is OR or SYN in both cases. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Again I only added that after you inserted your OR about Lunde proving Baryshnikov wrong. And Baryshnikov never talks about Finnish historians only. -YMB29 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Lundes work was published after Baryshnikov so it is impossible for Baryshnikov to refer to him. Neither has been there been any proof - apart from your original research - that Lunde would be using Finnish conclusions or making use of solely Finnish sources to reach his conclusions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Again pure OR by you. -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Which part in above? Just because you don't like it is not reason enough for it to be OR - so far all the claims have been yours so also the burden of proof (and seemingly OR) goes with it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You claim that Baryshnikov is wrong based on Lunde. This is your OR and you have to source it. You have to find a source that concludes that Lunde does not follow Finnish historiography and that Baryshnikov is wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

First you haven't found a single source which would state that he would follow Finnish historiography. Second, Baryshnikov's books were published well before Lunde's book so there is no possible way he could be referencing Lunde or his conclusions in any way. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You think Lunde represents something new? He just repeats what was written before... Anyway it is up to you to find a source for your analysis of Baryshnikov, if you want to include it in the article. -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That already is your OR. You depict as if he did not make his own conclusions of what happened - which is OR from your part. You have nothing but original research and original synthesis to prove that his viewpoints would have been influenced by Finnish views. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again you are the one making claims about his views proving Baryshnikov wrong, so stop sounding like a broken record and find some sources. -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not my place to state if Baryshnikov is right or wrong. It is still your original research that Lunde would be using Finnish conclusions - or, when you base it on Baryshnikov's & Lunde's text, original synthesis. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So all you can do is deny your OR and blame me... -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually only OR there is from you so far you haven't been able to show single instance where there would have been OR from my part. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How many times can I quote you? When you are proven wrong, you never admit it...

So where is my OR from the article? -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So far you have proved nothing apart from your 'OR evidence'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OK so again tell me where you see that? -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Every time you imply Lunde would be following Finnish historiography. Or that he would be alone in his views. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Estonia was part of the USSR so reconquering is the wrong word.

Estonia_in_World_War_II#Soviet_return This states is is reconquering. Same as this, Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Attempts_to_restore_independence_and_the_Soviet_offensive_of_1944. Please do face the fact that Soviet occupation of Baltic states was not accepted elsewhere de jure - there still existed legal Estonian government in exile. By pressing that you are already making the article NPOV. Please do not use the term liberated since that is not generally accepted outside Russia (or Soviet propaganda). - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No the claim is Baltic nationalist propaganda... Don't create an offtopic discussion here with your POV. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not propaganda. Term liberated is not used outside Soviet/Russian sources. Since this is English language wiki we should stick with generally accepted term which is 'reconquered'. Neither was Soviet rule of the Baltics accepted de jure. -

And of course you did your own research on this... Offtopic, but this is propaganda. -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The matter has been discussed in quite a depth in the pages related to occupation of the Baltic states. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That means Talk:Occupation of the Baltic States --Whiskey (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that article has been part of many edit wars and arbitration cases. There is so much biased views there... There is no need to bring that into this article. -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Saying "turned battle into a victory" is wrong since the source is not talking only about this battle.

And this is relevant to Battle of Tali-Ihantala in exactly what manner? If you need to state something of the Soviet offensive please stick to the article where such comments belong to. -Wanderer602 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant since it talks about all Finnish claims of "decisive victories", including this battle. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Then it discusses the Fourth Strategic Offensive and not this battle. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No it refers to battles such as this. -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So first you state its not talking of about this battle but now you are saying it is talking of this battle? Could you please make up your mind? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is talking about this and other battles in which the Finns claim "decisive victories". -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Same statement (defensive victory) is provided amongst other by Lunde who is clearly not Finnish. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So what, if he simply repeats Finnish historiography? But what does this have to do with what Baryshnikov writes? -YMB29 (talk)

Since it contradicts what Baryshnikov writes. And is not written by a Finn. It shows that Baryshnikov's comment of the view being limited to Finnish histography alone is false. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No, an author does not have to be a Finn to use Finnish historiography... Or are you suggesting that Lunde represents US historiography? -YMB29 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As discussed above Lunde mainly uses other than Finnish sources. You may not like it but that is how it is. Without reliable sources on your part to state that he follows Finnish historiography that remains your original research. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is your source that he follows US historiography? It does not matter that he uses sources other than Finnish in his book. You saying that his claim of victory in this battle is not based on a Finnish source? I have a reliable source that states that such claims come from Finnish historiography, and that is enough. -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It is only your OR that it would be Finnish historiography. Lunde is not Finnish and according to citations he primarily uses German sources (especially for the section in question). Baryshnikov may state that Finnish historians generally phrase it like that but that does not turn what Lunde wrote into Finnish historiography - that part is 100% your OR, nothing more. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that he does not present Finnish views and that this proves Baryshnikov wrong is OR. -YMB29 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-Finnish historian using predominantly non-Finnish sources. You'll find it rather difficult to prove that it would OR and so far your allegations of it have been nothing but OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

To disprove a reliable source you need another reliable source that explicitly mentions what you are saying. -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point, so Lunde then can not be part of Finnish historiography since he is not Finnish. Unless you have source which explicitly states that Lunde is writing in Finnish historiography, otherwise that claim remains your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is OR by you to claim that he represents a non-Finnish historiography when there is evidence that he does. -YMB29 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And what evidence would that be? That he uses mainly non-Finnish sources makes him a representative of Finnish historiography? - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

See above. -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "not widely supported" is OR because that is your own conclusion; no source explicitly says that. -YMB29 (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Only certain Russian historians support that point of view - such opinions are not shared in other sources. So it can be said that Baryshnikov's ideas are not widely supported. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok so where is the source for this statement or is this your own private conclusion again? -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That there are severa other researches who have come with totally different conclusion which shows which clearly show that Baryshnikov's ideas are not widely supported. Provide other Russian (and non-Russian sources) that support that statement then i have no complaints of it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No you need to provide sources for your claims. You have to learn and follow the rules... -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I provided sources. Several sources which directly disagree with Baryshnikov. While you have provided none which would actually support the statement that the opinion would not be Baryshnikov's alone. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No you have to provide sources for your claim. As if you read all the sources in the world to know that this is not widely supported. Even then it would still be your OR... -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I did, you are just in denial. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So again where are the sources that make this analysis? You are denying your OR again... -YMB29 (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So far you have only Baryshnikov's view of the matter while there several opposing sources. Which clearly shows that Baryshnikov's ideas were not widely supported. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That is your own false conclusion. No source you presented makes this kind of analysis. Please learn to follow the rules...

Baryshnikov's views are confirmed by Glantz and Erickson, who clearly state the goals of the Soviet offensive, and conquering Finland was not one of them. -YMB29 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Baryshnikov's comment is now reflected in the article. However as discussed it is opposed by other sources so i moved it to end of the paragraph as it is clearly not a dominant view of anything. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Who are you to say that it is dominant or not? Maybe not dominant in Finland... You need a source for that. -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several non connected sources which contradict his claims while Baryshnikov's claims remain supported by only Baryshnikov. Also had you read the text more closely it does not contradict the claim of not conquering Finland - which is supported also other writers than Baryshnikov. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Followers of Finnish historiography of course support your claims while ignoring obvious evidence against them. Baryshnikov analyzes these claims and the weak evidence used for them. You cannot analyze Baryshnikov here and claim that he is in the minority, just because he disproves the pro-Finnish sources you are used to reading... -YMB29 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As discussed below it is clear that Baryshnikov is a minority, even a fringe historian. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Clear according to who? Your opinion? -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

His books are published by the only person who endorses his views, i think that is saying enough of the matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Another case of OR by you... The first source was not even published by that "person". And you have to look at the historian and author, not the publisher. I suggest you stop reverting sourced information and using weak excuses like this as a reason. -YMB29 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of your claims Baryshnikov's views are not widely supported since there are abundance of contradictory sources in existence. So far i have not removed information you have provided into the article only rearranged it. If you insist of pushing NPOV phrasings then what else is there than to revert them. You do not discuss your changes, you do not seek consensus on your changes, you just apply them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You just revert the changes you don't like, manipulate sources, and claim an author is fringe because he is not inline with what you are used to reading. Once again, him not being widely supported is your OR. -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There are very few sources in line with Baryshnikov's claims while there are plenty of sources which directly contradict him - which makes it quite clear that his views are not generally accepted, and which also happens to mean that his views are not widely supported. Problem is not that he is not inline but that his claims have been repeatedly contradicted by several other authors. Besides he is known for his wild allegations (such as that the Mainila shelling never took place or that it was a Finnish sham). - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he contradicts some Finnish historians or those that express the Finnish POV does not make him "not widely supported." He analyzes the Finnish claims fairly. You might not like it but that is your problem. What authors address and refute his analysis? Don't censor this article by trying to keep only the Finnish views. -YMB29 (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

He did not contradict only Finnish historians. Also the fact that there are no supporting arguments for his theories does make the statement 'not widely supported' an accurate one. Baryshnikov has been claimed of misrepresenting of Finnish archival information and instead of fixing his reports he threatened to sue the person who had reported him. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that is what a person does when he considers himself right... What do you mean that there are no supporting arguments? -YMB29 (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, if a scientist's view is challenged then that calls for re-examination of the proof. Not for judicial procedures. So far Baryshnikov's views have not been supported by any one and opposed by several authors. If that is not lack of support then i am not aware what would be. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So you read all the sources in the world about this? Even if you did that is still OR... And if someone thinks he is falsely accused of lying then he can sue. -YMB29 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not all, certainly not. But so far there has been plenty of sources opposing his view and none supporting him. Which makes the claim that his opinion is not a majority view truthful. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You have no sources that criticize him. You have sources that have different views (represent the Finnish views), which he directly criticizes. You also looked at a limited number of sources and so you can't claim that a view is a majority view or not. -YMB29 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several which directly oppose him and none so far which would support him. At least so far you have failed to provide any other sources supporting his views. Given the abundance of opposing evidence it is quite clear that Baryshnikov's views are not generally accepted. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That is your OR... And quote a source that mentions Baryshnikov and criticizes him. -YMB29 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The several opposing sources still exists and directly contradict what Baryshnikov claims. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

But no sources that criticize him... -YMB29 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the original statement - As per Baryshnikov himself his views represent a minority point of view - which also stands for 'not widely supported', especially since there are plenty of contradicting sources in existence. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Again your OR; Baryshnikov never said that he is in the minority in regard to this issue. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

According to what Whishkey posted he did. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know where he got that from... Baryshnikov in the preface of his book says something else entirely. -YMB29 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Finnish historiography claims

So far 'Finnish historiography' claim is attached to all statements supported even by non-Finnish authors (using primarily non-Finnish sources). As the claims are clearly not accurate they should be removed from the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, just because the sources don't use only Finnish sources does not mean they don't follow Finnish historiography when it comes to certain views on the war. -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

So only 'politically correct' - ie. which do not endorse Finnish victory - sources are not 'Finnish historiography', is that it? Writer is non-Finnish and uses primarily non-Finnish sources. If he comes to same conclusion as the Finns do that does not mean at any level that he would follow Finnish historiography. Such a claim is pure speculation and as such also OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is OR saying that he does not use Finnish sources for the claims that come from Finnish literature and that he represents a non-Finnish historiography when he mentions those claims. -YMB29 (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And you have proof of this? Because the claim you are making is OR. Do you have proof that he did or did not use Finnish source for his statements? Either way you need proof not wild guesses and speculations (ie. OR). You made the allegation that he follows the Finnish historiography so the proof of burden on the matter rests on you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No you made the allegation that he does not, so prove it. -YMB29 (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read the preface of his work. And then please read the citations or references related to the chapters in question. You will find out that Lunde primarily uses non-Finnish sources. Also you made the claim and so the proof of burden still relies on you. You can not make an allegation and then assume your opinion needs to be dis-proven for it to be wrong. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No you are the one claiming that Lunde did not use and is not influenced by Finnish sources for his conclusions, when the preface section suggests otherwise. You have failed to prove your claim. Saying that he lists mostly German sources is not a good argument since we are talking about specific conclusions. -YMB29 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Preface only states he had some help in translating Finnish sources but it also makes very clear note that could have proper access to neither Finnish or Russian sources. Please read the preface again, it is all there. There is not even a slightest hint that he would be stating that his conclusions were based on the Finnish conclusions. So far you have got nothing but OR to prove that he would have used Finnish sources for his conclusions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No you once again fail to read carefully the part that I quoted. See on top. -YMB29 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you state that Lunde is somehow related to Finnish historiography that alone is OR. There is no evidence supporting that in his book and you have provided no other evidence at all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I provided evidence but you choose to ignore it. -YMB29 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So far I seen nothing but your own OR or synth. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I just point out that your OR is wrong based on the book's preface. -YMB29 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Book's preface does not at any point state that he would be using Finnish conclusions instead of forming his own. That claim is already your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It proves that he is influenced by Finnish views, and that is enough to disprove your OR about him not basing his conclusions on Finnish sources. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Now here you have a problem since your claim that he would be influenced of Finnish views is already your OR. Furthermore i was not saying that he was or was not basing his conclusions on Finnish sources, you however claimed that he was, which again was OR for your part. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What I conclude is good enough for the talk page, but you insert your conclusions into the article... -YMB29 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again, you made the conclusion that his view is influenced by Finnish views or that he would be using Finnish conclusions. That is not supported by any sources which makes it OR (or when you link it to Baryshnikov's claims it becomes SYN - if for nothing else then because Lunde's book was published after Baryshnikov making it impossible for him to analyze or comment it). - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is your OR... Like I said I only inserted the part about Lunde to counter the OR you inserted about him. -YMB29 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have made no such claims. You however have repeatedly made the claim that Lunde would be following Finnish sources or using Finnish conclusions. You have however provided nothing to support your claims which makes those original research (or original synthesis - when you linked them with Baryshnikov). - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

These were simply arguments against your OR about Lunde proving Baryshnikov wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And what would that OR be? So far there hasn't been anything else but your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

When you do something wrong you ignore it... I already explained it above. -YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So far the claims have been yours and you have been unable to show them to be anything else than your own original research or original synthesis. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who tries to add personal claims into the article, not me... -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And what would that be? So far the claim i made can be sourced into Lunde's book while the claim you made has been nothing but your original research and/or original synthesis. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So show me my OR from the article...

Your OR: however contrary to the Baryshnikov's claim several non Finnish historians also hold contradictory views to the one held by Baryshnikov. - so this is not OR according to you? Well what am I asking, of course you are going to say that it is not OR since you wrote it... -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Every time you show or refer or even imply to Lunde as Finnish or following Finnish historiography you are introducing your OR in to the article. And what would be OR in that? Lunde's (and others references to whom you deleted) comments contradict what Baryshnikov states - ie. that the view would be limited to Finnish historians - since they are non-Finnish historians who have come up with similar conclusions as the Finnish historians. It is there only to mark that Baryshnikov's claim that a certain view would be limited to Finns alone is not universal truth. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So basically this is your own interpretation...

Baryshnikov does not say that these views are limited to Finnish historians only. Where did you get that? And it is up to you to prove that Lunde is not influenced by Finnish sources for the conclusions he makes, but even if you somehow do prove it and then claim that Baryshnikov is wrong, that will still be synthesis... -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it is up to you to prove Lunde would be influenced by Finnish sources, that is your claim and so the burden of proof falls to you. So far there has been nothing but your original research and/or original synthesis as 'evidence' of it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well his preface speaks for itself, but where do you see me putting that into the article? I only used it as an argument against your OR.

Once again, where is your source for your analysis on Baryshnikov and Lunde? I am waiting... -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Preface discusses his lack of use of both Russian and Finnish sources. In no point in the preface does it state - apart from your OR evidence - that he would be using solely Finnish sources instead of making his own conclusions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say that he is using solely Finnish source? Why can't you read carefully? You still did not give me a source for your claim... -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

But you imply that - which is the same thing as per discussed in the Continuation War article talk page. And again, it is only you who has been claiming that he would be following some specific historiography, so the claim and burden of proof is still yours. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Further citations for the YMB29

Lunde p. 306, with regards to defensive victory (and to Tali-Ihantala):

It ended in a Finnish defensive victory, which undoubtedly had its impact on later political developments.

Lunde p. 307

The Soviets successively captured the small islands in the Gulf of Viipuri, The two islands of Teikarinsaari and Melansaari were defended tenaciously by the 22nd Coastal Artillery Regiment between July 3 and 5 but Soviets' vast superiority eventually prevailed.

The defensive operations by the Finns and Germans in the Bay of Viipuri became a victory when Lieutenant General Korovnikov received orders canceling his attack.

Lunde p. 308-309, with regards to Battle of Vuosalmi:

Nevertheless, the defenders were eventually able to limit the dangerous penetration and prevent a breakthrough. Finnish artillery continued to dominate the river crossing sites and this prevented a large inflow of Soviet reinforcements and complicated their supply situation. The combat activity lessened and the front took on the aspects of trench warfare.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Moisala & Alanen p. 154 (translated):

Soviet historian Colonel Morozov comes up with following conclusions from the Leningrad Fronts battles in Karelian Isthmus after the capture of the Viipuri: In this manner from 21 June to mid July over three weeks of continued offensive the forced of the right flank of the Leningrad Front were unable to carry out the tasks with had been assigned for it by STAVKA on 21 June 1941. Forces of the front failed to advance to the border (1940) and failed to clean Karelian Isthmus of enemy forces. By moving enough troops Finnish military leadership prevented Soviet forces from penetrating deeply into Finland.

Neither of the fronts participating to the offensive were able to carry out their operational-strategic goals which in fact resulted in Soviet Union failing (in its offensive) from military strategic perspective.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Raunio & Kilin p.204 - 205 (written by Juri Kilin) (translated):

224th Division (Soviet) which had shrunk to one third strenght was ordered to defense .. 59th Army did not carry out the orders given to it and its formations suffered heavy losses.

Raunio & Kilin p.198 - 199 (written by Juri Kilin) (translated):

160th Infantry Regiment (Soviet) that fought in Teikarinsaari suffered extremely heavy losses. According to reported losses of the 1266 strong landing party 1136 took part to the landing of which only 82 returned. 1027 were declared as missing though some of them later returned. Totally destroyed 160th Infantry Regiment lost all its heavy equipment on Teikarinsaari, including 4 x 45 mm antitank guns, 4 x 76 mm cannons, 6 x 120 mm mortars. Those who returned (from failed landing) carried between them only 79 rifles and submachineguns.

Raunio & Kilin p. 212 - 213 (by Kilin & Raunio) (translated):

Map describing the situation on 9 July 1944. Soviet 10th, 92nd, 142nd Divisions arrayed against Finnish 2nd Division.

As this was deemed in sufficient, then Moisala & Alanen p.149-150 (translated, segments)

On 4 July at 0350 started heavy artillery concentration on Finnish bridgehead and moments later Soviet bombers and ground attack planes appeared. Under cover of the artillery preparation Major General Jakusov's 381st Division and colonel Isakov's 281st Division formed for attack and started their assault. .. Finnish counter attacks however however effectively tied Anisimov's (98th Army Corps) troops and crossing planned on the night between 6-7 July failed. In same afternoon the battle for the Äyräpää bridgehead was concluded. Svetsov threw from Kozatseks Army Corps' (115th) 92nd Division which after intense barrage captured the ferry crossing... .. During the night Siilasvuo was reported that he was to receive command of the core of the Armored division which was to arrive at Vuosalmi on the following day. Division was split into two combat groups who organizing and preparing for counter attack took time. On 11 July did the counter attack start...

Marking clearly that Finnish defenders (ie. 2nd Division) faced three Soviet divisions until Armored division arrived. Unit numbers vary since the 115th Army Corps replaced the 98th at the lines - either way it does not matter, Finnish 2nd Division faced three Soviet divisions alone before reinforced. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Raunio & Kilin p. 215(by Kilin & Raunio) (translated):

Also 115th Army Corps' commander Major General Kozatsek gave 10 July order to attack. All three divisions of the army corps were assigned for the attack. Only reserve for the commander was to be 203rd Infantry Regiment.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Moisala & Alanen p. 155-156 (translated - bold replaced italics from source):

It is therefore wrong, against historical facts, to claim for example that "in summer 1944 Soviet Union could have crushed Finland if it had wanted to". According to Soviet researchers the opposite is true; Soviet leadership wanted to crush Finland militarily and it meant to do exactly that according to the plans laid out. Soviet Union did not gather nearly half a million man for to initial strike of the summer 1944 only to return restore borders of the Moscow peace or "to take back what rightfully according 1940 agreement belonged to it" as is sometimes heard. Soviet Union did not move its goals further into Finland before VT-line and Viipuri had been captured. The plan was from the start a large whole with goals set deep in Finland. And this goal was not just for marshals and generals operative plans, but had been told for example to standard line infantry men before 9 June when the assault battalions manned the trenches at the starting point of the offensive. From this there exists from both June and July convergent reports from POWs. Prisoners (POWs) had belonged to different outfits but their story is the same: Govorov had in his speech to the troops before the offensive stated the goals as 'Viipuri, 1940 border and Helsinki'. While attacking on the Isthmus in 1944 Simonjak's guardsmen and Busarov's, Alferov's and other Soviet generals' troops knew they were headed to Helsinki, and not just to the 1940 border. Govorov, Gusev and Svetsov with their soldiers did all they could to fulfill the orders from Moscow.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Moisala & Alanen (translated)

p. 58-59

Kreml informed on 10 March 1944 that the given terms were minimum (level) requirements. .. After two days Finland was informed that it was allowed to sent 1-2 negotiators to listen to the the (Soviet) interpretation of the terms.

p. 66-67

With the message he sent (on 23 June 1944) Stalin had now applied in practice the method of applying force granted for him by the joint Allied agreement: Finland had to surrender unconditionally.

Lunde

p. 259-260

That peace offer was now made through the Soviet ambassador in Stockholm, Alexandra Kollontai. Finland did not dare to jeopardize its relationship with the US and dispatched the former prime minister Dr. Juho K. Paasikivi, to Stockholm to receive the Soviet terms. .. Finnish delegation returned from Moscow on April 1, 1944. The conditions given the Finns for a peace were no more lenient than those offered in Stockholm.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Baryshnikov

So far I've only found his opinion pieces published under the aegis of the ultra-fringe Johan Bäckman Institute. I've been looking to no avail. Quite frankly, I never thought I'd run across an outfit that makes Dyukov look mainstream. Националист-патриот ►TALK 00:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that was a constructive comment... Yes let's remove him just because you don't like what he writes... -YMB29 (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the point is that I can't find him represented as a reputable historian other than by Bäckman. There's nothing about liking or disliking, no one considers Bäckman or his circle as mainstream. Националист-патриот ►TALK 02:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that Bäckman Baryshnikovis not a historian and is known to biased on the issue the fact that only Bäckman agrees with him is not much of a praise. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is Backman? The source is Baryshnikov, not Backman.

If you think he is unreliable or is fringe, that is your problem. Your personal opinion does not matter here. -YMB29 (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read what User:Vecrumba wrote on the matter. His views are not supported by anyone. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Only Bäckman represents Baryshnikov as a reputable historian, and, clearly, because Baryshnikov's writings align to Bäckman's (fringe) politics and agenda. I spent quite a bit of time doing some more searches subsequent to my earlier comment here, and after removing "Bäckman" and "wikipedia" the only claim that Baryshnikov is a historian is from unacknowledged Wikipedia clones of content editors have inserted that Baryshnikov is a historian. (There is a professor Baryshnikov, but he is a professor of linguistics.)

With regard to not advancing to Helsinki, of course Soviet historiography is going to be the proverbial sour grapes (we weren't planning to take it anyway). Look at the case of the Courland Pocket, where Stalin poured in division after division to be slaughtered; yet Soviet historiography describes it as a pimple on the glorious advance to Berlin (Germans cut off, ignored, and just held in to prevent their escape). We can present Soviet accounts/accounts based on Soviet evidence, but only if they are specifically identified as such. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29, really, the paucity of editors unwilling to expend their energies to engage you in debate here over your championing of Soviet WWII historiography with regard to the Soviet-Finnish conflict (and my thanks to Wanderer602 for his editorial thick skin) does not reflect on the merit of my editorial position on Baryshnikov and his association with Bäckman. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29, and are you really unaware of who Bäckman is? Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your obsession with the Courland Pocket out of this article. Everyone knows your POV when it comes to Soviet/Russian history...

I don't know who Backman is and I don't care. Criticize the author not the publisher. -YMB29 (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that no one but the publisher (ie. the said Bäckman) is the main proponent of the Baryshnikovs views. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Says who? -YMB29 (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29, please provide background information on Baryshnikov that qualifies him as a historian. I can't find any other than ones which trace back to his association with Johan Bäckman. I'm sorry you didn't see the applicability of the Courland Pocket example here. BTW, it's not my POV, it's simply what's in sources, official Soviet being completely different from western or Baltic or Finnic. Националист-патриот ►TALK 18:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes "it is simply in the sources", in the sources that you like... The others you ignore. It is up to you to prove that Baryshnikov is unreliable. -YMB29 (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't ignore any sources. I do fact check and try to stick to those sources which the academic community have acclaimed for their scholarship. Really, your beating the drum that I discard what I don't approve of could apply to yourself, so I would suggest staying away from your personal opinions of myself and other editors.

Getting back to the topic, that Baryshnikov is in intellectual bed with Bäckman already makes him a fringe source. But baby steps first, surely at least Baryshnikov's personal if not academic background is available to give a hint at his qualifications. Националист-патриот ►TALK 20:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you research that first before reverting edits sourced to him? I don't have to provide you anything. If you think he is unreliable, prove it, and not with your personal opinion. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to revert information sourced to him. You need to stop edit warring. You can help make this article balanced, or will you continue your reverting? -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29, your "balance" appears to be that Baryshnikov gets the last word on everything. That is bias, not balance. See my comments to you below. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No the only reason it looks like "he got the last word in everything" is because the Finnish view is presented as indisputable fact, and I had to add "however..." -YMB29 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... In the preface of his book Baryshnikov writes that he presents a view which is not supported by almost all of Finnish and Russian historians. He writes it was one of the main reasons he wrote the book because he saw the view presented by majority of Finnish and Russian historians not being the correct one. I really welcome his book, because it had prompted even more thorough handling of the issue than before. Which is always good. --Whiskey (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So Baryshnikov himself states that his view is a fringe view (ie. an outlier) and differs from the mainstream. Thank you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Only if you trust what he writes... --Whiskey (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How you love to manipulate sources... Where does he say that?

What he writes is that Soviet/Russian historians have been quiet about Finland's involvement in the Siege of Leningrad because Finland was a friend during the Cold War. -YMB29 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Finland was a country whose domestic policies were severely impinged upon by the USSR, which also exacted massive reparations (despite the USSR having been the initial aggressor), and Pravda denounced Cajander as a buffoon when Finland rejected the original pact of mutual assistance. "Friend"? Please, there was no friendship. Russian/Soviet historians have been quiet because they haven't had any facts they could use to denounce Finland as having participated in the siege of Leningrad. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that you want to fight the evil Soviet POV and prove that the USSR wanted to take over the world in all articles, but we are discussing specific issues here... So making such wild accusations here that are off-topic is not helping. -YMB29 (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, simple historical verified facts (we're not even talking "truths" here) denounced as "wild accusations." The Soviet Union can count many true accomplishments. Its actions regarding Finland were not among those. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So why can't you mention your "historical verified facts" when the time and place are right? -YMB29 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As in the USSR as an aggressor? Finnish forces stopping short of participating in the siege of Leningrad? You denounce any facts Baryshnikov disputes as Finnish lies and promote Baryshnikov's fanciful constructs as true. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Look who is talking about "fanciful constructs"... Unlike you I don't denounce anything as lies.

Anyway, if you did not know, the topic here is not who was the aggressor or the Siege of Leningrad... -YMB29 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

OR regarding - "repeat the Finnish views"

However these non-Finnish historians mostly just repeat the Finnish views.

Are there any sources supporting this? Or is this original research? In other words is there proof that they just repeat the Finnish views or did they come up with the same conclusion on their own. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is just as good as your "not widely supported". -YMB29 (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. Since there are non-Finnish historians which state that either you must prove that they are using Finnish sources or otherwise that is your OR. There is considerable difference between the that and the statement you mentioned. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29, your personal opinion that western sources merely parrot the Finns does not constitute encyclopedic content. Националист-патриот ►TALK 19:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither does his opinion that what Baryshnikov writes is not widely supported... -YMB29 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Baryshnikov being not widely supported is rather easy to see, there are several authors who directly contradict his claims while there are very few (if any) authors who actually support his views. That however is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Fact is that the non-Finnish historians have the same conclusions as the Finns. What is your OR is that they would 'just repeat' the Finnish views - if they come to the same conclusion it is not 'just repeating'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No they just look at Finnish sources without looking at Soviet/Russian ones. I mean they were not there writing everything down... So the information they get can for the most part come either from Finnish or Soviet sources.

Baryshnikov clearly says that such claims come from Finnish historiography, and your claim that he is not widely supported is OR... -YMB29 (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And you have proof of what you said or is that more of your OR? Baryshnikov may be right about that the idea are represented in Finnish historiography however that does not mean that non-Finnish historian who uses primarily non-Finnish sources would automatically be 'follower of Finnish historiography' (that part is OR) - even when he would comes up with same conclusion as the Finns does not mean that. So far it has been trivial to prove that Baryshnikov's ideas are in minority since there are several opposing authors so i fail to see your point. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This again is your OR...

And stop pretending that you did not read the preface section of the Lunde book... -YMB29 (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I did read it, but unlikely you seem to have done I read it from start to the end and not just a single paragraph. So far you have provided nothing which would make your claims anything else than OR. Instead of arguing try to provide sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a source for what I say (about Finnish historiography), while you use your OR to try to disprove it. I have quoted the relevant parts from the preface but you just ignore them... -YMB29 (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually you have a source which states that such claims are of Finnish historiography and when you saw similar claims being represented from non-Finnish author you made conclusion (which on its own is already OR) that it was following Finnish historiography as well. What you need to do for such a claim to be valid is to prove that Lunde would have only used Finnish conclusions without coming up with the same conclusion on his own. Since Lunde's books preface clearly states that he had problems with both Finnish and Russian sources and that he therefore was forced to use primarily other sources than either Finnish or Russian and because the chapter reference list clearly marks his main sources on the chapter in question as being Erfurt and Ziemke your claim that he would be 'following Finnish historiography' are OR at best. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, your claims that he represents German or some other historiography (when he talks about victory) and that Baryshnikov is wrong is obvious OR. -YMB29 (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't claim anything such. There just is no evidence - other than your OR - that Lunde would represent Finnish historiography. Furthermore the claim you made (the quote on top) indicates or insinuates that Lunde would not have made any conclusions on his own. Do you have any evidence of that either or is that yet another of your OR? - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote means that he does not make his own conclusions without being influenced by Finnish sources. If you want to deny your claims and ignore evidence then that is your choice. -YMB29 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So far you have been unable - apart from OR and synthesis - from showing that he would have been influenced by Finnish sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You are the one making the claim that he is not, when there is evidence that suggests otherwise. -YMB29 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That 'evidence' is based on your original synthesis and is so your original research. Nothing more needs to be said. Regardless of what conclusion he ends up with you actually need to prove that did not make his own conclusion but instead used preexisting Finnish one for your claim to be valid and not OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My evidence cannot be considered OR since I don't try to insert it into the article, unlike you with your OR... -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But you are using it in the article which makes it original synthesis and therefore OR. Every time you make a claim that Lunde or other non-Finnish authors are using Finnish conclusions or using Finnish historiography you are inserting nothing but original synthesis ie. original research into the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not insert it into the article until you shamelessly inserted your OR; I only inserted it to directly counter your OR. -YMB29 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

So far you haven't stated what such OR would have been - one quoted in the 'POV' section actually already had had your OR regarding Baryshnikov and non-Finnish historians in it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No there was no OR until you added that Lunde proves Baryshnikov wrong just because he is not Finnish: however contrary to the Baryshnikov's claim several non Finnish historians also hold contradictory views to the one held by Baryshnikov. -YMB29 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And what in that would be OR? Baryshnikov states that such an expression is used by Finns. Lunde comes up with similar conclusion as the Finns. The conclusion Lunde represents contradicts what Baryshnikov concludes. Lunde is non Finnish - nor is he alone supporting the view. So far only OR with that regard is from you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You described your synthesis well there...

Baryshnikov does not say anything about such views being limited to Finns; this is your conclusion. -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

But he did describe them as being part of Finnish historiography? So far your claim that Lunde would be 'part' or 'follow' that or use their conclusions have been nothing but your OR. Just because Lunde reaches similar conclusions as 'Finish historiography' does not make his work part of it nor does it mean he would be influenced by it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So where is your source for that analysis? You are making the claim that he has nothing to do with Finnish historiography and that Baryshnikov is wrong. You can't say that a historian is wrong based on your own analysis. -YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So far you have not provided anything beyond your own original research or original synthesis that would mean that Lunde has anything to do with Finnish historiography. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Now you are just repeating the exact same thing because you have no real arguments... Get some sources for your OR regarding Baryshnikov and Lunde or else drop it. -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually i do not need any - since your claim is nothing but your own original research and original synthesis. It is easy to point out that Baryshnikov could not have referred to Lunde his Lunde's book was published several years after Baryshnikov's. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Here you claim that Lunde published something radically new and did not base it on Finnish sources, and therefore Baryshnikov is wrong. Pure baseless OR... -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Lunde does not need to have published something radically new. He came up with the conclusion presented in the article and so far you have nothing but your OR to prove that Lunde would have been following Finnish sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So what sources does he follow? Russian ones? I am not trying to prove anything; you are the one who tries to claim the opposite with your OR about Baryshnikov. -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not my place to state which sources he follows. As far as can be concluded he made his own conclusions. If you claim that he would be following Finnish historiography you actually need to prove it, and not with your original research or original synthesis. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as can be concluded he made his own conclusions. - Concluded by you? Where is your source? You are the one claiming that this somehow proves Baryshnikov wrong... So get a source and stop wasting everyone's time. -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What i meant there are nothing in support of the claim that he wouldn't have done his own conclusions. Neither is there any support for the claim that he would be using exclusively Finnish sources or using Finnish conclusions. All that was your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So again where do you see me saying that or inserting that into the article?

What you meant... It is not about what you meant or did not mean. You don't have a source and so you are just trying to get around this by blaming me. -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If you imply he would be following some historiography that is a claim and requires proof. So far you only proof of such has been your own OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A biased source denouncing Western scholarship as parroting the Finnish account of the war (e.g., Baryshnikov) is an allegation at best, even sourced. As we've established there is Western scholarship which looks at both Finnish and Russian sources without bias (e.g., Lunde), that would appear to be the least biased in favoring one set of sources or the other.

@YMB29, if you insist in mixing (a) Soviet/nationalist Russian versions versus (b) Finnish versus (c) outside Western scholarship in a sea of endless mishmosh of "he said, she said, they said", it might be better to present those separately. With regard to Baryshnikov, any time a "scholar" denounces scholarship as opposed to examining it, that is a red flag (no pun intended). You would also do better to rely on scholars of the Soviet/nationalist Russian (and as you present it at least, anti-Finnish and anti-Western) viewpoint who are not associated with political extremists. Националист-патриот ►TALK 13:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Before you make assumptions about sources you should get familiar with them... No one is denouncing "Western scholarship" as parroting Finnish historiography. And no, Lunde does not "look at both Finnish and Russian sources without bias"...

Baryshnikov does not denounce anything, he examines and criticizes.

You have made a number of strong accusations that have no basis. I suggest you keep your personal bias against Soviet and Russian sources to yourself. -YMB29 (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is very interesting that YMB29 complains that western historians are parroting Finnish views. From my experience it is totally the other way around: Western historians generally ignore Finnish sources and parrot Soviet views. In my years in Wikipedia I have repeatedly met contributers who base their writings to the sources, whose writers have used solely Russian/Soviet and German sources for happenings in Finnish front, totally omitting any Finnish sources. When you add to this that Finnish front has not been high on priority in Russia, Germany, Great Britain or USA, those writing on it haven't been very careful to get facts correctly, it has been very embarrassing experience to read those sources; They couldn't get even geography right!

Anyway, during the last decade there has been some improvement. I don't know how much Wikipedia has helped, but at least we have brought to attention several available Finnish sources which could be used, and we have ridiculed older authors and their books enough that future writers want to avoid the public humiliation they would receive here if they do their work halfhearted.

YMB29, don't blame the messanger. Get to the message, as we Finns have done. Don't accuse the bias but point out sources, more low level the better, which contradict the views you want to fight. You have to get so deep in your sources that all political motivations and hindsights could be worked out. For an example: Somebody claimed that Finns severed Leningrad's rail connection around the Lake Ladoga by capturing Vyborg. I countered with the information that 1)there was another rail connection running well east of Vyborg round the Lake and 2)Finns had already severed the land connection round the Lake Ladoga six weeks before the capture of Vyborg north of the Lake at Loimola(rail) and Koirinoja(road). Work to that direction. --Whiskey (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Who am I blaming? I do use sources that contradict some Finnish views, but usually you just denounce them as incompetent or fringe.

You think that the Finnish views are not represented enough in Western literature? Well Lunde's book is not an example of this... -YMB29 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If the author doesn't get his facts right, and if it is easy to prove it from other sources, then he is incompetent (or he doesn't care...). If he is not supported by a majority of other historians, he is fringe. (Believe me, there exists a number of them in Finland also.) It is especially easy to counter presented political views, as commonly there are so many different views and opinions presented that it is as easy to pick suitable set for any presented view as it is to the opposing views. So, it is much better to forget absolute truth when dealing with political side, but constrain to presenting differing views with their supporting and opposing facts. On the other hand, when we are dealing with facts which cannot be interpreted, then these should be presented as such. When you are dealing with a person like Baryshnikov, who rises new points of view to the discussion, it is much better to handle him cautiously, presenting him as an opponent to the majority view instead of giving him equal weight. If the interpretation of the facts he presents fits better to the big picture than existing theories, then his view will eventually replace the existing theories. If not, then the existing theory prevails. Most likely outcome is that if the facts Baryshnikov presents are good enough they couldn't be passed, but not overwhelming, the existing theory will be modified to fit those facts.

What this has to do with this article? First, let's get down to the facts on the ground: Who was there? What they were ordered to do? What happened? What was the end situation? This should be quite straightforward. Second, let's move the political stuff to their own sections, give first the majority view (with reasoning) and then minority views with their reasonings, all sourced. Remember: There aren't absolute facts in politics and human mind. --Whiskey (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you decide what is the majority view? In this case there is the Finnish view and Baryshnikov's, who represents the Russian view, that directly challenges it. Then there are sources that indirectly challenge the Finnish view, such as those that disprove the claims of unconditional surrender and conquering Finland. So you cannot call the Finnish view (unconditional surrender demand, goal to conquer Finland, decisive defensive victories, separate favorable peace) the majority view. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, YMB29 maintains (my paraphrasing follows) that any source that agrees with (majority) Finnish accounts is just a mouthpiece for anti-Soviet and by implication Russophobic Finnish propaganda. Hence I have suggested the alternative for separation of accounts by predominant western scholarship, any Finnish scholarship out of the mainstream, and supporters of the anti-(western, Finnish, majority) position. YMB29's attempts seeming at every point to insert a source published by a fringe political organization as having the last word and as being the most reliable (Baryshnikov) is the problem here. Unfortunately, these sources don't even agree on basic facts, let alone interpretations thereof, so the ultimate solution may need to be complete separation. It's not my preference to give historical accounts advocated for by the political fringe (Bäckman, SAFKA) their own soapbox section in encyclopedic articles, but as long as YMB29 insists on the path they are taking, that may be the only alternative. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well at least you did not accuse me of being paid by Bäckman...

Your attempt to closely associate Baryshnikov with Bäckman is ridiculous...

Also, don't try to associate the Finnish view with the Western one, and claim that it is the majority.

As far as the separation of accounts, I already did that in the last version. -YMB29 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Soviet strength

Just started wondering this after seeing an interesting ref that Soviet strength would have been 44 000 to 60 000. Since Soviet forces deployed quite a bit of their forces to the battle...

Just infantry formations: Army Corps: 30th Guards, 6th, 97th, 108th, 109th, 110th which had together following (rifle) divisions: 45th Guards, 63rd Guards, 64th Guards, 13th, 46th, 72nd, 90th, 109th, 168th, 177th, 178th, 265th, 268th, 286th, 314th, 358th, 372nd, 382nd. Of together from 21st and 23rd Armies. That is not taking account the several armored regiments (or brigades) or artillery units that took part into the fighting. But regardless that gives 18 Soviet divisions with combined strength of 44 000 to 60 000 men. So was Soviet rifle divisions strength before the fighting started really from 2 500 to 3 500 men? That is assuming all the strength is divided merely with infantry formations leave none for armored or artillery units. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The Russian source says 12 divisions with 4,000-5,000 men in each. -YMB29 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian historian (Juri Kilin) mentions by name (from the 'Jatkosodan torjuntataisteluja 1942-44') 18 different rifle divisions (of which 3 guards) which according to Soviet archives took part to the fighting extending from Suomenvedenpohja to Vuoksi (ie. both 21st and 23rd armies). Furthermore that does not take account armored units or supporting artillery units. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the "Strength" and "Casualties and Losses" with non-partisan #'s. I'm not one for doing more than a simple <ref>...</ref>, however, I did start up a bibliography subsection under references. As sources are added we should follow that format as it makes it more straightforward to mention page numbers and/or include quotations for verification. On the above, "Finland at War" lists 14 divisions but that's only for the 21st as the main force. Националист-патриот ►TALK 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Baryshnikov quote

From Finland and the Siege of Leningrad, 1941-1944

Translation:

In the historical literature of Finland, the defensive battles that were fought by the Finnish Army after the Soviet troops took Vyborg are described in detail. Then the exceptional resilience of the Finnish soldiers showed, as they received help from the German air force, anti-tank weapons and an artillery assault brigade. Northeast of Vyborg, in battles at Tali and Ihantala, as well as in the defense of the Vuoksi water system in areas of Vuosalmi and Äyräpää, the advance of the 21st and 23rd Armies did not succeed in overcoming the resistance of the defenders after several attempts and in making any significant progress. As a result in some Finnish publications, the fighting was given this sort of definition: "The victory in the confrontation." This was given a special and profound meaning: "After a prediction of total disaster - as written in the multi-volume, 'A Nation at War' - victory was achieved (my emphasis - NB) in the confrontation."

In this definition, the meaning of the fighting on the Karelian Isthmus during the 23 days after the 21st Army took Vyborg, contains an obvious exaggeration. At the same time it served as the basis to present the situation as if the Soviet troops were prevented from occupying all of Finland. This is clearly evident, in particular, in the article of Professor Manninen, "Large-scale Offensive and Its Goals" from the Journal of Military History that was published in Finland for the 50th anniversary of the mentioned battles. This publication and other material in this journal are presented under the single title: "Victory In the Confrontation 1944."

It is noteworthy that in that article by the distinguished scholar and longtime colleague, Professor Manninen, the most important piece is missing - operational documents of the General Staff of the Red Army, based on the decisions of the Stavka. They could prove or disprove the existence of the "large-scale plans for Finland," during the final phase of the Battle for Leningrad, ie, when the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Strategic Offensive was conducted. In the mentioned publication, as well as in the previously published book by Master of Philosophy, Pentti Alanen - "How the Path of Invasion Was Shut Down," Manninen makes, unfortunately, references to sources that are not documents. P. Alanen writes, in part, that during the summer of 1944, the "senior military leadership of the Soviet Union wanted (my emphasis - NB) to crush Finland by military means," and that such plans it "brought to its troops." According to him, this was reported by prisoners of war and "Govorov, in his address to the troops before the offensive, confirmed the need to reach Vyborg, the border of 1940, and Helsinki." Saying that Govorov and the other generals "let all of their soldiers know the orders from Moscow", Alanen does not indicate what kind of "orders" he is specifically talking about.

-YMB29 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

From The Phenomenon of Lies: 'The Victory in the Confrontation'

Translation:

Let's get back to what was happening at the front during the fighting on the Karelian Isthmus and in Karelia in June-July of 1944. In the presence of even large-scale operational plans of warfare against the Finnish Army, the Soviet Stavka decided on very limited tasks for further combat, even before the capture of Vyborg. This is evidenced by the Chief of General Staff, Marshal A. M. Vasilevsky. He writes that on June 17 he and General Antonov discussed with Stalin prospects for the development of operations against Finland, and then it was decided that "after the capture of Vyborg we will need to continue the offensive, and when our troops reach the line of Elesenvaara - Imatra - Virojoki and, with the help of the Baltic Fleet, liberate Big Birch and other islands of the Bay of Vyborg, we will be firmly set on the Karelian Isthmus, and switching over to defense, we will focus the Leningrad Front on the battles for the liberation of Estonia."

Generally the idea was, according to General S. Shtemenko, "to create a threat of invasion by Soviet forces deep into Finland, to the main political and economic centers, including Helsinki." However, the focus on reaching the line described by Vasilevsky meant a real advance of only a little further than the state border with Finland.

The fighting to achieve the Soviet goal got fierce due to the increased resistance of the defenders from the Finnish side. An essential role in this was played by the transfer to the Karelian Isthmus the maximum possible number of additional troops from the reserve and other parts of the front. According to Finnish and Russian military historians the concentration of combat forces reached three-quarters of the Finnish Army. The grouping of the Finnish troops had more than doubled, to five divisions and three brigades. Besides this, there was considerable aid from Germany...

Although it did not result in six divisions being given to Finland, German assistance was very significant. Specifically, Finland quickly received 70 aircraft of the 5th German Air Force, a brigade of propelled guns, 10,500 anti-tank rifles, 5000 "Faust" rounds, and an infantry division was transferred from Army Group "North" to the front. The precision in fulfilling what was promised, says General W. Erfurt, the show of "commitment by the Germans, led to open joy and relief in the Finnish command."

Of course, these measures did achieve an effect. First of all, the Finnish command noted significant changes in the morale of the defenders, as they started to have confidence in their defense, began to show strength in battle, which was not observed before when they retreated in panic and abandoned heavily fortified positions. The claim of achieving a supposed "victory" that appeared in the propaganda then took on an official definition in Finnish historiography as a "victory in the confrontation." It contends that the Soviet troops were stopped and thus the threat of occupation of the country by them was liquidated.

-YMB29 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Intent

Finns were intent on whacking the USSR (take Leningrad, etc.), per anti-Finnish accounts.

Meanwhile, as I recall, Molotov confided to his then buddies in Berlin in 1940 that the USSR intended to totally subjugate Finland. It's only when that proved impossible that the Soviet public party line subsequently became that an independent Finland was in the best interests of the USSR. Националист-патриот ►TALK 15:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting little theory... It is off topic too... -YMB29 (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not off topic if we are painting Finns to be the Hitlerian aggressors and the Soviets their intended victims. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That Stalin's professing to Churchill and FDR that an independent Finland was in the interests of the USSR was a reflection of the Winter War not having gone the USSR's way given Molotov's original confiding in the Germans, not that Stalin did not intend to conquer Finland. Am I being that unclear? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I still don't see what the Winter War has to do with Stalin's decision or the issues in this article. -YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagreements about text

Intro

From the intro:

The battle was one of attrition — with the Finns suffering proportionally more casualties than the Soviet forces.^[15] Nevertheless Finnish forces managed to prevent the Soviet forces from advancing.^{[16][17][15][18][19]} Some historians believe this helped save Finland from unconditional surrender and occupation,^[15][20] however there is evidence against the assumption that Finland ever faced such threats.^{[21][22][18][19]}

So what is wrong with this? "I don't like it" is not an answer... -YMB29 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can't quote Baryshnikov twice—I'd prefer none, for reasons already clearly stated, having nothing to do with "I don't like it." As for your "some" versus "evidence" I'll need to do some review of sources. That there is a plethora of scholars who believe it unlikely Finland "ever faced such threats" sounds more than overstated (except if you're quoting Baryshnikov, who does not rate being a reliable or reputable source). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

He "does not rate being a reliable or reputable source" according to you. Like I said "I don't like it" is not an argument.

Are you doubting what the American ambassador reported or what Soviet generals have said? -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem is not what is included but what you removed from there.

The battle was one of attrition - with the Finns suffering proportionally more casualties than the Soviet forces. Nevertheless Finnish forces achieved a defensive victory preventing Soviet forces from advancing on to Helsinki. In the face of these circumstances, Stalin ultimately chose to pursue a separate armistice with Finland, having earlier professed at Tehran that an independent Finland was a Soviet goal. However, after Finnish unwillingness to accept the Soviet proposals in April 1944 owing to excessive reparation demands, Finland was to be offered only unconditional capitulation. Stalin even told American ambassador Harriman that US diplomats can try to clarify to the Finns that he had no intend to take over the country. Churchill had already been adamant in 1943 that as an Axis belligerent, Finland's surrender must be unconditional.

The real question is why you deleted most of the intro. Like you so quaintly pointed out "I don't like it" is not an answer. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The first bolded sentence makes it look like the Soviet intent to advance to Helsinki is a fact. The second presents the claim of unconditional surrender offer as fact. And I don't understand the need for the last bolded sentence; what does Churchill have to do with this? The intro should be simple and to the point, not a series of contradicting sentences. -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That was not really the point - problem was that you erased all references that even slightly contradicted your point of view on the issue. You did not strive for a compromise but instead you erased everything that you just did not like about. Demand for unconditional surrender was how it was interpreted so it does not really matter how Soviet leadership hoped it meant if they were incapable of expressing simple matters in dis-ambiguous manner. Battle has been marked in Western, Finnish, and even in some Russian texts as Finnish victory, that should be represented in the intro - you do not need to like about it but that is how it is. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You can put that the battle was a defensive victory, but you have to add to that: "from the Finnish point of view" (not saying "according to Finnish historiography only").

As for you saying that it does not matter what the Soviets really meant, it does matter since you are claiming that the Finns forced the Soviets to change their minds; if the Soviets had already decided some time ago about their goals in regard to Finland, then saying things like that is very misleading... You can't insert misleading statements or present disputable conclusions as undeniable facts. -YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

However Lunde is not Finnish nor are there anything beyond you original research or original synthesis to indicate that he would be using Finnish point of view so the is no need to express that it would be solely from Finnish point of view. Also it happens to be indisputable fact that Soviet 'terms' were understood to be demand for unconditional surrender. That is also a undeniable fact regardless of what Soviets claim to have actually meant with their demand. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I quoted the actual text of the demand so you can read it. Where do you see the word unconditional there? If the Finns misinterpreted it, that was their problem.

Like I said, I am not saying "according to Finnish historiography only". It was not a clear victory where the Soviet forces were routed or lost significant ground. It was a defensive victory from the Finnish point of view, as the Finns held their ground and did not retreat in panic like before (Baryshnikov explains this). -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter what Soviets claimed it proposal was. How Finnish read it however does - Soviets' inability to express even simple statements in writing however is obvious. Several sources state that it was Finnish victory, Baryshnikov may disagree but we are not writing the article according to his version of history. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And we are not writing the article only based on the Finnish point of view...

Well the text of the demand is simple enough... If for you it does not matter what the Soviets meant then don't claim that the Finns made them change their minds. -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It could not have been simple enough if it caused as much of a discussion as it has. You got me wrong, as the demand was as poorly phrased as it was, that is ambiguous enough to be understood to be demand for demand for unconditional surrender, it hardly matters what Soviet intent with the paper was - what matters is how it was interpreted. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok so then the following needs to be removed from the article: Nevertheless Finnish forces achieved a defensive victory preventing Soviet forces from advancing on to Helsinki. In the face of these circumstances, Stalin ultimately chose to pursue a separate armistice with Finland.

And it must be really hard to see something in the text that is not there... -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not, actually the sources you are using state explicitly that the result was Finnish (defensive) victory. Your source manipulation to represent them as stating something they are not does not really help. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you can put this into the article but then the other view has to be stated. I was hoping to compromise with a neutral statement.

And what source are you talking about? -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Lunde states that. From word to word. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I am not the one using Lunde. -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not my affairs to judge which sources to use but misrepresenting them is against wiki rules. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, what is missing is the only archival evidence from Soviet archives of possible Soviet peace conditions from June 1944, the famous draft of the Finnish unconditional surrender treaty. --Whiskey (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The speculation about that draft and arguments against it being evidence can be added into another section, or you want to flood the intro? -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, this whole stuff doesn't belong to the intro. Howabout replacing it with the note that it was the culmination point of the V-P offensive for the Leningrad Front? --Whiskey (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And what evidence is there that it was the culmination point for the offensive? The people planning and directing it say otherwise... -YMB29 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Tali-Ihantala marked point where Soviet failures began. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say that as the casualties of the battle were 1/6 of all Finnish Karelian Isthmus casualties of Soviet summer offensive and over 1/5 of all Leningrad Front casualties of the offensive, and as it was the high-water-mark of the main Soviet thrust, eventhough it was not meant to be a culmination point, in reality it was. --Whiskey (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are talking about this battle being the culmination point; I thought you meant something else... You can put that it was the culmination point of the combat on the isthmus, in terms of it being the fiercest fighting, if there is a source for this. Just don't say that it was the turning point in that it decided Finland's fate, since that is not true or at least very debatable. -YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Except there are several sources stating exactly that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And several sources proving them wrong... -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Finnish opinion on the matter is equally valid compared to Soviet claims. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if you say equally then don't try to censor information that proves the Soviet view.

And it is not my opinion. -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been going around deleting reliable sources like certain others. I have no problem with representing Soviet view if criticism to it is also included. Your edits however have shown that you allow no criticism against 'information that proves the Soviet view.' - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You are the one trying to discredit criticism of the Finnish view by your misuse of sources. If you want to criticize the criticism of the Finnish view, find reliable sources that actually do that and don't make criticisms up by misusing reliable sources and inserting pure OR. The problem for you is that Baryshnikov directly criticizes and analyzes the pro-Finnish views, but you don't have a source that criticizes Baryshnikov's arguments. -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Because you have the opinion that Baryshnikov is right does not give you right to delete reliable sources from the article. That is disruptive editing. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No you are very disruptive when you try to misuse sources to criticize Baryshnikov when they are not criticizing him but are actually being criticized by him. -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So according to you only what Baryshnikov claims is valid and not what he criticizes? - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? I don't understand... -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The books Baryshnikov criticizes are as valid in the same context as are Baryshnikov's criticism of them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Impact

However, Russian historian Nikolai Baryshnikov argues that such views exaggerate the significance and misrepresent the outcome of the Finnish defensive battles of 1944, including the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Conquering Finland was not one of the known goals of the Soviet offensive^[30][41][18] and there is no solid documentary evidence, like military orders, that the Soviet high command intended to advance to Helsinki and occupy the country.^[19]According to Marshall Vasilevsky, already on June 17 it was decided that after taking Vyborg and the Vyborg Bay islands, the offensive would stop at the line Elisenvaara-Imatra-Virojoki, Soviet forces would switch to defense, and the main forces of the Leningrad Front would be concentrated on fighting the German forces in Estonia.^[24][18] It is also known that Stalin reminded Marshall Govorov that the goal was Berlin not Helsinki.^[19] According to General Shtemenko the goal was to create a threat to Helsinki and other major political and economic centers in Finland, not conquer the country.^[18] After transferring most of its available forces to the Karelian Isthmus and receiving significant aid from Germany, the Finns managed to slow down and stop the Soviet offensive on the Isthmus before it reached the Finnish border. This boosted the morale of the Finnish troops, who were previously constantly retreating. According to Baryshnikov, Finnish propaganda soon started talking about a victory, and after the war this claim of achieving a victory in stopping the Soviets from conquering Finland became an official theme in Finnish historiography.^[18]

What is bad about this paragraph? -YMB29 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Again same as before. You deleted several reliable sources as well as all the sourced comments which contradicted your personal point of view from the article without any discussion in the talk page of the matter. Furthermore you deleted several tags which were linked to ongoing discussion on the talk page. See [1]. You are representing the views of the Baryshnikov as prevailing ideas while in fact they are clearly nothing such and are repeatedly contradicted by reliable sources (all of which you deleted from the article). You can not represent that paragraph without noting what you deleted from it.

Just because you did not like it does not mean that side should not be represented. In addition there was no place called Vyborg in 1944. Town was renamed in 1948 and as per discussions regarding such place names it should be referred to as Viipuri until 1948. Offensive had clear instructions to prepare to advance to Kymijoki, not to hold on the line you represent in the paragraph (see the references you intentionally deleted). In addition the paragraph refers that it was 'just Finnish historians' who were of that opinion when there are non-Finnish historians who came with same conclusions as the Finns. Just for starters. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I did say: According to the views expressed in Finnish literature and some sources outside of Finland, so that includes non-Finnish authors.

The information about the order to reach the Kymi River can be added, but the way you used it is pure OR and synthesis.

The name Vyborg is a separate issue. I don't know where you got that it was renamed only in 1948, when the city was always known аs Vyborg (Выборг or Выборгъ) in Russian. See map from 1911: [2]

I don't understand why you put tags when the text is cited...

What I deleted was your OR and misuse of sources, which you use to make Baryshnikov look wrong or fringe. You can't use the POW interviews argument against Baryshnikov when he is actually the one criticizing this argument... Like I said before, the two views should be left in two different paragraphs to avoid constant repetition and manipulations. For example, you think the sentence - While several sources state that the offensive was planned to continue all the way to Helsinki however historian Nikolai Baryshnikov suggests that this does not conclusively represent the intentions of the Soviet command, while on the other hand there is evidence of Soviet intentions to invade deep into Finland, is well written and clear? -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So without any opposing sources you make the claim that the ones included constitute a minority as implied by the use of 'some'. That is yet again your OR unless you can provide sources to support such a claim. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So Lunde alone constitutes a majority? This was added as a compromise, since you don't like "according to Finnish historiography". -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Lunde does not constitute a majority. But trying to represent what Baryshnikov states as something more and having wider context than it was is not proper. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So when am I doing that? -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Representing Lunde as something in to which Baryshnikov refers to as this happens to be impossible. See the dates of publication for their works. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparing dates of publication and implying that Lunde somehow represents something radically new is your OR. -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No one said Lunde would represent something new - it does not matter if he did or not. However there is no evidence beyond your OR that Lunde would be using Finnish conclusions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No one said Lunde represents something new? So why are you talking about dates of publication? There is evidence of Lunde using Finnish sources, which is good enough for the talk page, but, unlike you, I don't try to insert OR into the article. -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Because there is no evidence - apart from your OR - that Lunde would not have come up with the conclusion on his own. Whatever Baryshnikov may claim the publication dates already clearly mark that he could not have knowledge of what Lunde concludes. Besides there is only your OR that Lunde would be using Finnish sources when he makes the conclusions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That can be easily read from the STAVKA order as well as from the moisala&alanen book and from several other sources. Not OR or synthesis but instead a fact based on reliable sources. Sorry. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No sorry but the sentence was about what Vasilevsky writes. You can't speak for him by inserting that part into the middle of the sentence... -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not reason to delete the reliable sources like you did. To edit it to make clear which was Vasilevsky's and what is not, yes, to delete everything contradicting Vasilevsky's, no. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I did not delete it at first but you kept moving it into the middle of the sentence, making it look like that is what Vasilevsky said. -YMB29 (talk)

Baryshnikov would have much better argument with Vasilevsky's memoirs unless he managed to stamp memoirs inherently unreliable only few chapters before when handling Mannerheim's memoirs. --Whiskey (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well unlike with Mannerheim's memoirs, there is no reason to suspect that Vasilevsky's memoirs were written or heavily edited by someone else... -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And you have evidence that his memoirs were not heavily edited or is this yet again more of your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Vasilevsky's memoirs? Well if you have evidence let's see it... -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually you made the claim that Vasilevsky's memoirs would not be heavily edited - so again the burden of proving that falls down to you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Since when do I have to prove something for which there is no doubt and is not in the article? Do I have to ask you again to prove that Finland exists? -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you made claim that it would not be heavily modified. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

As per discussions on Danzig talk page the name in Russian is irrelevant since at the time the town was in Finnish hands. Renaming can actually be found from Vyborg page. What it was called in Russian simply does not matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

During the war the city was Soviet, or you did not know that? -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was contested. Both sides claimed the land. Since the town was officially renamed in 1948 it hardly matters what Soviets called it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact between the Winter War and the Continuation War the town was part of Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialistic Republic and it's official name was Viipuri. It was only after the Continuation War than the town was transferred to Leningrad Oblast and the name was changed to Vyborg.--Whiskey (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get that information? It was always known as Vyborg in Russian. However we have to go by what it was known in English. Judging by the NY Times headlines during the war, it was known as Viborg, at least in the US.[3] -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Viipuri would be in line with previous such judgments in wikipedia. Swedish name Viborg would be certainly valid before 1809 and possibly all the way until 1917. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What judgements are you talking about? This is English Wikipedia and we have to use the name most commonly used in English, which is Vyborg. If we go by what it was commonly known in English during this war, then it looks like Viborg is the name. And once again the city was not Finnish after the Winter War. -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Area (the lands lost in the Winter War) were rejoined into Finland in 1941. Claim which is equally valid to the Soviet claim. And please see the discussions on the Talk:Gdansk/Vote Talk:Gdańsk and Viipuri talk pages. It is agreement that in cases like this the prevalent name of the time should be used. For the duration of the offensive that name would still be Viipuri. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So how does that vote prove that Viipuri has to be used? Where is your proof that this name was prevalent at the time. I have provide evidence which shows otherwise. And when the Finns captured the city in 1941 it was still formally Soviet, as the war was not over and no treaty that gave the city back to Finland was signed. -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Read the discussions and topic votes and you should understand. City was as formally Soviet as it was Finnish during 1941-44. Both countries claimed it. Also as stated in the article Vyborg that name was only officially given after the war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed before yet you removed all the references with 'dubious' tags while the discussion regarding those matters was still ongoing in the talk page clearly and obviously against set the rules regarding the use of the templates. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No you did not provide arguments why that information is dubious, other than that you don't like it... -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually those were references to the discussion regarding your use of Baryshnikov's statements to 'paint' (with your OR) Lunde as following Finnish historiography. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Those statements were removed, so why would the tags be needed then?? -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You did not remove those statements, you moved them around and deleted the related references. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What did I delete? Like I said I moved them to avoid repetition and your manipulations of the opposite view. -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You did not move them around, you just deleted them from the article. Which can be easily seen from the edit diffs. -

So what exactly did I delete? -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are unable to see those from the diffs then i can't help you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You deleted several reliable sources regardless of your intentions leaving only the ones supporting you POV. Whole sentence might require rewriting but starting from your version after your deletions of reliable sources is not the way. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The information for the Finnish view is in the first paragraph. You don't need to repeat it in the paragraph that is for the opposite view, to misrepresent what the sources say. -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That is still not a reason enough to delete reliable sources just because you did not like where they were placed. And criticism to the text should be included where it is relevant not to separate text into multiple biased statements. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok so do you want me to put criticisms after every sentence that talks about the Finnish view? All of your sourced information was still in the section, but it needs to be in the right place. Keep the views separate to avoid confusion, repetition, and manipulations. -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Except when there is more information related to the specific claims. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope "related information" does not mean your OR... -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Related information was all sourced so your claims of OR are very hollow indeed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Look who is talking about hollow claims... -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Last i checked the claims i made were sources while the ones you did were not, or were based on your original research and original synthesis. There is considerably gap. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidence against the unconditional surrender demand

From Aspects of the Governing of the Finns [4]

...the American legation in Helsinki was reduced to one man, Edmund Gullion, by 29 June 1944. The US ambassador in Moscow, Averell Harriman, had discussed this move with Stalin on 27 June. Stalin then stated that the only thing the Americans might now try was to suggest informally that the Soviet Union had no designs to take over the country. This was remarkable and far from a demand for "unconditional surrender". But the badly-drafted Soviet note demanding "capitulation" had already been sent on 23 June...

Actual text of the Soviet demand, from Capitulation for the Sake of Pristege [5]

На следующий день Коллонтай сообщила Бухеману: "Мы уважаем Бухемана и верим в его миротворческую миссию. Тем не менее, так как мы были несколько раз обмануты финнами, мы хотели бы получить от финского правительства официальное заявление за подписью премьера или министра иностранных дел, что Финляндия капитулирует и просит мира у СССР. В случае получения нами от финского правительства такого документа, Москва будет согласна принять делегацию финского правительства". Ответа на свое заявление советское правительство не получило. Премьер-министр Финляндии Э.Линкомиес расценил это заявление как требование безоговорочной капитуляции.

Translation:

The next day, Kollontai reported to Boheman: "We respect Boheman and believe in his peacekeeping mission. However, since we have been deceived by the Finns several times, we would like to get from the Finnish government an official statement signed by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs that Finland capitulates and asks the Soviet Union for peace. In the event we receive such a document from the Finnish government, Moscow would be willing to receive a delegation from the Finnish government." The Soviet government did not receive a response to this statement. Finland's Prime Minister E. Linkomies interpreted this statement as a demand for unconditional surrender.

-YMB29 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

From Between East and West: Finland in International Politics, 1944-1947 [6]

At the summit conference of the Big Three at Teheran in November-December 1943, Marshal Stalin was at pains to stress that an independent Finland remained one of the Soviet Union's war aims. Churchill and Roosevelt expressed their approval of the peace terms proposed by the Soviet Union for Finland, though the British prime minister doubted the ability of Finland to pay the war reparations demanded. Having expected the Soviet Union to demand unconditional surrender, Churchill and Roosevelt were agreeably surprised by Stalin's readiness to negotiate with Finland. Through their press and radio, and diplomatic channels in the case of the United States, the Western powers sought to induce the Finns to start discussions.

...The Finnish government interpreted the Soviet reply to their offer of negotiations as a demand for unconditional surrender, which was not considered acceptable.

-YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

According to the transcripts of government meetings, it was not Linkomies who provided the vital output. (Although he was willing to present it in such a way.) Ryti and Tanner were willing to continue dialog with SU, but when Mannerheim was called, and when he stated that it meant unconditional surrender, the vote was switched to ending the negotiations. --Whiskey (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok but it does not really matter who made the final decision. -YMB29 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And a page later: [7]

...In the end it was all to be left to Stalin and his need, the need to transfer troops from Finland to get to Berlin before the West did. On 3 July, Pravda changed its tune and mid-July the remaining Soviet troops in Finland were in a defensive position. The plan for a Soviet occupation of Finland, drafted first perhaps in 1943, was never used, though the date 28.6.1944 was imposed on it.

Well that is why it was a draft... Draft documents are created for possible use, depending on the situation. If it had been written in June of 1944 then maybe that would have been interesting, but it was written in 1943... So if the draft reveals the real Soviet goal and it was decided in 1943 that Finland has to surrender unconditionally, why would the Soviet government discuss peace conditions with Finnish officials in the Spring of 1944 and even willing to do so (as the text above shows) after the capture of Vyborg?

As for Stalin wanting the Leningrad Front troops to be used to speed up the advance to Berlin, yes of course but what does this battle have to do with his decision? As stated above, on June 27 he wanted the Americans to clarify to the Finns that there will be no occupation and, as Vasilevsky says, the limited advance into Finland and the transfer of troops to the West was already decided upon on June 17. -YMB29 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Except troop transit orders were issued much, much later (see the STAVKA source, the orders are included there. well after the 20 June). Before that time even the troop transfer was nothing more than a draft and should not be referred to any bit more (or less) than the Soviet draft for Finnish capitulation. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that orders are drafted like political documents... That is some twisted logic by you again. It does not matter when the actual orders were issued, as the decision was made even when the offensive was steamrolling. -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There can be many kinds of drafts in the existence just like explained with the capitulation draft. It does not in any way make them more valid for comparisons than what the capitulation draft is. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What? You don't make sense. Try to find better arguments... -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What i mean is that both the draft for capitulation and the 'draft' for Soviet plans regarding troop movements on 17 June are equally valid. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There were no drafts for the orders or plans, only a decision. -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Written orders appeared well after that. Just as easily some one could claim that there was only a decision to demand unconditional surrender with the presented draft. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

So who claimed that he/she witnessed such a decision being made?

Yes written orders soon appeared but there still was no mention of advancing to Helsinki. -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither was there mention that the indicated line where the advance was to lead would have been 'final' line. Claiming that it would is OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It was the last line the Leningrad Front was ordered to advance to, or do you have information about some secret order? Anyway, the word final did not appear in my last edit, or you did not notice that while senselessly reverting? -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It did not include any type of order of fortifying or actually stopping on the indicated line. It merely marked it as the next goal for the offensive without indicating that it would be final goal of the offensive. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If we could find contemporary documents describing Soviet real intentions it would settle the issue, but so far we have only seen memoirs written afterwards and propagandistic newspaper articles. From hard evidence, which every respected historian has to take into account, someway or other, we have STAVKA orders and what they say and this foreign ministry draft document, which is the only existing contemporary documentation available for researchers today on the issue.

Of course there were ongoing discussion in STAVKA how long Govorov would need those breakthrough elements in his use. They were used to breach Finnish defences at Main Line and at VT-Line. If Govorov were fulfilling STAVKA orders, he would be mopping up fleeing Finnish units, so it wouldn't be so far fetched that he could breach VKT-Line, which existed only in map only, on move and when reaching the state border he could breach the remaining Salpa-Line immediately, as Finns wouldn't have enough troops to organize proper defence. So, after reaching the border and breaching the final Salpa-Line, he would not need those breakthrough elements anymore.

Well, where did this picture then failed? It failed because Govorov wasn't fighting Germans but Finns. Instead of holding their surrounded positions or trying to hold fast every location, like Germans had done, Finns retreated in front of him and instead of mopping up the Finns, as STAVKA had ordered, Govorov just pushed them backwards until they found a position they could try to hold.

Anyway, IF the offensive had gone as planned, Govorov wouldn't have needed those STAVKA's offensive elements anymore to continue his advancement to Finland after he had reached the border. At June 17 it seemed to go as planned, two fortified lines were breached, Finns were unable to produce holding defence, only prepared fortifications were just before Vyborg and even they were less than half ready. Vasilevsky told the truth, but not the whole truth in his memoirs. --Whiskey (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What does Vasilevsky not say? He makes it clear that the point of the offensive was to make the Finns ask for peace, not take Helsinki and occupy Finland. If the offensive went as planned till the end, Finland would just have surrendered sooner.

Also you really put too much weight into that draft. Such unconditional surrender drafts existed for every country the USSR was at war with, and they were replaced by conditional surrender drafts in the summer of 1944. -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Except this paper was dated 28 June 1944. And not some myriad state on 1943. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

So what, if the draft was written in 1943? -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And you know this because the draft is explicitly dated to June 1944? - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well according to the source above, the date was June 28, 1944, although it does not say where this date appears in the document and what it means.

Baryshnikov explicitly says that such unconditional surrender drafts for Germany's smaller allies were created in 1943. The above source even confirms that. -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How does Baryshnikov explain that the document he claims to have been written in 1943 actually is dated to June 1944? If he talks of papers written in 1943 he is explicitly not referring to that paper since it is dated to June 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)