Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk offensive

Tactical Soviet Victory?

How can this be a tactical Soviet victory when Soviets had planned to occupy whole Finland but they failed to do that? --Taistelu-Jaska (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

They achieved tactical goals, including Vyborg, didn't they? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There were many tactical goals... It should say strategic Soviet victory. -YMB29 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And why exactly would it should it state so? Soviet offensive failed in 1944 didn't it? War as a whole might have been Soviet victory but the offensive was not - as proven by the fact that as the result of the offensive Soviets reduced their demands on the Finns. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No matter how many sources I bring up that prove you wrong, you will not change your mind. It is all because of that "polished historiography" you adhere to... -YMB29 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that is a matter of an opinion, not polished historiography. Besides there are sources against your statement. On the other hand hiding matters, like done with LF 21 June - mid July, is totally different. How would you describe Soviet result of the offensive as from the sources it is quite apparent that offensive resulted in Soviet concessions to their offer done before it? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Soviet "concessions," if you can call them that, were due to international pressure if you forgot.[1] We have been through all this many times. You brought up some Finnish source that says the offensive failed strategically, but that hardly changes anything. -YMB29 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't really see anything there which would state it had been due to international pressure. The whole statement starts with 'was probably in part' which can be said also as 'had an effect to' not that they would be the sole cause which is saying that even the writer only notes that the listed issues contributed to it not that they would have caused it alone. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well we don't see him mentioning that Finland won those "concessions." There is just your speculation about it. -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

We see nothing you claimed there was either so i fail to see how that proves anything. On the other hand like you said there are several sources which state that the Soviet Offensive failed. End result is still the same, terms from the Soviets perspective were worse after than before the offensive. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The terms were changed a little, but where is your proof that it was due to Finnish "victories" and not international pressure like the source suggests?

And I said that you found only one source that says the offensive failed. -YMB29 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A little? Cutting reparations by 50% (which was not the sole Soviet concession) was apparently little? I suppose Finnish land yields (10%) were then marginal or non-existing in that case? Actually there were several sources stating so feel free to search for the discussions. So far there has been no sources stating it would have been because of the international pressure, only speculation in a source that it might have been partially be caused by it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well "speculation" by an author is always better than your speculation... What sources would those be?

Finland was making concessions, not the USSR... There was little changed besides that reduction in reparations, and that did not make much of a difference since 1938 prices were then demanded... -YMB29 (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We were discussing the effect of the offensive - not the whole war. And with regards to the offensive it's only apparent result is that Soviets made concessions to their earlier demands. Also the claim regarding 1938 prices is of very dubious value since we have no idea if the earlier sum would have been in the same currency like has been discussed several times - neither of the agreements mentioned anything with this regards. You also need to remember that 1938 was the last year currencies were still stable and not in rapid inflation in Europe - so on hindsight it is likely both reparation demands would have been in 1938 currency (last stable). - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not what the source suggests, as the Finns complained that the Soviets pretended to relent.

You can continue making dubious claims about the offensive and have your own opinion, but it is all about what reliable sources say. -YMB29 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The source you provided says nothing of it as it clearly states that it is mere speculation and even then it only could have contributed to it. Not that it would have been the cause. Several sources (reliable) state that Soviet offensive failed. There is not much more to say. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So far I only saw one Finnish source.

Once again, speculation in a source is much better than your speculation. -YMB29 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, what is in the source you provided is nothing but speculation. And that does not even try to claim that foreign politics would have caused the events but rather it speculates that foreign politics contributed to the events. Quite a bit different from what you claimed it said. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That is the only reason for the changes it talked about, so we have nothing else to go by. It said nothing about Finland winning these new terms like you speculate. -YMB29 (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not 'a reason' it is talking about. It is speculating that foreign politics might have contributed to it. By representing it as 'a reason' you are already abusing the source - it does not state in any manner that foreign politics would have even been a reason for it, it only speculates that in some part it might have contributed. Source is indeed saying nothing, it is saying nothing at all with regards to the events. You seem to be forgetting the sources which were presented to you earlier but which you seem to have dismissed - as they were Finnish. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again there was only one quote from a Finnish book provided.

So yes, I guess the source (Ziemke) is saying nothing at all... In fact I think I can convince myself that you are saying nothing at all too; it is just my imagination... -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not what i meant and you know it too. You just can not represent something specifically stated already in the source as a speculation for having a contribution as a solid and sole reason. First the speculation part already makes it clear that it is not solid and second the fact that author writes that it may have contributed means that even if the speculation was true it would not be the sole cause for the event. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well the fact that the author does not mention any other reason gives it much more weight.

If you don't like that source here is another (War Aims in the Second World War: The War Aims of the Major Belligerents, 1939–45 by V. Rothwell, p. 144):

More important, Britain helped in persuading the Soviet government to back down from two earlier demands that would have threatened Finland's independence. One of these was that the Red Army should have the right to enter the country if Finland could not itself immediately expel all German forces from its soil. It was now given a period of grace to do that. The other was that Russia reduced its demand for reparations from $600 million to be paid over five years to $300 million to be paid over six years. The latter amount could be paid, albeit with pain; the former would have been impossible and would have afforded another excuse to intervene. [2]

-YMB29 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it does not. In case like this absence of something is not evidence of the opposite. Again, this source states that Britain helped in persuaiding, it is more solid than what the previous source was but still is not stating at any level that it would have been the sole cause and thus can not be represented as such even if other causes are not mentioned. Stating contributed to would be correct with this source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Helped means that Britain was not the only country.

The quote is very clear. You are in denial again... -YMB29 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not actually, it is merely stating British influence contributed to the matter and that other factors also affected it. Those might have been other countries but the source does not in any way disclose that they would have been, you can not extrapolate from the source that it would be stating something that it in reality is not. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it is always amusing to read your excuses when sources prove you wrong.

You are the one trying hard to extrapolate something that is not there. The source clearly says that the Soviets had to be persuaded; there is nothing about them being forced to soften the terms due to those Finnish "defensive victories"... -YMB29 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, source does not any way disclose what exactly the persuasions were, Finnish success in blunting Soviet offensives could well be understood as 'persuasion'. Also the phrasing 'helped in persuading' is already stating that some other factors also persuaded the Soviet government. Neither of your sources actually discloses what these factors could have been. All what they are saying is that British government contributed to the Soviet decision making, nothing more, nothing less. So you can not state from either of the sources that Finnish successes were not the reason behind it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So where does it say that they were? You can speculate and see something that is not there all you want, but you have no sources supporting your claim.

Anyway, the sources obviously say the offensive was a strategic victory, so I am going to change the result to that. -YMB29 (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you presented actually disclosed anything with that regard. Both only mentioned that they either believed or had information that British diplomatic efforts contributed to the result. Not that they would have caused it. And neither of the sources is stating (of the quotes you presented) that it would have been a victory of any kind - even more so as the sources seem to be discussing the war and not the offensive, since they are separate matters they should be handled separately as you seem to be forgetting that war did not end into the offensive. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I meant the sources about the offensive that I quoted before, see below. They mention the main strategic goal (knocking Finland out of the war) and then say that it was accomplished as a result of the offensive, so it is a strategic victory at least.

As far as the softening of terms, yes the sources say nothing about your claim and you can't find any that do, so it remains your claim... -YMB29 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Except the sources represent the pushing Finland out of the war as the goal of the offensive. That was the goal of the war, not of the offensive. Goal of the offensive was something else and it never reached those as discussed several times before. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments regarding the quotes; As it is known offensive ended in all practical form well over a month before any talks were made. That is only area with combat activity was Ilomantsi, battle which Finns soundly won (Lunde p.298-299 After July 17 the front became stabilized and later actions can best be described as positional warfare - describing the area north of Ladoga). Soviet offensive (& the perceived unconditional surrender demand) led to President Ryti's personal alliance with Germany, which happens to be the opposite of the offensive's its stated goal. Only after the offensive had ended was Finland again willing to talk (Lunde p. 315-316). Sources seem to be neglecting to mention what took place in Karelian isthmus after 20 June, which seems rather blatant omission. Second source even contains error, Meretskov received his accolades only after Petsamo-Kirkenes operation, not after this one unlike Govorov. Also Mannerheim's letter to Hitler hardly passes for an actual situation report. And again a slight problem, on July 28 only area with any activity was Ilomantsi. The reason Ryti brought the matter up was because the Soviet offensive had been dealt with (see Lunde p. 314). Also described in several other sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We have been through this many times. The sources speak for themselves. Your own analysis (or that of other wiki users) means nothing here. -YMB29 (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In other words you chose to disregard all the sources opposing you and present only the sources which endorse the result you wish to achieve even though you are perfectly aware that it is now the whole issue as there exists several opposing sources your point of view just as well? How is that NPOV? - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The other sources actually make clear separation between the war and the offensive. And as can be seen offensive was a failure for the Soviet Union. Discussion of the war on the other hand is out of scope of the article at hand. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Like always you ignore what you don't want to see. The sources I quoted clearly say that the offensive led to the end of the war for Finland.

As for the sources you quoted, again only one Finnish source says that it was a failure.

The other sources you misuse for your purpose. You quote Platonov out of context, as he clearly is talking about only the Vyborg part of the offensive. Glantz also only talks about the first part of the offensive and the failure to advance into southern Finland, not the whole offensive like he does in his other book. The Ziemke quote you took from an older version of the book; he corrected the text in his newer version. The passage from Lunde does not analyze the offensive at all and just talks about the situation, while you make the conclusion that it failed (because the situation was quiet) without taking into consideration its strategic consequences. -YMB29 (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And i pointed out that there are plenty of sources which state the opposite. That the result of the offensive was tighter integration between Finland and Germany, and that only after the offensive had been stopped, but not because of it did progress towards cease fire continue - given that Soviets themselves had cut off the negotiations with Finns in Spring 1944 that also is telling. Platonov actually states that even the offensive in Southern Karelia (ie. north of Ladoga) was not enough. Glantz's Southern Finland is vague enough expression that it could refer to any offensive south of the operational boundary between Finns and Germans - as it has been used in such a context before. Ziemke's 'corrected' version has exact same message in it. And again you are mixing the result of the offensive with that of the war. They are not the same, either discuss what the offensive did or place it in some other article.

You could well add section (if there isn't one already) that offensive did contribute the ceasefire between Finland and the Soviet Union. That part is not the problem. Problem is that you are representing the offensive as a success because of the events that took place around it instead of in it. This article is about the offensive, it is not even about the war in general in Karelia in summer 1944 let alone whole of the Continuation War - it is just about the offensive. - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the offensive that forced Finland from the war or played a great part in this, so it has to be a strategic victory. This is not my conclusion but that of the sources.

You can manipulate and misinterpret sources all you want, but that is not going to change the fact that sources (at least non-Finnish ones) are against you on this. -YMB29 (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the article is solely about the offensive - of which we know what goals it had, ie. where it was supposed to advance to. Not of anything else, by discussing the actual end of the war you are already stepping out of the scope of the article. Same is true with the articles you provided they are discussing the whole of the war, not the offensive which happens to be the topic of this article. In addition some of the sources you added are not in any way relevant or have actually anything to say with regards to the result of the offensive. All of them neglecting to mention the actual goal of the offensive which was never achieved (again, goal of the war =/= goal of the offensive).

Also similar results with 'Finland stopped the offensive' can be provided with quick google search but i see no point in doing so since everyone interested in the matter can do that on their own. Also deleting sources added to the page, like you did, or changing them so that their meaning changes, like you also did, is not exactly polite. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to use quotes that are outdated. Also keep your quotes separate; I know you are trying to confuse people...

The strategic goal of the offensive and the war was the same; don't pretend that you do not know that.

My quotes unlike yours talk about the strategic results of the whole offensive. -YMB29 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The quotes are all of equal value when they are referring to the event in question. Goals of the offensive were well defined (ie. the river lines and the destruction of Finnish Army), the success of the offensive must be measured against those (operational goals), not against the ideas as to how to win the whole of the war (ie. by definition strategic goals). Your quotes are discussing the perceived - yet still opposed by several sources - effect of the offensive to the war which, while worthwhile to be mentioned in the article, is not the actual result of the offensive itself. The actual result of the offensive is still separate from that as explained by several authors in the quotes below. Which has been the point i have referred to for this whole discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore it seems rather dubious to use claims like "led to the reopening of bilateral negotiations" as basis for Soviet success since it was the Soviet Union which broke off from the negotiations in April 1944 - not to mention the reduction of Soviet demands on the terms which had been the points of contention in April or the surrender demand of June 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You are just repeating the same claims that have been proven wrong to you many times. Will you ever learn?

So the main goals in a strategic offensive are operational and tactical goals, not strategic ones? The offensive must be judged only by the tactical and operational goals achieved? This is just amusing... You are making yourself look bad. Just admit that you are wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Which of the claims were false? You have made this statement before but never actually saying what exactly was wrong. Could you finally define what exactly is it that you are referring to? If the article is about the offensive then the article should concentrate on the offensive. Not on some extrapolation of the offensive. Soviet offensive had strictly defined goals so it should be considered as per that criteria.

How would you define the result? Take into consideration that Soviet offensive failed in all but one of it's stated goals - only stated goal achieved was the Viborg. Keep in mind that there are several sources which dispute the claim of the Soviet victory (even in strategic level). - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Only one Finnish source disputes it.

You are getting desperate... I am not going to repeat something I just explained hundreds of times. If you don't get it then that is your problem.

It will probably take another RfC again for you to admit that you are wrong...

Also, I suggest you stop reverting my changes here to the quotes section. I have a right to separate my quotes from your poorly selected ones. -YMB29 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read through the quotes, several of them dispute the result you stated. Furthermore that view (that offensive was a failure) is even more predominant in the sources which actually handle the Continuation War or the offensive itself - compared to sources which are generic descriptions of the Eastern Front. So you refuse to state what was, according to you, false? And then go off claiming that it apparently blatantly obvious which it clearly is not. Could you please tell what exactly what it is? And you still did not answer my question. Regardless of that your hostile or negative attitude does not help to resolve the issue. Please try more constructive methods of conversion. Also you already stated there the reason why i reversed the change - by placing it you are already predefining those quotes as of being 'of poor quality' or 'poorly selected' which is not in any way in accordance with NPOV that wikipedians should be following - instead you are trying (as per your stated reason) to predispose any one actually participating to the debate. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I told you I have the right to separate the quotes I found. You put the ones that you think support your view into another section. You are trying to confuse others. This is the last time I am going to tell you this.

You were told that your quotes (except the Finnish one) are taken out of context, don't talk about the entire offensive, and are not about its strategic results. Again, both Platonov and Glantz only talk about the Vyborg part of the offensive; they don't comment on the strategic value of the entire offensive. The first Glantz quote is actually about the situation prior to the fighting after June 20. Lunde does not even talk about any goals or consequences of the offensive. And Ziemke corrected his error in the new version of his book, but you still cling on to his mistake...

You are manipulating sources as you always have done. You were doing the same thing with the unconditional surrender "as it was written" claim. This is disruptive behavior. -YMB29 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

How exactly are they taken out of context, as they refer exactly and precisely just to the offensive, not to anything else? Lunde discusses the events related to the offensive so his comments are valid while Platonov separately mentions that not even 'South Karelian' offensive was enough. Ziemke does not actually change his 'error' at all its just more politely phrased 'failure'. How exactly are they manipulated? You are seem to refusing to take any opposing views into account which also is hostile & disruptive behavior. So far you have steadfastly refused to build any type of consensus or even acknowledge the sources on the opposing side. Also given how you have setup the headers trying to toss opposing ones into separate group 'other' is already trying to form predispositions on the matter and hence NPOV - try forming more neutral setup and i have no problems with it. Also you have not answered the question, how would you define the result knowing that offensive failed to gain its set objectives (as it failed to do, proven both by several sources as well as even by STAVKA source)? - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So you are pretending to forget everything that was explained hundreds of times to you? Some tactical or operational goals failed, but the strategic goal was accomplished.

I would accept opposing sources if they actually were opposing... Just because there was no advance into Finland, does not make the overall offensive a failure... You are doing a selective quoting of sources, which don't say that the offensive was a strategic failure and don't judge the entire offensive at all, and concluding from this that it failed strategically, which is original research.

Once again, Lunde does not make any conclusions about the offensive being a failure and neither does Platonov. You are making that conclusion yourself. "Failed" and "did not have the success it ought to have had" are two different things, but you like to think that they are the same... -YMB29 (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Also I am warning you to stop edit warring. If you don't like the header's name, change it but don't remove it. -YMB29 (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Operation failed to achieve most of the goals set for it. Sole part of the operation that actually succeeded was capture of Viborg, like you are perfectly aware. Even the Karelian Front's offensive failed to reach its goals and less said what LF actually achieved after Viborg the better. I'm still trying to figure out what result you are actually after. Operationally it was Soviet failure. Also given that Soviets had broken off the negotiations in April 1944 i can't really see how it forced the Finns to the negotiations and even then the terms were reduced according to what Finns had complained in the spring (so 'victory' would be stretching it). So Operational Soviet failure, Strategic Soviet success?

They are perfectly valid sources, just because you do not like what they are saying does not make them any less valuable. There is no selective quoting, i only picked the sections that actually handle the offensive. Not anything else. For example your addition of Koivisto's quote is on the other hand selective. It in no way connects the offensive to the armistice (like was your premise) but yet you chose to include it the quotes while it has no relevance to the offensive or its result.

So what do you think Platonov refers to when he quite clearly mentions that operation in South Karelia was not enough to force Finns to negotiation table? "Did not have the success it ought to have had" is the same as "failed to reach its goals" which when we are examining an operation is the same as failure. Lunde on the other hand makes it clear that by mid July operation (in any practical sense, what took place at Ilomantsi by 2 divisions is not exactly 'strategic') had ended and that Finns had stabilized the fronts - indirectly stating that Soviet had failed to reach their goals. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Failed to reach what goals? Not strategic ones, but you are giving more weight to tactical and operational goals... "Did not have the success it ought to have had" means it had success but could have done better, not failed, but I guess you are desperate... Platonov does not talk about the operation in South Karelia nor the entire offensive. Are you seeing things?

You can't just quote that the offensive was stopped and omit the part where the consequences are mentioned. Your quotes don't talk about the actual topic; they don't judge the entire offensive by the effect it had on the war. So that is why your quoting is a poor attempt to counter my quotes.

You also continue to repeat the same claims that were proven wrong and are not backed up by sources. The offensive cannot even be said to be a tactical-operational failure, since major tactical-operational goals, like breaching the Finnish defensive lines, capturing Vyborg, Petrozavodsk and most of the Vyborg Bay islands, were accomplished. The result should be Soviet strategic victory, or at least the reverse of what it is now - tactical-operational stalemate and Soviet strategic victory. -YMB29 (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

We are not discussing the whole of the war in this article, we are not even defining the eventual effect it had to the war - though there is 'aftermath' section for discussing exactly this in the article. The article is solely about the offensive hence we need to observe the result of the offensive it self - not that of the war. "Did not have the success it ought to have had" is stating that it failed to reach it's goals. Platonov actually makes the point of mentioning that even operation in Southern Karelia was not enough. You were already earlier shown to be wrong with in your interpretation of the result when matter was queried directly from Glantz (who stated that SU failed to force Finland out of war in this offensive).

You seem to be forgetting that breaching of the lines was not a major goal of the operation and neither was capture of the islands - even capture of Petrozavodsk is rather dubious as being 'major goal' of the offensive. Known major goals were i) Capture of Viborg by LF (was achieved), ii) breakthrough Finnish defenses by KF (was never achieved) to threaten Karelian Isthmus from the north (didn't happen either), iii) trapping bulk of Finnish army against the northern the shore of Ladoga (since breakthroughs did not materialize neither did this) by LF & KF, iv) advancing to Virojoki-Lappeenranta line by LF (never achieved), v) further advance to Kouvola-Kymi River line by LF (never achieved). You even got the smaller ones wrong, at Viborg Bay the goal of the 59th Army was never to capture the islands but instead to create a beachhead to the northern shore of the bay (to achieve which they needed the islands but those were not the goal of the 59th Army's attack). You seem to be grasping straws here. Fighting stalemated indeed, but operationally the offensive failed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You are the one grasping at straws here. Sources prove you wrong about the strategic result of the offensive, but you cling on to failures to achieve secondary non-strategic goals.

The goal of the Vyborg Bay operation was to capture the islands and the shore, and the islands were captured.

The goals you list are tactical-operational, just like the ones I listed. The capture of Petrozavodsk was important (why do you think the offensive was partially named after it), so you can't just dismiss it.

You are talking about the email Whiskey claimed he received from Glantz? You think that should be taken seriously as a source here? I know you are desperate for sources, but that is too much...

Your interpretations of Platonov and Ziemke are also dubious. I don't know how you think the two phrases from Ziemke mean the same thing. Maybe you are limited in your understanding of the English language...

So are you saying that the strategic impact of a strategic offensive cannot be taken into account? The result of the offensive led or greatly contributed to the result of the war, which was the offensive's purpose. This is what reliable sources say, including Glantz.

Anyway, this will probably need to be resolved through third opinion, dispute resolution or an RfC, where you will be confirmed to be wrong once again. Do you really want to waste time with this?

Arguing with such historians as Glantz and Erickson is beyond ridiculous... -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Goal of the 59th Army was to flank Finnish positions at Karelian Isthmus. To do that it needed to actually land onto the opposing shore. As stated several times. You seem to be quite willing to use lower level (tactical) goals to determine success when it suits to you and ignore higher level (operational) ones, while on the next turn ignore the lower level goals and only accept the higher level goals. Petrozavodsk was probably used since it was the only other notable town Soviets captured in addition to Viborg - it however was not goal of the operation like Kymijoki or Viborg or other such. And I'm not interpreting anything, in neither case there are anything left into doubt. Both Platonov and Ziemke make it quite clear. I did not say they could not be taken into account, I'm saying they cannot solely used like you are doing. You cannot arbitrarily decide to ignore the actual 'non-strategic' progress and goals of the offensive in favor of 'strategic' ones. You can demand RfC, and i have no problems with it, that is your right after all. Also could you finally cut out the insinuations, they are childish not to mention degrading your own position. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To get to the shore the Soviets needed to capture the islands first and they did that. From that position they could have tried to capture the shore again after they could not do it the first time. So you can't ignore the capture of the islands and say that the operation was a total failure, but this discussion should be left for the article dealing with this battle.

I don't use lower level goals to determine the success or failure of the whole offensive. That is what you do, and plus you only look at the lower level goals that were not accomplished (like claiming that the capture of Petrozavodsk was insignificant compared to advancing to the Kymi River).

Once again, for a strategic offensive the strategic goals are the ones that matter. You can dispute this, but that is just your opinion.

After you claimed that two different phrases are the same, you can't blame me for questioning your English.

So I am going to try getting third options first. Enter your point of view below.[3] -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Capture of the islands was required for crossing, no one is disputing that, but it was not the goal of the 59th Army. Goal was to cross the Bay of Viborg. No you not using lower level goals, you are using goals which suit your own preferences. Which is far worse because it is in no way neutral. Offensive is only 'strategic' in Soviet/Russian parlance, no others attach such tag to it. Offensive is an offensive and it should be judged as such regardless of added tags. Opinion added. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a strategic offensive; you can't ignore this fact. It is also a Soviet offensive, so we have to look at how the Soviet military defined it. I guess I should not look at strategic goals because they do not suit you...

And no, the goal of the Vyborg Bay operation was to capture the islands also, but, again, leave this discussion for the actual article. -YMB29 (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because the name of the offensive in one language includes term 'strategic' does not mean all other aspects should be ignored as by doing so you are introducing bias to the article. Actually it is stated in sources that the goal of the 59th Army was to cross and to flank Finnish positions at Karelian Isthmus. Capture of the islands was not the goal of the operation but required for it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well we can look at what sources say later, but not here.

Again, for the final result, the main goal is what matters. -YMB29 (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Main goal which is not constant but dependents heavily on your deliberate choice to consider only strategic effect of the offensive. We can just as well consider the main goal purely on the operational level in which case offensive was a failure. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't make sense... -YMB29 (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Something about the goals of the operation from Solonin's book: 25 июня. Глупость или агрессия?

Со взятием Выборга все еще только начиналось. Вечером (в 23.30) 21 июня была подписана оперативная директива штаба Ленинградского фронта № 74/оп, в которой войскам фронта было приказано: «…продолжать наступление с задачей не позднее 26.6.44 г. главными силами овладеть рубежом Иматра, Лаппеенранта, Виройоки (подчеркнуто мной. — М.С.). Одновременно очистить от противника Карельский перешеек северо-восточнее реки и озера Вуокси наступлением части сил на Хиитола–Кексгольм…» [365]. citation 365. ЦАМО, ф. 375, оп. 6675, д. 76, л. 22–23.

В многостраничной директиве нет ни одного упоминания о том, что после выхода на рубеж Иматра–Лаппеенранта (т.е. ЗА линию границы 1940 г.) войска должны были остановиться и перейти к обороне. Фактически выход на этот рубеж был обозначен лишь как задача ближайшей (после взятия Выборга) недели! Интересная, хотя и не вполне конкретизированная информация обнаруживается и в опубликованных 40 лет назад воспоминаниях генерал-полковника М.М. Попова. В апреле 1944 г. он вернулся на «свой» Ленинградский фронт, на этот раз — в должности начальника штаба фронта. Генерал Попов по-солдатски прямо пишет: «Задачей операции было уничтожение основных сил финских войск на Карельском перешейке и выход наших войск северо-западнее и западнее Выборга с тем. чтобы создать угрозу важнейшим жизненным центрам Финляндии на юге страны (здесь и далее подчеркнуто мной. — М.С.)… 21 июня 1944 г. Ставка приказала Ленинградскому фронту продолжить наступление на перешейке для вторжения вглубь Финляндии» [194]. citation 194. Оборона Ленинграда. 1941–1944. Воспоминания и дневники участников. Л.: Наука, 1968, С. 32, 35, 41–42, 61, 73.

После прекращения наступления на главном стратегическом направлении Выборг–Хельсинки боевые действия в Приладожской Карелии и вовсе потеряли всякий разумный смысл

In other words it describes the various goals of the offensive - none of which were achieved. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What was the point of quoting an amateur historian? Your sources are bad enough already...

This is not about strategic goals. Advancing into Finnish territory and creating a threat to the major population centers was meant to only serve the main strategic goal - forcing Finland from the war. -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So every source provide is perfect but opposing sources are worthless? How is that NPOV attitude with regards to the issue. Its about the whole of the offensive - you can not arbitrarily decide that it is solely strategic goals that needs to be taken into consideration. And by the way, creating a threat failed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that you do not know what a strategic offensive is. Enough of a threat to Finland's survival was created for Finland to be forced from the war.

You don't even know who Solonin is... If there are books written by real historians, why use a book by a controversial amateur historian? -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, we are discussing the offensive itself. Not just single aspect of it. Soviet failure of achieve their set goals of the offensive is as valid point as any other. Solonin is an author who has written fairly well referenced books regarding historical events, often with critical view. There seems no reason not to use him. Just because you don't like his writing is not a reason to ignore or censor him. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You read Solonin's books? How do you know that they are well referenced? If you want to, you can use him here, but that won't help you. I reference historians like Glantz, while you a publicist like Solonin... It is not what I think about him; Russian historians consider his works to have no historical value. -YMB29 (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

The Soviet General Staff then recommended that the Leningrad and Karelian Fronts launch an offensive against Finnish forces in the sector from Leningrad to Petrozavodsk. The strategic objective of the offensive was to defeat the Finnish Army and force Finland from the war. On 10 June 1944, the Red Army began the offensive against Finnish forces north of Leningrad and quickly captured Vyborg, thereby threatening the capital, Helsinki. As soon as the Finnish military command transferred forces from southern Karelia to meet this threat, Soviet forces of the Karelian Front, under Army General K. A. Meretskov, attacked northward and westward out of Soviet Karelia and quickly advanced through the area between Lakes Ladoga and Onega. This offensive, known as the Svir-Petrozavodsk Operation, continued until 9 August and was strategically significant in that it led to the reopening of bilateral negotiations between Finland and the U.S.S.R. on 25 August. On 4 September, the two sides signed an armistice that required Finland to expel or disarm all German troops still on its soil by 15 September.

Leavenworth Papers # 17 - The Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation: Soviet Breakthrough and Pursuit in the Arctic, October 1944, by Gebhardt (p. 2) [4]

The Karelian operations of 1944, the first phase of the summer campaign, were designed to drive Finland from the war, divert attention from Soviet offensive preparations further south, and embarrass the Germans by driving one of their allies from the war. The Stavka ordered the Leningrad and Karelian Fronts to secure the Karelo-Finnish isthmus and the expanse of Karelia north and northwest of Leningrad. Govorov's front, supported by the Baltic Fleet, was ordered to attack on 10 June 1944 to secure Vyborg within 10 days and Meretskov's front was to strike north of Lake Ladoga beginning on 21 June. The Soviets commanders well recalled the difficulties they had experienced penetrating the Mannerheim Line in 1939/40. To avoid replicating the earlier four month struggle, planning was careful, and the Soviets built up a sizable force superiority prior to the offensive. Govorov's offensive unfolded virtually as planned. By 21 June, the left flank of his 21st Army had secured Vyborg despite intense and sordid negotiations between the Finns and Germans over the possible dispatch of German assistance. Govorov then reinforced his forward forces at Vyborg with units of 59th Army, which were transported by ship to the Finnish city. The same day Meretskov's 7th Army commenced operations into Central Karelia from its positions along the Svir River. The combined Soviet operations north and south of Lake Ladoga ultimately forced the Finns to sue for peace in September, and although token German assistance finally did arrive, the die was already cast for the Finns. Soon events elsewhere rendered the Karelian operations a distinct sideshow to the main military effort taking place to the south of Belorussia. For their efforts against the Finns, both Govorov and Meretskov were promoted to the rank of Marshal of the Soviet Union. The Finnish campaign had the added bonus of keeping German attention focused away from Army Group Center. In fact, an organized strategic deception campaign portrayed major Soviet offensives on the northern and southern flanks, with only limited attacks on Army Group Center expected later in the summer.

When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler, by Glantz (pp. 202-203)

The General Staff plan envisaged the summer offensive being opened with the Leningrad Front attack, timed for the beginning of June and aimed at Vyborg, to be supplemented by the Karelian Front striking out for Svirsk—Petrozavodsk to knock Finland right out of the war...
The moment to tighten the screw on Finland had finally come; the first June attacks, though ultimately contained, virtually exhausted Finnish reserves (so Marshal Mannerheim reported to Hitler), and after another month of ceaseless hammering the situation had grown desperate. The Finns struggled furiously to seal up every path and passage from the defile between the two great lakes but it was, as Meretskov observed, a losing battle. Soviet troops bored on with Finnish resistance stiffening nearer to the frontier; roads were mined and barricaded, bridges blown, stretches of open country mined. The Red Army pounded the Finns into asking for an armistice and into repudiating the Waffenbrudenchaft with Germany. Already on 28 July President Ryti appeared at Finnish Headquarters to inform Mannerheim of his decision to lay down his office and begged the Marshal to assume the presidency. President Ryti resigned on 1 August and Mannerheim took up his new post, intent on leading Finland out of the war.

The Road to Berlin: Stalin's War with Germany, by Erickson (pp. 197, 329-330) [5] [6]

The Russians now made plans for a major attack which would take Finland out of the war by crushing it as the first step in the 1944 summer offensive...

As a preliminary to the planned Soviet major offensive, the Leningrad and Karelian Fronts opened an attack against Finland on June 10. The Finns were both surprised and overwhelmed as the Red Army battered in the westernmost section of the Finnish front facing Leningrad. In a few days the Red Army forced the Finns back on the Karelian isthmus, breaking their intermediate defensive position and pushing them back to their last line of defense on the Soviet side of the 1940 border. The Finns appealed for help to the Germans, who sent supplies and weapons withheld earlier when it looked as if Finland might leave the war.
The assistance of the Germans, an evacuation under Soviet pressure of almost all of the eastern Karelian territory occupied by the Finnish army in 1941, the exhaustion of the Red Army offensive, and the transfer of Soviet units from the Leningrad Front to the south enabled the Finns to hold on during July. Their situation was, however, most precarious. They could not replace the casualties suffered. They had promised the Germans, in effect in exchange for the aid received, that they would stay in the war; but there was no real prospect of halting any new major Soviet attack.
...the Finnish government realized that there was no choice but to accept whatever terms the Soviet Union offered. The President who had promised the Germans to stay in the war resigned and was replaced by Marshal Mannerheim, who persuaded the Finnish parliament to agree to the demands placed before them and sign an armistice on September 4, 1944.

A World At Arms: A Global History Of World War II, by Weinberg (pp. 660, 703) [7][8]

Diversionary moves were co-ordinated at the extreme southern and northern ends of the whole theatre of operations — the latter not merely diversionary, since a subsidiary component of the summer offensive was intended to be a surprise attack designed to drive Finland out of the war...
The attack on Finland by the Leningrad Front began on 9 June and, though mounted only with marginal force, soon consumed the tiny Finnish army's reserves. On 28 July the Finnish President asked leave to transfer his office to the national leader, Marshal Mannerheim, who at once began negotiations for a separate peace.

The Second World War, by Keegan (pp. 479-480)

While commander of the Leningrad Front, Govorov cracked the Wehrmacht's siege of Leningrad in January 1943, planned and conducted the massive offensives that raised the siege of Leningrad entirely and liberated the southern portion of the Leningrad region in January and February 1944, and orchestrated the offensive on the Karelian Isthmus, which liberated the region from Finnish control and ultimately drove Finland from the war, in June and July 1944.

Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War, 1941-1943, by Glantz (p. 494)

After Stalingrad in February 1943, Finland's leaders realized a German defeat was inevitable and re-established contacts with the Soviets. The intermittent negotiations broke down in February 1944. but the massive Soviet offensive of June 1944 forced Finland out of the war. Mannerheim stabilized the front with the help of emergency aid purchased from Germany. In return Ryti, the Finnish president, gave an undertaking that Finland would not make a separate peace. However, after the Soviets shifted troops away from Finland for the drive on Germany, Mannerheim replaced Ryti and promptly reneged on the promise. To the disgust of Hitler, Finland made that separate peace and subsequently used force to evict German forces from its territory.

Hitler's Arctic War: The German Campaigns in Norway, Finland and the USSR, 1940-1945, by Mann and Jörgensen (p. 208) [9]

As a prologue to the main operation in White Russia, an offensive against Finland began on 9 June 1944, and Viipuri (Vyborg), the Finnish stronghold (which had German troops among its defenders), was taken on 20 June. On 21 June another attack was begun in southern Karelia north of Lake Ladoga. Both offensives were successful, and in September 1944 the Finns asked for peace.

Soviet Blitzkrieg: The Battle for White Russia, 1944, by Dunn (p. 18) [10]

The Vyborg and Svir-Petrozavodsk front offensive operations were conducted within the framework of the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk strategic operation... Soviet troops liberated the territory of the Karelo-Finnish ASSR, the northern regions of the Leningrad oblast, and inflicted a crushing defeat on the Finnish Army. Successful actions of this operation significantly changed the situation in the northern sector of the Soviet-German front, predetermined the withdrawal of Finland from the war, and created conditions for the liberation of the Soviet Arctic and northern regions of Norway.

The Stamp of Secrecy Is Removed: Soviet Armed Forces Losses in Wars, Combat Operations and Military Conflicts, by Krivosheev (pp. 177-178)

In order to divert enemy troops away from the target area, Soviet troops would attack Finland prior to the beginning of the main offensive. On 10 June 1944 the assault on Finland began and continued through the next phase of 'Operation Bagration'. Despite German reinforcements, by late August Finland sued for peace.

Strategy and Tactics: Infantry Warfare, by Wiest and Barbier (p. 65) [11]

After the Soviet government failed to drive Finland from the war by diplomatic means in the spring of 1944, the Soviet forces did so militarily in June of that year. On June 10, the troops of General Govorov's Leningrad Front began the Vyborg operation to drive the Finnish forces from the Karelian Isthmus. On June 20 they succeeded in seizing Vyborg but were then rebuffed in their attempts to penetrate deeper into Finland between June 23 and July 13. At the same time, the Soviet forces of the Karelian Front commanded by General Meretskov carried out the Svir-Petrozavodsk offensive... The offensive was designed to clear Finnish forces from the area east of Lake Ladoga. The offensive lasted until August 9 during which time General Meretskov's troops liberated the territory between Lake Ladoga and Lake Onega. By August 10, 1944, the battle for Leningrad had come to an end. All the German and Finnish forces had been driven from the Leningrad region.

Frozen Tears: The Blockade and Battle of Leningrad, by Pleysier (p. 163) [12]

In September 1944 Finland was at the end of its tether. The resources of this tiny Scandinavian country had been stretched to the limits in its war against Russia. The Soviet offensive in June 1944 had shown Finland this, and Finnish delegates began asking for terms.

WWII Journal: Waffen-SS, by Merriam (p. 23) [13]

The Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive Operation of 1944, although small in scope and conducted by a portion of the forces of the Leningrad and Karelian Fronts as well as the Baltic Fleet, ended with a major defeat for the enemy troops on the Karelian Isthmus and in Southern Karelia. The enemy was thrown back to the Soviet-Finnish frontier virtually along its entire extent and this accelerated the pulling out of Finland from the war.

Military History Journal - On the Question of Strategic Operations in the Great Patriotic War, by Gurkin and Golovnin (p. 12) [14]

When the cease-fire came into effect at noon on the 2nd, the remaining 207,000 Germans in Italy surrendered. On the eastern front, meanwhile, a Soviet offensive, begun on June 9, had driven Finland out of the war by September 19.

German Wars 1914-1945, by Goodspeed (p. 502)

In the far north, the Soviets moved to take Finland out of the war in June, smashing through Karelia, the scene of humiliations in 1940, to take Vyborg. By September the Finns realized their attempt to hold on to what they had lost in 1940 was hopeless, and they agreed to terms with the Soviets.

A Military History of Russia: From Ivan the Terrible to the War in Chechnya, by Stone (p. 210)

The Finnish government turned down the Soviet peace terms at that time. After the Soviet summer offensive of that year broke the Finnish front and it was becoming increasingly obvious that Germany was rapidly losing the war, the Finns once again sought peace. This time the terms offered to them in September - which they felt obliged to accept - included both the cession of the Petsamo area and a Soviet base at Porkkala instead of Hango.

Visions of Victory: The Hopes of Eight World War II Leaders, by Weinberg (pp. 119-120) [15]

Germany's other Axis ally Finland had sought a separate peace with Stalin in February 1944, but would not accept the initial terms offered. On June 9, the Soviet Union began the Fourth strategic offensive on the Karelian Isthmus that, after three months, forced Finland to accept an armistice.

Politics of Convenience: Upset the Balance of Power, by Pal (p. 129) [16]

In the Red Army's gigantic 1944 offensive Russian troops cracked the Mannerheim Line a second time (in June) and Finland had to accept another humiliating peace (September 19, 1944).

Encyclopedia of Battles: Accounts of Over 1,560 Battles from 1479 B.C. to the Present, by Eggenberger (p. 142) [17]

In June 1944, the Soviet Union launched a major offensive on the Finnish front, following which, at the end of July 1944, the Finns were ready to negotiate terms of peace again. The Finnish Government accepted the armistice terms suggested by the Soviets.

Implementing Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts: The Case of Finland, by Hannikainen, Hanski and Rosas (p. 42) [18]

The Soviet summer offensive in the Baltic region brought Finland to an armistice on 4 September and by breaking through to Riga in mid-August, also made the German position in the Gulf of Finland untenable.

Submarines of the Russian and Soviet Navies, 1718-1990, by Polmar and Noot (p. 108) [19]

In June 1944, Soviet troops began the destruction of German Army Group Center (Operation Bagration), while supplementary offensives drove Romania and Finland out of the war in August and September, respectively.

Stress of War, Conflict and Disaster, by Fink (p. 279) [20]

Quotes 2

After July 17 the front became stabilized and later actions can best be described as positional warfare (p. 298-299) The Ryti-Ribbentrop agreement had served Mannerheim's purposes by obtaining the aid needed from Germany to stabilize the fronts. By the end of July the fronts were quiet and Germany was withdrawing the reinforcements it had sent to Finland. (p. 314) The military situation in Finland had returned to positional warfare and the Soviets continued to withdraw forces from the fronts. The Soviet forces on the Karelian Isthmus were reduced to 10 infantry divisions and 5 tank brigades by mid-August. The military situation looked more promising than even the most optimistic observer could have predicted only four to six weeks earlier. (p. 315-316)

Finland's War of Choice: The Troubled German-Finnish Coalition in WWII, By Henrik Lunde, 2011.

It appeared that as in the Winter War of 1939-40, although the Soviet Union could claim a victory, its offensive fell short of the success it ought to have had, largely for the same reasons — underestimation of the Finnish capacity to resist and rigid, unimaginative Soviet tactical leadership.

Stalingrad to Berlin. The German Defeat in the East, by Earl Ziemke (p. 388)

It appeared that as in the Winter War, although the Soviet Union could claim a victory, its offensive had failed, largely for the same reasons - underestimation of the Finnish capacity to resist and rigid, unimaginative Soviet tactical leadership.

German Northern Theatre Of Operations 1940-45, by Ziemke, p.288

Hitler's Forgotten Armies: Combat in Norway and Finland, by Bob Carruthers (2012)

Which quite bluntly states that Stalin's great offensive against Finns failed to reach its conclusion: Finland was not defeated militarily. In fact from military strategic view point the offensive was Soviet Union's failure, which was caused by the fact that neither of the fronts participating to the offensive managed to accomplish their respective operational/strategic missions...

Kun hyökkääjän tie suljettiin, by Moisala & Alanen (1988) (When attackers road was blocked)

In mid-July the front line along the entire Karelian Isthmus stabilized, and further offensive operations by Soviet forces were not attempted. Active combat no longer took place here for the rest of the war. Despite the defeat of its army, Finland continued the war. The Soviet army had to reach new victories in South Karelia, Belorussia, the Baltics and other directions of the German-Soviet front to force the reactionary Finnish government to accept the conditions of the Soviet government and exit the war from the side of Hitler's Germany.

Bitva za Leningrad, by Platonov

During the final assault on Vyborg, the Stavka radioed a directive to the Leningrad Front promoting Govorov to the rank of Marshall of the Soviet Union and both Zhdanov and Gusev to the rank of Colonel General. Although the capture of Vyborg and the Red Army advance to the Vuoksi River line essentially ended the Vyborg operation, it did not satisfy the STAVKA's strategic aims. & By 14 July it was clear to Soviet and Finn alike that Govorov's offensive into Southern Finland had failed.

The Battle for Leningrad, by David Glantz

By the middle of July, the Soviet offensive was stopped before it had reached the 1940 border. The Finnish army was severely bloodied but still unbeaten. Once again Finnish resistance succeeded in raising the cost of conquest beyond what Soviet leaders were willing to invest on a peripheral front

Finland in the New Europe, by Max Jacobson

In the event, when this Soviet offensive emerged in 1944, it did push the Finns back out of East Karelia, but the Finnish lines then held further to the west, at great cost to the Finns, but also at great costs to the Soviets

Preemption, Prevention and Proliferation: The Threat and Use of Weapons in History - Page 92by George H. Quester

The danger was averted all thanks to the fact that the Soviet offensive had been stopped close to out borders... && Finland's second war with the Soviet Union began in June 1941 and ended in September 1944. The Finnish army weathered the storm, and the main offensive mounted by the Soviet Union in June 1944 was stopped after heavy fighting... In consequence Finland lost territory to the Soviet Union, and in addition the armistice concluded in September 1944 obliged Finland to lease to the Soviet Union an area west of Helsinki for use as a naval and military base. Finland also had to pay considerable war reparations. Its situation was weak.

Witness to History, by Mauno Koivisto

Following their successes on the German front in 1943-44, the Soviet Red Army carried out the fourth of its ten strategic attacks, and it proved to be the only one which failed to reach its goal

Finnish Aces of World War 2 by Kari Stenman

Comments to Quotes

You took your quote of Vehviläinen's book out of context. He writes right after that:

p.140:It was decided to leave the Soviet demand (for surrender) unanswered, and consequently the German demand had to be accepted.

p.142:In Moscow, Stalin told the American Ambassador that the Finns had not responded to the Soviet Union's demand for surrender. He said that the leading members of the Finnish government were agents of Hitler and completely under the control of the Germans. The terms of surrender for the "satellites" of Germany had been drafted by a comittee under the presidency of Marshal K.J. Voroshilov. The secretary of the comittee had sent a draft of those conditions that concerned Finland to the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 26 June. They stipulated that Finnish territory should be occupied partially or completely as deemed fit by the Sopreme Command of the Soviet Armed Forces, that the Finnish Army was to be disarmed, that the Civil Guards be interned, and that the civilian administration and the entire economy of Finland be placed under the control of the Soviet Union. These terms were never presented to Finland, because it refused to discuss capitulation. The Finns learned of them only fifty years later, when the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and its archives began to be opened up to researchers.

So, Finns were shaken by the strength of the Soviet offensive and asked for peace. When they heard the Soviet reply which demanded capitulation, they said: "Hell, no!" and continued fighting. And finally fought the Soviet offensive to standstill. After that Soviet's changed their demands to something more acceptable. --Whiskey (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about goals

It would be appreciated if you would remove the bias from the question because in its current form it is not NPOV which unfortunately means it has really no value. First you state the perceived goal of the operation while leaving out the actual stated operative goals of the offensive. Second you use hindsight in evaluating offensives success. Furthermore term 'strategic' is not always attached to the name of the offensive so it should be left out. Such terms are not included in English nomenclature to the name of the offensive in any case. Make the question neutral and then leave it there. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It is a strategic offensive... The main goal is not perceived by me; it is what reliable sources say. I stated my view and you stated yours about operational-tactical goals, so what do you want? -YMB29 (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Also before I ask for a third opinion, I suggest you write a real result, like "Decisive Finnish victory" or whatever. Otherwise, others might think that you have no position of your own and are simply denying what is being pointed out to you. -YMB29 (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because the name in one language includes term 'strategic' does not mean it should be only considered as such. I don't have a good statement for the result since you have repeatedly refused to take part in actually discussing what it could be. How can there be collaborative effort with this regard with such a denial? Given the extent of Soviet failures in capturing or accomplishing stated and set goals of the offensive using a blanket statement such as 'Soviet victory' is just not in any way neutral - neither is the one you appear to be trying to insert as my statement (ie. 'Finnish victory'). - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I suggested "Soviet strategic victory", but you don't want that too. You accuse me of what you yourself do. I am the one discussing the result, presenting sources and proving my point, while all you do is deny what I suggest and what reliable sources say.

So are you going to suggest a result or not? -YMB29 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually you are again wrong so please do not try to say what i stated. I already made a suggestion regarding the result for you to evaluate earlier but you seemingly refused to acknowledge that it even existed quite clearly showing that you had no interest in collaborative effort - 'Operational Soviet failure, Strategic Soviet success' as per sources, if you want to avoid edit wars (not by me but knowing the history of the topic) i would suggest on not insisting on term 'victory' - it will bring only grief since i doubt very much it would be accepted as NPOV. Reliable sources speak of the result of the offensive on two separate levels so you can not just choose one and ignore the other according to your preferences. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: 'Operational Soviet failure, Strategic Soviet success' - stating a negative result would be anti-Soviet POV and also confusing - if that means Finnish operational victory or stalemate then why cover it with a negative statement?. Also, the English Wikipedia logic would be to state the strategic outcome first. And, the standard vocabulary here is 'victory' rather than 'success'. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wanderer602 does not want to accept that this was a victory of any kind for the Soviets. -YMB29 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Earlier comment is still valid: I left the actual phrasing of the result open. So strategic could go first, nothing there to prevent it. It was never a Finnish operation nor was it a Finnish campaign so determining it to be Finnish victory is impossible since there were nothing for Finns to achieve as far as goals for the operation are concerned (separate engagements within the campaign are a different case) - well other than stop the Soviet offensive, but that is a perceived greater (ie. strategic) goal instead of stated goal AFAIK, in which Finns succeeded. From Finnish point of view the fighting in the summer of 1944 is considered to be part of the 'Soviet grand (great/huge/massive) offensive (attack/assault)'. Victory might be closer to the standard vocabulary but it is not a strictly enforced rule, furthermore i find no reason to cause undue griefing with the article by intentionally choosing a phrasing that is likely to be contested. I would rather try to find a lasting resolution instead of creating potential battlefield.

@YMB29: Again it is rather insulting for you to state something regarding my opinions that is blatantly false. Either stay quiet or behave like any respectful editor should. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I just stated what I observed. -YMB29 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The strategic level is most important; you know this and don't want to admit it.

You are threatening me that Finnish users will edit war if it says Soviet victory because in Finland they are taught something else?

I told you that operational failure is dubious because you only look at the operational goals not accomplished. -YMB29 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have never threatened you in any way. I only noted given the page history that insisting on weighted statements in the results will end up in edit warring. That much is obvious from the past page history. Unless your goal is to intentionally aggravate other editors and cause battlefield situation then it would be preferable to use less weighted statement for the result to be used. Statements regarding the operative goals are quite clear, including to the land targets goal was to destroy Finnish army (see Solonin, who quoted Chief of LF Staff). - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by they are clear?

If other users cannot accept the result that is based on reliable sources, then too bad. We just have to deal with the edit warring. Similar thing happened with Soviet victory in the Continuation War article. I told you that "less weighted" would be "Soviet strategic victory", but you don't want to consider that too. -YMB29 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Meaning that they are known in several sources. Repeatedly using the statement 'reliable sources' is rather dubious behavior for you since my statements are also supported by reliable sources. I gave you an option which would use both views but so far you have refused to even discuss its merits. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I told you that I think your "option" (operational failure...) is dubious.

Your statements are mostly based not on sources, but on misinterpretations of sources (Platonov, Glantz, Ziemke...). -YMB29 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not any more interpretations that what you have with your sources. All those sources state that offensive failed to achieve its (operational) goals. What else do you need? - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't manipulate sources like you.

Failure to achieve some operational goals does not mean the whole operation is not a victory. You may think that operational goals are more important or on the same level as strategic goals, but that is just your opinion... -YMB29 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Show me a single instance where sources would have been manipulated. So you are saying that failure is not a failure? By same logic you are using there Finland won the war, after all it remained independent. You are only one who has been 'rating' different levels but so far there has been nothing to support such an act. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If you by now don't understand the difference between strategic, operational and tactical goals and the importance of each, you are lost... Or most likely you are denying the obvious again because you don't want to admit that you are wrong.

The goal for Finland when it started the war was not remaining independent, and you know this.

I have explained how you manipulate sources many times now on this page. Using an outdated quote from Ziemke, which he corrected, and then claiming that it is the same thing is not a manipulation? You have always done this, see the old section above [21]. -YMB29 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I do perceive the difference between them but i try not to discriminate according to that. You can not decide to ignore operations stated operative goals because you consider its strategic effect more important - that already is NPOV, it involves you opinion on what is important with regards to the article. You can not consider Finland and Continuation War without taking into account what preceded it. Finland intended to stay out of the coming war but was forced into it by the Soviet Union when it invaded Finland in the Winter War. Ziemke's 'corrected' quote, like you state it, does not change what he is saying. Last i checked the third opinion argument ended with you disagreeing when the opinion was inquired from the author when the authors comment disagreed with your interpretation on the matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What author?

Ziemke's corrected quote totally changes what he is saying. Your continued denial of this only proves my point, that you manipulate sources.

It is not about my opinion; military science considers strategic goals to be more important (see below). It is amusing how you keep denying this...

And don't give me excuses for Finland starting the war. -YMB29 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Glantz, as discussed in the sections you linked into. Ziemke's quote does not really change. For Ziemke, first one states "its offensive had failed", which is obvious, and other one "its offensive fell short of the success it ought to have had" which clearly states that the offensive failed to reached its (planned) goals. Actually that is the Soviet perspective to the matter which is hardly valid for all comparisons let alone this. Yet even if it was you can not ignore operational goals and the failures to accomplish them just because you dislike them. Again, we are discussing this offensive itself, not the war as a whole in this article. Winter War is acknowledged as the reason why Finns ended up into the WWII in the first place, reasons for taking part to the Continuation War nonwithstanding. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So the goal for Finland was to take back the lost land and add more, not independence...

We are discussing a strategic offensive, which is judged by whether or not it accomplished its strategic goals (or aims).

Again, this is a Soviet offensive, so we have to look at it from a Soviet perspective, and it is not like the view on strategic operations is much different for other countries.

Ziemke means that some goals were not reached. The first quote said failed, which would mean that almost no goals were achieved.

So you still want Glantz's supposed email to be used as a source here? What he writes in his books is what matters, not what he supposedly wrote in an email... -YMB29 (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is only your deduction that only strategic goals need to be considered. You actually need to provide some reasons (ie. sources) why only strategic goals would need to be included for consideration. Not reaching the goals is failing in accomplishing the goals, i see conflict there. As discussed in length in the referred section what Glantz states in this books is ambiguous. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you make it sound ambiguous.

As for the goals, see below again. -YMB29 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Since others editors could not agree upon it it was nothing but ambiguous. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about Glantz. In the quote you found he talks only about a phase of the offensive, while the other quotes talk about the whole offensive. -YMB29 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet every one else saw it ambiguous for use as a source for either way for the offensive - as discussed in length back then. Hence the need to ask for clarification directly from the author, which you refused immediately since it contradicted your POV. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh again with that supposed email...

You want to see it only as ambiguous, because otherwise you have to admit that you are wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not the only one who perceived it as ambiguous, on the contrary you were the sole person in the debate who did not consider it ambiguous. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You and Whiskey were against me, so I guess I was wrong... You still insist that it is ambiguous after it has been explained to you again and again... -YMB29 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Whiskey and me were not the only ones who thought the statements were ambiguous. Actually you were the sole person who thought that they were not. As was discussed in length. And when verification for the statement was requested you refused to acknowledge it at any level. Furthermore you arguments are still the same and the same rebuttal is still valid. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you still think that an email that someone claims to have received from an author is a valid source for Wikipedia, then you should not be editing here...

Only published sources can be valid. Furthermore, posting private correspondence without permission from the writer is not allowed. -YMB29 (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It was used as a last resort in effort to resolve the issue with ambiguous statements. Also i can only assume Whiskey did ask for that since he did the inquiry. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sure he did...

You see ambiguous statements every time you read something you don't like... -YMB29 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, all other participants in the discussion agreed that the statements from Glantz were ambiguous but since you alone opposed that view according to you it means that the statement from Glantz was ambiguous was solely my personal view? Could you please clarify what exactly do you mean with your vague statements? And could you finally keep you insinuations away from the discussions, they are still doing nothing else but degrading you as well as your position. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And so you think that you are not degrading yourself?

You and Whiskey have been known to deny everything that does not go well with the Finnish POV, so I don't see how there was any real consensus against me. -YMB29 (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As you well know Whiskey and I were not alone thinking that it was ambiguous. So again what exactly is your point? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Who else, Jaan? He only started having doubts when Whiskey posted the email. He actually took it seriously... -YMB29 (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is probably quite telling on the complexity of the matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No, an email should not be taken seriously as a source here. -YMB29 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Strategic outcome goes first. Should we, however, want to state an alternative operational result such as 'Finnish operational victory' or 'operational stalemate' we would need sources that actually state that. The Soviet failure to achieve some or even most of its operational goals is not sufficient to label it a Finnish victory or a stalemate as Finland failed to defend some major targets as well. The result is not obvious enough to decide it upon our own analysis without OR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

See several of the quotes above, also Moisala & Alanen (translated)

Stalin's great offensive against Finns failed to reach its conclusion: Finland was not defeated militarily. In fact from military strategic view point the offensive was Soviet Union's failure, which was caused by the fact that neither of the fronts participating to the offensive managed to accomplish their respective operational/strategic missions..

Military strategic here does not refer to overall strategic situation but instead to what Soviet/Russian parlance would call operational goals. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if we focus specifically on this source, what positive result would you make out of this? 'Finland not defeated' and 'Soviet Union's failure' are negative and therefore ill-suited for our purpose. I can see the authors do not support 'Soviet victory' as the result but where do they suggest the Continuation War was lost then, at the negotiation table? Anyways, the post-Soviet Finnish research unfortunately does not qualify as mainstream. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, you only have one Finnish source supporting you, with regard to the offensive being a strategic failure.

Looking at the translation, it is not even clear what the author refers to.

What was the main goal of the Soviet offensive according to the source? Conquest of Finland? -YMB29 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You are perfectly aware that it is not the sole source that states that the offensive failed so please do not try to insinuate that it would have been. Goals according to the source were the same as the goals for the phases of the offensive. Also authors include destruction of Finnish army on the north shore of Ladoga by pincer movement by both LF and KF as one (verified by the quote from LF chief of staff) and leave open exactly how far offensive would have reached in the west stating that likely end line would actually have been Helsinki-Lahti line.

@Jaan: If you consider the time when Finnish leadership started making moves toward ending hostilities then you can look for Stalingrad and Kursk (and events between) as a reason for it. Because that is the time Finnish leaders perceived the ultimate German defeat in the war. By 1944 it was even acknowledged that 1939 borders would not be acceptable for the Soviet Union. In other words it was the overall strategic situation in the WWII. Offensive did not change much in that regard, before the offensive parties were in negotiations and after the offensive parties were at negotiations (but this time with reduced Soviet demands). Only time they were not negotiating was during the offensive when Finns rejected the Soviet note perceived as demand for unconditional surrender. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Finns were unwilling to accept Soviet terms, but after the offensive they changed their minds. Any reduction in demands was due to international pressure, especially British.[22]

Historians say that the offensive forced the Finns to exit the war on the Axis side, so we don't need your analysis.

I am talking about strategic goals and evaluating the offensive strategically; you have only one Finnish source that does that... -YMB29 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Again the source you placed, just like the others, only mention that British (ie. foreign powers) influenced it. Not that they would have caused it like you stated. Sources is quite clear about this 'helped in persuading' only means that they contributed to the decision not that they would have forced it or even having been primary force behind the decision. Except those are not all what the offensive was about. You can not go ignoring certain aspects of the offensive just because you dislike them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anything; a strategic offensive is about accomplishing strategic goals.

So where is your source that the Soviet decision was influenced by something other than international pressure? -YMB29 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring several sources which state that offensive failed, just because you do not like them does not grant you a free pass to ignore them regardless how you consider them. Offensive had also other goals than strategic ones as discussed in quite a length before, again just because you refuse to accept them does not mean they would not have been there. Such a source is actually the one you provided. It explicitly mentions that Britain 'helped in persuading' not that 'Britain persuaded'. First one (used by source) is an acknowledgment of contribution while the other one is statement of accomplishing the whole action. Using it a source for a statement that 'any reduction in demands was due to international pressure' is actually (blatant) source manipulation of which you just accused me of. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there are no other reasons given by any other source, so it can be assumed that it was due to international pressure only. Plus "Britain helped" in that context means that Britain was not the only country that helped, not that there were other reasons.

Once again, a strategic offensive is meant to accomplish strategic goals. All other type of goals only serve those strategic goals and by themselves mean nothing. If you don't want to understand this, it is your problem.

Two Finnish sources you found say that it failed; one says strategically and the other does not clarify. Considering that patriotic Finnish historiography often assumes that the main strategic goal was to conquer Finland, this is not surprising. However, this cannot be taken seriously when the real main goal is well known. -YMB29 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because other reason(s) is (are) not stated does not mean you can interpret the statement in the way prefer it to be interpreted, again you are inserting your own bias into interpreting the articles which is source manipulation. You can not assume something that the source is not saying. Nor can you argue that lack of something is proof of its absence when the existence of the other reasons is clearly noted in the text. And again, source does not state if it was another country or other reason that contributed to the issue only that British diplomatic effort contributed to it, it does not in any way disclose what the other reasons were or even their relative importance to the matter of any of the factors. Yet again you arbitrarily decide to ignore all other aspects - yet the fact remains that the offensive had operative goals which Soviet forces failed to accomplish. Article discusses the whole of the offensive, not just strategic aspect of it. There are several more sources (non-Finnish) than just the Finnish ones as you are perfectly aware of so please try to stick with the facts. Just because you do not like them does not mean they would not exist. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So where are the other sources that say that the whole offensive failed?

The result in the infobox has to reflect the outcome of the offensive. The failed operational objectives cannot make the offensive a failure when the main goal was achieved. You still did not write what result you are after...

Read the source again. It says that the Soviets were persuaded, not forced. Britain helped persuade them means that there were others who were persuading them, not forcing them as you imply. Again, where are your sources for the other reasons? You have none, so you just keep on speculating and denying... -YMB29 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the quoted sources again in that case. Failed operational objectives means that on operational level the offensive failed which is still valid statement for the infobox. For operational failure it does not really matter what the strategic outcome was. And as for the source, it does not say that Soviets were persuaded by the British, it does not even state that Britain helped persuade, it states merely that Britain helped in persuading. Which only states that Britain contributed as one of the possibly several factors that affected the Soviet decision, not that they would have caused or that it would have been the sole cause of it like your earlier statement said. Which was source manipulation from your part, either use what the source states or don't use it at all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The source does not suggest that there were other reasons. You are trying to manipulate it to make it sound like it does.

As for operational "failure", see below. -YMB29 (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is saying that there were other reasons. It is in the phrasing. It is merely noting that British diplomatic influence contributed to the matter, not that they would have caused it. Difference between doing something and taking part in doing something. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes they took part in persuading the Soviets. Others took part in persuading them too. There is no indication that there were other reasons, besides persuasion (diplomatic pressure), for the decision. -YMB29 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

But the source is not stating so, all it is saying is that British diplomacy contributed to the decision. Not that it would have caused the decision. Source does not state in any way what the other reasons were. Nor does it even hint in any way that solely diplomacy would have contributed to the result. By stating so you are already misrepresenting the source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It talks about diplomatic pressure only and there is no hint of any other reasons, so it is not a misinterpretation.

Your denial and misinterpretation of what quotes from sources say is getting old... -YMB29 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it discusses solely the diplomatic pressure, but it leaves it totally open in its wording that the mentioned diplomatic pressure was not the sole cause why Soviets were persuaded to do something. It does not even disclose if other pressure for the Soviets would have been in form of diplomacy or not. It can solely be used as a source for stating that British diplomacy contributed to the Soviet decision (anything beyond that and you are already misrepresenting the source). Not to state that it was the sole cause or even that diplomacy was the sole cause. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That is again your misinterpretation and speculation.

You are still unable to provide a source that gives another reason... -YMB29 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It is that from your part when you are extrapolating on what source is actually stating. You can not go over and deduct something that is not there. The source you used already states that British influence alone did not persuade the Soviets. What else do you need as you have the source right there? - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, maybe the British did not do it alone; the Americans might have helped too...

In spite of their relative severity, the terms were tolerable. As an example, Eden pointed to the halving of the reparations bill to $300 million, thanks to the British, and the extension of the period of payment. Taken as a whole, the treaty did not, in Sir Anthony's view, imply in any way the end of Finland as an independent nation.

Between East and West: Finland in International Politics, 1944-1947, by Tuomo Polvinen (p. 36)

Just admit that you are wrong and stop embarrassing yourself. -YMB29 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So you find a source in which a person named 'Eden' (British foreign secretary) said that in his personal opinion proven by the quotation used (and not even as that of the author's) it was due to the 'thanks to the British'... For one that does not change what the earlier source stated in any manner. Also it is still not in any way disclosing that other other factors could have influenced the Soviet decision - all you have is a British politician thanking Britain. As seen from the following quote:

...and the terms of the peace could well have been harsher. The reason was probably not any sense of magnanimity on the part of the Soviet Union. Credit must be given to the fighting quality of the Finnish soldiers and the Soviets may well have concluded that it was not worth another costly offensive to impose harder terms. Credit must also be given to the fact that the Finns still enjoyed considerable sympathy in the western democracies, especially in the US. This may have served as a brake on Soviet policy. Lunde (2011), p. 377-378

Case that it would have been solely British or solely diplomatic result proven false, nothing else to see here. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nothing to see here, nothing new, as you keep denying the obvious as always...

Lunde is not talking about the halving of the reparations, but about harsher terms in general, like the unconditional surrender demand that Finns often claim they received. Another manipulation of a source by you.

I guess Eden was a nobody and was not in a position to know about the diplomatic talks of that time... We should go by your speculation instead... -YMB29 (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lunde is discussing the terms as a whole, which does include the halving of the reparations. There is no basis for the claim that he would have been discussing something else as Lunde writes "the terms of the peace". Unless you can prove that the reduced reparations were not part of the terms of the peace then it includes the reduced reparations. And Eden was not nobody, however what is stated above is only the personal opinion of a British politician regarding British activities which is not even necessarily shared by the historian writing it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So what historians do not agree with Eden?

You are the one who has to prove that Lunde is talking about the halving, not me. -YMB29 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you actually read what i stated, i'll repost the relevant part here for convenience: is not even necessarily shared by the historian writing it. Since the author specifically includes that statement as quote from Eden it is solely Eden's personal opinion on the matter and nothing else, it is not historian agreeing with it.

Actually no, i don't. Lunde is explicitly talking about the terms as a whole which does include the reparations. Unless of course you have source stating that the reparations were not part of the terms for the peace. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

He does not talk specifically about the reparations being halved. Harsher terms could mean occupation or more land concessions. So it is your problem to find a source if you want to counter my sources.

I guess the author is quoting Eden just for fun and does not believe what he is saying... Like I said, stop embarrassing yourself. Did not you just tell me to stop degrading myself? Well follow your own advice... -YMB29 (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

He is discussing of the terms as a whole, which includes reparations unless you can prove that reparations were not part of the terms for the peace. He is quoting Eden, with that he is showing Eden's personal opinion on the matter, nothing more, nothing less. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So why would he refer to Eden on this if he did not agree?

As a whole could mean anything, but we are talking about a specific term. -YMB29 (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Representing personal opinions in his text does not require the author to agree with it. It does not even require author to disagree with it.

Again nice twisting of the statement but it explicitly is talking about all the terms of the peace. So unless, again, you have a source which proves that reduced reparations were not part of the peace terms this whole discussion is pointless since the one-sided (ie. solely British influence) does not hold up. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it is up to you to prove that he is talking about the reparations or find another source that does talk about them. General speculation from an author is hardly valid for this.

So why did the author refer to Eden? Just to fill lines in his book? -YMB29 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I don't, Lunde explicitly refers to the terms of the peace. Which with current understanding includes the reparations, unless you can prove that it does not. Trying to shift the proof of burden won't help you here. Expressing personal opinions of notable personalities is nothing strange in history writing. It is there to represent the view of Eden. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would he present a view he does not agree with and not criticize it?

With current understanding... That is your understanding, your interpretation of the text. So you have to prove it. Don't try to get away from that... -YMB29 (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

He is presenting a personal opinion of Eden. That is all he does, nothing more, nothing less.

With current understanding i meant that it is currently understood that reparations were part of the terms for peace. Unless you have source which proves that they were not then Lunde is referring also to the reparations when he is talking about the terms for peace. It is not interpretation, it is just what he says. Trying to shift the burden of proof won't help you here, unless you can prove that reparations were not part of the terms for peace then Lunde is talking also about them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he is just presenting a personal opinion... Keep telling yourself that. You find an excuse for everything.

It is amusing how you turn things completely the other way when you have no real arguments. You make it seem like your interpretation of Lunde is a fact and ask me to prove otherwise. By harsher terms Lunde does not mean that only the actual terms accepted would have been harsher. We are talking about the reasons why the reparations were halved and you have provided no sources that prove your claim that it was due to Finnish "defensive victories." Lunde does not say anything about that. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Representing personal opinions is what history books also do. They are not required to agree with the personal opinions however.

Now you are interpreting what Lunde is stating. Read what he wrote. He explicitly states that credit for terms as they were in the treaty belonged also to "the fighting quality of the Finnish soldiers". As we are discussing the terms as they were that already says that credit goes also for the Finnish soldiers, not solely to the British (or Western) diplomacy like you implied in the original text. Feel free to formulate that as you like as long as the message is clear - also you can not even imply in the text that either side would have been dominant or more important, none of the sources say anything about that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Three sources say that the reduction in reparations was due to international pressure. You still found no sources that say that it was due to anything else. Your interpretation of Lunde means nothing here. Find sources that explicitly (no personal interpretations) attribute the reduction to Finnish victories or drop your argument.

So why would an author present an opinion if he does not agree or disagree with it? You make no sense. -YMB29 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No, sources do not say that. They state that international pressure contributed to the reduction in terms in overall, or in reparations in particular. By stating what you did you already intentionally misrepresented the sources. You can not make the sources state something they are not saying and you certainly can not extrapolate on their meanings. Lunde's writing on the other hand is not really open to interpretation, it is just what he wrote, nothing less, nothing more. Just because you don't like that reparations were part of the peace terms you can not choose to ignore that they were. What Lunde is stating is relevant until you can provide a source which proves that reparations were not part of the terms for the peace. Again, trying to shift the burden of proof will not get you anywhere.

The particular paragraph of the text in the book you mentioned discussed British opinions on Finland as well as their actions. In such a context representing a personal opinion on Eden is not in way surprising - it gives in insight into his actions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes insight into British actions that helped Finland.

The sources are clear in what they say. You can continue to make your own personal interpretations about what they or Lunde say, but you are just further prolonging your embarrassment. Just admit that you are wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not into British actions, it gives insight into what Eden stated - and possibly even meant - and nothing else.

So far i haven't done interpretations i have merely read what the sources are saying. You on the other hand have extrapolated on what the sources are saying (= misrepresented). The sources you posted have not stated that British influence would have been the sole reason for the reparations to be reduced, they have stated that it contributed to that effect. Lunde on the other hand discusses the same issue, and with similar results in his writing. And once again, cut the inane insinuations. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing inane about what I am saying. Your behavior here is disruptive.

The sources don't state that it was due to British influence only and nothing else, but they do not suggest that there were other reasons as you claim they do. So the only sourced reason is British or international influence, nothing else... The rest is interpretation and speculation. -YMB29 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In which particular way it is disruptive? Because i disagree with you? Because that is not what being disruptive means.

None of the sources disclose that British efforts were the sole reason for it - and actually only make clear that they only contributed to it, not caused it - and then i provided a source which states that effects to the terms of peace were also due to the Finnish military efforts. True again, no need to speculate, Finnish military had an effect into the reduction of the severity of the terms for the peace - in addition to the diplomacy. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So after this you still ask why you are considered disruptive. You interpret the sources the way you want to, to fit your personal view, even if this means changing entirely what they are saying. This derails the discussion, wastes everyone's time, and prevents constructive edits to the articles.

You also don't listen to what is being explained to you. Reread carefully what I previously wrote. Also, we are not talking about if the terms could have been harsher or not in general, but about a specific term being reduced, so your constant referencing to Lunde is useless for this. -YMB29 (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not what being disruptive means. The sources were not stating what you claimed they were which gives legitimate cause to argue about the issue - that is not being disruptive. Just because i disagree with your opinion does not make it disruptive either.

Again, Lunde is discussing the terms for the peace as a whole, which does include the reparations unless you have sources which state that reparations were not part of the terms for the peace. If you do not have such sources then it is clear that Lunde is also referring to the reparations, is relevant to the issue at hand, and can not just be ignored. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well here you once again have proven my point about your disruptiveness.

The sources support what I have said - the reduction in reparations was due to international pressure.

I am not going to keep explaining it to you over and over. -YMB29 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually the sources only support that it international pressure contributed to it, not that it was solely due to it like you had previously phrased. There is a large difference between the expressions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources only give a sole reason, and only one of them (out of three) could be said to state that the international pressure simply contributed. -YMB29 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No they don't - they only discuss it as having contributed to the result. Only one of the sources you presented said anything in such manner - and even in solely as a personal opinion of Eden, nothing more. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not just a personal opinion as discussed. Anyway, you see what you want to see. If this dispute arises when editing the article, the opinions of others can be asked for. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As per what was discussed only source which states that it would have been only because of international pressure was a personal opinion of Eden, nothing else. While on the other hand i provided source which explicitly stated that the reduced terms for peace (which does include reparations unless you have sources which prove otherwise) was also due to the Finnish military efforts. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that is based on twisted logic; nothing was explicitly mentioned about the reparations. Personal opinion is your personal excuse... -YMB29 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Except like explained to you several times, until you can prove that the reparations were not part of the terms for the peace what Lunde states also concerns reparations. Personal opinion is not any excuse, personal opinion just is what it is, nothing more. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it is just a personal opinion according to you, nothing more.

Until you find a source that explicitly is talking about the reparations being halved, it will remain your speculation. -YMB29 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is also that according to the author, still nothing else. And i do not need to find that, i already showed a source which states that reduced terms were also due to the Finnish military efforts. Unless you can prove that reparations were not part of the terms for the peace then it holds true. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Repeating the same erroneous things over and over again won't help you... -YMB29 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Except those 'same erroneous things' are not erroneous, in fact they are even sourced. You have so far been unable to show that either of them would be erroneous. Until you do that i see little point to continue this discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have explained to you why they are erroneous many times. If you can't understand or pretend to not understand then I can't do anything about that. -YMB29 (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you have explained your opinion, nothing else while you have shown nothing to support it. Which is why you need sources for there to even be an argument. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell yourself that. You have to find sources that support your view and not make dubious interpretations to fit your POV.

So I guess anything that shows you to be wrong is just a personal opinion... -YMB29 (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I found sources and i provided them already - as discussed previously. So far you have not been able to refute them. Also it is not my personal opinion but supported by authors, unlike your stance which is so far clearly supported only by a personal opinion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So you have nothing else to say but to accuse me of what you are guilty of... Very disruptive behavior. -YMB29 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i have nothing else but sources, while you do not. How is that disruptive? You have so far even refused to part constructively into the discussion instead you have only demanded that your view should be predominant. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring what others explain to you, constantly repeating the same things, manipulating sources, accusing others of what you are guilty of is hardly constructive but is instead highly disruptive. -YMB29 (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also I suggest you stop edit warring. Reverting everything you don't like, including well sourced and undisputed information, is also not constructive and highly disruptive. -YMB29 (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was still ongoing. As neither ending remarks had been made nor had there been consensus of the result then the discussion with regards to that topic was (rather is) clearly not over yet. Instead you edited a section that was still being discussed in the talk page - that is disruptive behavior by definition. Other participants have stated that using separate section to address the result would be the best course of action as suggested by the infobox military conflict guidelines. So far you have not taken constructively part to the discussion and instead you set your ideal phrase at the beginning and have only repeated it since while in total disregard to the opposing view which has been presented with sources - in other words the statement you entered was not NPOV. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And let's see what i actually reverted, first i reverted edit to the Losses section, which has been thoroughly discussed previously when it was found that Krivosheyev's values were not corresponding with the dates of the offensive or even with Soviet formations taking part to it for that matter. Given the amount of discussion done previously on that topic the revert back to Krivosheyev's values by IP user was nothing but vandalism. Then i reverted your edit to the result which is actually the topic that is still being discussed with several participants having presented views opposing one presented by you - again editing something that still being discussed is nothing but disruptive. If - or rather when - there is consensus then editing the results entry is perfectly fine but until that it is not. Lack of discussion - or rather lack of answer to a pointless by question presented by you - is not the same as 'reaching the consensus'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well once again you accuse me of what you are guilty of...

The sources say that it was a strategic victory. Your failure to discuss below and your refusal to answer questions does not indicate that the discussion was still going on.

"several participants having presented views opposing one presented by you" - this is just a lie. They also said that it should be a Soviet victory.

A link to the aftermath section is only required when there is no certain result, which is not the case here. Others suggested it because a general "Soviet victory" was disputed by you, however strategic victory is not disputed and is directly supported by sources.

Also, the casualties are still disputed. You did not need to remove my note. This just shows that all you want to do is revert. -YMB29 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As discussed in length that is what the sources may say but it is not what the results entry should say. You are free to write into the aftermath section about the perceived Soviet strategic victory as suggested in the guidelines. Lack of willingness to answer biased question does not indicate that there would have been a consensus that would support your point of view.

No, as said in the comments, if you read them is that there should be no result just a link to aftermath section. Trying to force something else into the results entry is nothing but enforcing NPOV stance of the result.

Actually your note implied in NPOV method that the values would have been Finnish sources, instead they were directly from Soviet archives. Had your note stated that they were from Soviet archives, like they in reality were, then i would have had no trouble with them.

A lie you say, lets see...

Yes indeed, even the infobox template documentation suggest the 'See the Aftermath section." as an alternative in complicated cases. I am even inclined to this now. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC). So Jaan support the separate aftermath section without any result entry. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As such, I'd suggest either going with 'Soviet victory' or, perhaps better still, leaving this field of the infobox blank, and explaining the results of the battle in more detail in the lead. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC). So Nick-D also supports separate aftermath section, and again leaving the results entry blank.

So where exactly did i lie? Those both support what i have been saying all along. Actually they only prove that you lied in your statement above. They do not support entering victory as a result at any level. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You refused to answer because you don't want to admit the obvious.

Maninen's casualties are not directly from Soviet archives; they are estimates based on the archives.

You lied when you stated that others said the opposite of what I was saying. They also agreed that it was a Soviet victory... They just also added that to avoid arguments the aftermath section could be used instead of a general "Soviet victory." However, I did not put "Soviet victory," which you were against; I added "Strategic Soviet victory," which is backed up by sources and was not even disputed by you. -YMB29 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I already stated that it was conditional answer, my stance to the question has been given. Manninen's values are from Soviet archives, he actually only notes that the number of KIA in his values could actually be lower than it really was at the expense of the MIA values (ie. wounded men dying in rear area care). Others actually stated very clearly that they preferred to have no result at all, not even Soviet strategic victory. That is simply a fact, nothing else, you can read their comments yourself. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And where did i lie? This is rather serious question since you are questioning my integrity. As have been seen other editors explicitly stated that they preferred to have no result entry at all. This is diametrically opposed to your stance (to have a result) and actually is the same as mine. So where did i lie? Show me. If you can not you are nothing but slandering your fellow editors. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I quoted that part already: "several participants having presented views opposing one presented by you"

They supported my view, but made another suggestion to stop the argument. This was even before I suggested strategic victory, so no one opposed it. Also, you did not really have a stance before others made suggestions...

About casualties see below. -YMB29 (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the other editors preferred leaving the results empty which is diametrically opposed to your stance of writing there something, so yes, they did present views opposing you. No lies of any kind there, just plain and even accurate statement on what other editors stated. Given that their final statements oppose your view (of having a result) it is logical fallacy to state that they would support you.

Yes, because i did not have any idea what proper and neutral result in an article such as this should be. When some one suggested leaving it blank as an option given and recommended by the infobox guidelines i found it to be exactly what i was after. Before when i did not remember there to have been such an option i did not choose it. Same happened with other editors (Jaan being the case).

You just wanted to avoid a Soviet victory in the infobox, as you still do.

They said that they agree with Soviet victory, so how could they oppose me? This is a logical fallacy...

They suggested no result as a compromise, but that was before I suggested strategic victory. -YMB29 (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Then you should have read more carefully, i initially advocated for a comprise however instead of term victory i would have suggested the use of success. Now they stated that had required to choose either they would have picked Soviet victory but when they were represented another option which allowed leaving the result entry empty they chose that. And no one agreed with your statement of strategic victory being alone in the results box. Several agreed that it could be there as part of the result (including me as well). But since you refused to comprise that avenue was exhausted. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If strategic victory is in the result by itself, it is only your fault since you did not find a source for another result.

Other users did not agree on strategic victory, but they did not disagreed also.

They were asked if it was a Soviet victory and they agreed, but suggested a blank result or the link to the aftermath section just to be safe. You then changed your preferred result, so don't tell me that they followed what you suggested... -YMB29 (talk)

I did found and i did provide which was exactly the reason why the expression was no something that was acceptable. Last thing other users stated was that they preferred to have no result entry at all. Yet you entered one. How is that following the consensus? You can read the entries of that time, i had no real options for the result entry. I even stated so. When the option of not having result entry at all was reminded to me that was exactly what i had been after, to discuss the result in the article itself in greater detail. And i did not say they followed with what i suggested i said it was the same what i supported. So far nothing has changed, including in the entry a note of the Soviet strategic victory is still nothing but your personal view which goes again what others had stated in the talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So show me where someone objects against strategic victory? It is a strategic victory according to the sources, but it is still somehow my opinion... Like I said, anything you don't like is just a personal opinion to you...

You would support any result as long as there is no Soviet victory of any kind in there.

If I changed the result to just victory, you could have accused me of going against consensus, but I did not... So what is your point? -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

They preferred not to have results entry at all. Which as it happens also is against the statement of 'strategic victory'. Which as seen from 3rd opinions was not my personal opinion. My point is that you still went against the consensus. Majority of the participant favored leaving the result entry empty. By providing something to it you already went against the consensus. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually even if I would have put just victory, I would not have went against consensus, as the users giving the third opinions agreed with me. Once again, no result was suggested as slightly more preferable just as a compromise, since you were disputing it. This suggestion did not go against strategic victory suggested by me later; you are again using twisted logic for your claims. -YMB29 (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Persons giving third opinions preferred not to have result at all. You can read it up, it is said in plain. They did not agree with you. Since they preferred not to have result at all giving any result is already going against their opinion.

Yes indeed, even the infobox template documentation suggest the 'See the Aftermath section." as an alternative in complicated cases. I am even inclined to this now. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

As such, I'd suggest either going with 'Soviet victory' or, perhaps better still, leaving this field of the infobox blank, and explaining the results of the battle in more detail in the lead. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Both are stating that they prefer not to have result entry at all. By very nature you suggesting something into the box is already against it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that was before I suggested strategic victory, so you are wrong. You are misusing third opinions like you do sources... And they did not disagree with me since they also agreed with Soviet victory. -YMB29 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How am I misusing them? Both explicitly stated that they preferred more to see no result entry. That is already opposing you since you want to have a result. Addition of a conditional term by your part does not radically change anything. - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Says who? -YMB29 (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the editors giving third opinions changed their stance after you altered your preferred result. According to their last statements both preferred to see 'no result'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

They were not against Soviet victory either. It is not that they did not change their stance... They just did not come back to comment (this was not required of them), so you can't say that they were against what I suggested. -YMB29 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Both explicitly commented that they preferred not to see anything on the result line more than alternatives. That happens to be what they stated, feel free to see the log or history. Trying to suggest any result is already going against what they clearly preferred. So they were against what you suggested. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That is according to your logic... -YMB29 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

According to what they stated. Not according to my logic or my point of view. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So where did they state anything against strategic victory? -YMB29 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are still missing the point - they stated that they preferred to have no result, instead either blank field or link to separate section in the article. Your statement of having any result (regardless of conditionals used) is already opposing the one suggested and preferred by the editors who gave third opinions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No you are missing the point... It is your interpretation to say that their statements apply to all other suggestions made after. -YMB29 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was not made after. At the time i suggested the use of 'Soviet strategic success' for the offensive (as part of the result statement) which you opposed. This was done on 7 July. One of the editors offering third opinions even took part into the discussion. Yet both editors on 9 July instead of other results choose to prefer setting 'no result'. So it is not my interpretation that their statement would not apply to what you are suggesting since they already rejected it (or one analogous to it). - Wanderer602 (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No, at that time the choice was between just victory and no victory. You suggested strategic success and operational failure as an alternative to victory, but you were told that it is confusing and that success is not used. -YMB29 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you are missing the point. The split option with strategic success/victory and separate operational result was not preferred. This option was suggested on 7 July and on 9 July same person giving the 3rd opinion stated that he preferred to have no result at all. In other words the editors giving the third opinion were perfectly aware of this possibility contrary to your earlier statements (the suggestion was made before the editors have their opinions) and still it was not the preferred option. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion was rejected, not mine.

Can you stop trying to manipulate what has been said? -YMB29 (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion at the time included the phrase regarding strategic Soviet success/victory. Which is exactly what you are proposing now. And that proposal was not preferred, instead both editors giving third opinions preferred to have no result at all. What exactly is in your opinion being manipulated in it? - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion does not equal mine, no matter how you try to make it sound. -YMB29 (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So how exactly was my proposition to have split result different from yours especially when the whole concept of split result was not the preferred solution? First the statements are similar, second the editors giving third opinions rejected it already and favored 'no result' instead. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The split result was a compromise. If you don't like it, I can just set it to strategic victory...

Your suggested result was rejected for specific reasons and it is in no way similar to the current result. You always see something that is not there... -YMB29 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would be a compromise but as per third opinions the result should be left empty altogether. Why do you even bother to ask for third opinion if you deliberately ignore them regardless in favor of your own personal opinion? - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not ignore them. If I would have put just victory, you could have said that. -YMB29 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it would still be going against the opinions of the editors who gave the third opinions. The editors giving third opinions said quite clearly that they preferred no result at all so how is it that when you after that still insist on setting a result you can claim that you would not be ignoring them? - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Because this is only according to your logic... -YMB29 (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is it just my logic if i only repeat what the editors who gave the third opinion said? Because by definition that already means that it is not only according to my logic. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you are not just repeating what they have said. -YMB29 (talk)

Both stated explicitly that they preferred to have no result at all. How is that against 'my logic'? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

They did not say that they preferred it over strategic victory. -YMB29 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

They were represented such an option at the time yet chose to have no result at all. So they did prefer 'no result' option over the one you are currently presenting. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that is your manipulation of facts again. -YMB29 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is that so? Before the editors giving the third opinions stated that they preferred to have no result at all an option with partial result of 'strategic success/victory' was represented to them. It was not the preferred option. Just because you do not like it does not mean it did not happen. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand what is going on or you are pretending to not understand... Either way you are being disruptive again. -YMB29 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I quite perfectly understand your statement as well as your evasion. Both editors giving their third opinions were presented with an option that had an partial result of 'Soviet strategic success' (which one of the editors corrected to 'Soviet strategic victory'). Yet they found that they preferred the solution of having no result at all above that. So what exactly is there that i supposedly do not understand? Editors were presented with the option you are campaigning for and they rejected it, and instead preferred to have no result. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you are just continuing with your manipulation of facts.

There is no evasion... Everything was explained to you many times. If you don't get it or refuse to get it by now, there is no sense wasting time. -YMB29 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly in above was manipulation of facts. Editors giving third opinions were represented with an option with similar premise as the one you are supporting. It was not the preferred choice. Instead editors preferred to have no result at all. Why you refuse to accept the third opinions which you personally requested is beyond me unless you only brought it to push forward you personal POV. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are just repeating the same thing...

I accept the third opinions, but not your personal interpretations of them. -YMB29 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to interpret about the third opinions, they explicitly stated that they preferred to have no result at all - your refusal to accept it is however different matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no point in trying to explain this to you anymore. -YMB29 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What is there to explain? The third opinions favored leaving the result entry blank. You oppose this. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Third party editors gave their opinion which differed from any of the suggested options. They expressly stated that the result entry should be left empty or alternatively left as a link to a section in the text where the result would then be discussed. You requested this WP:3. Why do you refuse to accept what they suggested? Just because you have an opinion does not mean it would be sole possible option for the entry. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I did listen to the third opinions and did not put "Soviet victory". Strategic victory is directly sourced and cannot be disputed, unless you find multiple sources that do that. If you don't accept this you can go to dispute resolution (why do I always have to ask for the help of others) instead of edit warring. -YMB29 (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:3 explicitly stated that they preferred to see no result at all. That is simply what they stated after you had requested them to review the issue. You refused to accept their recommendations. Why would i believe you would follow anything from WP:DR either since you already rejected what the WP:3 had suggested? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not reject anything; stop with your accusations. -YMB29 (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Read what WP:3 stated. They said they preferred to see no result at all. Your stance of having a result is already opposite to that and since you are knowingly doing it after the WP:3 had their say you have clearly rejected their recommendations. It is not an accusation, it is a fact. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is your claim that it is a fact...

Anyway, I see that you are not interested in DR, as you just want to repeat the same accusation over and over... -YMB29 (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, you rejected their recommendation and then knowingly went against it, that is nothing but rejecting their ruling.

And no, i fail to see the need for DR since we already have WP:3 which determined that there should not be any result at all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How many times can you repeat the same false accusation?

I think you don't want to go to DR because it will prove you wrong again... -YMB29 (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not an accusation since you have been knowingly doing it after the WP:3 had had their say. I already agreed with WP:3's recommendation. You have not. No, simply no need to go to DR since the matter has already been reviewed by WP:3 who recommended leaving the result entry empty. Only reason i can see for you to strive for that is a desire from your part to somehow game the system since WP:3 already disagrees with the result you insist on inserting to the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Only according to your personal interpretation...

Just admit that you are afraid of DR. -YMB29 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually not according to my interpretation, it was according to the WP:3 interpretation. Which you requested and, when the result was not the one you had hoped for, rejected. I fail to see any reason to admit something that is blatantly false. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation is false.

So I see that you want to add disputed things without talk... -YMB29 (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Except it never was my interpretation, it was the interpretation of the WP:3 which you personally had requested. I only appended the sections you had already placed to the text. I'm perfectly willing to discuss about them however. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't just insert false things into the article and then claim to be ready to discuss them.

Anyone reading the opinions section would see that you are making interpretations favorable to you. -YMB29 (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? What 'false things'? Just state what you mean, cryptic remarks do not help any one. Recommendation to leave the infobox without any result entry came from the WP:3 that you had personally requested so what exactly are you talking about? Just because you do not like something does not make it false. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, tell yourself that.

That recommendation only applied to general victory.

All of your edits to the result are false and you know it. -YMB29 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:3 was represented with an option that was not general victory. They did not prefer it. Instead WP:3 preferred to have no result entry at all. Which of my edits of the results have been false? Show and prove it. Actually your own edit regarding 'partial' operational failure is directly contradicted in the sources however which (Moisala & Alanen) explicitly state that the Soviet operation was a failure. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been fully willing compromise all the time but compromise is not the same as accepting your personal POV and sources and ignoring all the rest like you have done so far with the result entry. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Unlike you I follow what sources say. One Finnish source does not negate all the others...

All of your recent edits are false; you don't have any sources to back them up and rely on OR instead.

Well maybe DR will help you understand. -YMB29 (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Show me just one quote which explicitly states that the offensive was strategic Soviet victory. And so far i have backed the edits with citations so by definition they are not false. Or try even showing where OR is used - so far you have failed to prove any of your allegations. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have proved and explained everything to you many times now, yet you still ask me... -YMB29 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Then show me a quote which explicitly states that the offensive (not war) was a strategic Soviet victory. Neither have you shown anything from OR apart from your own nonspecific claims of it. Since you appear to be unwilling to provide either it might be better to wait for DRN. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You admitted that the sources do say that it was a Soviet strategic victory, but now you pretend that they don't and ask me to prove it again... -YMB29 (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I only requested that you provided a source which explicitly states that it was - it is not in any way different from several of the request you have personally made earlier. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So what is the point if you already agreed with it?

You were making claims based on very loose interpretations of sources, so I asked for quotes that explicitly say what you claimed.

In this case it is clear that the sources talk about a strategic victory even if they don't explicitly say that. -YMB29 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Then it is equally clear that offensive was operational failure since sources even explicitly state so. So you are saying that even though none of the sources actually state that it was a soviet strategic victory it is not an interpretation to state so? Also keep in mind that article is not about the war, only about the offensive. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources talk about the offensive; I don't know where you got the idea that they talk about the war only...

They do state that it was a strategic victory, just not directly, and I confirmed this with others. You even admitted it, so don't pretend now that you did not.

What sources explicitly say that the whole offensive was an operational failure? I have asked many times, but you failed to provide them. -YMB29 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

They discuss both of the war and the offensive but they never make it clear if the result they refer is that of the offensive or that of the war. And like you said, none of them explicitly states that it would have been the result of the offensive. Why i earlier agreed to the split result is that i agreed to compromise in order to reach an agreement (a compromise), but then you kept on adding more qualifiers for the result - which is the reason why i moved to support the 'no result' option since that seems to be the best course of action as recommended by WP:3 - and seemingly also by the DRN as the agreement which you refused to accept was essentially this. Those sources have been provided several times already, feel free to look up the earlier discussion - starting (but not being limited to) Moisala & Alanen who specifically discuss the offensive, not the war, in their book. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, that Finnish book (the authors falsely assume that the main Soviet goal was to conquer Finland) is not enough to challenge what many sources say.

Don't claim that third opinions supported you.

You admitted that I am right about what the sources say. Stop making excuses. -YMB29 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually they are using Soviet operational goals when they are making their assessment. WP:3 stated that they preferred to have no result at all - which is contradictory with your statement. All it shows is that I am willing to agree to compromise, are you? - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, so wait for the mediation to proceed instead of repeating the same things here. -YMB29 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

As it appears, the offensive was neither utter success, nor utter failure. I see two possible text templates that would be consistent with the sources given: Though Soviet army failed to fulfill the goal of reaching of reaching Virojoki-Lappeenranta line, it enjoyed the strategic benefit of forcing Finland from the war. The historians divide on evaluation of the results... + all major viewpoints with references. The first option seems by far better to me, as it demonstrates that the operation was neither flawless victory or utter defeat. The second option is a fallback solution, as it is less clear, though easier to agree upon in general (thus pushing argument down to each viewpoint and its weight in terms of general acceptance). As far as we are not entitled to cherry-pick sources according to over opinions, I see no third option. —Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the first option is similar to what the text in the article says, but we can't use that for the result in the infobox. The result there is usually very brief, a few words (some kind of a victory for one side or a stalemate). -YMB29 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I would consider reading the template documentation then. In this case it states (emphasis added):

A military conflict infobox (sometimes referred to as a warbox) may be used to summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars) in a standard manner.

[...]

• result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Obviously, the choices of |result= value are "Inconclusive" or "". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for that as there are sources that can be used to get the result. I already asked a general question related to that on the military history page.[23] -YMB29 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

See below. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also note, that several sources talking about success of the operation seem to evaluate the effect the operation had on the war, not the fulfillment of goals. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the effect on the war is the strategic result of the offensive - if the strategic goals were accomplished or not.

The other goals are tactical-operational and are meant to help achieve the strategic goals. -YMB29 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Military operations (especially this one since it is a strategic offensive) are meant to have an effect on the war; there is no point of just achieving goals.

So my point is that we have to evaluate the offensive by its effect on the war, whether the strategic goals were accomplished or not. -YMB29 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if we assume the primary strategic goal to be generally driving Finland out of the war, the fulfillment of other, supposedly secondary, goals really doesn't allow us to claim Soviet victory. This looks more like "Inconclusive" from the aforementioned documentation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So you mean that a victory is achieved not only by accomplishing the main goal, but also by how well the goal was accomplished? That is like saying that the Allies cannot claim victory in WWII because they lost many battles and many of their operations failed. I mean that those "secondary" goals in this offensive were only meant to serve the fulfillment of the main goal, just like battles or operations in a war.

Also there is no assumption being made; the sources above define the primary strategic goal. -YMB29 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Your assumption that the overall effect on the war is supposed to be noted in infobox is simply false, as it directly contradicts the template's documentation. See Battle of Heraclea for example. The Infobox should contain the result of the particular conflict, not the influence of the whole war. In this case, the offensive was successful in accomplishing on of the strategic goals in the war, but the goals of the offensive were not fulfilled neither by Soviets, nor by Fins. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So you tell me what is the point in achieving goals if they have no effect on the war?

The article you pointed to is about a battle that resulted in a tactical victory for one side, but no strategic result. -YMB29 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The direct consequence of Battle of Heraclea was the fact that Greece became incapable of military defence and fell to Romans. It secured the Roman victory in war, though the battle was won by Greece. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So it was a strategic defeat, which is implied by Pyrrhic victory. -YMB29 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but notice no "Roman victory" in infobox: the outcome of the described event prevails over parent war. That's why the fact that this offensive was a strategic victory regarding Soviet performance in WWII, the infobox should be based on events of offensive, which are not decisive. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, pyrrhic victory has a bit different meaning as discussed in the article you linked. It does not necessarily refer to strategic effect at all, only to the cost of the victory - which may or may not have had any strategic effect. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well in this case it did.

We have to let the sources decide if the offensive was decisive or not, and there are more than enough that say that it was.

That article is only about one battle, so there is no reason to talk about a Roman victory. This offensive is a series of battles; you can't say that it was like a big battle... -YMB29 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That was the point. I specifically linked that article to illustrate that the infobox entry should only report the result of the battle, decoupling it from the strategic impact on the war. The result of the battle was Greek victory, the strategic impact resulted in the Roman victory, and the |result= in the infobox reports in Greek victory.

The result of this offensive was inconclusive, so the |result= in the infobox should be "Inconclusive", regardless the strategic impact on the war, which indeed was largely beneficial for Soviets. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If it had a strategic impact then how could the result be inconclusive?

The strategic defeat for the Greeks was not from just the mentioned battle, but from a series of such battles, so there was no point in adding Roman strategic victory to the result of the battle.

You can't compare an ancient battle with a 20th century offensive, which included many battles. -YMB29 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually sources agree that Finns stopped the offensive so it clearly was not decisive. You can not use the strategic effect of the offensive as the sole yardstick for the determining its outcome. By doing so you are knowingly inserting bias as to how the result of the offensive is interpreted. Which is not NPOV at any level. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The outcomes of wars or major military operations are decided by strategy, how well the strategic goals are set and if they are accomplished. See below.

Decisive means it had a direct impact on the fighting, which it did according to the sources above. -YMB29 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible success on strategic level does not diminish the failure on the operational level which is also highly relevant to the article as it concerns the operation, not the war. Also which one of the sources states it was decisive? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See the quotes above. If it forced Finland from the war, it can be said to be decisive.

For this strategic offensive, the operational failures were not important because the main goal was still accomplished without them. The strategic level concerns the operation also. The operational level is only a link between the tactical and strategic levels.

So what result do you want the infobox to have now? "Soviet strategic victory; operational failure"? Again, failure is not accurate since many operational goals were accomplished. -YMB29 (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Which of them explicitly states it would have been decisive? If there are none then it is only deduction and not valid. Again, we are discussing the whole of the offensive, not just some aspects of it. And neither are we discussing the war. So you can not ignore others aspects of the offensive because you do not like them. Actually I'm going to edit what i suggest in the result screen after reading 3rd opinions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing it after third opinions were given does not seem right... Just as I noted, you had no position and just wanted to deny what I was explaining...

If this was one battle or a limited offensive then you can argue that operational goals matter, but this was a large scale strategic offensive that was meant to achieve a strategic aim, which, as Glantz writes, is above everything else. Operational goals don't matter unless they affect strategic ones. Strategic goals don't only apply to a war in general, but also to separate military operations. Glantz mentions this below (overall vs. particular strategic aims).

I told you why it can be said to be decisive. I could also ask you where does it explicitly say that it was not decisive, like was originally claimed. -YMB29 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As for the result you want now, I guess it is one solution, but it has to be consistent then and apply for other articles for which such disputes arise, like battles of Vyborg Bay, Vuosalmi and Tali-Ihantala. -YMB29 (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I never thought that single entry for the result would have been valid for it - like was obvious from the start of this discussion - and only provided one because of your insistence on the matter. After having been reminded that there were an option to leave it blank and discuss it in the article I found that it was a better solution.

As has been said repeatedly, you can not ignore the operational aspect just because you dislike it. As we are discussing the operation not the war we can not afford it ignore operation goals. Claim that it would have been decisive does need to actually come source; also you are the one making the claim so burden of proof is yours, do not try to place it on any other.

We are discussing the offensive in this article and in this discussion, not anything else. Similar result may apply to other articles as well but whether it does or does not is not within the scope of this discussion. Nor can it be used as a reasoning for setting results in other articles, they are separate matters and need to be handled separately. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not the one who first mentioned decisive. I responded when it was claimed that the offensive was not decisive. However, again, if it knocked Finland out of the war, it can be said to be so.

Operational goals may be very important for a single battle, but this is a strategic offensive.

The articles are all related, so we can set a standard of how to deal with such disputes about the result. -YMB29 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Tactical goals are important for a single battles, operational goals are important for operations or offensives. Sure strategic goals are as well but you can not go ignoring operational goals just because you dislike them.

Relation is irrelevant, we are discussing this specific article, not anything else. You can not draw conclusions or make precedences that affect other articles from it. Method for handling each of the other articles needs to be considered one at a time. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If third options will be asked for the other articles, similar suggestions will be made or those who already commented here will point us to how this dispute was resolved...

You just cannot or refuse to understand the types of goals and how they relate to each other. -YMB29 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It may or it may not. I do not know that for certain for I'm not prescient. Regardless those articles are each and every one separate cases and should be considered as such all the time. What it stated in this articles result has no relevance on the results of those articles since the topics of the articles are not the same. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The topic is the same... The mentioned battles are all part of this offensive. If this whole offensive is not a Soviet victory even though the main goal was accomplished, why are battles like Tali-Ihantala considered Finnish victories?

For Wikipedia it is common to apply a decision made for an article to related articles or cases, instead of wasting time with each. So if you want that solution, it makes sense to apply it for all the related articles. -YMB29 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the topics are clearly defined. Those battles are separate articles handling the battles and this article concerns solely the offensive. Straying further out of the topic is just waste of time - it has no relevance to this discussion. Just like you can not extrapolate on what sources are saying neither can you extrapolate with this kind of matter. What might be done with those article must be discussed single article at a time. Simply because a solution is made for the article discussing the offensive does not mean that articles referring to the battles in the offensive would need to be automatically handled in the same way. As said this discussion has no relevance to those articles. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That is what you like to think. You don't want the same logic to be applied to the related articles. -YMB29 (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So it should be a Soviet victory (at least strategic) or a link to the aftermath section which will apply to all the other articles as well. -YMB29 (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

But there you are wrong once again, same logic can applied to the other articles if there is actually reason for it. So far you have shown nothing of such, only your personal opinion of the matter. The same method used here can not apply the result of the campaign directly into the results of the battles. Their actual results are not connected - there are several cases where battles within operations have different results than the overall operation (or war).

As to the regards to your edit to the initial result explanation, do you have any sources or proof that 'other articles related to this one' would not be any less complex? Regardless the result of the offensive does not apply as the result of the battles unlike what you stated, they are separate articles and need to be considered separately. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The main goal was achieved, but the result becomes too complex for the infobox because some secondary goals were not accomplished... Why then should this principal not apply to related articles? The Finns could not hold the Vyborg Bay islands, retreated from Tali, and gave up the beachhead at Vuosalmi... They failed to accomplish many of their goals; they lost important positions and did not win any new ones. So what makes the results in those articles less complex than this one? -YMB29 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That is only because you intentionally choose to ignore the operative goals and failures to accomplish them and instead solely concentrate on the claimed strategic goal. Actual result is as per your statement above, too complex to state in the result entry. Finnish goal in those engagements was to prevent Soviets from breaching the Finnish line, which was accomplished, line may have bent but it was not broken. Soviet goals on the other hand was not accomplished in any of the engagements you listed. They are separate articles so they need to be considered separately. Provide sources for the related articles in their respective talk pages. If there is a legitimate case for using the aftermath section then it can and should be used, however so far i have seen none of that apart from un-sourced claims. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So you need sources about the Finns losing the Vyborg Bay islands, Tali, and the Vuosalmi beachhead?

Many Soviet goals were accomplished in those engagements.

The main Finnish goal was to prevent a breakthrough, just like the main Soviet goal of the offensive was to knock Finland out of the war.

You cannot just solely concentrate on the claimed operational goal of the battles and intentionally choose to ignore the Finnish failure to accomplish tactical ones...

As you see the same arguments you are using can be used for the articles of the battles.

Anyway, I see no reason that strategic victory should not be part of the result, as the sources directly support it. -YMB29 (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen sources stating that Soviet goals would have been fulfilled in the engagements. Besides this discussion is already out of the scope of the article at hand, if you have specific claims to make, please make them at appropriate article talk page. Sources which you prefer support it but those are not all the sources like you well know - cherry picking sources according to the preferred result shouldn't be done. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources can be given on the talk pages if you are denying that the Soviets accomplished anything in those engagements.

Cherry picking would be quoting someone like Solonin, not Glantz or Erickson...

So what sources dispute that it was a strategic victory? One Finnish source does not make it disputable. -YMB29 (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So give sources, so far you have given none. No, cherry picking would be for me to use the sources you stated and claim the result as full Finnish victory. Just because they oppose your statements does not make them 'cherry picked sources'. Point of the discussion was not that statement but actually the phrasing that ends up into the result entry since you, again, can not go ignoring other aspects of the operation just because you dislike them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I found sources that give an overall assessment of the offensive, while you found ones that only talk about a part of the offensive. My sources talk about the main strategic goals and their successful completion, while yours are about the failure to accomplish some secondary operational goals. This is not cherry picking? The result should reflect the overall outcome of the fighting.

You may dispute that full "Soviet victory" in the result is unfair, but "Soviet strategic victory" is not disputable at this point and should be the result. -YMB29 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Those sources also discuss the result in overall terms, and you know this just as well. They are just not discussing it from the point of view you prefer. If you chose to ignore them when you are representing the sources then you were cherry picking - and it was what you did was it not? It certainly was not NPOV.

If the article was considering the offensive solely from strategic point of view you would be correct with your assessment. However it does not consider the offensive solely from the strategic point of view - instead it is about the offensive as a whole, including but not limited to strategic aspects - so expressing the result only according to the strategic view does not work in this case. Also since it has been shown that expressing the result is near impossible within the limits of the results box it is advisable to use separate section in the article handle it. As per guidelines given for the infobox military conflict. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So which of your sources "discuss the result in overall terms"?

The strategic point of view is the overall view of the whole offensive, and the strategic result is the overall result:

A strategic victory is a victory that brings long-term advantage to the victor and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage a war. When a historian speaks of a victory in general, it is usually referring to a strategic victory.[24]

Your failure to understand fundamental aspects of war is disturbing...

Like I said, "Soviet strategic victory" is not disputable, and should be in the result. It shows the overall result, but does not discount that the Finns had some success on the battlefield. -YMB29 (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Article discusses the whole of the offensive, not just single aspect of it - hence you can not limit the result to such either. You can not go ignoring certain aspects just because you do not like about them. Also even in the article you linked the given reference article avoids using solely the strategic result in the result box, instead it uses split result as was suggested initially, however since it appear that it is not possible to reach an agreement on what it should read it would be best to use - as suggested by infobox guidelines - to use separate article section to discuss the result. Also once again, keep your perceptions and insinuations to yourself, they have no place in wiki. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So I see that you have nothing else to say other than to repeat the same things. You are making it seem like it is impossible to find a result that fits. Sources say that it was a strategic victory and it does not matter that you don't like it. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Some source say so while others say that it did failed to achieve its objectives. Hence the problem in forming the result. And that is why the aftermath section is the preferred route, at least it is for every one else involved in the original discussion with the exception of you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Others said that Soviet victory is also fine.

What sources say that it failed to achieve its strategic objectives? Once again, one Finnish source does not make a strategic Soviet victory debatable. -YMB29 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated before the strategic level in not what editors should be solely concerned about. You can not ignore other aspects of the offensive just because you dislike them. That is not NPOV. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Stated where? The source below suggests otherwise...

Do you at least admit that it was a strategic victory? -YMB29 (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I said that in the initial postings. My position towards the 'strategic' level result is not reason enough (at any level) to ignore the other aspects of the offensive. And that is why the suggested method of using separate section in the text to discuss the more complex results is preferred, and not just by me. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. Do you admit that it was a Soviet strategic victory or not? -YMB29 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I did answer it, feel free to re-read the discussion. It is there. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So I take it that you don't want to answer the question?

From the discussion, I see that you more or less agree that it was a strategic victory, but you just won't accept that this means that it was a victory generally. -YMB29 (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I answered to it several times actually, i fail to see the point to copy-paste my responses here.

Almost, but not quite. I do not think that strategic level is the sole measurement that should be used in such an occasion, which is shown also generally accepted view judging from other articles from wiki. Hence the need for more complex result and since it has not been something that has been agreed upon, a need for a separate aftermath section for discussing the result in detail. As instructed in the guidelines for the infobox military history. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You are once again avoiding answering the question and just repeating the same thing...

If you think that you have answered it before, what prevents you from giving a straight answer now? -YMB29 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the answer was - and still is - conditional as described above. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What? I asked if you admit that it was a strategic victory for the Soviets? Yes or no? -YMB29 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And i gave you an answer already. You are not in position to make ultimatums.- Wanderer602 (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not an ultimatum; you are just avoiding answering the question. You have done nothing but reverts here lately. I ask you to restore the sourced result. -YMB29 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

To a biased question? I already said that i had provide conditional answer to it previously which i had done. Feel free to look it up, it is in this discussion. Just because you were the last in the discussion does not make your stance in any way better than the opposing view. It is not the same as reaching consensus. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If you refuse to answer, that is ending the discussion...

You still did not answer the question... -YMB29 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if the discussion would be over leaving your question unanswered (or rather having provided answer previously) does not prove you right. As has been seen other editors prefer to have no result entry at all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If its answer you want here goes. As the article does not consider the offensive just from the strategic point of view neither can the result do so either. Your sources with regards to the Soviet strategic victory are well and fine (and undisputed actually), however they do not represent the whole of the offensive and therefore are not valid due NPOV reasons into the results entry. Hence the need for a separate aftermath sections (possibly even separate from the current aftermath section). I also previously encouraged you to write there of the Soviet strategic victory but so far you have refused to take constructively part into improving that section of the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There were no objections to strategic victory. You did not dispute it, so why should not it have gone into the article?

As for what you are saying now, the aftermath section already states about the strategic goal. Yes it can be improved. If strategic victory can go into there, why can't it go into the result?

Your claim that a strategic offensive cannot be represented by the strategic result requires sources. If strategic victory is supported by the majority of sources, it should go into the result. If you find sources that talk about the overall result (not partial) on the other levels (operational and tactical), you can bring them up. -YMB29 (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it does not cover the subject that the articles handles. It only covers portion of it. Hence it is not valid as a overall statement for the result. It would be valid to be a partial statement of the result so that the other levels where the offensive is handled could be properly represented as well. It should not go to the results box because this article does not handle the operation just from the strategic point of view. Note that it is considered a Soviet strategic victory is valuable to the article however it is not the sole statement how the offensive turned out nor is it representative of the offensive at all levels. As for the rest, we have been through that before. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So again find sources for the overall results at the other levels just like I did for strategic. Just because you don't have those sources, does not mean that you can keep the strategic result out. As explained before, the strategic level is most important, especially for a strategic offensive. -YMB29 (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Those sources were provided already earlier and you know this since you demanded them. Strategic level is just one single aspect of the offensive, it can not be used to represent the whole of it. As was discussed previously. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This is your opinion. Read again what it says below.

The sources you found cannot be used to get an overall operational or tactical result for the offensive, since they only talk about a part of it. -YMB29 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

They discuss the other aspects of the offensive and clearly note it as having been Soviet failure when considered from the operational level. Strategic level is not the sole matter of consideration since the article is not only about that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well again find sources for the other levels. Failure to achieve some tactical or operational goals does not make the whole offensive a failure on those levels. That is why stalemate is more accurate, but it has to be sourced. -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Failure to reach operational goals is operational failure so i fail to see your point. Again sources have already been provided. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you ignore all the other operational goals achieved... -YMB29 (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So because the operation failed to achieve its goals - as stated per sources - you are saying it was not operational failure? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not for the whole offensive... -YMB29 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Similar statement can be made of just about anything. Fact remains that offensive failed to operationally (and yes, sources exist). - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the sources only talk about the failures after the capture of Vyborg. This article is about the whole offensive, not some part of it... -YMB29 (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources also talk of offensive having been stopped far short of reaching its stated goals. Which is operational failure. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Operational failure in achieving those goals, not failure for the whole offensive.

You can't get away with making your own interpretations for this. Go find sources like I did. -YMB29 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it that difficult for you to say that offensive failed to reach its goals? Since that is what sources state. Also sources were already provided earlier. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

They don't talk about the whole offensive. Failure to achieve some goals is not the same as overall failure. How many times must I explain this to you? -YMB29 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources also discuess the whole of the offensive. Offensive had clearly and explicitly stated goals that it failed to achieve. How is that not a failure? - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it achieved many other goals... -YMB29 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Source state that it failed to reach its stated goals. So it was a failure on that level. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So if some goals were not reached then the whole thing was a failure? Well that is your interpretation... -YMB29 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You do note that using the logic you apply above it could be said that Finns won the Continuation War (as well as the offensive). After all some of the goals of the Finns were attained. In the end it remains that Soviets failed to reach the goals set for the offensive. See for example Operation Market Garden in which Western Allies did take quite of the set goals for the operation but failed to actually fulfill the set operational goals - result, Allied operational failure. - Wanderer602 (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If the main goal was not accomplished then it is a failure.

For Market Garden most of the tactical goals were achieved, but that was not enough to accomplish the operational goal. So it cannot be compared to this offensive. -YMB29 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It can be exactly compared to the offensive on operational level. Just in that offensive as in this one the operational goals were not accomplished. Some of the goals were accomplished but the stated goals of the offensive were not. Keep in mind that we are not discussing of strategic level at all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Market Garden was not a strategic offensive. It had one operational goal that was not accomplished, because an important tactical goal for it was not achieved. This offensive had many operational goals and only some were not accomplished. You are just not understanding this... -YMB29 (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That does not really matter since we are explicitly not observing the strategic scale. In exact similar manner V-P offensive failed to reach its stated goals. As is stated in various sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You are confused...

It is not about failing to accomplish goals. You have to take into account what goals were not accomplished, how important they were, and if the main result was achieved or not. You cannot compare a strategic offensive with multiple operations to just one operation. -YMB29 (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It is about not accomplishing goals. Especially when sources say so. Operation had explicit operational goals which it failed to attain - as per sources. Main result as stated before was not accomplished when we observe the operational aspect of the offensive which we should be doing. Mixing the strategic matter into it which is already discussed separately is not exactly a valid premise. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if we completely ignore the strategic result, the offensive is not a failure at the operational level.

You should not be making your own confused interpretations. -YMB29 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have source for that? They are not interpretations, as shown previously they are sourced statements. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Interpretations of sourced statements... -YMB29 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not interpretations, actual statements from the sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Statements about a part of the offensive that you choose to apply for the whole offensive. -YMB29 (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As argued previously there are several sources which discuss the operational goals for the offensive. Which it failed to reach. There is nothing ambiguous about those statements and they don't refer just to 'a part of the offensive'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes they do talk only about a part of it. You can't ignore the objectives that were accomplished. -YMB29 (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In exact similar manner as in operation Market Garden the Western allies seized several of the key bridges but failed to accomplish all the goals of the offensive - hence the offensive itself from operational level was a failure. Also sources also do discuss the whole of the offensive. They were clearly describe the goals for the offensive, which the Soviets were unable to accomplish. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that none of the operational goals were accomplished?

Once again, Market Garden had only one operational goal, so of course it was a failure on the operational level if the goal was not accomplished; you cannot compare this offensive to it. -YMB29 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet in both offensives the overall objectives were clearly stated and both offensives failed to accomplish the goals set for them. As is stated in sources the offensive therefore failed (in operational sense). - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What overall objectives were not accomplished for this offensive?

Again, you are just shamelessly ignoring all the accomplished objectives of this offensive. -YMB29 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Several sources describe the goals for the offensive. Advance to 1939 border failed, advance to Kymijoki river line failed, destruction of bulk of the Finnish army failed - all which were stated goals for the offensive. Yet the offensive failed to accomplish its set goals. In exact similar manner to Operation Market Garden - which did capture most of its stated partial objectives - which also failed to accomplish the goals set for the offensive. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't try to compare things you don't understand...

So I guess the Finnish defensive lines were not breached, Vyborg and Petrozavodsk were not captured... -YMB29 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to discredit the opponent does not benefit you in any way so please could you stop doing that again? Lets look at the Operation Market Garden, which managed even to capture most of the stated targets (bridges) within the alloted timeframe. Yet because it failed to accomplish its stated goal the operation was a failure. In contrast V-P operation did not manage to reach all but its final goals, it stalled far short of that. And exact parallel to Operation Market Garden it failed to accomplish its stated goal. So what other was it than operational failure as supported by sources? - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is only supported by your interpretations.

There are no parallels with Market Garden. I explained why many times. Go ask others if you refuse to listen to what I say. -YMB29 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also directly by sources, not by my interpretations. Feel free to read them again. Both offensives had clearly defined goals, both offensives failed to accomplished their set goals while both were able to accomplish some of the partial goals. How come can you determine that there are no parallels between the two when the cases are nearly identical? Trying to explain it away as some of the operational goals were accomplish does not really hold since the offensive had several other operational goals that it failed to accomplish and these failed goals have been clearly documented. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Failure to accomplish some goals does not mean overall failure...

Sorry, but your attempts at comparisons and analysis don't make sense. You just don't have enough understanding of the issues. -YMB29 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What understanding is there required to be? Offensive had clear list of goals. It failed to accomplish the set goals. What else is it on operational level than a failure? Just because you don't like it does not mean it would not have been a failure at operational level. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Find sources that say that the entire offensive was a failure on the operational level and then we can talk. -YMB29 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Those sources have been provided already earlier. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The strategic aim (strategicheskaia tsel') of any conflict dictates the nature, scope and form of military operations. Established by the political leadership of a nation, strategic aims represent the desired end of strategic-scale military actions. Achievement of strategic aims generally leads to significant, and sometimes fundamental, changes in military-political and strategic conditions, which, in turn, can contribute to the victorious conclusion of a war. The Soviets subdivided strategic aims into overall (obshchie) strategic aims which represent the "fundamental results of the war" and particular (chastnye) strategic aims, which result from successful campaigns or strategic operations. The strategic war aims determine the size and nature of strategic groupings of forces within a theater of military operations or on a strategic direction and determine the form of military actions undertaken. These aims transcend all other considerations.

Soviet Military Operational Art: In Pursuit of Deep Battle, by Glantz (p. 39)

Soviet Losses

To clarification on the ongoing edit issue by IP user 83.229.149.252.

While Soviet data covers whole of the time period of the offensive Krivosheyev's data does not. This has been discusses repeatedly in the talk page. Manninen's values are actually based on Krivosheyev's values but expand on the time period. To read the previous discussions, see Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive/Archive 1. In other words Krivosheyev's values are not valid to be used in this context without either blanking Finnish losses (since they are not corresponding) or providing explicit and clear notes on the limitations of the data, as was done previously.

Edit warring is not the solution. If any one has something to contribute to this discussion please do so. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did you remove the note that I put? Maninen used Soviet archives, but he is the one who counted the losses and made his own estimates when he did not find some data. The numbers still come from a Finnish source. -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Because your note did not include notice that the data Manninen used was from Soviet archives. Instead the tag applied only hinted that the value was based on Finnish values regarding Soviet losses. It was not it is based on the Soviet values regarding Soviet losses. It is actually stated clearly in the reference section. Trying to muddle the waters with NPOV statements does not contribute to the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverting everything that does not agree with your POV does not contribute to the article...

It is still a Finnish estimate from a Finnish source, so there was nothing wrong with that note. -YMB29 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There was actually. Your note only hinted that it was solely Finnish estimate. As have been seen previously, and from archives of both sides, it was very much different from the Finnish estimates of the Soviet losses done relying solely in the Finnish data. Your note did nothing to resolve the ambiguity between values from the Soviet archives compiled by a Finn (which is what Manninen did) and values of the Finnish estimates based on Finnish data (which were observed by Manninen to be very different from his values). Your note did not resolve this issue which is rather critical with regards to the reliability of the values. Had it stated "Soviet archival data compiled by a Finn" then it would have been both valid and also truthful without any NPOV issues. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That is what it said in the note below.

The note I added does not mean that it was only from Finnish data; that is your interpretation. -YMB29 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

How else would you decipher it? Finnish estimate can refer to both of the things i stated before. Placing such an ambiguous statement to the article does nothing to improve it. Do note that i have no objections for the information to marked as something being written by a Finn, however the source of the data should also be named to avoid the ambiguity related to the expression you used in the note. As for that matter if the note below already said everything that was required then why write another?

As for that matter now that we are discussing it, what would you now place in the note? How would you phrase it? You are a Russian (or so I have understood) so your view is valuable when we are finding out how it could be expressed without the said ambiguity? Or could it be written as a link to notes section where the source of the information could be disclosed in more detail? I am open to suggestions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The numbers don't come from the official Russian source (Krivosheev) and it must be clear in the infobox where they come from.

If someone wants to know more details, they can click on the note. I will edit it differently later. -YMB29 (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see what is the relevance of the Krivosheyev in this, he is the author but he is hardly the sole authority in the matter even in Russian texts. Infobox should be clear and given that Manninen's values had already their own separate citations had led me to believe that they already were. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not clear to others.

Your opinion about Krivosheev's book is known, but it is not relevant here. -YMB29 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigh.. its not mine, it comes also from Glantz and from Manninen. So its a sources opinion of the quality of Krivosheyev with regards to the issue at hand. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about your overall negative opinion on the book. It is an authoritative source that is used by historians, including Glantz and Manninen. Just because some operations or sub-operations are not included, does not make it non-authoritative... -YMB29 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Being authoritative has very little relevance if it is not representative of the matter at hand. And Krivosheyev is not with regards to the this offensive or even with other actions of the Continuation War. Krivosheyev may be accurate within the limits that has been stated in the book. However that does not change the matter that the book itself terminates the casualties for the Leningrad Front offensive to 20 June when in reality it kept going until mid July. Nor does it change the fact that very large portion of the Soviet formations which actually took part into the offensive under Leningrad Front are totally omitted from his data. Which has been noted by several authors, and even been supplemented by data acquired from the Soviet archives to make it more representative (which is exactly what Manninen was all about - he did not replace Krivosheyev, he appended the data). The authors who used it clearly noted that the source was not representative (ie. was lacking) with regards to the offensive in question. My negative view is based on that. The book simply is not representative with regards to the offensive and it is even clearly noted in the book itself. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It was not written just to cover the offensive and the Continuation War... If other authors supplemented data, that has to be noted. As far as the Soviet formations, I already explained it to you on the other page, so I am not going to repeat it again. -YMB29 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If it was not written to cover the offensive or the Continuation War then how can it be used as a representative source for providing values for either? Reference notes regarding Manninen (for example) already made it clear that he supplemented Krivosheyev. You stated - if i recall correctly - that it was the initial number of committed units. That may be so, but then it must not be used to represent the number of Soviet forces actually deployed against the Finns since it is not the same value. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The topic is not the number of Soviet forces... I don't know why you are bringing it up here.

I am not saying that you can't use other sources that are specifically written for this war, but it has to be indicated where the numbers come from in the infobox itself. -YMB29 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No actually they do not. As long as they are properly referenced they do not need additional notes since proper cited and referenced data already gives that information. That is why we are using citations. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If there are frequent edit wars because of this then it is not clear. -YMB29 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is time that this dispute was escalated through the dispute resolution process I suggest that you start with a third opinion (I will not get involved in the content of this article as I have taken some administrative actions over it). -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Such approaches have been attempted repeatedly in the past without results, as have other dispute resolution means (see for example Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/24_October_2011/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala which included this issue as a peripheral matter). I had thought that status quo had been reached when it ended though but apparently i was wrong. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As seen several editors provided third opinions to the result option but were promptly ignored when they expressed their preference to have no result and discuss the result thoroughly in the article itself. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Twisting facts is not going to help you. -YMB29 (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please tell what do you think i did now? What in the above was twisting of facts? You ignored the third party comments that the use of separate aftermath section was preferable. That is not twisting of a fact, it is the fact. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Slightly more preferable to "Soviet victory," but nothing was said about "strategic Soviet victory." So you are twisting it... I did not ignore anything. -YMB29 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No one changed their stance after your changes to your statement. So i fail to see how you can claim they would have agreed with the second expression when they actually explicitly stated supporting the use of no result and instead relying on separate aftermath section in accordance to the guidelines from infobox military conflict. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not say they agreed; they just did not comment after. I said that no one objected it, so you can't claim that I went against what others have said. -YMB29 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually i can. Others had stated already at the time that they preferred to have no result. You choose deliberately to ignore them and instead went ahead with a crusade to force there to be a result line - which already in itself was against what others had said. None of this argument had existed if you had followed the advice of the third opinion which you had yourself requested. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

More accusations from you... I did not go against the third opinions. I already explained it to you many times. -YMB29 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So after third opinions had been given and you disagreed with their resolution you came up with a new solution which did not agree with what the editors giving the third opinion had provided. Those editors stated that they would prefer not to have result entry at all. By giving a result you already went against the third opinions as giving anything is already opposed to leaving it blank. So what exactly in what i stated above was false? - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything is false; I explained it above. -YMB29 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, i reposted even their responses, you can read it up there. Both state they prefer not to have result at all. I can not understand why you refuse to accept it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

See above. -YMB29 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Result of the Offensive

Following extensive discussion during formal mediation, the two parties involved have agreed to bring their dispute to an RfC, as an effort to gain broader community consensus. They have each agreed not to post here themselves as an effort towards preventing a rerun of the heated arguments the they've already had between each other. Additionally, they have agreed on the wording of the question at issue and have drawn up short statements supporting their respective interpretations of how to move forward.

In 20 days (unless there is lengthy discussion, then it would be moved to the regular 30), they've asked me to close the discussion. The question and their statements are below:

What is the best way to accurately describe the result of this specific offensive? Was it a "strategic Soviet victory" or not? How should that be reflected in the infobox and the article text?

--Lord Roem (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Position A

My solution is simple: leave the result empty as per guidelines. It is important to notice that the RfC is about the result of the offensive and not that of the war. Also Soviet's only eased their demands following the offensive. The existence of various conflicting sources cast doubt on setting clear and definite answer for the RfC especially with YMB29's refusal to accept opposing sources [25]. In addition to Finnish sources [26] also non-Finnish sources discussing the offensive - instead of that of the war - explicitly mention that the Soviet offensive failed (Ziemke) or that it fell short of STAVKA's strategic aims (Glantz). Both answers to the request for third opinion ended up suggesting leaving the result entry blank [27][28] as suggested in the guidelines for the military conflict infobox (...better to omit this .. than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much)[29].

Position B

The result Strategic Soviet victory is supported by most reliable sources found on this topic, including books by known historians Glantz and Erickson (see Quotes section here). The strategic goal of this strategic offensive was to force Finland from the war and this was accomplished. Not all the tactical goals were achieved, but for strategic victory only the strategic goals matter[30].

The guidelines say that the result should reflect what sources say and should be omitted only when it can’t be described by standard terms. Strategic victory is a standard term as it is used in featured and good articles (see Battle of Coral Sea and Battle of Antietam).

Only a few sources linked above actually dispute this result, but they should not be given undue weight. Please note that [the other party] uses an outdated quote from Ziemke[31][32] and quotes Glantz out of context[33].

Discussion

As far as Wikipedia policies are considered (especially WP:RS/AC), I don't think there are good arguments against Position A. However, position B could be much better explained in the Aftermath section, attributed to the relevant sources. In turn, the section should be linked to the infobox (Soviet victory). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to note, that those authors who use only few paragraphs to describe the whole latter half of the Soviet-Finnish war view the result of the offensive more positive to the Soviets than those who use tens of pages to the offensive. So one should really be careful how the sources should be emphasized. It is peculiar to claim that the offensive forced Finland out of war, as the front had been stable and mostly inactive 1-1.5 months before peace negotiations even began. On the comparison, Jassy–Kishinev Offensive (August 1944) forced Romanian capitulation during the offensive. Anyway, Soviets did gain land in the offensive, so they were victorious in that sense, but as the offensive bogged down in the end, which forced both sides, Soviets more than Finns, to change their objectives of the war. So in the infobox there should be: "Soviet land gain, eventual stalemate". --Whiskey (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with that is we have really few sources that actually state it was a stalemate. Modern Finnish works dedicated to the Continuation War or the offensive tend to conclude it was a Finnish defensive victory, so it is really hard to use these to support "stalemate" as the result. Let me also point out that the "land gain" is more appropriate to the "Territorial changes" section. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should putting "stalemate" in the result section, we should put "ceasefire" (as was done for this article: Operation Pillar of Defense, and then either list the territorial changes in bullets, or provide a link to the aftermath section. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)