Talk:Continuation War

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

File:Part north region Operation Barbarossa.png

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

[

Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finnish army helping Germans in the Siege of Leningrad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody wants Wikipedia contradicting with facts from Encyclopedia Britannica: "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [3]

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

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

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

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

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

File:Part north region Operation Barbarossa.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

You are misusing sources and misleading readers. Only after the Soviet attack of June 25, 1941, was there presidential talk where regaining areas as one of the war's aims was discussed. However, there is no evidence, which would imply that Finland would have attacked the Soviet Union, unless the Soviets would attack Finland first.

Improving the article with inclusion of facts from all-sources

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

Example: Fact from Encyclopedia Britannica "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [4]

Nobody wants Wikipedia contradicting with facts from Encyclopedia Britannica: ...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII. [5]

References

• Backlund, L.S. (1983), Nazi Germany and Finland, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms International A. Bell & Howell Information Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
• Baryshnikov, N.I.; Baryshnikov, V.N. (1997), Terijoen hallitus, TPH
• Baryshnikov, V.N.; Fedorov, V.G. (1989), Finlandia vo vtoroi mirivoi voine (Finland in the Second World War), Lenizdat, Leningrad {{citation}}: Missing |author1= (help); Unknown parameter |Given1= ignored (|given1= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Surname1= ignored (|surname1= suggested) (help)
• Baryshnikov, N.I.; Manninen, Ohto (1997), Sodan aattona, TPH
• Baryshnikov, V.N. (1997), Neuvostoliiton Suomen suhteiden kehitys sotaa edeltaneella kaudella, TPH
• Bethel, Nicholas; Alexandria, Virginia (1981), Russia Besieged, Time-Life Books, 4th Printing, Revised
• Brinkley, Douglas; Haskey, Mickael E. (2004), The World War II. Desk Reference, Grand Central Press
• Carell, Paul (1963), Unternehmen Barbarossa - Der Marsch nach Russland
• Carell, Paul (1994), Scorched Earth: The Russian-German War 1943-1944[6], Schiffer Publishing, ISBN 0-88740-598-3 {{citation}}: External link in |title= (help)[7]
• Cartier, Raymond (1977), Der Zweite Weltkrieg (The Second World War), R. Piper & CO. Verlag, München, Zürich
• Churchill, Winston S., Memoires of the Second World War. An abridgment of the six volumes of The Second World War, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, ISBN 0-395-59968-7
• Clark, Alan (1965), Barbarossa. The Russian-German Conflict 1941-1945, Perennial, ISBN 0-688-04268-6
• Fugate, Bryan I. (1984), Operation Barbarossa. Strategy and Tactics on the Eastern Front, 1941, Presidio Press, ISBN-10: 0891411976, ISBN-13: 978-0891411970
• Ganzenmüller, Jörg (2005), Das belagerte Leningrad 1941-1944, Ferdinand Schöningh Verlag, Paderborn, ISBN 350672889X
• Дмитриев, В. И.; Корниенко, А. И. (1990), Дважды, Краснознаменный Балтийский Флот (Baltic Fleet), Воениздат {{citation}}: Missing |author1= (help); Unknown parameter |Given1= ignored (|given1= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Surname1= ignored (|surname1= suggested) (help)
• Higgins, Trumbull (1966), Hitler and Russia, The Macmillan Company
• Jokipii, Mauno (1987), Jatkosodan synty (Birth of the Continuation War), ISBN 951-1-08799-1
• Juutilainen, Antti; Leskinen, Jari (2005), Jatkosodan pikkujättiläinen, Helsinki
• Kay, Alex J. (2006), Exploitation, Resettlement, Mass Murder. Political and Economic Planning for German Occupation Policy in the Soviet Union, 1940 - 1941, Berghahn Books, New York, Oxford
• Miller, Donald L. (2006), The story of World War II, Simon $ Schuster, ISBN-10 0-74322718-2
• National Defence College (1994), Jatkosodan historia 1-6, Porvoo, ISBN 951-0-15332-X
• Seppinen, Ilkka (1983), Suomen ulkomaankaupan ehdot 1939-1940 (Conditions of Finnish foreign trade 1939-1940), ISBN 951-9254-48-X
• Симонов, Константин (1979), Записи бесед с Г. К. Жуковым 1965–1966, Hrono
• Suvorov, Victor (2005), I take my words back, Poznań, ISBN 83-7301-900-X {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
• Vehviläinen, Olli; McAlister, Gerard (2002), Finland in the Second World War: Between Germany and Russia, Palgrave

Bibliography

• Barber, John; Dzeniskevich, Andrei (2005), Life and Death in Besieged Leningrad, 1941–44, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, ISBN 1-4039-0142-2
• Baryshnikov, N.I. (2003), Блокада Ленинграда и Финляндия 1941–44 (Finland and the Siege of Leningrad), Институт Йохана Бекмана
• Carell, Paul (1994), Scorched Earth: The Russian-German War 1943-1944[8], Schiffer Publishing, ISBN 0-88740-598-3 {{citation}}: External link in |title= (help)[9]
• Glantz, David (2001), The Siege of Leningrad 1941–44: 900 Days of Terror, Zenith Press, Osceola, WI, ISBN 0-7603-0941-8
• Goure, Leon (1981), The Siege of Leningrad, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA, ISBN 0-8047-0115-6
• Granin, Daniil Alexandrovich (2007), Leningrad Under Siege, Pen and Sword Books Ltd, ISBN 9781844154586
• Kirschenbaum, Lisa (2006), The Legacy of the Siege of Leningrad, 1941–1995: Myth, Memories, and Monuments, Cambridge University Press, New York, ISBN 0-521-86326-0
• Lubbeck, William; Hurt, David B. (2006), At Leningrad's Gates: The Story of a Soldier with Army Group North, Pen and Sword Books Ltd, ISBN 9781844156177
• Platonov, S.P. ed. (1964), Bitva za Leningrad, Voenizdat Ministerstva oborony SSSR, Moscow {{citation}}: |first= has generic name (help)
• Salisbury, Harrison Evans (1969), The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad, Da Capo Press, ISBN 0-306-81298-3
• Simmons, Cynthia; Perlina, Nina (2005), Writing the Siege of Leningrad. Women's diaries, Memories, and Documentary Prose, University of Pittsburgh Press, ISBN 9780822958697
• Cross, Robin; Messenger, Charles (2004), The Siege of Leningrad in World War II, Dorling Kindersley, ISBN 978-0-7566-2968-7 {{citation}}: Missing |author1= (help); Unknown parameter |Given1= ignored (|given1= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Surname1= ignored (|surname1= suggested) (help)
• Wykes, Alan (1972), The Siege of Leningrad, Ballantines Illustrated History of WWII

External links

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

Strategic stalemate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was no "unconditional surrender" demand from the Soviets, which make the whole difference. The Soviets response contained the following (my free transtation): "Since we at several occasions had been fooled by the Finns, we would like to receive an official declaration from the Finnish governement signed by the primeminister or minister of the external affairs that Finland capitulates and asks the Soviet Union for peace. If we receive such a document from the Finnish governement, Moscow is ready to receive a delegation from the Finnish governement". So: "capitulation", "ask for peace" and "receive a delegation" are the key words, no "unconditional" in the text. What would be the meaning of sending a delegation from the Finnish governement to Moscow, if there were no terms to negotiate about? Besides all that, the Soviet side denied Finnish interpretation of their own demand as "unconditional" - in "Pravda" on July 2, 1944. This information was published in several Swedish newspapers on July 3 (3 newspapers as I know, amont them "Dagens Nyheter" and "Svenska Dagbladet", two major newspapers). Narangino (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unconditional surrender was not part of the terms demanded just before the offensive. -YMB29 (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

'Result: MOSCOW ARMISTICE' - perhaps best wording for now. Note: Areas eventually ceded were not lost in the war, which ended September 19, 1944:

To large extend, I agree with the assessment of user MPorciusCato, given above. I agree with those who see portraying the war as a Soviet Victory in Wikipedia as misleading - despite the fact that the conditions agreed upon in the aftermath later on were rather harsh to the Finns.

It would be more correct to mark the war as a 'Finnish defensive victory' in Wikipedia. In the war which the Soviet Union started - with it's attack on June 25, 1941 -, the Red Army failed to cross the war-preceding (1940) Finnish-Soviet border, up till when the war was over.

The areas later ceded to the Soviet Union were not lost in battles - not in the war, which ended on September 19, 1944 (except for a fraction). In nearly all the battle areas, the Finns were deep inside the enemy territory at the war's final moment.

If Joseph Stalin would have viewed Finland to have lost the war - or Finland to have started the war, or even Finland to have participated in the siege of Leningrad, for that matter -, the Marshal of Finland Mannerheim would not have been allowed to remain the President of the Republic of Finland till 19 months after the war's end, when he resigned as president and retired.

I move, that - for now - we'll mark the result as 'Moscow Armistice', as user Illythr had left it last. Everyone should agree that with this wording at least we are not offering in any way controversial, false or misleading information to Wikipedia users - nor are we siding with, or leaning towards, any debated view point in this matter. Boris Novikov (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't agree with you.62.113.180.95 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Then your reaoning would be greatly appreciated. Boris Novikov (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

'Finnish defensive victory' - why it is the right choice for the 'result'

Below, please find a quote from the Soviet book 'Bitva za Leningrad, 1941-1944' ("The Battle of Leningrad ...") - edited by the Soviet Lieutenant General S.P. Platonov, and published in the Soviet Union:

"The repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and in repulsing all attacks of our troops ... During the offensive operations, lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them in the orders of the Supreme Command, issued on June 21."

Finnish generals who participated in this war, such as General Ehrnrooth, fully agree with Platonov in this matter. Accordingly, in his last interview given, General Ehrnrooth calls the result of the Continuation War a Finnish defensive victory. In the interview given to Pro Karelia on December 17, 2003, the Finnish General of Infantry Adolf Ehrnrooth states:

"I - having participated in both the Winter War and the Continuation War - can stress: I know well, how the wars ended on the battle fields. The Continuation War in particular ended in (Finland's) defensive victory, in the most important meaning of the term."

The Finnish President Mauno Koivisto spoke at a seminar in Joensuu in August, 1994, in the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Finnish defensive victory in the critical Battle of Ilomantsi, the final attempt of the Red Army to break through the Finnish defenses (Koivisto witnessed this battle as a soldier). Here's what he said:

In the summer of 1944, when the Red Army launched an all-out offensive, aimed at eliminating Finland, the Finns were "extremely hard-pressed", President Koivisto emphasized, but they "did not capitulate ... We succeeded in stopping the enemy cold at key points", the President continued, "and in the final battle in Ilomantsi even in pushing him back".

Is there any reason why we shouldn't believe the Soviet and Finnish Generals and the Finnish President, all of whom followed these events closely ? There are a lot of other similar statements available from people who participated in this war.

If you revert the Wikipedia "result", please state the reasons why you wish not to believe the generals and the president about the Finnish 'defensive victory'. 87.93.33.121 (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You sound ridiculous... And your selected quotes don't help you. The fact that the fighting stalemated after the Finns were pushed back does not make it a Finnish victory and erase Soviet gains in the offensive. Also why would a winner sign such an unfavorable peace treaty? -YMB29 (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you! Losers don't dictate conditions upon winners. Also: "87.93.15.54" writes in one of his revertes: "Finns declined peace with USSR, unless it gives up demand for surrender. USSR had to agree, as at no point It had even been able to cross the border in the war it had started. All its plans had failed. No, you are completely out and flying in space. Russian plans to set Finland under pressure succeded, not least thanks to the Vyborg offensive and the following offensive in the Baltics (Pskov-Ostrov-offensive and Narva offensive) where Russians took Pskov, Ostrov and Narva (21, 23 and 26 of July) - which had the immediate consequence that the Germans had to remove their troops from Karelian isthmus (122nd division was called back to Reval (Tallinn), and stopped promised help - for instance 202nd StuG brigade). The Finns CHANGED their governement AND president (Mannerheim replaced Ryti on August 4) - winners don't do such things! All that happened only 3 weeks after the so called "decisive finnish victory" near Ihantala (acording to Finnish propaganda terminology). On August 25 the Finns seeked peace with the Soviets - the Russians demanded that Finland should drive away German troops from its soil, and the Finns (the so called "winners") obeyed the "loser's" order - they started the Lappland War on Germany's 214.000 soldiers. The Soviet objectives were achieved in full scale! Finland was removed from the war as Germany's ally, Leningrad area was secured, Soviet troops could now be freed from that area and be used on other front sectors against Germany. Full Soviet victory is what it is - nothing less! Don't come here with your Finnish post-war revisionist political propaganda, which is only supported in Finland. Koskenkorva (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a Soviet victory, but far from the full scale. You only have to check Soviet archives about the orders to 21st, 23rd, 59th and 14th armies to see how they failed to reach all of their objectives. Also, Soviet Union did retreat from it's demands of March 1944, why would a full victor do that kind of thing? And it retreated even much, much more from the demands of June 1944. (I don't need to resort to "post-war Finnish propaganda", Soviet archives will do fine...)--Whiskey (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Before the last bullets of the war had been fired, Finlandization had already began taking it's first steps. Thus, despite of the Finnish victories on the battle fields, Petsamo was traded to Hanko - to save the superpower from further embarrassment. Indeed, no concessions should have been made - and areas ceded after Winter War should be returned (Let's get back to this later - I'll give you the rest of my answer below.) Boris Novikov (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Despite victories, Finlandization began and concessions were made? Yes continue to not make sense...

No areas should have been ceded? Well that would have been a good reason and excuse for the Soviets to take the whole of Finland, don't you think? -YMB29 (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that the discussion YMB29 what you asked me to check for the result for Continuation war? If not please if you can point the discussion where this is completely handled. Koivuhalko (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is the discussion. Look at how many users are for Soviet victory vs against. -YMB29 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Then I will give my input. I don't know if the debate can be solved by comparing the amount of the votes if the truth is wanted to tell. To my knowledge it is not fair for the occasional reader to base the message on votes. The more essential is to tell the truth based on the available information in archives, history books and modern research (which is not politically biased) and actual realism. Ofcourse discussion can live freely.

Anyhow, Fact is that Finland stopped enemy on country boarder and Soviet Union could never take over Finland even they had severe and evil plans for that. Soviet Union started they illegal and criminal operations first. In many contributions it has been shown already clearly that actual war (Continuation War) was mostly victorius for Finland. You only need to look at the Whiskey's comment. If that is not enough look other contributions as well.

If we think about the set-ups before the war. Giant Super power against the little country. This same unbalance applied everything else as well; armory, vehicles, troops. If David beats Goljat, is it not victory? I would say it is a triumph.

You only need to look at the table of the losses both in human and material to give easy judgement for the victory. It is for Finland.

The another thing is that how peace negotiations were handled. We know that the situation was not easy for the negotiators from Finland. Finland did not want to continue the war on that situation to save Finnish people from further suffering. The desicions were not easy to cede large areas of land and start paying enormous war compensations for Soviets. This was ofcource great disappointment for the Finnish soldiers who did work to keep the agreed lines and finnish borders.

In short, Finland was not possible to be beaten even Soviet Union used all their available armory, effort and power. - That is clear Defensive victory for Finland from Continuation War. Koivuhalko (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You still don't have any real argument for Finnish victory...

You think that the Soviets had all of their forces on the Finnish front and the main enemy was Finland? They did not want to take Finland and Finland was the aggressor in this particular war.

As for losses, they are still very debatable. -YMB29 (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take my response below: Boris Novikov (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If the Soviets had won any important final battle, they should have been able to make it to the border

User YMB29: You are hereby challenged to provide detailed information of such reliable post-USSR Russian source (page and exact quote included) which claims that the Red Army would have made it to the pre-war Finnish border during the Continuation War, after the war-opening Soviet attack had been pushed back by the Finns.

If the Soviets had won any important finahad won any important final l battle, they should have been able to make it to the border, or to the lines that have been reported in the Soviet documents to have been the minimal targets in the summer offensive of 1944 (at least the original Soviet goal having been to conquer Finland - see sources below).

Only reports of Soviet failure have been reported. One of the reports is by the Soviet period General S.P. Platonov.

If you will not provide such a source, we will take it as a sign that your claim of the Finnish battle victories being "debatable" is not true - or that you are the only one debating.

To discover the most important Soviet intention that failed - making USSR not only the aggressor in the war, but also the looser in the end (for failing in all its plans) -, please see the article on the bottom of this page, under the headline:

CONQUERING FINLAND: WAR PLAN MAP OF SOVIET HIGH COMMAND, 11.27.1940 - FINALIZED IN MAY, 1941 Boris Novikov (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep on repeating the same thing so I will also. The Finns started the war and were pushed way back in 1944. Finnish government knew it was a matter of time before the Soviets would reach the border and cross into Finland. That is why they accepted loser's terms.

Don't confuse failure to advance in the end to failure in the war. -YMB29 (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take my answer below: Boris Novikov (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

THE SOVIETS THEMSELVES HAVE EMPHASIZED THAT THEY STARTED THE WAR. THUS, THAT QUESTION CAN BE PASSED

The Soviets failed "to carry out the tasks assigned to them", and the Finns "repulsed" all their attacks (Source: General S.P. Platonov) in the final determining battles of the war.

The Finns succeeded in stopping the Soviets according to the plan, which got its final shape on July 17, 1944, under the command of General Oesch, with the approval om Mannerheim. The Finns achieved a clear "defensive victory". The Soviets were never allowed to cross the war-preceding Finnish-Soviet border, ever since the Soviet war-opening attack.

The reason for the Soviets to start the war had been to conquer Finland (please, do not ignore the various sources provided for this information - including the Soviets themselves emphasizing the fact that they started the war). Not succeeding in that goal was the biggest failure of the Soviets. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why Finland won the war - i.e. the fighting on the battle fields

Please do not revert without valid reasoning given. In what way do you see USSR having won the fighting, i.e. the actual war ?

Rather than consensus, the Wikipedia record shows reverting of the result back and forth.

I suggest that for now we'd mark the result as 'Moscow Armistice', like user Illythr had left it. Although 'Finnish defensive victory' would be more correct. It would also match the 'official' Finnish view of the "separate war", which the Editor in Chief of Helsingin Sanomat Janne Virkkunen explains to be the current 'official' Finnish view [10].

Most must agree that there's not much significance in a couple of us Wikipedia users agreeing about the wording in any particular way - especially if others disagree. What is significant however, is that a Soviet General in a Soviet period book explains in detail how and when the Soviet offensive on the Karelian Isthmus failed. Together with the famed Finnish frontline WW2 period Infantry General Ehrnrooth's statement of a Finnish defensive victory, this forms a much more important consensus.

The generals Platonov and Ehrnrooth agree that the Soviets were stopped far from reaching their designated target.

As stated before, also high ranking political leaders, such as President Mauno Koivisto - who participated in the war's final major battle in Ilomantsi himself - and Prime Minister Esko Aho, among others, have given similar statements. These statements reflect the Finnish defensive victory. President Tarja Halonen too has famously called the Continuation War a "separate war" from WW2.

Thus, we ought to mark the ending of this war in Wikipedia as it truly ended. It was a Finnish defensive victory - "in the most important meaning of the term", as General Adolf Ehrnrooth points out in his final interview given.

Accordingly, the following statement by user YMB29 is untrue: "Finland was on the losing side since its army was pushed back to the 1940 border ..."

This is untrue, because in most areas the Finnish army was deep on the Soviet side of the border, when the fighting ended. The Finns retreated from these areas when the fighting and the war was already over.

The Soviet Union had started the war, and the Finns had pushed the Soviet army a safe distance away behind the national border. The Finns had held the Soviets behind the border until the fighting was agreed to have ended.

On the Leningrad sector, the final showdown clearly could not be fought on the Soviet side of the pre-WW2 Finnish-Soviet border, as here the border ran along the outskirts of Leningrad, and the Marshal of Finland Mannerheim had given strict orders for the Finns not to penetrate into the Soviet side here (although - naturally - on the critical border-crossing areas, such as in Siestarjoki and Valkeasaari, minor skirmishes could not be avoided in the close vicinity of the border, on both sides).

Thus, on June 17, 1944, before the anticipated summer offensive of the Red Army, Finnish General K.L. Oesch - with Mannerheim's approval - made a final decision about the defensive line, where the attack of the Red Army would be stopped on this sector.

Following this plan - using delaying tactics -, Finnish troops on this sector were withdrawn to the so called VKT- defensive line. Although the summer's Soviet offensive turned out to be extremely fierce, the VKT-line proved impenetrable, despite the unprecedented Soviet fire power, which included an artillery bombardment - in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala - unlike never seen before in history.

Again, the Soviet book 'Bitva za Leningrad, 1941-1944' ("The Battle of Leningrad ...") - edited by the Soviet Lieutenant General S.P. Platonov, and published in the Soviet Union - states the following:

"The repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and in repulsing all attacks of our troops ... During the offensive operations, lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them in the orders of the Supreme Command, issued on June 21."

On this battle sector, the withdrawing of the Finnish troops to the VKT-line was executed based on the plan decided on June 17, 1944, and following the orders given by General K.L. Oesch. And - importantly -, the Soviets were stopped on the VKT-line, as had been planned.

It is of utmost importance that we value what the above-mentioned Soviet and Finnish generals and the high ranking Finnish statesmen have stated, and what other evidence confirms to be true:

The Soviet strategy failed - the Finnish plan succeeded, and the Finns prevailed on the battle fields.

Accordingly, the "Aims" portion of the Continuation War article must also be corrected to reflect what the aims of the Soviet Union were, and how the Soviets failed in their efforts and their designated targets, as the Soviet book edited by General S.P. Platonov clearly points out.

On the Finnish side, the aims were defensive of nature - not offensive -, as the Marshal of Finland Mannerheim explains in his memoirs.

Due to the "defensive" nature of the preparations made in Finland, rearranging the Finnish army to counter-offensive formations to the north side of Lake Ladoga - following the Soviet attack of June 25, 1944 - took total of three weeks, and to spread the counter-offensive formations to the level of Viipuri took additional three weeks (Source: Mannerheim Memoirs).

Thus, I hereby move, that the related Mannerheim, Platonov and Ehrnrooth stances/statements are to be clearly reflected and linked in the 'aims' part of the Continuation War article - or in other relevant spots of the article. The analyzing of the war's successes must then be viewed based on what the 'aims' are shown to have been.

A part of good defensive preparation is the readiness to launch a counter-offensive, to push the attacking enemy back behind the borders - and to keep it there.

To point out that the Finns had prepared for the country's defense - rather than offense -, is not trying to deny that when the anticipated Soviet continuation of the Winter War aggression was going to take place, most Finns - most presumably, and understandably - hoped for the ceded Finnish territories to be regained, in the process.

These hopes which must have existed in many Finnish citizens' minds - however - do not make the nation of Finland the offender or the perpetrator in this war, as Mannerheim's memoirs and the real life events show. The aggressor was clearly the Soviet Union.

In view of all the pressure and the numerous border violations committed by USSR during the Interim Peace period, Finland cannot be called the 'aggressor' for simply preparing to defend itself against the approaching, inevitable and in many ways predictable continuation of the Soviet take-over attempt over Finland.

The 'aims' part of the article does currently not match the official Finnish view, which is that the Continuation War was a separate war from WW2. In the link given on this discussion page by user Peltimikko [11], the Editor in Chief of Helsingin Sanomat, Janne Virkkunen, confirms this.

Below, please find a quatation of that statement from November 30th, 2008, given by the Editor in Chief of Helsingin Sanomat Janne Virkkunen. The statement was given in the 'pääkirjoitus' column - the 'head column' - of the Finland's largest daily newspaper:

"Virallinen Suomi on edelleen erillissodan kannalla" - "Finland's official policy remains that Continuation War was a separate war" (from WW2).

Below, please find a quote from a text written by Colonel Ilmo Kekkonen on October 27, 2007. He is a historian who specializes in the Finnish-Soviet wars during WW2, but especially in the events of the Continuation War in the summer of 1944:

"Vetäytyminen käskettiin ja pysäytettiin suunnitelmallisesti" (The withdrawing of the Finnish troops was ordered and stopped in the way that was planned in advance)

(The above is in reference to the withdrawing of the Finnish troops to the VKT- defensive line on the Karelian Isthmus. The withdrawing was executed according to the plan made on June 17, 1944, before the anticipated Soviet summer offensive. The VKT- defensive line was not broken by the Soviets.)

"Kannaksen taistelujen merkittävimpiä päätöksiä oli Kannaksen joukkojen komentajaksi 14.06.44 määrätyn kenraaliluutnantti K. L. Oeschin 17.06.44 tekemä ylipäällikön hyväksymä ratkaisu vetää joukot viivyttäen suoraan Viipuri-Kuparsaari-Taipale -asemaan. ... oli kyse nimenomaan joukkojen suunnitelmallisesta pelastamisesta taistelukuntoisina tälle VKT-linjalle ja tiukka torjuntataistelu yhdessä Itä-Karjalasta kuljetettujen vahvennusten kanssa."

- Ilmo Kekkonen 27.10.2007. Kirjoittaja on sotahistoriaan ja erityisesti kesän 1944 tapahtumiin perehtynyt yleisesikuntaeversti, evp. 87.93.96.184 (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if recent studies conclude on a defensive victory, Wikipedia must not become the first encyclopaedia to publish such a fundamental statement. Both Encyclopaedia Britannica and Americana mention the capitulation of Finland in 1944. The Eesti Entsüklopeedia and Tietosanakirja do not feature standardised outcomes of the war (neither victory, stalemate nor defeat), while the latter argues that in comparison with the Soviet peace conditions of February 1944, those of August 1944 were more favourable to Finland as that time not demanding an unconditional capitulation. As obvious from the double negative, the Moscow Armistice was about the conditional capitulation of Finland. Based on the encyclopaedias, the only correct one of the possible standardised outcomes seems to be a Soviet victory. A more precise but unstandardised and therefore vague expression would be Moscow Armistice as suggested by Illythr. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't suggest it, merely removed the outcome for the duration of this discussion. Right now it's more of a one man crusade for the Truth™ rather than any kind of real discussion. --Illythr (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So how do we proceed to improve the article? Because even when we get the outcome straight, the article still looks in quite poor shape. It should be downsized by two to three times to become readable. The headers do not match the subsequent paras either - the paragraph titled 'Course' (I haven't come across the term in any other articles, is it correct?) starts off by the sub-para 'Initial stages' which should actually be called 'Preparations'. Hence, the header 'Course' or 'Combat activity' should belong to what is currently called '1941'. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is originally a somewhat poor translation of an unknown Finnish source. It's been corrected and fixed over the course of several years, but its overall shape is still not exactly the best (compare with the Winter War article). Periodic raids by a banned, but very insistent user with a strange POV are not helping either.

Anyhow, I agree with your suggestions; perhaps, the header "Course" ("...of the war," originally) can be removed as well, eliminating one more tier of depth. I have already simplified the structure somewhat, but, uh, guess right now is not the best time to work to improve the article. --Illythr (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Soviet victory" was a Cold War period myth, a propagated Soviet "truth". Please take the rest of my answer below: Boris Novikov (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

SINCE THE BRAKE OF USSR, HISTORY HAS BEEN REWRITTEN. THUS, MULTIPLE NEW SOURCES ARE PROVIDED FOR EACH PIECE OF INFO

This Wikipedia's article is not in line with the post- Soviet period history writing. Thus, it is easy to provide a dozed - or more - highly credited sources for each single piece of information now being corrected.

Please notice, that the opponent cannot find any contradicting sources to support the Soviet period "truth", as there aren't any such sources available. During the time of USSR, things had to be "lied" to the Soviet citizens, as the Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev explains in his memoirs.

What we do have, however, is the official Soviet history of the Soviet Air Force. In it the Soviet attack against Finland is explained and emphasized accurately in detail. This official Soviet information matches the Soviet war-opening attack also witnessed by the American embassy in Helsinki, as well as all the Finnish sources available.

Besides, no Soviet official has ever tried denying the detailed explanation of the Soviet attack given in this official publication:

"THE SOVIET AIR FORCE", pages 42-43. Published in English in 1973.

Professor Mauno Jokipii's book, Jatkosodan synty (1987), pages 606-607, provides a long direct quote from the official Soviet publication in question.

In addition to the Soviet emphasizing of this war-opening attack and the detailed attack plans associated with the attack, a dozen additional sources will also be included for the Soviet attacking having started already right after 6 am on June 22, 1941.

The June 22 attack Molotov did not try to deny to Mannerheim on June 23, 1941, when he made no mentioning of the Germans being in Finland, as a possible reason for the Soviet attack in question. (Source: Mannerheim memoirs)

User Illythr: A number of Wikipedia users, in addition to the underwriter, have explained why the "Soviet victory" is simply incorrect, and cannot be used in the article.

User Jaan Pärn: Ever since the Cold War ended, the misinformation given in Britannica has been denounced as false by historians specializing in the Continuation War. Please take a peek to the following article from already 16 year ago, which highlights a couple of similar outdated and misleading sources, relics of the Cold War period, propagating a "myth" of a Soviet victory which never happened (notice the book by Tillitson as an example of this false history writing): [12] Boris Novikov (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Soviet Union had prepared to attack westward in July, 1941, with the largest armed forces in the world history

The Soviet Union had planned - and was going - to attack westward in July, 1941, with the largest military formations in the world history. The plan was called Groza.

Stalin was certain that the Nazi Germany would not attack inside the Soviet Union. However, the Nazi Germany did attack first. This prevented the Soviet intension from ever materializing.

Nearly seven decades later, a large part of the archives relating to the status of the Soviet Union on June 21, 1941, is closed to historians and reserchers. What is there to hide ? The plan after the Soviet invasion of Europe ?

Nevertheless, in the light of the most recent findings - based on the published wartime documents and war plans of the Soviet leadership, and other material - a rapidly crowing number of academics, historians and military personnel - worldwide - have become convinced that the above-mentioned Soviet offensive plan would have materialized, if the Nazis would have not taken the initiative.

Below, please find a list of known historians - authors of books on the subject -, who have specialized in the Soviet military history, having to do with WW2. All the listed authors have shown in writing that they see the Soviet intention to have been to strike Europe with the most massive military offensive in history.

Much more known historians can be added to this list - furher sources can provided per request. A number of these historians have also extensively written - explaining in detail - why they see the Operation Barbarossa to have been a pre-emptive attack against the Soviet Union:

• Sampo Ahto, colonel

• Fritz Becker, historian

• Lev Bezymenskin, professor

• Tatjana S. Bushujeva, historian

• V. Danilov, historian

• Juri L. Djakov, historian

• Juri Gorkov, historian

• Wolf Halsti, colonel

• Erkki Hautamäki, historian

• Tapani Havia, professor

• Joachim Hoffman, historian

• Daniel C. Holtrop, historian

• Heinz Magenheimer, historian

• Ohto Manninen, professor

• Mihail Meltjuhov, historian

• V. A. Nevezhinin, historian

• Erkki Nordberg, colonel

• I. V. Pavlova, historian

• Edvard Radzinski, historian

• Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, historian

• Russel Stolfi, professor

• Wolfgang Strauss, historian

• Ilmari Susiluoto, historian

• Viktor Suvorov, former Soviet spy

• Tapio Tiihonen, historian

• Ernst Topitsch, historian

• Kent Zetterberg, historian Boris Novikov (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User Whiskey: The Soviets moved away troops only after loss in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Why do you revert that info ?

User Whiskey: You are reverting this, "After the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, the Red Army began withdrawing its troops away from the Finnish front ..." to this, "By that time, Finland had already become a sideshow for the Soviet leadership ..."

Finland clearly became a sideshow for the Soviets only after the loss in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Only after the loss, the Soviet Union began moving away forces from the Finnish front, to be joined with the Allied forces marching towards Berlin.

If you have other information available, we'd love to have the source. Please include the page number for our convenience.

However, if you do not have such information, would you kindly please refrain from reverting this information ? Boris Novikov (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The causal link is your original research. The tendentious interpretation of sources you add to the article to advance your fringe point of view (even in Finland) will be reverted as it was ever since 2006 - due to lack of support from the sources you cite (or don't). --Illythr (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The few edits which I did in a row yesterday, are commonly accepted knowledge (although the myth of a Soviet victory still lives in many people's minds - in Russia particularly -, due to lack of correct information). Besides, my info provided in the edits is in the article already.

It is already stated in the article, that in the beginning of the war there was a Soviet land attack over the Finnish border, but the Soviets were bushed back. A larger Finnish counter-offensive got under way only on July 10. Why now try denying that in the other context, where I made the correction ? Childish, dont' you think ?

It is wrong for anyone to try to insinuate that the Soviets lost the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, because troops - or a part of troops - had "already" been moved away. The burden of proof of such troop movements is on the contributor who makes the claim, or who reverts to it.

The Soviet specialist on the topic, General S.P. Platonov, makes no such false excuses. In a Soviet period book 'Bitva za Leningrad, 1941-1944', published in the Soviet Union and edited by the General himself, Platonow stands up like a true man, and states the following:

"The repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and in repulsing all attacks of our troops ... During the offensive operations, lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them in the orders of the Supreme Command, issued on June 21."

Please take the rest of ny answer below. Boris Novikov (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your usage of sources is not correct. This "Soviet attack" was conducted by separate companies, each one operating independently by others; The largest one was conducted only by a battallion. I have seen no Finnish sources claiming these attacks tried to conquer Finland. All sources are unimous that those attacks were only probes to check Finnish strengths and later to tie Finnish forces so that they couldn't support the offensive of the Army of Karelia.

In the preface of his book, Manninen specifically states that the presented plans do not mean that Soviets intented to conquer Finland in the beginning of the Continuation War. He also specifically forbids anyone to make such claims at the end of the preface.

And Finland was a sideshow to Soviet Union all the time. The outcome of the war was decided in the central Europe, not in Finland. Also the losses Soviet forces suffered forced them to withdraw several units from the front to recuperate (Jatkosodan historia 5:212). Govorov was fighting against time: he had a certain timeframe he could use certain forces before they were needed elsewhere, their withdrawal was a result from that timetable, not the end of the battle of Tali-Ihantala. In fact, it was already June 22, before the Tali-Ihantala, when Govorov was rebuffed by STAVKA when he asked more forces to conduct his orders. --Whiskey (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please take my answer below, user Whiskey: Boris Novikov (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

MARSHAL GEORGI ZHUKOV: STALIN STRICTLY PROHIBITED ALL DEFENSIVE PREPARATIONS

MAUNO KOIVISTO:

The President of Finland Mauno Koivisto, PhD, has researched Soviet/Russian literature relating to WW2 and the Continuation War.

In his book 'Venäjän idea' ("the Idea of Russia"), President Koivisto tells how the Soviets had in their preparations concentrated strictly in offensive war planning and readiness only, prior to the launching of the Continuation War. Any defensive preparations weren't even considered - they were entirely prohibited.

Koivisto makes the following reference to the memoirs of the Soviet Marshal Georgi Zhukov:

"In 1995, a new print of the memoirs of Marshal Georgi Zhukov was published. ... Zhukov gives a very unembellished picture of how strictly Stalin prohibited all defensive preparations."

Result

Looking at the wildly swinging sock puppet accusations there might be a need to reset the results to something more people can agree with. Make it a straw poll if you want to. Suggestion, 'Moscow Armistice', that alone should be enough as there already is an article about it. That is Soviet victory does seem to imply for SU being victorious and Finnish being defeated even though the Finnish army was its strongest after the SU attack in 1944 and also defeated and/or repulsed and drove away all final SU attacks ( Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Viipurinlahti, Battle of Vuosalmi, Battle of Nietjärvi, Battle_of_Ilomantsi, not to mention the utterly failed SU aerial attacks on Helsinki). Hardly results gained against victorious forces. On the other hand RU did manage to push the front back. And Finns did eventually agree on the peace terms - though only after SU made the peace treaty terms less severe. So how would it be if you just took out both soviet victory and finnish defensive victory and just leave it at that? - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Again looking at the outcome of the war and the peace terms, it is ridiculous to not call this a Soviet victory. You should not only look at the Finnish historiography of won battles and Soviet failures. -YMB29 (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of the war was a cease fire and then later a peace treaty, not surrender or capitulation. Peace terms were much harsher before the Soviet attack in 1944 had been stopped. Still doesn't sound like a 'victory' to me. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not sound like a victory when your are wearing pro-Finnish glasses... You don't need to completely surrender to lose a war. The cease fire was only declared when the Finnish government showed that they were willing to sign a treaty on Soviet terms.

And how were the terms much harsher before the Soviet offensive? -YMB29 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unconditional surrender is generally considered to be much harsher than any even conditional peace negotiations, or would you disagree? Though SU did offer peace terms earlier - after Helsinki was bombed - but even though on other subjects this treaty would have been roughly similar to the eventual peace treaty it included twice as high war reparations with far less time to pay them. Though later as i said earlier this changed to unconditional surrender - according to some sources SU later claimed that this was a misunderstanding, possibly to appear to be in accord with what was agreed in Tehran Conference and with US demands (however unconditional surrender was what Finns at that time understood the treaty to mean). Regardless of the reasons those treaties were rejected by the Finns. And after Soviet attacks had been stopped or repulsed the SU dropped the unconditional surrender demand and agreed for a peace treaty with smaller war reparations and longer time to pay them than before. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

When did they want unconditional surrender? Like you said, the only difference between peace terms given before the offensive and the final ones was that the Finns had to pay less reparations, more time to pay them, and more time to get the Germans out. What else? This is hardly an argument for victory... -YMB29 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

SU offered terms and too harsh to accept terms in April 1944 which Finns refused to accept. Then at height of the Soviet push Finns did ask for terms for which SU offered only unconditional surrender (June 22nd) which was flatly refused by the Finns. This was before any of the decisive battles. After the series of battles (listed above) all of which varied from disastrous to mere total failure for the Soviets the SU ambassador (in Sweden) informed that that SU would not (any more) require unconditional surrender and the peace talks started. Before the talks ended Finns had stopped SU advances on the other areas (than Karelian Isthmus) and also destroyed (driven back and forcing them to surrender all equipment) two SU divisions in Ilomantsi. Then SU agreed for lesser terms. And i haven't argued for Finnish victory - I have argued against Soviet victory. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't have an argument against Soviet victory. All you can say is that the terms were made less harsh, but they still were harsh, ones that the victor dictates.

Unconditional surrender is how it was interpreted by the Finns, and again the original terms were not that much harsher compared to the final. Also, like I said before, I don't trust the Finnish interpretation of those "decisive" battles, but all this is besides the point. -YMB29 (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the Stalin would have been offering the darn Moon from the sky but what information went to the Finns was interpreted to say 'unconditional surrender'. And it hardly was purely 'victor dictates' if the terms were made less severe on exactly on the points which were found impossible to fulfill (unless of course victor was dictating to make the peace treaty more acceptable for the Finns - :P ). And the very same question i posted to the other 'thread'... If the Soviets were winning why didn't they succeed in destroying the Finnish Army or reaching the Kymijoki river, both of which were stated goals of the offensive. Or was just that they didn't win? If you don't trust Finnish version then try to figure out a good answer why did RKKA failed to reach its objectives? Why SU casualties kept mounting if the front lines didn't move? Why didn't RKKA reach Finnish post Winter War border? (or in the one place they did then why there did red army divisions run back to SU through the forests abandoning their equipment?) - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an understanding of what is a military victory? It is not about achieving all the military tactical goals, but accomplishing the wider strategic goal or gaining more than the enemy after the war. The main goal of the Soviets during that time was defeating Germany and capturing Berlin, not Helsinki. They just wanted Finland out of the war and pay a price for its alliance with Germany, which all happened. They did not care about completely destroying the Finish army or occupying Finland. By your logic the Vietnam War should not be a victory for North Vietnam, since they did not destroy the US military or win many major battles (not meaning to say that the Soviets did not win many battles against the Finns). -YMB29 (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes i do.. And what Soviets accomplished was hardly a military victory. Political one it was though. If the SU didn't care of destroying Finnish army then why was that declared as a goal for the operation'? Or was it Soviet tactic to make grandiose goals and then declaring victory after being unable to reach them? North Vietnam actually did win several (Ho Chi Minh campaign, Saigon, US withdrawal is whole another story) of the final battles of that war - something which the Soviets were incapable of accomplishing at that time. If failing to win counts as a victory in your books (as it seems to do - by your logic it would seem to me that the US won the Vietnam war) then you are on the right track. OTOH then all major engagements at end of the war would be Finnish victories instead of 'defensive victories' using the same reasoning as you do. And you conveniently ignored the questions i placed for you... - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Again you don't make sense.

The North Vietnamese hardly won a major battle against the US.

When did the Soviets declare that they wanted to completely destroy the Finnish army? They only cared about destroying them enough to push them back and convince Finland to sign peace.

All you do is ignore the final outcome of the war and talk about tales of "decisive" Finnish victories. This is just laughable... -YMB29 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This says so Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive (not the only source, just the one most readily available).. See the Plan. I'll copy the relevant portions here so its easier to view. "The Stavka plan called for a two-pronged offensive, one from Leningrad via Vyborg to the River Kymijoki, and the second across the Svir River through Petrozavodsk and Sortavala past the 1940 border, preparing for an advance deep into Finland. The plan called for the Finnish army to be destroyed in the Karelian Isthmus...". So lets start checking, (1) reaching Kymijoki, failed, (2) reaching Sortavala, failed, (3) destroying Finnish army, failed. I have answered you in the question of what was final outcome of the war and i never have claimed Finns of winning the war. What i have claimed is that neither did SU (at least on military level). Hence result should be just Moscow Armistice and nothing else. And you are still ignoring the line of questions i placed for you.

As for the decisive victories... Again you seem to have not read what i have written.. Decisive battle is often used as a synonym of important battle which indeed i used. However I do not seem to have called any of the battles as decisive victories. Though some of them could be called as such like Battle of Ilomantsi.

Also i never said NV would have won a major battle against US, I just stated that NV did win the major battles at the end of the Vietnam War (which continued, or rather restarted after US withdrawal, not before it). - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No according to your logic the North Vietnamese failed in every tactical objective against the US (just as you say the Soviets failed against the Finns), and the US chose to withdraw based on political pressure (like Finland in 1944 as you and others here imply), so one can say that the US did not lose the war... Your view of the war is that those supposed Finnish "victories" in the end saved it from occupation and ensured that Finland did not lose the war. So it is not wrong to say that you consider them decisive. What questions are you talking about? Casualties were mounting on both sides and Finland knew that it could not last for too long. If one talks about the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, it is a major success even if all the tactical goals were not accomplished. You cling to every tactical objective not being accomplished as proof of Soviets not being victorious. Again Vyborg and Petrozavodsk were liberated (major tactical victories), Finns exited the war and accepted Soviet terms (strategic and political victories). What more do you want? -YMB29 (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It was you who started implying that there were similarities with Vietnam War and Continuation War, not me. Don't try to claim that i said something that didn't. From my POV there are very little similarities between those conflicts and reasons for pulling out of them. All i stated was that in Vietnam War NV did succeed in the final decisive attacks and in Continuation War SU failed. Both are facts.

The questions... Also keep in mind that strength of Finnish army actually increased during the offensive as reservists were recalled for duty (a lot of reservists had been released from duty in 1942) even when you count in the casualties. And this is without counting in the modern (by then) assault guns, anti-tank equipment and fighter planes which greatly increased Finnish army's fighting strength.

• If the Soviets were winning why didn't they succeed in destroying the Finnish Army or reaching the Kymijoki river, both of which were stated goals of the offensive. Or was just that they didn't win?
• If you don't trust Finnish version then try to figure out a good answer why did RKKA failed to reach its objectives?
• Why SU casualties kept mounting if the front lines didn't move (rate for SU casualties was much higher than during the static phase of 1942 - 1943)?
• Why didn't RKKA reach Finnish post Winter War border?
• Or in the one place they did then why there did red army divisions run back to SU through the forests abandoning their equipment?

Kymijoki river and beating of Finnish army on the Karelian Isthmus were the initials goals of that offensive. You seem to be ignoring that Finns didn't agree to initial SU terms. Or that SU changed the peace terms to unconditional surrender. Or that when attack failed - Finland didn't surrender or capitulate - and Finns refused to agree with SU demands, SU first have give in with the 'unconditional surrender' demand and also make the terms of the agreement less severe. From military perspective the operation was a failure for the SU. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The North Vietnamese failed against the US just like you said the Soviets failed against the Finns in the end (this is your view of course), so logically it is correct from your thinking to say that the US did not lose the war just like Finland.

Talk about the increased strength of the Finnish army is useless. Its leaders knew they could not last for long if the Soviets launched another major operation. This is admitted, and they would not have signed the treaty otherwise.

Very high losses for the Soviets and not for Finland is just part of the Finnish version of the war.

Again just because it was a stalemate at the end does not change the fact that the Soviet offensive was successful in driving the Finns back and forcing them to sign peace. You keep on ignoring this and going in circles. You also did not prove that the Soviets wanted unconditional surrender. -YMB29 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

NV did fail to win against the US troops. However US departure was not related to military situation in Vietnam. You should notice that US troops left the Vietnam before the Vietnam War reached its conclusion. The final battles - which were decisive NV victories - were fought against South Vietnam. There is very little similarity with Continuation War.

Very high losses compared to the losses suffered when the fronts were static in 1942-43.

You could just as well say that Finnish military fought well enough to force SU from conditional surrender demand to peace treaty. And what exactly do you require as a proof of the Soviet demand for unconditional surrender? Marshall Mannerheim in his memoirs specifically mentions Soviet demands (which he received in 23rd of June 1944) as demands for unconditional surrender - I won't bother posting the text as it is in Finnish and you didn't seem to approve not accept documents written in Finnish. Some Internet sources [13], [14].

Also, as usual, you have failed to provide any evidence on the contrary. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What sources you want? That Finland paid $300,000,000 to the USSR, or that the Soviets took Vyborg and Petrozavodsk? You did not see my source about Stalin talking about Finland at the Tehran Conference?

Again unconditional surrender demand was how it was interpreted by the Finns. Losses were very high for the Finns also and they could not take those for much longer.

The North Vietnamese did not achieve their military goals against the US, just like you said the USSR did not against the Finns (you are in denial), so logically if Finland did not lose then the US did not also. -YMB29 (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that the reparations were twice as high with far less time to pay them when Finns didn't agree to them in Spring 1944. After which Soviet raised the demands to unconditional surrender (check Mannerheim's memoirs if you don't believe it). After Soviet attacks had been beaten and defeated Soviets not only withdrew the unconditional surrender demand (by claiming it had been a misunderstanding was seemingly just a face saving ploy) but also agreed to halve the reparations and give longer time to pay them (just like Finns had requested when it came clear reparations had to be paid). And Stalin promised a lot of things to the Western allies. Only few came to pass (did democratic elections in Poland or in rest of the Eastern Europe happen).

As i have stated several times strength of Finnish army grew also. Finns had disbanded a lot of reservists after the front stabilized at the end of 1942. These were recalled. Also younger age class had just been trained. Finnish army's strength was considerably higher at the end of the SU attack than before it.

I'm still not getting why you keep drawing Vietnam War into the same frame as Continuation War. Totally different and totally separate events. And just FYI US departure had very little to do with NV successes or failures. There was no winners or losers in the Vietnam War at that state (yet). Vietnam War continued after the US had left. And then - again after the US had left - did the North Vietnam beat the South Vietnam - situation couldn't be more different than what it was in Continuation War. Please check the facts you are using. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Vietnam War is used to demonstrate that the result of a war is judged by the political and strategic outcome. The US did not lose much battles, but lost the war. If you think it did not then you are the one who needs to check facts. Even the most patriotic Americans admit that. Here you are trying to push the view that since Finland supposedly won the last few battles, it did not lose the war. Look at the outcome. Reparations are paid by the losers...

The reparations were halved because it was understood that Finland could not pay the original amount. The US and Britian were worried about that. How much effect the Finnish resistance in the end of the offensive had on the decision is open to speculation, but the most you can claim here is that Finland improved its position a little. This does not change the fact that Finland had to submit to harsh demands and therefore lost the war.

You want to think about unconditional surrender being real and dismiss Stalin's words as lies, go head; it is just further proof that you are in denial.

By the way, elections did take place in some Eastern European countries, like Czechoslovakia for example. -YMB29 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Which the communists lost.. and Soviet sponsored coup de etat happening there in 1948 was certainly something in accord with Stalins promises to the west... free elecions - right... Not to mention Prague Spring - another Soviet 'high' point. And the other free elections (in Hungary) ended also in communists losing them but Soviets enforcing the communists ruling position..

If you have any proof the Soviet demand during the campaign was not an unconditional surrender then please present it. Finnish sources are quite clear that during the initial phase of the attack SU demanded unconditional surrender (capitulation). This has been repeated in several sources. Only after the attacks had been stopped did SU remember that it didn't ask for unconditional surrender.

Something to read on the issue:

• Finland's Relations with the Soviet Union, 1940-1986
• Stalin's insistent endeavors at conquering Finland

Again here you claim Finns didn't win the final battles. Please provide some proof that they didn't. Finnish sources are explicit about this. Repeated Soviet attempts failed to have any effect. As losses kept mounting and it came apparent that RKKA had failed Stalin pulled back the better quality elements which had been attached for the operations against Finns and moved them against Germans. It has also been shown that those elements were withdrawn only after the SU attack had been stopped.

So you conveniently ignore the fact that it was the domestic opposition and policy changes (and at points even the worse foreign relations caused by the war) which lead to US withdrawal from the Vietnam War. Which yet again makes the Vietnam War something which can not be compared against Continuation War. And from what i have seen there are lots of people who do not considered that US lost in Vietnam. After all US made peace with North Vietnam and then withdraw its troops - at which point the situation remained undecided (or a draw). Which was done before NV launched its final attack (at which point US was no longer participant in the war).

Again, here you present the Soviet view. But Soviets were not offering anything else than unconditional surrender until their attacks had been stopped. Now i leave the burden of proof for you... Finnish documents provide quite clear details on how RKKA was stopped and driven back and how and when did SU demands change into peace terms, so.. Please provide evidence or proof that (i) If Finnish army didn't stop RKKA (ie. win the battles) how did RKKA failed to reach even initial goals of their offensive, (ii) Finnish army didn't win the battles, (iii) SU was not offering unconditional surrender during its attack. - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Czechoslovak communists did not lose in 1946, but got the most votes. And in 1948 they had enough support to take over. Anyway, this is very off topic. For unconditional surrender, look at your own link to a forum discussion about the surrender document. The actual message to the Finns was very different and unconditional surrender is how the Finns interpreted it. Anyway this again is irrelevant when talking about the result, as even if unconditional surrender was demanded at the height of the offensive, the results of the war don't change. Again all the talk about conquering Finland and unconditional surrender are speculation. Nothing solid has been provided by you. Slowing down or stopping an advance does not mean winning all the battles. It seems as if the Finns regard any battle in which they did not retreat or lose kilometers in ground as deceive victories... The fact that troops were recalled to other fronts simply means that the other fronts were much more important and what has been accomplished was good enough (which of course proved true with Finland accepting terms). The US failed in all of its strategic aims in Vietnam, so that is why Americans themselves consider the war as lost. This shows that the strategic and political outcome is most important when determining losers and winners of wars. I could go and provide various sources, but you are the one who needs to present reliable sources for your controversial statements. -YMB29 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well.. i only responded to the Czech issue as you brought it up.

So.. after i did provide sources you still decide that because think you are right you do not need to provide any sources but instead i would need to provide more? Right....

So according to your so far non-existing sources if Stalin tried to conquer or subvert Finland in 1939, 1940-41, and 1944 - 1948 he suddenly didn't want to do so in Summer 1944 when issuing unconditional surrender demand. Perhaps you need to back up claim with something else as well. Also as said several times throughout the discussion Mannerheim as well as several other prominent Finnish figures list the Soviet demand as unconditional surrender.

You are continuously twisting my words. I haven't said the battles were decisive Finnish victories. I said the last battle, where two SU divisions were broken and driven from their positions while capturing all their equipment and heavy weapons, could be decisive victory. It and the other battles were however decisive battles. (there is a big difference between decisive victory and decisive battle) I have pointed this out several times already in this thread but still you seem to be insisting about this one.

US strategic goals shifted midway during the Vietnam War. It would be hypocritical to select a single instance to represent their strategic goals throughout the war.

I have provided sources. You have provided nothing. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, user YMB29: The Finns were not "willing to sign a treaty on Soviet terms". That is exactly a part of the Soviet failure. A peace would be only signed if the Soviets would agree to give up the demand for unconditional surrender. The Soviets saw no option but to agree to this, after a series of final determining battles, which were all victorious for the Finns.

A defensive war can only be won by a defensive victory. That is what Finland achieved - a clear defensive victory, on all battle fronts.

The Soviet intention had been to conquer Finland, as a number of sources on this page and the Soviet war plans reveal. Instead, - ever since the Soviet war-opening attack - the Red Army was never allowed to cross the war-preceding border. Please take the rest of my answer below: 87.95.136.112 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You are like a comedian here...

The Soviet intention was never to conquer Finland. They did not care for unconditional surrender; they just wanted Finland out of the war and to pay some price.

A victory when you have to retreat, demobilize, fight against your ally, pay reparations, and agree to a number of political demands is just silly. -YMB29 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Even though you apparently purposefully ignored my response i might as well say something about this.. Even if (and this one being very strong if) Soviet goal was not to conquer Finland (like its demand of unconditional surrender makes it seem like) the RKKA never achieved its goals against the Finns. Kymijoki river (the minimum goal for the Soviet push) was far beyond their reach and destruction of Finnish army utterly failed (as Finnish army was even stronger and far better equipped after the SU push in 1944 started than before it). And i was not saying Finland won but what I'm saying is that SU didn't win either. After all the outcome of the war (treaty) was fairly close to status quo - not exactly victorious outcome for either side, less so for Finns but certainly not victorious for SU either. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the Soviets took Vyborg and Petrozavodsk - the main territorial goals one may say. I just don't understand how you can say it was not a Soviet victory given the results I listed above. Seems that for you the only way it would have been a Soviet victory is if Finland would have been annexed... -YMB29 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

All the fighting (apart from Ilomantsi) took place on the area the SU had captured in 1940 and which Finns had retaken in 1941 - or even deeper in the SU area. SU main initial target (territorial goal as you might say) was reaching Kymijoki river which failed. Finnish army was not beaten (in fact stronger than ever). SU attacking force was beaten and in certain areas driven back. Result of the war was a peace treaty.. Not surrender (conditional or unconditional) or capitulation. Hence result should be Moscow Armistice and not a victory for either side. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

All this is nice but why did they accept the harsh peace terms? If you are winning, why give so much up like a loser? You don't make sense. -YMB29 (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Finns had seen already in late 1942 (according to various memoirs) that Nazi-Germany was fighting a war they would lose sooner or later. They had no intentions to stay in go down with it. The only reason why Finns didn't start seeking peace earlier (or indeed try to stay out of the war altogether - though Soviet aggression after the Winter War prevented this) was the fear of German reprisals. Finns had hoped to retake most of the territory captured by the Soviets and then leave it at that. That is Finns had believed that regardless what would happen in Nazi-Soviet war there would still be Russians living next to Finns. So the peace treaty was what the Finns were after (in 1943 and later) but they had no way of doing so as far as the Germans were still strong enough to avenge it. So peace was the Finnish goal of the war - and given the lack of German triumph it would probably be on less stellar terms. Also in the similar manner as you asked - if Soviets were winning why didn't they succeed in destroying the Finnish Army or reaching the Kymijoki river, both of which were stated goals of the offensive. Or was just that they didn't win either? SU historians were notoriously lazy in documenting not so successful operations - possibly cause at least earlier giving back too negative reports, even if truthful might have grave consequences. AND FOR THE FINAL TIME I NEVER SAID FINNS WERE WINNING THE WAR EITHER - please try even acting like you would have read my comments.

Also.. it one of the reasons why SU attack was initially so successful was that it was totally unexpected for Finns. Given that both sides had already been seeking the peace and main sticking points had been the war reparations and some territory questions Finns didn't think any sane enemy would attack them. As SU was bound to get somewhat similar deal without fighting. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You were saying how the Finns were successful in winning on the battlefield... Obviously if that was the case they would not have accepted such terms while still winning the battles. But again all this does not matter, even if the Finns would have been pushing towards Leningrad. They accepted Soviet terms. War reparations are paid to the winners... -YMB29 (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Finns had wanted to be left alone in the first place but imperialistic maneuvers SU made sure that was impossible. And Finns had beaten and driven back Soviet assaults before SU 'noticed' that it hadn't been requesting unconditional surrender in late summer 1944. Many Finnish front line commanders wanted to counterattack. Finnish troops were winning on the battlefields. Yet they accepted the terms. But that was political decision made after the military part of the SU campaign had been beaten off.

Given that SU goal in 1941 had been complete take over (Molotov's talks with Germans) and that even in summer 1944 SU still demanded unconditional surrender and that only after Finnish army had beaten the SU formations send against them did SU agree to change their stance from unconditional surrender to peace terms and even made terms less severe (halved the reparations you seem to keep so important) i am just unable see how string of SU military failures count as Soviet military victory. They failed to achieve their 1941 goal, they failed to achieve the military goals set for the campaign in 1944. All the succeeded after practical military means were exhausted was a political 'victory' as Finnish political and military leadership were well aware that standing alone with Western nations either trying to hold neutrality or as Soviet allies the Finland would eventually lose if it stood alone - there is only so much a lone nation could do with less than 4 million can do against nation with nearly 200 million citizens. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well at least you admit that it was a political victory, and that is most important in terms of the result of the war. Again the US in Vietnam did not lose militarily but politically, and so lost the war.

However what you are saying is just Finnish patriotic historiography. There is no proof of Soviets planning to conquer Finland and seriously wanting unconditional surrender. Again see my source on Stalin at the Tehran conference.

And Finland was not losing in 1944 as much as the Germans were at the time... -YMB29 (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

US didn't lose the Vietnam War. It departed before the War had reached its conclusion. Their departure was not related to NV failures or successes. Also there are very little similarities with Vietnam War and Continuation War. TBH I'm having very much difficulty in finding any.

Molotov's request in pre-war time to Germans' to get free hands with Finland? Pre-war threats, additional demands, tampering with Finnish Presidential elections, prevention of Swedish-Finnish defense agreement, continued and open support for revolutionary organizations... Not to mention the demand for unconditional surrender which miraculously turned into a peace agreement after SU armies were too inept to reach even their initial goals.

Do I really need to do this again? Very well.. AND FOR THE FINAL TIME I NEVER SAID FINNS WERE WINNING THE WAR EITHER - please try even acting like you would have read my comments.

Whole war ended into Moscow Armistice, with both armies still fully intact in the field. So that should be the end result of the Continuation War as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So by your definition a war victory is only when the loser's armies are not intact?

Let me change that to "Finland was not losing in 1944 as much as the Germans were at the time...". Yes big difference...

Again there is only speculation about unconditional surrender.

The US did lose the Vietnam War. Check what I wrote above. -YMB29 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Only speculation of unconditional surrender comes from you. Provide proof that there was none of stop making such claims.

Also answered above of the US and Vietnam War.

And first you blame me for twisting your words though you have kept doing that yourself all the time. Finland was far from losing in 1944 after the attacks had been stopped. Army was eager to continue, there are several instances where Finnish front line commanders asked from the HQ for permission to counter attack but due to peace negotiations it was prevented. So Finnish army was intact (not that it would be mandatory for it to be defeated) but it had also held off and pushed back the RKKA attacks until RKKA had exhausted itself. Also Finnish army was still standing fast deep in the SU land (judging from post Winter War borders) when the armistice came to place, hardly a place to be for a losing army.

Wars are seldom clear cut victories. Its much easier to find a winner for a battles than it is for a war. Also nations do have different goals for wars which makes it even more difficult to decide who actually won and what exactly unless there is a clearly defined surrender. You could view that in Continuation War SU won cause it got some reparations, much less so than it had demanded and also it failed to occupy or to annex Finland (or to cause uprising). At the same time you could just as easily view that in Continuation War Finns kept their freedom and independence and their democratic government while not being able to regain the land lost in Winter War. Both sides win? Both sides failed? - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Provide proof that there was none? I think if you are making the claim, you should provide solid proof of that, like what I provided about the Tehran conference. Then we can discuss...

You keep avoiding the question as to why a nation with such a victorious army accepts such harsh of a peace deal? The Germans in 1944 could have claimed about their army what you said about the Finnish army... No doubt that the German army was losing at the time, even though they were still on Soviet land. The situation was similar with Finland and if the Finns would not have accepted Soviet terms the same would have awaited them. No doubt Finland failed in its objectives in this war and had to then concede demands. The Soviets regained the 1940 borders, got Finland out of the war as German allies and to fight on their side, obligated Finland to pay reparations and concede a number of political demands. Conquering Finland was not an objective, unless you have solid proof of that... -YMB29 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As i have stated. Marshal Mannerheims memoirs clearly and explicitly mention SU demand for unconditional surrender. Same issue is mentioned in several other sources as well (including memoirs of other prominent Finns). On the other hand only mention of Finland and Tehran conference seems to vaguely indicate that Finns could be (not that it should or would be) offered a separate peace.

I keep avoiding? - i just explained it above... Finns knew all the time that fighting alone against SU would be pointless (but it should be made as costly as possible regardless). As western powers were allied to SU the logical source for help was gone. Sweden seemingly kept too busy trying to please everyone to help any one. Nazi Germany had been losing the war since winter 1942/43. Finns had no help coming without which nation with 4 million is just unable to fight alone against nation with 150 million. So peace had to be made. However as long as Nazi forces still were in position to retaliate making a separate peace would have been suicidal.

Germans didn't have democratic system. Nazi-Germany like SU was a dictatorship. And any resentment which was apparent after bomb attack against Hitler was swiftly crushed. There was no one even starting to make peace. Finland on the other hand had been trying to make separate peace since 1943.

I did post about the Finnish goals and objectives just in the last post. I see no point copy pasting it again here. If goals crushing the army, advancing to river-line (Kymi) and from there to Helsinki (goals of the SU operation in 1944) were not part of a plan to conquer Finland then for what were they? Also - read the articles i linked to the discussion earlier - you have provided no sources what so ever to support your point of view - hardly a position from which to demand solid proof for anything. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk about unconditional surrender and conquering Finland

User YMB29: You seem to simply refuse to pay any attention to any sources provided. The purpose of the war was to conquer Finland. That must be the starting point for all other analyzing.

Instead, the destiny worked against the Soviet plans and intention on the Finnish front. Still in early June, 1941, the Soviets had a notably larger attacking force ready to go and to take over Finland than what was available towards the end ot the month (the figures can be added to the article, along with appropriate sources, of course). In early June, the Soviets still had no knowledge of how the things were going to unveil. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Like they had nothing better to do other than conquering Finland when facing the largest invasion in history...

During the Tehran Conference in 1943, Stalin clearly stated that he did not want to conquer Finland (this can be sourced), so that easily brings down your claim. -YMB29 (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, "you seem to simply refuse to pay any attention to any sources provided". The list of 12 sources provided on the article's lead section is exactly that: sources - based on authentic Soviet war plan maps and plenty of other evidence, reported through extensive studies and publications by the most respected specialists and historians on the field.

When/if we re-introduce the sources ignored by you, then you appear to complain about the repeating. If we do not repeat, then you ask, "where are your sources". User Wanderer complained about this ignorence of yours. However, it is not frustrating me. Quite the contrary, I am glad to repeat anything that you may have not understood.

The largest invasion in history was planned in the Soviet Union, against the west. The known historians listed on this page all agree (pls see the lengthy list provided earlier - more historians can be added).

In Tehran, Stalin did not state "that he did not want to conquer Finland". However, he made it look as though he'd go along with Churchill's and Roosevelts's wishes in that regard. Not the only time Stalin was not not worth trusting. Boris Novikov (talk) 10 February 2010 (UTC)

More conspiracy theories by you... -YMB29 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Here it is for you:

At the summit of the Big Three at Tehran in November-December 1943, Marshal Stalin was at pains to stress that an independent Finland remained one of the Soviet Union's war aims... Having expected the Soviet Union to demand unconditional surrender, Churchill and Roosevelt were agreeably surprised by Stalin's readiness to negotiate with Finland.

From Between East and West: Finland in international politics, 1944-1947 by Tuomo Polvinen, D. G. Kirby and Peter Herring (page 7) [15] -YMB29 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Stalin "readiness for negotiations" equaled the largest artillery bombardment in history. Please take the rest of my answer below: Boris Novikov (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So you basically ignored this. -YMB29 (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not ignore it. The answer was provided below (The headline below tells it all):

Stalin's willingness to negotiate meant that he was about to launch the biggest artillery bombardment in history against Finland

You appear to just have removed a lot of information from this talk page. It is called vandalism, user YMB29.

The long list of historians stating that the Soviets were preparing to attack west was provided on this page. Many of those historian are Russian.

Your source given above does not state, "that he (Stalin) did not want to conquer Finland". That source simply states that "Stalin was at pains to stress that an independent Finland remained one of the Soviet Union's war aims".

That source also talks about "Stalin's readiness to negotiate with Finland". Stalin may have said that he was "ready to negotiate", as he always was. His deeds spoke louder than his words, however:

Stalin soon launched a massive attack against Finland, including the - arguably - biggest artillery bombardment in history (biggest until then at least, historians agree, only surpassed by the later bombardment in Berlin, if even there).

That is what stalin menat by "negotiations". Boris Novikov (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How else could Finland have achieved a "defensive victory" in a defensive war, but in the way it did ?

If the Finns would have not conducted their war the way they did, or if they would not have received their victory the way they did, the Finnish struggle could quite easily have been confused not to have been a defensive struggle.

However, there was nothing artificial or theatrical about the Finnish actions. The war was clearly a defensive war for the Finns, and - accordingly - this is the way things became unraveled, naturally. This the only way Finland could win - by a defensive victory from a defensive war.

Please take the rest of my answer below: Boris Novikov (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I get your logic. Finland only accepted loser's terms to prove that the war was defensive... -YMB29 (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. If the Finns would have attacked USSR without the Soviets attacking Finland first, and If the Finns would have penetrated deeper into the Soviet territory, and if they would have not refused co-operation with the Nazis in the critical key areas suggested, the Finnish war would not have been a defensive war. Then, the outcome of the war would not have been a Finnish defensive victory. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What? I think you are confused yourself... -YMB29 (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Soviets could have claimed a clear "defensive victory", had the Finns started the war, and had their objective been to conquer the Soviet Union, if the Soviets had been able to prevent the Finns from ever even being able to reach the Soviet border.

In true life the things were just the opposite, of course, and - after its initial war-opening attack - the conquerer was kept behind the border, until the war's final moment.

The Finns achieved a brilliant "defensive victory", in the most important meaning of the term. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They achieved a brilliant "defensive victory" only in your mind...

The Finns started the war by aiding the Nazis and planned to atack the USSR way before the Soviet bombing on the 25th, which itself was a response to the Finns helping the Nazis. -YMB29 (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The Soviets started the war, just as they have emphasized themselves. The attacking began June 22, 1941, right after 6am. Please take the rest of my answer below: Boris Novikov (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I see, so the Soviets decided to attack Finland exactly when the German invasion began. What a coincidence... -YMB29 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The detailed Soviet attack plan against Finland was concluded well over a half year before. The final adjustments to the plan was made in May, 1941. Details and sources regarding the plan have been provided on this page. More details and sources can be provided per request.

Professor Mauno Jokipii has explained how the Soviet Union officially emphasized that it had launched the Continuation War (the first attack to Finnish territory having been on June 22, 1941, starting 06:05, after which two Finnish submarines landed mines on the Estonian coast ):

"The Soviet Union does not even try to deny its own initiative in the launching of the massive offensive. In contrary, it is being emphasized. The question who started has been solved: The Soviet Union admits in an official publication to have started the air raid in Finland and the Nordic." Boris Novikov (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How else could Finland have achieved a defensive victory in its defensive war, than in the way it did ?

Those not sure yet: What in your view should have happened, so that you too could call this war a Finnish defensive victory, like General Ehrnrooth - among others - does ?

The attacking enemy was pushed back, and it was held behind the war-preceding (1940) border until the war's final moment. Mannerheim's memoirs (quoted on this page) - among other sources - emphasize that Finland had decided to remain neutral, unless it was attacked.

The Finnish and Soviet sources cited on this page also show that the Finns had prepared for a defense, not offense (Marshal Mannerheim memoirs), and that the Soviets had prepared only for offensive warfare, whereas all defensive preparation were strictly prohibited by Joseph Stalin (memoirs of the Soviet Marshal Georgi Zhukov).

Please do not allow it to confuse you, that the Finns had to push the Soviets a safe distance beyond the border, and to hold the Soviets there during the Trench war, and that the Finns had to freeze their counterattack to a strategically and defensively practical line, until the war would eventually approach its end and conditions for peace could be negotiated.

The Trench war line could clearly not be on the Finnish side of the 1940 border. It could also not be too close to the Finnish border, but not too far from it either.

If the Finns would have attacked Leningrad, or if they would have penetrated deeper into the Soviet territory - not freezing their counterattack where they did -, or if they would have cut the Allied supply lines, or if they would have done anything else much differently, the Finnish participation could easily have been seen as something else but defensive.

Thus, the Finnish actions - including the way the war was brought to a halt - had to be conducted in accordance to - and on line with - the Finnish strategy and policies and the Finnish stance towards the Nazis (see the list of the critical ways how Finland declined co-operation with the Nazis), and the Finnish stance that this was a "separate" war, defensive by nature.

Although the average Finnish citizen would have liked the areas ceded after the Winter War to have been returned - just like today an average Finn would want (if it doesn't mean war) -, the official Finland aimed in pushing the attacking enemy back behind the border, and to keep it there until the end of the war, and for Finland to remain a sovereign and independent nation. These goals were achieved.

The distinguished historians listed on this page, such as Ohto Manninen, have based their findings on extensive research of Soviet period documents and strategic war plans and other related material. The post- Winter War Soviet war plans show unquestionably that the Soviet intention was to conquer Finland. That goal was not achieved.

It may or may not be true, that the Soviets lessened their goals as the war - and WW2 - proceeded. However, what the goal of the Soviet Union was at the start of the war is important in determining the winner. That Soviet goal we know: It was to conquer Finland (detailed sources - based on Soviet documents -, full with page numbers and quotes are provided on this page).

What the Soviets later told the Allied leaders and the rest of the world had to do with the changed circumstances, the ways the battles had gone, etc. It became necessary for the Soviets to adjust their goals, or - at least - what would be portrayed to have been (or to be) the Soviet goals. Boris Novikov (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

All things considered, the peace conditions were not as rough to Finland as the Soviet citizens were led to believe

To save the superpower from further embarrassment, it was agreed that Hanko would be exchanged to Petsamo - Petsamo having originally been a "gift" to Finland, as Stalin told Roosevelt and Churchill in Tehran in 1943 (Stalin lied. Before too, Petsamo had been traded).

The Germans had to go away from Finland anyway. It was agreed between the Finns and the Germans already before the Continuation War, that no German attacks from/through the Finnish territories could be made, when Finland was not at war.

Although the Germans had been originally allowed a passage right through the Finnish area to Northern Norway, why would the Finns now allow the Germans to stay in Finland, regardless of what would be agreed with the Soviets - or with any other party ?

The Finns had never wanted to irritate the Allies in any fashion - quite the opposite, as the related list provided on this page shows (the ways Finland supported the Allied war efforts against the Nazis). Thus, this "condition" too was really quite meaningless, something that had to be accomplished anyway. The U.S. embassy in Helsinki wanted this to be done, the Finns wanted this to be done a.s.a.p. - nearly everyone did, unless you were a German.

Then there were the economical conditions, which - among other things - guaranteed strong and lucrative ship building and metal industries for Finland in the relatively near future, and up todate, and business deals with the Soviet Union for long time to come. 87.95.136.112 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Economic conditions... You mean like paying $300,000,000? -YMB29 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User Wanderer602:

There were also a few other final major battles, in addition to the ones you mentioned. All of them do not have Wikipedia articles as of yet. All of them were Finnish victories.

However, I'll second your motion to leave the result as "Moscow Armistice", as it is in the Finnish Wikipedia.

Only other option would be "Finnish defensive victory" (or "Finnish victory"). A defensive war can be won only by a defensive victory.

The statements of the generals from both sides of the war should be left as sources, if the 'Finnish defensive victory' is used (other sources are available and can be added):

General Ehrnrooth - for one - confirms that the war was a "Finnish defensive victory", and General Platonov confirms that the Soviets failed. Platonov:

"... the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them ..."

I'd like to tackle the following wording of yours, as misleading: "RU did manage to push the front back" (pls see reasoning below). 87.95.136.112 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well of course a Finnish general will say that it was a victory...

Just because Platonov said they failed to advance in the end does not make the war a failure.

And those "major" battles are Finnish victories according to Finnish version of history; the articles are completely one sided so I would not trust the information there. -YMB29 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take my answer below: Boris Novikov (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

HAD THE SOVIETS WON THE FINAL BATTLES, THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING ABOUT IT IN POST-USSR HISTORIOGRAPHY

Had the final major battles been victorious for the Soviets, we'd be able to read in at least some Russian historiography about the Soviets been able to make it to the war-preceding Finnish border, in some point of the Continuation War (not counting the initial Soviet war-opening attack on June 25, 1941). What we have are reports of Soviet failures, like the ones reported by General S.P. Platonov.

The Finnish strategic abandonment of Viipuri (Study by Eeva Tanni, 2006) in just few hours’ time on June 20, 1944, does not count as a battle. The day’s fighting in Viipuri was brought to a halt by 16:40, leaving only 120 Finns missing in action or dead.

From the pre-planned withdrawing of Finnish troops to the VKT-line and the abandonment of Viipuri on, all the final major battles were victorious for the Finns.

"In his memoirs, the post-WW2 Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev explains how the Soviet officials categorically "lied" to the Soviet citizens about the events leading to the Finnish-Soviet wars, as well as the casualties and the final outcome."

However, user YMB29, could you please provide us with information from a Russian source - or even from a Soviet period source -, which would portray the final battles as Soviet victories, so that we can see what the President Khrushchev is fussing about.

If you cannot provide us with an appropriate source (or even any source) of this kind, full with a page number and a direct quote which we can be verified by our Russian friends, please do not criticize the distinguished sources used on this page, or the the reporting of the battles as one-sided.

Please note, that on this discussion page references have been made to credited historians from several countries, including those from Russia. Boris Novikov (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone here is tired of your fairy tales... That the Finns did not start the war, won all the major battles, and yet signed a very unfavorable peace deal to prove that their war was defensive.

And your references mostly consist of misused quotes... -YMB29 (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong - please take my answer below: Boris Novikov (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User YMB29: Please refrain from making edits without sources and from reverting contributions that are properly sourced

PLEASE DON'T BLAME THE MESSENGER, USER YMB29

Please be specific when you make claims of "misused quotes", so that I can defend myself. Perhaps there was something that you had not understood. If a mistake would have been done, I'd like to know about it, and I'd be happy to make a correction if needed.

Please understand, that this article - like Wikipedia in general - is not about your or my thoughts or views. Not all my contributions fully match my personal views.

The important thing is, that our contributions are backed up by credited and trusted scholars and academics.

The very noticeable difference between your and my approach is, that whereas I support my contributions with various courses - including those from Russia and elsewhere -, and preferably with multiple sources for each piece of information, you appear to provide no sources as all.

I like to introduce to Wikipedia what various credited sources - known historians and scholars - say about each fact presented. You appear to concentrate in telling only what your personal views are. I do not recall you providing a single source for anything as of yet - which one ?

I take pride in trying to present my sources in appropriate manner. To leave as little room as possible for misunderstandings and misrepresentations, I like to feature the related quotes in both the original language and in English (if not in English to begin with).

If you believe anyone in the academia shares a view of yours which differs from the views of the sources presented here, please bring such a source for our view. Please make sure to include the page numbers and the related quotes.

Otherwise, please refrain from making edits without sources and from reverting contributions that are properly sourced. If you have no disagreeing/contradicting reliable sources to present, you must accept the properly sourced information from others. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not making any extraordinary claims here, so I am not the one who should be introducing credible sources (although I might in the future).

Your sources for Finnish defensive victory for example don't prove anything.

Platonov does not say that the Finns won and the Soviets lost. You are confusing failure to advance in the end with failure in the war.

Also what the Finnish general says cannot be considered a reliable source here. Of course he is going to say that his side won. Not exactly a scholarly or academic source... -YMB29 (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take my answer below: Boris Novikov (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

FINLAND HAD DECIDED TO STAY NEUTRAL, UNLESS IT WAS ATTACKED (Mannerheim memoirs). FINLAND HAD PREPARED FOR A DEFENCE, NOT OFFENCE (Mannerheim memoirs) - FINLAND WAS PREPARING FOR A NEW SOVIET TAKE-OVER CAMPAIGN

There simply is no evidence - what so ever - pointing to Finland having been prepared to attack the Soviet Union, even if the Soviets would not attack Finland. There was no such a plan - none - zero.

I have asked for anyone making such a claim to please bring forward evidence which would point to that, anything at all.

Such evidence simply does not exist. Finland was prepared for a defense - as a renewed Soviet take-over campaign of Finland was known to come soon. There was plenty of signs of that. And, the Finns were absolutely right. The Soviets were preparing to conquer Finland.

Finland had decided to stay neutral, unless it was attacked, as Mannerheim memoirs remind us. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, that is why Finland laid mines in Soviet waters and occupied Åland islands exactly as the Nazis attacked.

The attack on the USSR was prepared and Finland would have attacked no matter what a few days after the German invasion. -YMB29 (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong - please take my answer below: Boris Novikov (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Following earlier Soviet aggressions, the war-opening Soviet attacking began on June 22, 1941, starting 06:05

You have mistaken the order of aggression, user YMB29. Additionally, it has been proved here with sources - including Mannerheim memoirs - that Finland had prepared for a defensive warfare, not offensive, and that is why it took so many week to rearrange the Finnish troops from defensive formations into offensive formations.

Even the first larger Finnish attack did not get under way before July 10, 1941, on the north side of Lake Ladoga, as also user Whiskey knew to point out. Why such a long time, user YMB29 ? On the south side the offensive began much later.

No evidence for your claim can be provided, based on which Finland would have attacked anyway, even if the Soviets would have not attacked Finland first. Such evidence has been requested hear - we have been waiting.

Much sources have been provided to the contrary, and more can be added.

The Soviets, however, had not even considered a defensive war - but only offensive war, instead. Information and sources have been provided on this page. More information about the Soviet preparedness - and related sources - can be added.

Joseph Stalin had strictly prohibited all defensive preparations as Marshal Zhukov's memoirs point out.

The detailed Soviet attack plan against Finland was concluded well over a half year before the Soviet attack, which began at 06:05, on June 22, 1941. The final adjustments to the plan was made in May, 1941. Details and sources regarding the plan have been provided on this page. More details and sources can be provided per request.

However, there had been Soviet "aggressions" against Finland already prior to that too. Information about such Soviet aggressions have been provided on this page.

Professor Mauno Jokipii has explained how the Soviet Union officially emphasized that it had launched the Continuation War (the first attack to Finnish territory having been on June 22, 1941, starting 06:05, after which two Finnish submarines landed mines on the Estonian coast ):

"The Soviet Union does not even try to deny its own initiative in the launching of the massive offensive. In contrary, it is being emphasized. The question who started has been solved: The Soviet Union admits in an official publication to have started the air raid in Finland and the Nordic." Boris Novikov (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

FINNS WERE DEEP ON THE SOVIET SOIL AT THE WAR'S FINAL MOMENT

The Red Army did not manage to "push" the front back. However, on the Leningrad sector, a pre-planned withdrawing of the Finnish forces was executed - using delaying tactics - to the VKT- defensive line. The withdrawing plan got it's final shape on June 17, 1941, under General Oesch, with the approval of Mannerheim.

The Red Army was then stopped on the VKT-line, according to the plan.

The pre- Winter War Finnish-Soviet border ran on the outskirts of Leningrad. As Mannerheim had strictly ordered the Finnish forces to stay out of Leningrad (minor skirmishes on the critical border crossing areas made an exception), the final battle on this sector had to be fought closer to the Interim peace border.

Everywhere, the Finns were on the Soviet side of the pre-war border at the war's final moment, and deep on the Soviet side in some critical areas.

The last major battle was fought in Ilomantsi, on the north side of Lake Ladoga. There, two Soviet divisions were decimated, as the Red Army was pushed back.

After it's war-opening attack, the Red Army was never allowed to cross the war-preceding Finnish border, until the war was over.

When determining the winner, it is important to take into consideration the Soviet intention to conquer Finland. The Soviet plan for this was finalized in May 1941, and the plan's execution began on June 22, 1941. Sources for this Soviet intention and the plan are listed in the article and on this talk page. 87.95.136.112 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

When determining the winner, it is important to look at the outcome of the war, don't you think? And where is your reliable source based on Soviet documents that proves they wanted to conquer Finland?

Finns were still on Soviet territory, but they knew it would not be so for long, so they signed the treaty.

You can twist and turn but you are not convincing. Why don't you have a username? You could be someone's sock... -YMB29 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of great sources for Stalin's intentions have been given on this page. A large number of Soviet documents have been researched by many of the historians cited.

Professor Manninen - for one - is widely considered a very "reliable" source, and he has been approved as a worthy source also by such Wikipedia users as Whiskey, Illythr and Posse72, among others.

Professor Manninen introduces an offensive war plan map completed by the High Command of the Soviet Armed Forces on November 27, 1940. Final adjustments to the plan were made in May, 1941. The following month, the Soviets attacked. Please take my answer in the two articles below: Boris Novikov (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't act like Finland did not take any aggressive actions against the USSR that proved they were allied with the Nazis. -YMB29 (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Allied" is a wrong term. Finland did have limited co-operation with Germany. However, the list provided on this page shows 10 critical key areas where Finland refused to co-operate with Germany (more can be added).

Finland did not want to interfere with the Allied war against the Nazis. This fact was recognized and welcomed by the U.S. Embassy in Helsinki, which operated throughout the war. USA was the main sponsor of the Soviet war against Germany. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Main sponsor? Don't start making other controversial claims here. Of course Finland was an ally of Germany like Italy or Japan, but it was still an ally. There is no going around that fact. -YMB29 (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Japan was the principal Axis power in Asia and the Pacific. Italy was an important member of the Axis powers in Euroipe.

However, Finland did not sign a military alliance pact with Germany or the Axis. Finland refused to form or sign any official military alliance agreement with Germany.

The list, which points out many of the critical ways in which Finland refused to cooperate with the Nazi-Germany, is not meant to imply that Finland wouldn't have greatly benefited of the cooperation shared with Germany.

Particularly in the summer of 1944, weapons purchased from Germany were of great value to Finland, among them e.g. over 25 000 Panzerfausts (In Finnish: 'panssarinyrkki') purchased during that year. Boris Novikov (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to sign a military alliance pact to be an ally. -YMB29 (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

However, the amount of the U.S. military equipment sent to USSR alone was huge. Let us just pick up one item category. For example:

Just a few more numbers and a Wikipedia link to more information below: Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

USSR received an anermous amount of American assistance - The Finns helped to protect the supply lines

Lend-Lease (Public Law 77-11) was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945.

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $759 billion at 2008 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China.

The amount of military equipment sent to USSR alone was huge. Let us just pick up a couple of examples of military related items:

The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but during the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease.

Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2 1/2 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. U.S. supplies of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.

Lend Lease was a critical factor that brought the U.S. into the war, especially on the European front. Hitler cited the Lend-Lease program when he declared war on the U.S. on 11 December 1941. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Boris Novikov (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Finns helped protect the lines? How?

This discussion is irrelevant. Lots of the statements regarding the importance of Lend Lease are over exaggerated anyway. Yes only 92 locomotives were produced, but what about 20,000+ that were in stock? 2000 US locomotives look insignificant... -YMB29 (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

1) By tying the Germans to Lapland and by keeping the Allied supply lines open near its borders and by not allowing the - nearly successful - siege of Leningrad to be completed, Finland saved the Soviet Union from a full Nazi occupation

2) In his memoirs, the post-WW2 Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev explains how the Soviet officials categorically "lied" about figures related to the Soviet military strength and war successes.

Thus, such Soviet post-war figure of "20,000+ that were in stock" can not be trusted. Boris Novikov (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

YEAR AFTER WINTER WAR, WAS STALIN STILL PREPARED TO RELOCATE FINNS TO SIBERIA

Professor Ohto Manninen - for one - has based his findings about the Soviet intention to conquer Finland on detailed Soviet strategic war plan maps and other similar documents. Other Wikipedia users - such as users Whiskey and Posse72 - have used Professor Manninen as a source. User Illythr supported the use of Professor Manninen as a source as well. A number of other sources are listed on this page.

The war plans of the Soviet Union (Ohto Manninen: 1) "How Finland is conquered: The operational plans of the Red Army, 1939-1949"; 2) "The Hidden Backgrounds of the Winter War") show in detail, what the Soviet leaders had in mind during the war - and going into the war - in regard to Finland.

Clearly, the Soviet plans to conquer Helsinki, Kemi, Oulu, Rovaniemi, Turku and the Åland Islands - and more - show how the Soviets perceived the war, at least when the war started - the final adjustments to the plans being made only weeks before the massive Soviet attack on June 25, 1941.

In not succeeding to achieve this goal - conquering Finland -, the Soviets failed to fulfill Stalin's objectives, which included relocating the entire population of Finland to Siberia, at least in the Winter War which had ended only a year before (thanks user Biophys for the source):

From the book "Stalin" by Edvard Radzinsky, page 447: Marshal Konev noted in his memories that Stalin said in the presence of Isakov and Voroshilov during planning of Winter War:

"We shall have to resettle the Finns ... the population of Finland is smaller than that of Leningrad, they can be resettled"

Boris Novikov (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Again quote taken out of context. Does not prove anything. -YMB29 (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an additional proof for - and in line with - what the sources given here are saying. User Biophys is right: this Stalin's statement deserves to be added in the article.

We do not need to know what an average Soviet soldier thought about the war, but the intentions of Stalin in regard to the Finns are very relevant to this article. Stalin's related views and statements are just as important - if not more important - to be posted than quotes like the one from "Finland in the Twentieth Century", which we have now in the article. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You can have the quote but don't use it as proof that Stalin definitely wanted to conquer all of Finland. -YMB29 (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please say why this cannot be translated this way. If a man in leading position say something, it really means that. Or do you think that Stalin did not mean what he said? Koivuhalko (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Stalin's statement only reinforce the findings of historian, based on detailed Soviet war plans and other related documents. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

CONQUERING FINLAND: WAR PLAN MAP OF SOVIET HIGH COMMAND, 11.27.1940 - FINALIZED IN MAY, 1941

Professor Ohto Manninen, PhD, has focused foremost on the history of WW2 and - in particular - the history of the Finnish wars during WW2. Manninen served as the associate professor at the University of Helsinki for 11 years, and as a professor of the history of Finland at the University of Tampere for three years. In 1998, Manninen became the professor of history of war at the National Defense University of Finland.

Professor Manninen has completed an extensive survey on the Soviet plans of operations for the Finnish front, having to do with the Winter War and the Continuation War.

In his book, 'Talvisodan salatut taustat' ("The Hidden Backgrounds of the Winter War"), pages 48-52 , Professor Manninen introduces an offensive war plan map completed by the High Command of the Soviet Armed Forces on November 27, 1940.

The completion of this Soviet offensive war plan map took place only two weeks after the visit to Berlin, November 12-13, 1940, by the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, who sought for a renewed Hitler's approval for the Soviet take-over campaign over Finland, which had originally been agreed upon in Moscow on August 23, 1939, by the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany.

"On November 27, 1940, an operational plan map was completed at the High Command of the Soviet Armed forces. In it, the concentration of the Soviet forces and the offensive plans of the Soviet Northern front targeted against Finland were outlined."

"From the plan it can be seen that also this time the cutting of Finland in two was considered a priority, and that it was planned to be executed in lining of the railroad."

Additons to the above-mentioned offensive plan were made in May, 1941.

(In reference to the railroad in the quote above - editor's note: Massive offensive preparations had been made on the level of Salla on the Soviet side of the border during the Interim peace period. The Salla railroad which the Finns had been required to build during the Interim peace, played a key role in the Soviet plans to conquer Finland and to proceed to the Atlantic coast through Sweden and Norway. Please see the article on this page regarding the critical role of the Salla railroad in the Soviet plans to attack west.)

With 13 red arrows placed on the full length of the Finnish frontier, the map illustrates the Soviet invasion. In north, one attack route is marked to enter Finland on the level of Salla in northeastern Finland, and to penetrate in via Rovaniemi and Kemi to Oulu, on the west coast of Finland, facing Sweden.

In south, one Soviet attack route is marked to originate from Estonia, and to push in by the way of the Åland Islands to Turku and Helsinki, where the Soviet forces would meat another Soviet attack spearhead, which would have broken into Finland via the Karelian Isthmus.

In the over-all offensive plan produced by the Soviet Navy in the summer of 1940, the primary purpose of Hanko was to serve as the basin for the invasion of entire Finland.

This book by Professor Manninen is chosen as a source for the Soviet post- Winter War plan to occupy Finland, because Professor Manninen's extensive research work and findings are regarded highly by the academia and the general public at large, including the Wikipedia users Whiskey and Illythr - based on the Wikipedia history records -, who both have contributed for the Continuation War article.

It is presumable, that if this plan and other similar post- Winter War Soviet war plans and a large number of related documents researched by Professor Manninen and his colleagues would have been available for the representatives of the Allied countries during the Cold War year of 1947 - and/or before -, Finland's handling in the final peace arrangements and in the Paris Peace Treaty would have been different, at least somewhat.

Knowing well his own plans and the nature of the Soviet-Finnish struggle, Joseph Stalin knew precisely who was the aggressor in the Continuation War and why, and why the Continuation War was a "separate war" from the conflict between the Allied powers and the Axis powers. Boris Novikov (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If the USSR was the aggressor in this war then how do you explain Finland's actions? Why did Finland prepare attacks against the USSR with the Nazis, assist the Nazis in attacking the USSR, occupy Åland...?

As for military plans and maps, they alone don't prove that the USSR wanted to conquer Finland. It is the military's job to create plans for scenarios that might or might not happen. The Soviets had plans for nuclear war, so does that mean they were going to start one? -YMB29 (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You probably need to read the treaties on Åland's demilitarization a bit more carefully. Ferrying troops in if there is a threat of a war in the Baltic (Germany was at war - it alone would have been valid reason) or mining the waterways in Åland waters were both perfectly legal actions according to the treaties. Technically Finns could have done so already back when Poland was invaded by Nazis and SU. Also Finnish troops on the borders were deployed in defensive formations as SU attack was at that time expected (though apparently only aerial offensive took place though it caused very little damage). Assisting Nazis is another question, however Finns were treaty bound to refuel the German planes if required and requested - planes origin and destination didn't matter. As for the Soviet intentions.. Shooting down unarmed Finnish passenger plane, intervening with political process and selection of presidential candidates in Finland, open support for left wing organization campaigning to join SU, demanding several Finnish ministers to resign, demanded returns of evacuated material, interrupting grain deliveries (sadly with poor harvests leading to nearly famine in Finland later 1941/42 - felt worst on the POWs and people confined to camps) , continued disagreement over Petsamo.. And later find that Molotov had tried to gain German acceptance for a free hand to 'solve the Finnish question'... You actually still need more? - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Politically of course the situation was tense with the USSR and Finland. Political pressure is not an act of war.

So you are saying the Finns were not preparing for war against the USSR with Germany? How come the Germans revealed to the Finns that they were going to attack the USSR? Surely you don't do that to anyone other than your military ally. Finns "were treaty bound to refuel the German planes"? What treaty would that be? It does not matter. If you assist an aggressor's military, this is seen as an act of war by the defending nation. Occupying a demilitarized zone and arresting the Soviets there is also an act of war, anyway you twist it.

Not saying that Finland did not have a reason for war, but don't tell me it did not start it.-YMB29 (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So why did these your peace loving Soviets shoot down (unarmed) Finnish civilian passenger aircraft? Political pressure is one thing demanding (and enforcing the demand by threatening to nullify the existing peace agreement) certain persons from being exempted from presidential election and forcing ministers to resign is one whole another thing. Finns were preparing for war after Winter War as Soviet pressure and methods it was applied with proved SU's hostile stance towards Finland (which was proven by Molotov). Who would have or rather could have helped? Allies were too inept to help and SU halted even agreed food shipments. Denmark and Norway were occupied making passage through or to Germany only means of getting food, and weapons for rearmament. SU's own actions drove Finns to more pro-German camp which had been non-existing before the Winter War. Treaty which i mention was the treaty which allowed German troops to pass through Finland into Northern Norway - made as counterweight for the treaty which allowed Soviet troops to pass from border to Hanko. Also Germans didnt reveal their plans readily to the Finns, only very much later and at first even giving bad or misleading information (for example for most of the Spring 1941 Finns believed Hitler would attack SU, but only that it would happen at Spring 1942 and not Summer 1941). But later Finns had no idea of the exact date or time (best evidence of the impending attack was gathered by Finnish radio intelligence - not donated by German officers) until just couple of days before the attack begun.

And as said as long as there was war in the Baltic (or nations in war at the coasts of the Baltic Sea) then Finns were allowed to both send troops to Åland as well as mine the surrounding waters. Finns were also demanded to defend the Åland remember. As said in that exact treaty you refer to. So sending troops to Åland - though controversial - was not against the demilitarization treaty. 1940 treaty with the Soviets was basically an response to SU ultimatum which demanded either all fixed fortifications in Åland to be demolished or then jointly re fortified. As Finns had no intentions of letting SU to place coastal artillery on Åland the existing forts had to go. Haven't heard of arresting Soviets, care to shed some light on that one?

As for who started the war. If could count the refueling of German bombers as such an action - you should also note at German aircraft were refueled in Finland quite often thanks to the agreement/treaty which allowed German troops move through Finland to Northern Norway and also that Finns prevented any type of rearming of the airplanes also there is no direct indications that Finnish military had approved operations - OTOH wording is rather ambiguous as crossing from Finland to Soviet area was forbidden by the Finns, might not apply vice versa. Or you could count the order for the Finnish submarines to start laying mines - though this was in accord with the pre-war defensive plans with Estonia, and Finns never acknowledged the SU occupation there as legitimate. However Russian forced engaged Finnish couple of hours before the mines were actually laid (SU aircraft strafed Finnish coastal defense ships). - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Again illogical claims by you. Finland signs a treaty recognizing that its former land belongs to another country, but at the same time not recognizing that other land, Estonia, belongs to it? Laying mines in Soviet territorial waters was an act of war, just as occupying islands that were specified as demilitarized by a peace treaty (annulling the treaty). And when exactly did Soviet aircraft strafe Finnish coastal defense ships?

Soviets shot down a Finnish civilian plane? Don't know about that, but maybe they confused it with one of the many German spy planes taking off from Finland?

Anyway what you are saying mostly are reasons for Finland to go to war. Some of them are understandable, but don't act like Finland was not planning war together with Germany and committing acts of war in the first days of the Nazi invasion (don't dismiss these as "necessary defensive measures"). -YMB29 (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As it happens. That is exactly what Finland did. Same was done my most of the countries Occupation_of_the_Baltic_Republics#De_jure_non-recognition, its not that difficult to check. And luckily Soviet units had opened first (22nd of June. SU planes first strafed Finnish coastal defense ships at 0603) before any of the mines had been laid (roughly at 0800). In addition SU only became aware of the minings after the war. And then to your fantastic claims of demilitarization treaty. Lets go through those (again)... Peace treaty did not require demilitarization of the Åland. That was stipulated by later separate Soviet threat that currently existing - if empty - forts and fixed gun emplacements in Åland must be either demolished or jointly operated by the SU. As Finns would never let SU to take foothold in Åland all the forts had to go. However according to 1856 Treaty (when Russia lost Crimean War - treaty was ratified by Finns in 1922) Finland was allowed to both send troops to and mine the surrounding coastal waters of Åland. To be more precise, Finland was demanded to make sure the neutrality of the islands would not be compromised (ie. demanded to defend them). There was nothing illegal in occupying the Åland at that time - nor would there had been some time sooner. As for the mine laying... It was actually done in accord of a treaty with Estonia (which from Finnish POV still existed).

Kaleva (airplane). At that time Estonia was still Estonia and not an occupied country - so the event happened outside of Soviet airspace - and Finland and SU were not at war. Given that it was a scheduled flight which started from Tallinn (Estonia) and headed for Helsinki... Nope.. couldn't not be confused with other aircraft unless Soviets pilots were totally inept.

Planning to go war, certainly, Soviet threats as well as aggressiveness concerning Finland making defense agreements with Norway and Sweden after Winter War had made it clear for Finns that SU intended to finish what they had begun in the Winter War. Also Stalin had stated something along the lines that in the event of war of SU Finland could not stay neutral. But thanks to German misinformation Finns were not aware when war would start. Nor were they aware what kind of nature the war would take. So Finnish forces were arrayed for defensive operations. As the expected Russian ground attack failed to materialize Finns attacked a week or so later. Also German HQ had no power over Finnish formations - Germans tried very hard to unify the commands but Finns refused.

Committing an act of war when war has been declared (or rather country has once again found to be in war) is hardly a crime. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess the Finnish ground attack was a preemptive strike after the Soviets did not attack for some reason...

You still don't make sense. Again you can only speculate that the USSR would have attacked Finland. You keep dismissing acts of war by Finland as defensive measures, but at least you are not denying the acts of war.

Estonia was part of the USSR at the time, don't pretend that the Finns did not know about this and that the operation was not against the USSR coordinated with the German invasion.

The airplane incident was a year before the war and had more to do with Estonia than Finland.

Where did you get that the Soviets started firing first?

There was no immediate threat to Åland. Finnish military clearly coordinated it with Operation Barbarossa. I thought you said Finland did not know when the Nazis would invade... Finnish occupation and arrest of the Soviet consulate was a violation of the Soviet-Finnish demilitarization agreement and an act of war anyway you put it. -YMB29 (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it was offensive to drive SU from the areas of Finland the Soviets had captured in 1940. From what can be understood from the archives it was intended to start if/when Soviet initial push would have been blunted and German threat would have forced the SU to weaken the front. As it happened SU did weaken the front but didn't attack. After Winter War Molotov asked from Germans for free hand to deal with Finland (while simultaneously preventing Finland from forming defense agreement with Sweden), if you are naive enough to believe that was not a request related to attacking Finland then i doubt i can convince you. However you have not provided any evidence on the contrary either.

Yes Finland's offensive is proof that it was the aggressor in this war.

Again only speculation that Finland was about to be attacked. This is just a silly excuse for Finnish aggression. -YMB29 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You haven't provided anything to disprove it either. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As said Finns didn't recognize Estonian SSR or Estonian occupation. It is a technicality. You should however notice that SU failed to notice the mine laying operation so it is impossible for them to have reacted against it.

Didn't recognize is a technicality, but not an excuse. Failed to notice does not make a difference, since this just shows that Finland was the aggressor. -YMB29 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting claim given that SU forces started actions against Finnish ships and forts before the mines had been laid. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Soviet aircrafts shooting down an unarmed civilian plane is kinda difficult to prove as a 'non-hostile action'. And the plane was Finnish. Shot down when it was flying to Finland. Why exactly shouldn't Finns have taken that seriously? Or was it a Soviet custom to shoot down unarmed passenger planes?

I told you it had to do more with Estonia and was over a year ago, so this is irrelevant. -YMB29 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant as Finnish government saw it as one of the many acts or threats SU did against Finland contributing greatly to the overall chance of Finnish neutral position to pro-German position which in the end lead to the Continuation War. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets see... here is a whole web page full of mentions about that [16]. If you choose to ignore the testimonies of Finnish Presidents (Ryti & Mannerheim), several professors of history then there are still the Finnish military archives. War diary of coastal defense ship states (rough translation) on 22nd of June 1941, 2 (4 plane unit and 3 plane unit) units of SU planes attacked Finnish naval units from the South at 0606. Finns opened fire at 0608 and stopped it 0612. SU planes departed at 0616....

Yes giving me a Finnish source to read is a good idea... If it is true then the question is what the Finns did to provoke it. Starting the conquest of Finland when facing the Nazi onslaught just does not make sense... So after the supposed first Soviet attack, the Finns, in just minutes, quickly planned and executed the Estonian mine laying and occupation of Åland? -YMB29 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for that, i did intend to say the page was in Finnish - OTOH i doubt very much any articles in the Finnish military archives are written in other languages than Finnish or Swedish. As said Finns were unsure when exactly German operation would start (thanks to German misinformation campaign earlier even genuine information was not trusted). Soviets probably acted on the information received from the Adolf Hitlers public broadcast at the beginning of the operation Barbarossa where he (possibly intentionally against the Finnish wishes) mentioned that Finnish troops would participate to war against SU alongside their German brethren (or something along those lines and rhetorics). Which came as a surprise to the Finns and provided excuse for the Russians to start hostile operations against Finns. Though apparently only halfhearted and disorganized from 22nd to 25th as Finnish government hadn't considered the actions taken before 25th as 'acts of war' or as 'reasonable justifications for war'. Soviet air attack on 25th though certainly accomplished that. The mining operation hardly required planning as the operation had been (in the 1930s) jointly designed by Finns and Estonians. Operational orders were given late in evening of 21st but submarines were instructed to be ready to abort all the way until mines had been laid. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the unconditional surrender... [17] (other sources available if you refuse to accept thatone). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderer602 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand reading that forum topic, the document presented is just a draft, not the actual document given to the Finns. The actual message to the Finns sent at the time was way different. -YMB29 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as can be deducted the Finns were not given actual documents. The discussions were handled - verbally - via Soviet embassy at Sweden. If they screwed up then its SUs' own fault. But given how the 'unconditional surrender' stayed in the received SU rhetorics until their offensive units had been beaten it would sound awfully convenient for SU. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Treaty didn't stipulate a direct or immediate threat to Åland. War in the Baltic Sea was enough. Finnish occupation was not a violation of the demilitarization agreements. Arresting personnel of Soviet consulate however is something else (haven't been aware of this issue). In any case Finnish troops didn't And i said Finland did not know exactly when the Nazi's would attack. Until only just before the invasion. Also i said that Finns were well aware even before the Germans told Finns of their plans as radio intelligence provided a lot of information. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if Finland did not know exactly when the invasion would start until just before it, it is still irrelevant. Finland had been preparing operations to be coordinated with the invasion and they were ready when the invasion started.

There was no war in the Baltic yet; Finland acted according to the invasion day plan. -YMB29 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet there was a warring country at the coast of the Baltic Sea, sure not against Finns but demilitarization agreement did not stipulate if Finland participated to the war or not. Sure the operations was planning in accord what Finns new of the Nazi attack but the fact that it happened is not against the demilitarization. Not to mention that Finnish troops reached Åland on at night between 22nd and 23rd of June, again only after SU troops had started their operations. At the same time German invasion alone (even without Finnish knowledge of it) would have been ample reason to occupy the islands. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No the occupation took place during the early hours of June 22nd, just as the German invasion began. Also Finnish ships started heading there late on the 21st, so obviously this was a military operation against the demilitarization agreement. -YMB29 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting cause i have several books saying the troops started to land only at evening of 22nd and that operation was completed by the early morning of 23rd. Given that the order to go ahead was given on 22nd i would be quite surprised if Finns landed there on 21st. However none of this matters. Agreement quite clearly states that if the war came to Baltic Sea then Finns were allowed to place troops to the island. And what do you know... Nazi Germany was at war and used Baltic sea making it legal under the demilitarization treaty for the Finns move troops there (technically they could have kept troops there the whole time - its not Finnish problem if SU cant understand treaty texts). Also there is no requirement for the Finland to participate into that war in order to allowed to place troops in Åland. Also as it happened Soviet aircraft attacked unsuccessfully the ships headed to Åland (before they got there that is) on 22nd of June. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if they attacked the Finnish ships before or after they got there, but it does not matter. In the article and other sources it says that it was early on June 22nd. Don't know about the technicalities of the agreement, but clearly war still had not taken effect on the Baltic at that time and there was no danger to the islands. Obviously it was a carefully planned operation against the USSR and violated the agreement. -YMB29 (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So attacking still at that point neutral country's ships is perfectly OK? So far it seems according to you that with shooting down neutral countries civilian passenger aircraft and attacking their ships SU showed no hostile intentions at all..

Order was issued in early 22nd. After that it still takes time to actually sail to the islands.

As i said treaty did talk about war in the Baltic Sea (fi:Itämeri, ru:Балтийское море) - it didn't require war to happen in the Baltic. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant the Baltic Sea. Where does it talk about this in the Soviet-Finnish agreement?

Stop ignoring the fact that the occupation was coordinated with the Nazi invasion and was against the USSR before the Soviets showed any aggression.

Also stop twisting my words. I did not say that shooting down a civilian airplane is ok.

Finnish ships got the order to attack early on the 22nd but had already sailed there before.

How were the ships neutral if they went on a war operation, to commit aggression against the USSR? -YMB29 (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Quote (first in Finnish) from the text of the 1940 agreement:

• Suomi sitoutuu demilitarisoimaan Ahvenanmaan saaret, olemaan linnoittamatta niitä sekä olemaan asettamatta niitä muiden valtioiden aseellisten voimien käytettäväksi.

Finland agrees to demilitarize Åland, not to fortify them and not to allow them to be used by military forces of other nations.

• Tämä merkitse myöskin, ettei Suomi eivätkä muutkaan valtiot saa Ahvenanmaan saarten vyöhykkeellä tai sinne rakentaa mitään sotilas- tai laivastorakennusta tai -tukikohtaa, mitään sotilasilmailurakennusta tai -tukikohtaa eikä mitään muutakaan sotilastarkoituksiin käytettävää laitetta ja että saarilla olevat tykkiperustat on hävitettävä.

This also means that Finland nor other nations may not build any military or naval buildings or installations/bases, no military aviation buildings or installations/bases nor any other device that is used for military purposes and that all gun emplacements on the island must be demolished.

So... Finns didn't violate the agreement before SU had already attacked them. Of coordinating that operation with Germans there are no evidence. German vessels or troops didn't participate into it. Orders for the operation came directly from the Finnish HQ to Finnish Navy HQ and from the there to the ships and troops participating in the operation.

Well.. You seemed awfully eager to dismiss the shooting down of a civilian airplane as something which could ignored as trivial event. It was not trivial event, it proved quite clearly to the Finns just how real the SU threat was and how little they honored the peace agreement.

Ships were sent to sea earlier but they were all recalled before reaching even near Åland. Sailing circles within your own national waters is not an act of war (last time checked that is). As said by then Finns knew Nazi attack would begin some time soon and wanted to be the first to reach the Åland to secure safe passage for freighters and transports to get to the Swedish coastal waters. As Finland was heavily dependant on the foreign trade.

Also the treaty which i posted is not the peace treaty written in Moscow 1940. That agreement was totally separate from it. Breach of that agreement would not have been a breach of the peace treaty. Åland treaty even set the things which SU consul in Åland needed to do if a violation or a breach occurred. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sure the agreement did not contain anything about the Soviet consulate being arrested... Violating a demilitarization agreement is still an act of war. You can get into the technicalities of the treaty, (I don't have the text of all the 3 treaties about the islands to check), but the fact that the Finns sent thousands of troops with warships to a demilitarized zone, to be timed with the German invasion, speaks for itself. Also the arrest of the Soviet consulate goes directly against the treaty.

No coordination with Germany? Well I guess the fact that it happened at the same time as the invasion is a coincidence...

War ships going in circles is not an excuse... This shows that the operation (act of war) started before the German invasion. The Soviets only attacked after the occupation or as they saw the war ships heading there.

And why do you think the airplane shooting is important if it happened a year before? You have nothing to say? -YMB29 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not being arrested but treaty mentioned at SU must be allowed to post a consul to Åland. If he was arrested and removed from there then that would have been against the treaty. You are claiming and blaming Finns for committing an act of war even though SU troops committed the first open act of war by attacking Finnish ships. Finns were demanded to guarantee the safety of the Åland as well. The treaty required there to be war in the Baltic Sea and as the Germans used their warships in the Baltic Sea it would have given all the reason required for occupying the Åland.

Event being timed to coincide with the invasion was intentional to make sure Finns would be able to use the safer waterways for the passage to west. As Finns knew Germans were going to attack there hardly was any need for coordination. Also given the nature of the Finnish archipelago it is extremely unlikely for SU pilots to have been able to guess where the ships were headed to.

Permission to go ahead with the operation was given only after the German invasion had been verified. Also the demilitarization treaty was not the peace treaty. Breach of the demilitarization treaty would not have been an act of war. So the operation to ferry troops to Åland was not an act of war. It was a breach of an agreement.

Shooting down a unarmed civilian plane on neutral county's airspace even if considered as an isolated incident would still be a major issue. However it was not an sole action SU took or seemed to take against the Finns. One of the many events which made Finns feel the SU couldn't be trusted and made them seek help against future aggressions.

Only true explanations that remains is that either SU planes thought the ships to be German (first shots between them had been fire before) or that they deducted from various sources (Hitler's speech?) Finland for being in league/co-belligerent with German and took action. There were enough provocations on both sides for that to happen. But then again given how SU had treated Finns after the Winter War it can only blame itself for pushing Finns into German side. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to repeat some things, as a few points brought up before appear to have been ignored by user YMB29.

Who started the Continuation War was solved and agreed to already long ago, when in an official Soviet publication the Soviets admitted having started the war - even emphasizing the fact. Please take my answers below, including that detail: Boris Novikov (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about. -YMB29 (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WRONG, USER YMB29 - MARSHAL ZHUKOV: IN USSR, IT WAS NOT "THE MILITARY'S JOB TO CREATE PLANS FOR SCENARIOS THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAPPEN"

You say: "It is the military's job to create plans for scenarios that might or might not happen".

Wrong - not in USSR: As pointed out before, the Soviet Marsal Georgi Zhukov - among others - has made it clear in various ways in his memoirs that the Soviets had not made any plans for defensive war, nor for retreating either - the support systems for possible retreating of troops were ignored, as Marshal zhukov explains in his memoirs (related quotes available per request).

President Koivisto, Mauno, PhD, "Venäjän idea" ("The Idea of Russia"), page 260. 2001:

"In 1995, a new print of the memoirs of Marshal Georgi Zhukov was published. ... Zhukov gives a very unembellished picture of how strictly Stalin prohibited all defensive preparations." Boris Novikov (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes because he did not want to provoke the Germans and did not believe they would attack, but this has little to do with what we are talking about. It does not mean that if the Soviet military had a plan Stalin would definitely have them act upon it.

My point is that when there is a possibility of war with a country, the military creates plans for possible scenarios, but it does not mean that those plans will actually be used. -YMB29 (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - the historian talk about "intention", not just plans. The findings are based on extensive and careful reserch of a large amount of Soviet documents and different types of facts.

The Soviet plan to conquer Finland got its final adjustments in May, very short time before the actual execution of the plan was put to start. Of course, no-one knew still a couple of weeks before the war's start how things would eventually unveil. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And you have provided no proof of this, just empty talk and quoting out of context. -YMB29 (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong: I have provided a lot of "proof of this", 12 detailed and well introduced sources just for this particular piece of information. The exact page numbers and the related direct quotes from highly regarded historians - top specialists on the field - have been provided on this page.

However, - while protecting the article today - you removed all these distinguished sources, although no user had criticized the sources on this page, including you.

I'll now re-introduce Professor Ohto Manninen's related research on the bottomom of this page. A Soviet War plan map can be attached to the article, if it makes the source more acceptable to you that way.

For instance users Posse72, Whiskey and Illythr have supported the use of Professor Manninen as a source. Please take my answer on the bottom of this page. Please let us know why you consider Professor Manninen as inappropriate source, unlike us others: Boris Novikov (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

USER YMB29: FINLAND DID NOT OCCUPY ÅLAND. ÅLAND IS A PART OF FINLAND

Just like Russia or USSR, Finland has - and had - a right to exercise defensive military operations and to prepare for a defensive warfare on its own territory.

Finland had prepared for a defensive warfare, not offensive, as Marshal Mannerheim points out in his memoirs. That is why it took a relatively long time to rearrange the Finnish forces from the defensive formations into offensive formations, as the memoirs emphasize.

As the Mannerheim memoirs remind us, the Soviets themselves forced Finland to take the first step aside from its neutrality, when they demanded passage rights to Hanko (dangerous for Finland, as Helsinki was on the route, allowing the Soviets a chance for surprise attack).

Although the Finns and the Germans had a common enemy, their objectives were very different, and their wars were separate, although parallel.

The Finns did not want to interfere with Allied war against the Nazis. Thus, the Finns had to - and they wanted to - use extra caution in the Finnish-German co-operation.

Accordingly, the Finns refused to cooperate with the Nazis in many critical key areas, such as:

1) - - signing the Tripartite Pact, also called the Axis Pact, which established the Axis Powers of World War II (despite of many requests from the Nazi-Germany);

2) - - allowing direct German attacks from the Finnish soil against the Soviet Union during the Interim Peace period;

3) - - accepting the approximately 80 000 German troops offered to be placed under command of Marshal Mannerheim;

4) - - attacking the Soviet Union, unless/until the Soviet Union would attack Finland first;

5) - - cooperating in the siege of Leningrad;

6) - - cutting the Allied "lifeline", which was operated over Lake Ladoga and which brought desperately needed supplies to the defenders of Leningrad;

7) - - cutting the Murmansk railroad, which delivered massive amounts of Allied weapons and other supplies to the Soviets;

8) - - attacking the same targets as the Germans;

9) - - handing Finnish Jews to the Nazis (The Finnish Jews participated in the Finnish war efforts just like all other Finnish citizens);

10) - declaring war against any other Allied countries except Soviet Union;

11) - allowing the Germans to operate against USSR through the southern Finnish borders, ... etc. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Very good, but it does not prove that Finland was not a military ally of Germany...

And again, Åland was a demilitarized zone according to earlier agreements and so occupying it was an act of war. -YMB29 (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you, if you make such an unfounded claim. There is no evidence of any Finnish-German military alliance, as no such alliance ever excisted. There is only much evidence to the contrary.

All the above ways of the Finns not co-operating with the Nazis helped to save USSR from a full Nazi occupation.

However, there war an alliance between the Soviets and the Nazis, as we know. Boris Novikov (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MOLOTOV: GERMANS BEING IN FINLAND ON JUNE 22 WAS NOT THE REASON FOR THE SOVIET ATTACK

Earlier, claims were maid that the Germans having been allowed a passage right through a Finnish area to Northern Norway (a similar right which the Swedes had granted to the Germans), this might have prompted the Soviets to attack against Finland - as there were Germans on the Finnish territory on June 22, 1941.

In his memoirs, Marshal Mannerheim emphasizes that Finland had decided to remain neutral, unless it was attacked.

Manneheim's "Memoirs" further prove - and is added as a source - that the Soviet attack against Finland was not launched because of the Germans being in Finland, but - instead - because of the Finnish invasion being something that the Soviets had decided to complete:

Complete the invasion when facing the largest invasion ever by the Nazis. That is just laughable... -YMB29 (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On June 23, 1941, Molotov made no mentioning of Germans being in Finland or of any Finnish-German deal made. This was in the line with the fact, that they were the Soviets themselves that had forced Finland to take the first step aside from its neutrality, when they had demanded passage rights to Hanko (dangerous for Finland, as Helsinki was on the route, allowing the Soviets a chance for surprise attack).

"Instead, he (Molotov) focused again in accusing Finland of an attack, which had not happened. The Soviet leadership had decided to draw Finland to a war." ("Memoirs", Mannerheim)

In accordance with the above, in its war-opening massive attack on June 25, the Soviet Union focused in only bombing Finnish targets, no German targets.

Later, the Soviets admitted to having made up the reason for the attack against Finland (see the Cold War period confession below) 87.93.111.58 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Boris Novikov (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That is Manneheim's view on it and you can have it in the article, but don't deny aggressive acts by Finland before the war (dismissing them as defensive). -YMB29 (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong - that is not only "Mannerheim' view", but the Soviets themselves have officially explained in detail how they launched the massive attack against Finland on June 25, 1941:

1) Jokipii, Mauno, Jatkosodan synty ("The Launching of the Continuation War"), pages 606-607. 1987.

2) "The Soviet Air Force", pages 42-43. 1973. Boris Novikov (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

SOVIETS THEMSELVES HAVE "EMPHASIZED" THEIR MASSIVE ATTACK - "The Soviet Air Force", pages 42-43. 1973

The Soviets shot down a Finnish passanger plane, made numerous border violations and continued demanding increasingly more than the Winter War's peace terms entitled - including dangerous passage rights to Hanko for the Red Army (allowing the Soviets an opportunity for a surprise attack against Helsinki), etc.

If you claim Finland to have done some "aggressive acts", before it was attacked by the Soviet Union - other than preparing to defend itself -, please explain what, and please provide us with proof from historiography, showing where, how and when such aggression has taken place.

Please make sure to provide us with a reliable source - preferably a couple of sources -, and please include the related page numbers and exact quotes.

User Wanderer602 has tackled the topic with you already, and I will be glad to do the same, as long as you will first tell me exactly what you are referring to.

Below, please find the sources regarding the Soviets officially having admitted and explained in detail their Massive attack agaist Finland on June 25, 1941:

1) Jokipii, Mauno, Jatkosodan synty ("The Launching of the Continuation War"), pages 606-607. 1987.

2) "The Soviet Air Force", pages 42-43. 1973. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

STARTING FROM EARLY 1970s, USSR HAS EMPHASIZED ITS MASSIVE WAR-OPENING ATTACK

MAUNO JOKIPII:

Professor Mauno Jokipii has explained how the Soviet Union officially emphasized that it had launched the Continuation War (the first attack to Finnish territory having been on June 22, 1941, starting 06:05, after which two Finnish submarines landed mines on the Estonian coast ):

"The Soviet Union does not even try to deny its own initiative in the launching of the massive offensive. In contrary, it is being emphasized. The question who started has been solved: The Soviet Union admits in an official publication to have started the air raid in Finland and the Nordic." Boris Novikov (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What publication?

And again don't ignore what Finland did before the raid. -YMB29 (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"THE SOVIET AIR FORCE" (published in English in 1973), pages 42-43.

Professor Jolipii's book, "Jatkosodan synty", provides a long quote of the detailed official Soviet explanation of the attack on June 25, 1941.

You have been given the exact well known fact about the Soviets officially emphasizing - and explaining in detail - their massive war-opening attack against Finland.

Please be specific, user YMB29. I have no idea what you are referring to by "don't ignore what Finland did before". The Soviets began attacking against Finland on June 22, 1941, at 06:05. A dozen additional sources for that will be added to the bottom of this page shortly.

Finnish submarines laid mines only after the Soviet attack, which began at 06:05 (Source: Professor Mauno Jokipii, "Jatkosodan synty", page 575, captain of 'Iku-Turso': "I began laying mines at 08:15, ending at 09:06").

Other sources for the Finnish mine laying operation have already been provided, and more can be added.

Importantly, Molotov did not try denying the Soviet attacking of June 22 to Mannerheim on June 23, 1941.

As concluded, the Soviets have admitted and "even emphasized" that they started the war. Thus, no point for us to argue about that part here. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is your proof that the Soviets started attacking on June 22, 1941, at 06:05?

Again Finland was preparing war together with Germany and coordinated acts of war with the Nazi invasion. The Soviet bombing on the 25th was only used as an official pretext to go to war. -YMB29 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a well known and widely accepted fact among historian in the west (and today, in the slowly opening Russian history writing too) that the first Soviet attacking against Finland in the Continuation War began on June 22, 1941, at 06:05. Below, please find a copule of sources (more can be added): Boris Novikov (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"SOVIET VICTORY" WAS A MYTH - A RELIC - FROM THE COLD WAR PERIOD FALSIFIED HISTORY WRITING

With sources, it has been proved that the Finns were victorious in the determining final battles. The attacking enemy had been pushed back behind the border, and it was held behind the border until the war's final moment and until the Soviets would give up the demand for Finland's surrender and until the peace terms could be agreed upon.

Finland won the war on the battle fields and - from the military point of view -, achieved a defensive victory. However, the Continuation War is a case where the victor paid for a part of the damages/losses of the loser.

We could compare this to a martial arts match, after which the winner agrees to pay for the broken rib bone caused for the loser, in front of a biased jury three years later (1947, Paris)Boris Novikov (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A martial arts match? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds...

victor paid for a part of the damages/losses of the loser.

In war victors don't do that. -YMB29 (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Finland did not do it either "in war", which ended September 19, 1944. Also the Paris treaty of 1947 took place during the Cold War, not at the time of the Continuation War.

For instance, USA has assisted financially a lot of its ex-enemies, in some cases already rather soon after guns were turned down. USA also helped Japan, Germany and Italy back on their feet, among numerous of its ex-enemies. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So Finland was giving humanitarian aid to the USSR... I can barely hold myself from laughing. -YMB29 (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

When determining the winner of the war, we must acknowledge the aims

The Soviets themselves admitted in an official publication, even emphasized, that they started the war (Jokipii).

Historians have concluded - based on much evidence, including Soviet documents -, that the intention (not only detailed plans) of the Soviet Union was to conquer Finland.

We have shown with sources, that the Finns had decided to stay neutral, unless they were attacked, and that they had prepared for a defensive war, not offensive war (e.g., Mannerheim memoirs).

Against that backdrop and these aims, - again - Finland clearly achieved a defensive victory. The Soviets failed in their aims. The Finns were successful in their goal to drive the enemy back behind the border; and to hold it there; and to save Finland as a sovereign and independent nation.

We must open our eyes and minds for the contemporary history writing and what the historians are reporting, based on the most recent findings. We must look past the Cold War period propagated myth of a Soviet victory, enforced by an "unknown soldier" in the end of the famous Finnish Cold War period movie, who rises up from smoke after the Finnish battle victories, and states that the "little Finland" had become "second".

The movie - of course - represents the time, when the Finns on all forums exercised caution, being concerned of the watchful eye of the Soviet Union. After the brake up of the Soviet Union, however, the leaders began talking more freely. Below, just a few examples: Boris Novikov (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Again you are just repeating your fairytale view of the war, nothing new.

This talk page is not your blog... -YMB29 (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Only repeating, when necessary, user YMB29. How many times did user Wanderer602 have to repeat to you his/her position in regard to the winner of the war ? Perhaps you still do not remember his/her stance ? Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And what about his/her stance? -YMB29 (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

THE GENERALS, THE PRESIDENT, THE PRIME MINISTER EXPLAIN HOW FINNS PREVAILED, SOVIETS FAILED

PRIME MINISTER ESKO AHO:

In a speech held September 4, 1994, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Armistice ending Finnish-Soviet hostilities, the Prime Minister of Finland Esko Aho declared:

"I do not see defeat in the summer's battles, but the victory of a small nation over a major power, whose forces were stopped far short of the objectives of the Soviet leadership. Finland was not beaten militarily ... Finland preserved her autonomy and her democratic social system ... won the peace."

You are using a politician's speech as evidence here?

Maybe I should start quoting Soviet/Russian politicians here too, so we can have a battle of propaganda... -YMB29 (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Art Dominique is repeating himself again, see section "Par 19" here. You may want to review that discussion before wasting time refuting his claims that were refuted back in 2006. This one is particularly telling as the Prime Minister's admittance that the war was lost is turned inside out. --Illythr (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are words used by the Prime Minister, although that is not his entire speech, of course. Please note, that - importantly - the prime minister is not used as a source in the article.

Reason: Althoug the Prime Minister does not see defeat in the summer's battles, but the victory of a small nation over a major power, he has had to clarify his reference to "loosing side", whereas the "victory" in the war did not translate to the best possible terms in the peace arrangements in his view.

I agree - the party which didn't start the war and which achieved a clear "defensive victory" should have been left with a better deal in the final peace arrangements. I believe, there will be a time when Finland will be reimbursed. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

PRESIDENT MAUNO KOIVISTO:

"President Koivisto spoke at a seminar held in early August, 1994, in the North Karelian city of Joensuu, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Finnish victory in the crucial battle of Ilomantsi. Two attacking Red Army divisions were decimated in that last major engagement on the Finnish front before the Armistice concluded in September, 1944."

The future Finnish president witnessed that battle as a soldier in a reconnaissance company.

In the summer of 1944, when the Red Army launched an all-out offensive aimed at eliminating Finland, the Finns were "extremely hard-pressed", Koivisto declared, but they "did not capitulate".

"We succeeded in stopping the enemy cold at key points, and in the final battle at Ilomantsi even in pushing him back."

Yes and then your country paid $300,000,000 among other things. So who decimated who here? -YMB29 (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I believe there will be a time when Finland will be reimbursed. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes wait for it... -YMB29 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

GENERAL S.P. PLATONOV:

In a Soviet period book, published in the Soviet Union, General Platonov discusses the very time period of the war, which singlehandedly determined the final outcome of the war - albeit still in the very final battle in Ilomantsi the Red Army was beaten one more time, and pushed back.

In the Soviet book Bitva za Leningrad 1941-1944 ("The Battle of Leningrad") edited by Lt.-Gen. S.P. Platonov, it is stated:

"The repeated offensive attempts by the Soviet Forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and in repulsing all the attacks of our troops ... During the offensive operations lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them on the orders of the Supreme Command issued on June 21st."

This is getting boring... Again failed to advance enough as according to plan, does not mean failure in the war. -YMB29 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No: "... failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them" ... and, Finland was successful in "repulsing all the attacks of" the Soviet troops.

How else could a defensive victory be achieved ? Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them" - meaning failed to advance in the end does not mean failed in capturing Vyborg and Petrozavodsk or in forcing Finland out of the war on Soviet terms. -YMB29 (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take my answer below. Boris Novikov (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no Battle of Viipuri in 1944, but an "abandonment of Viipuri" instead

Viipuri was abondoned. The Finns wanted to save the city from bombardment, and to take the fighting to the nearby less populated area instead (the Battle of Tali-Ihantala).

The Finns had wanted to help save Leningrad from bombardment and from the Nazi occupation, and they did not want to now have Viipuri to be destroyed either.

In regard to the fighting about Viipuri, Mannerheim's wishes were not honored, as the study by Eeva Tammi in 2006 also proves.

Study by Eeva Tammi: The Finns executed a strategic abandonment of Viipuri in just few hours’ time on June 20, 1944. The day’s fighting in Viipuri was brought to a halt by 16:40, leaving only 120 Finns missing in action or dead.

From Viipuri on, the Finns won all the war's major battles.

The Finns had fought about Viipuri in the Winter War, and they won, only to cede the city to the Soviets to make lasting peace, for the time being at least. Boris Novikov (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GENERAL ADOLF EHRNROOTH:

User User:Esgorde, you state: "those sources doesnt even support the statement that war ended to finnish victory (in overall)".

How does the Finnish General Ehrnrooth's statement below not support "that war ended to finnish victory (in overall)" ?:

"I - having participated in both the Winter War and the Continuation War - can stress: I know well, how the wars ended on the battle fields. The Continuation War in particular ended in (Finland's) defensive victory, in the most important meaning of the term."

("Minä mukana ollen niin talvi- kuin jatkosodassakin, voisin sanoa painopistesuunnassa, tiedän varsin hyvästi, miten sodat rintamalla päättyivät. Eritoten jatkosota päättyi torjuntavoittoon sanan tärkeimmässä mielessä.") Boris Novikov (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So you still think a statement of a veteran is a reliable source on who won the war? -YMB29 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The General of Infantry Adolf Ehrnrooth is not just any veteran. He was seriously wounded in the Continuation War in 1941. After he recovered, he was appointed to lead the 7th Infantry regiment (JR 7) of the 2nd Division. Ehrnrooth wanted to lead his men from the front. During the battles on the Karelian Isthmus he was awarded the Mannerheim cross.

The Finns can thank General Ehrnrooth - for one - for the brilliant defensive victory achieved in the summer of 1944. In 2004, General Ehrnrooth was voted the 4th greatest Finn of all time by the Finnish general public, during the 'Suuret suomalaiset' (Great Finns) competition. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good for him, but what does this have to do with whether or not he is a reliable source? -YMB29 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

THE STATEMENTS OF THE GENERALS ONLY FURTHER REINFORCE THE FINNISH DEFENSIVE VICTORY

Accordingly, user User:Esgorde, your reasoning for the removing of the sources is clearly invalid. In contrary to your claim, the statements of the Generals describe how the war ended (Platonov does not need to refer to the final Battle of Ilomantsi in this particular quote, as in Ilomantsi - as we know - the Soviets were driven back).

The time period discussed in General Platonov's above-given quote covers the Battle of Tali-Ihantala and the other determining battles parallel to it, even the Battle of Nietjärvi ending July 17th (the later Finnish victory in Ilomantsi not being included in this quote).

Thus, Platonov reveals in most clear terms who won the final determining battles - i.e., that Finland achieved a clear defensive victory.

The main Soviet failure - of course - was the Soviet inability to conquer Finland, which was the central goal of the Soviet leadership and the very purpose for the war, as has been proved here in detail by various distinguished sources (page numbers and exact quotes have been provided - more sources can be added).

If it had been the Finnish intention to conquer the Soviet Union, and if Finland would have started the war, the Soviets could claim a clear "defensive victory", if they had been able to prevent the Finns from ever even reaching the Soviet border. Boris Novikov (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Again you have yet to prove this.

Thus, Platonov reveals in most clear terms who won the final determining battles - i.e., that Finland achieved a clear defensive victory

Yes a good example of you misusing source to fit your POV. -YMB29 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User YMB29, please understand that what might seem controversial to you, is not controversial to the experts reporting the findings in question. Additionally, multiple sources have been provided for several pieces of the information contributed.

Despite of requests, you have refused to answer which source do you find misused. Perhaps there is something that you had not understood. One could not possibly answer to your accusation, unless you are specific.

A few of the authors used as a source have also been used by other Wikipedia contributors in connection to this article and other related articles. Professor Manninen - for instance - has been referred to as a source by at least the users Posse72 and Whiskey, and the use of him as a source has been backed up by user Illythr.

All of the sources given - the Finnish, Soviet/Russian and others - are widely used as sources in the related historiography.

Please take the rest of my answer under the headlines below: Boris Novikov (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Boris Novikov (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WHAT PART OF PLATONOV'S STATEMENT ISN'T "CLEAR", USER YMB29 ? A PLENTY OF SOURCES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED

(1.) General S.P. Platonov explains that the Soviets "failed" and that the Finns "repulsed all the attacks of" the Soviet troops. What does it mean to you - a Soviet victory ?

What is not "clear" about that statement to you ? How could that statement possibly be misinterpreted ?

The Soviet General's statement is exactly the kind of proof that we need. (2.) The Finnish General of Infantry Adolf Ehrnrooth who fought in the area, is another proof. (3.) The President of Finland Mauno Koivisto who fought in Ilomantsi is yet another proof (although he hasn't been used as a source for the Finnish defensive victory in the article as of yet). (4.) The findings of all the historians given are used as further proof.

What more do you want ? We have provided multiple sources in normal Wikipedia way.

Where is your proof/source which contradicts any of the information given by all these leaders and historians ? If no contradicting sources can be provided, (5.) that is yet another proof that the information is correct. Thus, please do not remove the correct info.

Please take the rest of my answer further down. Boris Novikov (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert war

The dispute over the outcome of the war is turning into a revert war on both sides. From now on, please thoroughly discuss things and stop reverting each others' edits, maybe take a break from the result section and start working on improving others. --Killing Vector (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone engaged in a revert war ever listen to that? Besides, the current version is the one being pushed through by Art Dominiques' sockpuppet army anyway. --Illythr (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A polite warning should always precede any other kind of action. Have you gone through the WP:SOCK procedure for the users you suspect? --Killing Vector (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It won't work - the last confirmed sock is over 12 months old. Of course, when a group of fresh users and IPs suddely appear in a single article and advance the same position using the same arguments and tactics as a similarly named group of users did before in the same article (see archive 4), you tend to see the pattern. See also here. --Illythr (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, no false accusations, user Illythr (YMB29 ?).

The User:Esgorde account was started simultaneously as you disappeared - a coincidence ?

It is not important how many sockpuppets you create, user Illythr. They have one noticeable thing in common - reverts are made, but no single source is provided.

What is important is what the scholars and historians - the experts - say. The reverting without contradicting sources does not help.

If you cannot provide a reliable source which contradicts the findings of the respected historians given, please refrain from reverting the contributions made. Boris Novikov (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the only thing missing from the standard pattern were the sockpuppetry accusations. I'm glad you decided to be consistent and added those in. Still, I'd prefer the old setup of Whiskey and me. Nah. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than concentrating to unessential false accusations and participating in disruptive removing/reverting of properly sourced information, please join in fair play, user Illythr.

Hopefully we can all now agree, that unless we present reliable contradicting sources (pages and quotes included) for any piece of information used, we must accept the properly sourced information contributed by others.

You - for one - have defended the use of Professor Otto Manninen as a source, user Illythr. Boris Novikov (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources you and your socks present do not support the text you are trying to push through. For example, you carry over Platonov's remarks on specific operation results to the entire war effort. --Illythr (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The time period in Platonov's comment covers the final determining battles. After that, there was nothing - worth mentioning - left for the Soviets, except for the one very final devastating Soviet loss in Ilomantsi. Please take the rest of my answer on the bottom of this page: Boris Novikov (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he talks about those individual last battles, whereas you pull his statements over the entire war. --Illythr (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, - importantly - in that quote alone he talks about a time period which covers all the final determining battles (not including the very final battle of Ilomantsi, were two more Soviet divisions were decimated, as the Soviets were pushed back). Boris Novikov (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"The repeated offensive attempts by the Soviet Forces failed ... enemy succeeded ... in repulsing all the attacks of our troops ... the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them"

Does that translate to you as a Soviet victory in the time period referred to, when the determining battles were fought ? Or, do you call a Soviet victory the final battle in Ilomantsi, which happened after the time period in question ?

In Ilomantsi, two more Soviet divisions were decimated, as the Soviets were pushed back. How would that help to change Platonov's above-given statement to a Soviet victory ?

Again, please be specific - which source in your view has been "misused" ?

Is there any particular reason why you are not providing a single source of your own for your views/reverts/counter claims ? Is it because no support at all is available in historiography for your claims ?

Please take the rest of my answer below. Boris Novikov (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are the Soviet leaders used "unreliable", user YMB29 ? Just in case, a large number of western historians has been included

Your claim that only I "agree" with the Continuation War edits in question is wrong, of course. Accordingly, highly regarded known historians have been provided to back up each piece of information, and more can be added.

Once again: You must accept the appropriately sourced information, user YMB29, unless you can provide sources of your own which would contradict the sourced information given.

The "repeating" of some information was done because of you, user YMB29, as you appear to ignore what is discussed and proved in detail by multiple sources already. Others seem to become frustrated for having to repeat each point to you over and over again:

User Wanderer602 to you: "please try even acting like you would have read my comments".

Thus - for example -, we needed to repeat to you the information relating to the statement by the Soviet Marshal Zhukov, as your claim fully contradicts the statements given by him.

Do you see the using of the Soviet/Russian sources - such as the memoirs of Marshal Zhukov or accounts´by General Platonov - as inappropriate ?

Are the statements of these high ranking Soviet military leaders falsified in the Soviet publications in your view - or have these leaders simply lied ? Do you know of a statement by another Soviet leader which contradicts the statements in question ?

Are the Soviet military leaders too "unreliable" to be used as sources in your view ? How about Marshal Konev, or Stalin himself ? How about Isakov or Voroshilov ? Is every single one of these high Soviet military and/or political leaders "unreliable" in your view ?

How about the Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev and his memoirs ?

In his memoirs, President Khrushchev tells that the Soviet leaders lied to the Soviet people. Thus - in the case of this article -, I have chosen to use a number of western experts on this field as sources, in addition to the Soviet sources.

Which source in your view is reliable, user YMB29 ? Can you name one please ? Can you please provide the name of a book by a credited and known historian and the related page numbers and exact quotes which contradict the information that you keep reverting ?

Or is it only you - no known historian - that disagrees with all the sources given ? Which source used so far is "unreliable" in your view ? Boris Novikov (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User YMB29: By continuing to remove appropriate sources, you are participating in vandalism

Please provide sources of your own, rather than simply deleting properly sourced information contributed by others. So far, I haven't seen you providing a single source (which one ?).

All the sources in question are by known and credited historians. These historians have been properly introduced on the discussion page, and Wikipedia pages and links for the authors and sources in question have been provided on the article page and/or the discussion page.

The names of the well known books used as sources are given, and the related page numbers are provided. Exact quotes from the books are provided as well. More sources can be added per request.

A number of the authors and books used as sources have been used widely as sources in this article and other related articles by other Wikipedia users as well. The Soviet/Russian books referred to should be available in the public library near you.

The use of Ohto Manninen, PhD, as a source has been supported by such active Wikipedia users on this article as Posse72, Whiskey and Illythr. Professor Mauno Jokipii is also widely used as a source in connection to the Finnish-Soviet wars, and all of the sources used are highly regarded experts on the topics they have written about.

Manninen's extensive research work on the related Soviet documents is highly valued in the academic world. A picture of a Soviet war plan can be added to the Continuation War article, per request.

If you believe that - in addition to you - any known historian claims the Soviet war plans introduced by Manninen to be controversial or the documents used not to be authentic, please bring forth such a publication for our review. Please make sure to include the page number and the related quote.

Simply for you to claim that something is controversial, is not the Wikipedia way to proceed, as this is not about your or my personal views.

Your views such as the one about Finland having "occupied" Åland - a territory which is a part of Finland - is not worth debating about in this forum, unless you provide an appropriate source from historiography to support your points (like you have been provided for each point given).

Thank you for understanding, user YMB29. Boris Novikov (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Boris Novikov

So there is enough evidence that he is a sock of a banned user? He made the whole talk page incoherent and unreadable. I am sure this was his intent, to make discussion difficult. All he does is repeat his POVed statements in new sections each time... His sources are either unreliable for wiki or don't prove his arguments at all (like Platonov saying the Soviet failed to advance = Soviet defeat). Most users here don't agree with his edits, but he reverts anyway, using anonymous IPs to help him edit war. So I guess getting admins to look at this page (again?) would be the only option. -YMB29 (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He passes the WP:DUCK test for the banned user:Art Dominique ten times over, but only for those who were around to witness his disruption back in 2006. That's user:Whiskey, user:Mikko H., user:Petri Krohn (who got banned himself in the meantime) and myself. His liberal misuse of various sources (especially in Finnish) makes direct administrative intervention difficult, as any such admin would have to have at least some basic knowledge on the topic to be able to distinguish a valid concern from disruptive talk page editing. I'm kind of unsure what to do, really. I definitely don't have the time to refute his arguments point by point all over again. I'm sure the other regulars have something better to waste their time on as well. --Illythr (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well yes that is what he counts on. Going in circles with him and refuting his invalid or weak points over and over is a waste of time.

I am going to try and see what can be done about him. -YMB29 (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

YMB29: YOU KEEP MISREPRESENTING PLATONOV'S WORDING. YOU'RE ACCUSED OF THE SAME ELSEWHERE

General Platonov does not use those exact words - "failed to advance" -, user YMB29. Besides, you continue leaving out the most esssential parts of his statement in question.

General Platonov: "... the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them on the orders of the Supreme Command ...".

Please notice the difference: The Soviets "failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them", whereas the Finns stopped the Soviets according to their plan.

The Finns "repulsed" all the attacks of the Soviets, General Platonov points out. That constitutes a "Finnish defensive victory", in clear way, but in particular when you take into consideration the following two important facts:

1) The Soviets have - in an official publication - emphasized that they started the war.

2) The Soviets intended to conquer Finland, based on a plan which got its final shape in May, 1941.

The Continuation War article has the above 12 sources - known historians and researchers - attached for the Soviet intention to conquer Finland. The sources have been introduced and explained in detail on this page. More sources can be added.

As user Wanderer602 (talk) has pointed out to you a couple of times on this page, you appear to make no notice of the responses given to your comments. That is highly disruptive, and impolite against other Wikipedia users. Therefore - once again -, below please find the quote of the Soviet General Platonov's statement in question.

Please, do not make your own versions of this statement (the both generals' - Platonov's and Ehrnrooth's - exact quotes must be added to the article, if you continue distorting the wording of either one of their statements, while they are being used as sources):

"The repeated offensive attempts by the Soviet Forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and in repulsing all the attacks of our troops ... During the offensive operations lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them on the orders of the Supreme Command issued on June 21st."

The Wikipedia history records show that you have been - and you are being - accused of exactly the same wrong-doings in relation to other Wikipedia articles as you are in this context, user YMB29, reverting appropriately sourced contributions in great amounts (like the contributions by user Biophys) - without discussing and/or reasoning your actions properly first -, making false statements and accusations, etc.

Currently (February 8.), user Biophys (talk) is demanding - in writing - for you to make an apology to him for you calling him a "liar". He has carefully and thoroughly proved his case to you - i.e., that he didn't lie.

Administrative protection for the properly sourced information in this particular article is indeed needed, because of you, user YMB29, unless you stop your unwarranted actions.

Again: Please, stop reverting appropriately sourced information. If you believe any given information and sources are contradicted by other sources that you know of, please provide such sources for us to see hear on the talk page (just like you have been provided all sources well in advance, before they were inserted to the article - and, you've still provided no contradicting sources, nor any sources at all). Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously I am a rude vandal that deserves a ban...

How about you start providing proper sources to back up your claims, and stop accusing people or spamming the talk page with long repeating incoherent posts. -YMB29 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Noticeably, I have not provided a single piece of information, without provided detailed sources for it, and multiple sources in most cases.

As noticeably, - so far - you have not provided a single source as of yet (not including today's quote about Stalin in Tehran, which in no way supported your statement). Boris Novikov (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You will just dismiss any sources I provide like you did this one. And I have told you how you use sources... -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The timing of Operation Barbarossa saved Finland from even much more massive Soviet attack in the beginning

As was discussed here before, no-one has ever been able to present any evidence pointing to Finland having prepared to attack the Soviet Union, even if the Soviets would not have attacked Finland. Reason: That simply was not in the Finnish plans.

There is only much evidence to the contrary. Finland had prepared to stay neutral, unless it was attacked, like the Mannerheim memoirs emphasize.

However, the Finns could tell that a renewed Soviet take-over campaign of Finland would come soon. They were right - the Soviets were preparing to conquer Finland.

This is why the Finns had prepared for a defense, not offense (Mannerheim memoirs). This is also why it took such a long time for the Finns to rearrange the forces from defensive formations to offensive formations, and to get the counterattack under way (Mannerheim memoirs).

One could safely state that the timing of the Operation Barbarossa saved Finland from a much tougher fight in the beginning of the Continuation War. In the critical time - right before the start of the Soviet take-over campaign of Finland -, the world events did not unravel favorably in terms of the Soviet ability to conquer Finland. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Operation Silver Fox, a joint Finnish-German offensive operation against Murmansk, was planned together with the Wehrmacht since January 1941 or so. --Illythr (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite requests, you have declined to provide sources for your claims.

Please understand that personal speculation is not worthy for presentation in Wikipedia, unless it is backed up in related historiography. Please provide a source showing evidence that Finland had decided to attack against the Soviet Union, even if the Soviet Union would not attack Finland first. Please undestand that the lack of any such evidence is a proof on its own, that such intentions did not exist.

Besides, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary - and, such information has been provided on this page, backed up with multiple highly credited sources. Please take the rest of my answer below: Boris Novikov (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the article about the operation.

And here is proof from the Nuremberg trials:

All agreements between the OKW and the Finnish General Staff had as their sole purpose from the very beginning the participation of the Finnish Army and the German troops on Finnish territory in the aggressive war against the Soviet Union. There was no doubt about that. If the Finnish General Staff, to the outside world, always pointed out that all these measures had only the character of defense measures, that was just camouflage. There was-from the very beginning-no doubt among the Finnish General Staff that all these preparations would serve only in the attack against the Soviet Union, for all the preparations that we made pointed in that same direction, namely, the plans for mobilization; above all, the objectives for the attack. Nobody ever reckoned with the possibility of a Russian attack on Finland.

Since, for cogent military reasons, the operations for attack from Finnish territory could start only 8 to 10 days after the beginning of the attack against Russia, certain security measures were taken during and after the attack, but the whole formation and lining-up of the troops was for offensive and not defensive purposes. I believe you can see sufficiently from that the aggressive character of all these preparations.

-German general Buschenhagen.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-12-46.asp

In the the Nuremberg trials, the German officers were trying to avoid being executed. Thus, this interrogated officer's words - at that point - cannot be taken seriously, nor can they be used as evidence.

Finland and Germany had a bitter war in 1945. Accordingly, the words of the officer above are clearly words of revenge.

Below, please find the views of the higher ranking German officers, when they did not have to fear for their very lives. Please take the rest of my answer below: Boris Novikov (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure Buschenhagen was facing execution? And it was not about revenge, but more of the disgust that Finland was trying to blame everything on Germany and hide its role in the war. Anyway this cannot be dismissed like that by you, especially since other sources, like Jokipii's book, confirm this. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

HORNBORG COMMITTEE: "The Committee saw it having been determined, that no political agreement with Germany had been made."

Hitler too - like all the Allied leaders - acknowledged and accepted the nature of the Continuation War as a "separate war"

Germany too fully acknowledged and accepted the fact, that the Finnish Continuation War was a 'separate war' from the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied powers (more sources provided per request):

ADOLF HITLER:

In the end of October, 1943, the Finnish Ambassador Kivimäki gave a briefing to Adolf Hitler, where he clearly emphacized the nature of the Finnish war as a "separate war". Hitler did not protest, and - instead - he made it clearly understood that he fully agrees:

"Based on the German knowledge ... Finland has not agreed to anything else, but to defend itself, if it became a target of an attack." (Source: T. M. Kivimäki, Suomalaisen poliitikon muistelmat - "The Memoirs of a Finnish Politician" -, page 262. 1965.)

Yes after it attacked... And this was in 1943 when Finland was trying to distance itself from the losing side. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

FOREIGN MINISTER VON RIBBENTROP:

In his speach on November 26, 1941, the German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop pointed out that Finland was not an ally of Germany, and that it did not even fight on the side of - together with - Germany, as did Italy, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia, according to von Ribbentrop. (Source: T. M. Kivimäki, Suomalaisen poliitikon muistelmat - "The Memoirs of a Finnish Politician" -, page 262. 1965.)

Again quoted out of context, so it proves nothing. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GENERAL ERIK HEINRICHS:

General Erik Heinrichs: "In all this time, Finland has not committed to anything." (Source: Erik Heinrichs, Mannerheim Suomen kohtaloissa - "Mannerheim in the Destinies of Finland" -, part II, pages 342-343.)

After the Continuation War, a thorough investication was conducted, in which it was determinated whether or not Finland had made any agreement with Germany. The so called Hornborg Committee report was released to the Finnish government on July 17, 1945:

"The Committee saw it having been determined, that no political agreement with Germany had been made." (Source: Jukka Tarkka, 13. artikla: Suomen sotasyyllisyyskysymys ja liittoutuneiden sotarikospolitiikka vuosina 1944 – 1946, doctorate thesis, pages 128-129. WSOY, 1977.) Boris Novikov (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No political but military... -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

MANNERHEIM MEMOIRS: FINLAND HAD DECIDED TO STAY NEUTRAL, UNLESS IT WAS ATTACKED. FINLAND HAD PREPARED FOR DEFENSIVE, NOT OFFENSIVE WAR. THAT IS WHY IT TOOK WEEKS TO REARRANGE FORCES FROM DEFENSIVE FORMATIONS TO OFFENSIVE FORMATIONS AND TO GET THE COUNTERATTACK UNDER WAY

C. G. E. MANNERHEIM:

1) In his memoirs, Marshal Mannerheim emphasizes that Finland had decided to remain neutral, unless it was attacked.

2) In his memoirs, Marshal Mannerheim also emphasizes that Finland had prepared for a defensive war, not offensive, and that is why it took so many weeks for the Finns to rearrange the troops from the defensive formations into offensive formations and to get the counterattack under way. Boris Novikov (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MOLOTOV, JUNE 23, 1941: GERMANS BEING IN FINLAND NOT THE REASON FOR THE SOVIET ATTACK

Earlier, claims were maid that the Germans having been allowed a passage right through a Finnish area to Northern Norway (a similar right which the Swedes had granted to the Germans), this might have prompted the Soviets to attack against Finland - as there were Germans on the Finnish territory on June 22, 1941.

Manneheim's "Memoirs" further prove - and is added as a source - that the Soviet attack against Finland was not launched because of the Germans being in Finland, but - instead - because of the Finnish invasion being something that the Soviets had decided to complete:

On June 23, 1941, Molotov made no mentioning of Germans being in Finland or of any Finnish-German deal made. This was in the line with the fact, that they were the Soviets themselves that had forced Finland to take the first step aside from its neutrality, when they had demanded passage rights to Hanko (dangerous for Finland, as Helsinki was on the route, allowing the Soviets a chance for surprise attack).

"Instead, he (Molotov) focused again in accusing Finland of an attack, which had not happened. The Soviet leadership had decided to draw Finland to a war." ("Memoirs", Mannerheim)

In accordance with the above, in its war-opening massive attack on June 25, the Soviet Union focused in only bombing Finnish targets, no German targets.

Later, the Soviets admitted to having made up the reason for the attack against Finland (see the Cold War period confession below) 87.93.111.58 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You are saying that when facing the largest invasion in history the Soviets decided to conquer Finland. Again that is just laughable...

Read my source above that disproves that Finland was only thinking defense. -YMB29 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That is what the 12 sources are saying, which you vandalized. Please understand that this is not about my view, or yours.

Please do not take the reporting of the historians personally, if there was something that you had not been aware of before.

Not only were there those detailed plans and intention to conquer Finland, the Soviets have also officially "emphacized" that they started the war. You had the prooving source protected in the article.

So, please get over that part. Both nations and historians at large have accepted what the Soviets have admitted. Why would you be the only one argueing against the Soviets and the rest of the world ? Boris Novikov (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it looks like that is you...

Where is the admission?

Again war plans don't prove that they were going to actually use them. Is that so hard to understand? -YMB29 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

SOVIETS HAVE ADMITTED OFFICIALLY - EVEN EMPHASIZED - THEIR ATTACK: (exact quotes available per request)

Is so it hard to understand that there were not only the plans and intention, but an attack - an execution of the plan.

The Soviet Union has not denied this attack. Amazingly, only you keep denying it, despite the highly credited sources provided here, over and over again.

Again, please understand, that this question was solved a long ago. The Soviet Union has officially "emhasized", that it launched this massive attack:

In the official publication of the history of the Soviet Airforces (published in English in 1973), exact details of the massive Soviet attack on Jun 25, 1941, are revealed.

Professor Mauno Jokipii's book Jatkosodan synty ("The Launching of the Continuation War"), pages 606-607, presents over a half a page long direct quote from the official Soviet publication. Below please find both sources in question, - 1) - the study by Professor Jokipii, and - 2) - the official Soviet publication (in English):

1) Jokipii, Mauno, Jatkosodan synty ("The Launching of the Continuation War"), pages 606-607. 1987.

2) "The Soviet Air Force", pages 42-43. 1973. Boris Novikov (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

DURING COLD WAR, USSR EMPHASIZED THAT IT HAD INITIATED THE CONTINUATION WAR

MAUNO JOKIPII:

Professor Mauno Jokipii has explained how the Soviet Union officially emphasized that it had launched the Continuation War (the first attack to Finnish territory having been on June 22, 1941, starting 06:05, after which two Finnish submarines landed mines on the Estonian coast ):

"The Soviet Union does not even try to deny its own initiative in the launching of the massive offensive. In contrary, it is being emphasized. The question who started has been solved: The Soviet Union admits in an official publication to have started the air raid in Finland and the Nordic." 87.93.111.58 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny how he ignores what Finland did in the first days of the German invasion and before, like starting the operation for occupying the Åland islands before the invasion even began. -YMB29 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a historian reporting the fact that the Soviets have "officially" admitted having started the war, even "emphacizing" the point.

You can accuse the Soviet leaders for "ignoring what Finland did in the first days". Don't you think they would know if they started the war or not ?

Please understand that what is admitted is admitted. You yourself had an administrator to protect that particular source (No. 6) in the article (although you are using the source for trying to prove that the Soviets did not start the war).

As the historian says: "The question who started has been solved". Thus, please understand that there is no point in arguing about that.

Now that we have a record of you "protecting" that source, please do not tamper with it when the article becomes unprotected. A minor headline for that official Soviet admitting can be formed as well. Boris Novikov (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? When and how did they admit? Again, let's see the admission? Your source does not show this. -YMB29 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

SOURCES FOR THE SOVIETS OFFICIALLY EMPHASIZING AND EXPLAINING THEIR ATTACK AGAINST FINLAND:

Below, please find the source information for the Soviets officially having admitted, emphasized and explained in detail their massive attack against Finland on June 25, 1941:

1) Jokipii, Mauno, "Jatkosodan synty" ("The Launching of the Continuation War"), pages 606-607. 1987.

2) "The Soviet Air Force", pages 42-43. 1973.

Exact quotes from the official history of "the Soviet Air Force" can be provided, per request.

Although in this case such details can be provided, let it be mentioned for future reference, that our job as Wikipedia contributors is to report the findings of the specialists - scholars and historians - on the field, and to bring forth these sources, full with the related page numbers and the exact quotes of the words of the historians.

In this case, that was already done a while back. Wikipedia users can not be expected to brake down the findings of the historians in detail, explaining each of the thousands of doucuments used in the research work.

We do not need to write a book on a Wikipedia talk page about each finding and/or result of research completed by historians. We simply report what these findings - results of research - are.

Finally: As previously discussed on this page, Molotov did not try to deny the Soviet attacking of June 22 to Mannerheim on June 23, 1941. Molotov made no mentioning of Germans being in Finland, as a possible reason for the Soviet attack.

A dozen sources will be added shortly to the bottom of this page regarding the Soviet attacking against Finland having started right after 6 am on June 22, 1941. Boris Novikov (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again you are quoting out of context... Read what I wrote about this below. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for 1 week. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

With this edit, I am bringing back the chronological order of the comments on this page, after it was tampered by user YMB29 today. Nothing was removed, just the order was brought back

User YMB29: Please do not vandalize the talk page.

You also removed 15 sources from the article's lead segment, while you had an administrator to protect the page. Those sources had not been criticized by any user on this talk page, including you.

The sources and the authors were properly introduced and explained in detail on this talk page - full with page numbers and quotes -, well in advance prior to posting them in the article.

No-one expressed objection, and the sources were left alone by all users (after the article's wording was once changed slightly, in the very beginning).

You did remove those 15 sources also once before, a few days ago, in your apparent anger of the use of General Platonov as a source for the "result".

You were asked which source of those 15 you see being misused, and why. You declined to answer. Thus, please leave those appropriately set sources untouched.

Please present your own source, if you believe there is support for any contradicting information in the related historiography.

In addition to you, during the last couple of weeks - after the Soviet intention to conquer was properly sourced -, all other users have accepted either the "Moscow Armistice" or the "Finnish defensive victory" as the result (not including the freshly established single purpose account of 'Esgorde').

As I stated earlier to user 'Wanderer', - regardless of the Finnish defensive victory - I can accept "Moscow Armistice" for the result. Also, user 'Illythr' reverted to it very recently.

We can let everyone decide for themselves, with the help of the article, who they consider the winner.

Thus, your co-operation is needed in not presenting any winner at all. Can you too agree to "Moscow Armistice", as most others appear to be ready to compromise ? Boris Novikov (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I must say that if it is needed to state the victory in the result then finnish achievements cannot be bypassed in this statement. It is so remarkable achievement. On the otherhand we know what was the outcome of the peace negotiations. So the result could be "Defensive Victory for Finland, Moscow Armistice" Koivuhalko (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How about you stop spamming this page with repeated off topic posts that prove nothing. -YMB29 (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I gladly repeat when you don't remember what has already been discussed and properly sourced. Boris Novikov (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse remembering with challenging. Spamming is not how discussion works. -YMB29 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the same questions all over aqain, when already answerd with support of multiple credited sources, can be called spamming.

Repeated same questions deserve repeated same answers, if the answers match the truth. When the answers reveal the truth, the answers cannot be changed - although various wordings can be used.

If you wish not to hear the same information, please stop spamming the page with repeatedly asking the same questions or prsesenting same claims/arguments, without providing appropriate sources to back up your views which have been shown incorrect by sources provided by your opponents. Boris Novikov (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You know you don't need to create a new section each time with the same contents, when you want to restate what you have said...

And when people don't agree with you and ask questions about your misuse of sources, spamming the same thing at them and avoiding the questions does not help... -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

General Platonov's statements of failure must be presented hand in hand with the Soviet war plans and intention to conquer Finland, and the official Soviet admitting of USSR having started the war

The time period which General Platonov points out in the statement in question alone, covers the war's final determining battles, not including the very final battle in Ilomantsi - on the north side of Lake Ladoga -, the result of which no-one has questioned.

Additional two Soviet divisions were decimated in Ilomantsi, as the Soviets were pushed back, after devastating loss.

Thus, Platonov tells in his book about the Soviet failure - loss. The biggest loss being of course, that the Soviet intention - the Soviet purpose for starting the war (as has been well introduced here by multiple sources) - to conquer Finland never materialized.

The Soviets failed to even brake through the Finnish border at any point of the war (if the attempt in the very start of the Soviet campaign in 1941 in Parikkala is not counted).

Thus, Platonov's statements are just another proof of the Finnish defensive victory. Those statement are reinforced by the statement of the Finnish General Ehrnrooth, who participated in the battles in the front.

Ehrnrooth states that the was a Finnish defensive victory "in the most important meaning of the term".

When it comes to war, the Generals who have specialized and/or participated in the war in question can and must be used as sources.

The Soviet General Platonov's statements must be presented hand in hand with the Soviet war plans and intention to conquer Finland, and the official Soviet admitting of USSR having started the war.

Those three factures together - combined - equal as the Finnish defensive victory. All those three points have been well sourced here, with multiple highly credited, widely used and broadly accepted sources. Boris Novikov (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

HOW DID THE FINNS SAVE USSR FROM A NAZI OCCUPATION, WHILE FIGHTING AGAINST THREE SUPERPOWERS

It is safe to say, that by tying the Germans to Lapland and by keeping the Allied supply lines open by the Finnish borders and by not allowing the - nearly successful - siege of Leningrad to be completed, the Finns saved the Soviet Union from a full Nazi occupation.

By freezing their counterattack and by making the Soviets convinced of the pure defensive nature of their operation, the Finns allowed the Soviet forces to be transferred to the Soviet battle fronts in the south.

Had the Finns been fighting a war of aggression, rather than a defensive war, the German forces - instead - from the encirclement of Leningrad would have been released south.

Until the summer of 1944, the Finns were in many ways a critically important partner of the Allies in the war against the Nazis - a fact which did not go unnoticed by the American embassy in Helsinki.

A brilliant maneuvering of the Finnish leaders helped Finland to beat all odds in the fight against three superpowers: USSR, USA (financer and supplier of the Red Army) and Germany.

Finland's most dangerous enemy, however, was none of the above. Boris Novikov (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Off topic post. -YMB29 (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

SOVIETS, AMERICANS OR NAZIS WEREN'T FINLAND'S WORST ENEMIES. THE WORST WERE FINNS - THE COMMUNIST FINNS

Finland's worst enemy were the Finnish communists, operating from USSR and Finland.

The first ever meeting between Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and Joseph Stalin took place in Tampere, Finland. With the help of Lenin and the Soviet Bolshevists, the Finnish communists launched the Civil War of Finland in 1918.

When loosing the Finnish Civil War, a large amount of Finnish communists escaped to the Soviet Union. By thousands, Finns from North America later joined the Finnish "utopia" in the Karelian area on the Soviet side of the Finnish-Soviet border.

Finnish Otto Wille Kuusinen was a prominent leader of the Comintern in Bolshevist Russia, that became the Soviet Union.

Kuusinen later became Stalin's right-hand-man in the campaign to conquer Finland, and in other political and strategic planning as well. In 1939, a failed coup attempt of Finland by the Finnish communists operating from USSR was seen.

When the Red Army began its advance during Winter War on November 30, 1939, Kuusinen was pronounced head of the Finnish Democratic Republic (also known as the Terijoki Government) - Stalin's puppet régime intended to rule the captured Finland.

But as the war did not go as planned, and the Soviet leadership decided to negotiate a peace with the Finnish government, Kuusinen's government was quietly disbanded and he was made chairman of the presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Karelo-Finnish SSR (1940–1956).

Kuusinen became an influential official in the Soviet state administration. He was a member of the Politburo, the highest state organ.

In the Winter War, 1939-1940, the Finns had to exercise extreme caution in recruiting Finnish communists to the Finnish armed forces. A lot of the Finnish "left-wingers" were not recruited for the fighting in the Winter War, and particularly not in large numbers in same units (source: 'Tie Tampereelle', Heikki Ylikangas).

In the two wars against the Soviet Union during WW2, the Finnish forces regularly had to face Finns - occasionally entirely "Finnish" (or Finnish speaking) units (source: 'Miehet kertovat') - fighting in the Red Army. The Finnish "reds" were a very dangerous obstacle for Finland. They were of great value to the Soviet military efforts against Finland, in many important ways. Boris Novikov (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Off topic post. -YMB29 (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

USA LARGELY FUNDED AND EQUIPPED THE SOVIET AGGRESSION AGAINST FINLAND

American supplies and Finnish co-operation in keeping the supply lines flowing saved USSR from Nazi occupation.

By tying the Germans to Lapland and by keeping the Allied supply lines open near its borders and by not allowing the - nearly successful - siege of Leningrad to be completed, Finland saved the Soviet Union from a full Nazi occupation.

Transferred in today's money, the amount of American dollars spent to support the Soviet war - including the Soviet take-over campaign against Finland - is mindboggling, to say the least.

A major supply route of American goods to USSR went through the always-ice-free Barents Sea to Murmansk, and from there along the Murmansk railroad south, not far from the Finnish border.

The Soviets received a vast amount of American food and clothing, a huge amount of different types of American weapons, hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks, 11'000 railcars, 18,700 aircraft and enormous amount of other supplies from the Americans.

Finnish soldiers captured all sorts of American weapons and equipment and food from the Soviet soldiers on regular bases.

Lend-Lease (Public Law 77-11) was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945.

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $759 billion at 2008 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union (equivalent to about $200 billion at 2010 prices), $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China.

The amount of military equipment sent to USSR alone was huge. Let us just pick up a couple of examples of military related items:

The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but during the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease.

Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% of Soviet military aircraft).

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2 1/2 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. U.S. supplies of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.

While the American figures about the American help to USSR are well recorded - for the most part -, the figures related to the Soviets' own stock and/or production of weaponry and machinery can only be guessed.

In his memoirs, the post-WW2 Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev explains how the Soviet officials categorically "lied" about figures related to the Soviet military strength and war successes. Boris Novikov (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Off topic and repeated post. Misinformation about Finland's role and the importance of Lend Lease. -YMB29 (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Both the U.S. supplies and the Finnish co-operation in keeping the supply lines open helped to keep USSR from being occupied by the Nazis. Boris Novikov (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That is really stretching it. -YMB29 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

STALIN SALUTED THE VICTORIOUS FINNISH ARMY, IN FRONT OF HIGH RANKING FINNISH OFFICIALS

On April 6, 1948, in presence of high ranking Finnish government and military officials in Moscow, Stalin saluted the Finnish Army with a toast, which ended to the following words (the entire - well known - toast speech available per request):

"No-one respects a country with a poor army. Everyone respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army and the representatives of it here, General Heinrichs and General Oinonen."

(Source: Lt. General Oinonen, Sotilasaikakauslehti, 1971)

That is your proof of Finnish victory?? -YMB29 (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That was not used as a source. Boris Novikov (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So why you put it here? -YMB29 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not everything that is disucussed on the talk page does necessarily need to be inserted to the article.

These types of additional pieces of information are useful additional supprotive material to Wikipedia users such as you, who refuse to accept findigns reported by credited historians. Boris Novikov (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I refuse your interpretations... And you just want to clutter this page with meaningless quotes? -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The false claims of yours need to be responded to. Take for instance the following matter below, the sentence which you indirectly accused me of having made up. How could these types of false accusations not be answered to ?

"Interpretations" ? Here is the entire statement of Professor Jokipii, exactly as it was published in 1987. About the English translation your comment was that you could not find the second sentence in the book. Here they are, the first and the second sentence, both in Finnish and in English:

"Omaa aloitetta suurhyökkäyksessä Neuvostoliitto ei pyrikään kieltämään, sitä päinvastoin korostetaan. Aloittajakysymys on ratkennut: Neuvostoliitto myöntää virallisessa teoksessa aloittaneensa ilmasodan Suomessa ja Pohjolassa."

"The Soviet Union does not even try to deny its own initiative in the launching of the massive offensive. In contrary, it is being emphasized. The question who started has been solved: The Soviet Union admits in an official publication to have started the air raid in Finland and the Nordic."

That is hardly a "meaningless quote", is it ? You went to great lengths in trying to discredit me and to claim this quote simply does not exist. Now, finally, you admit it exists - on the bottom of this page -, although you claim the Finnish un-neutrality to have been the reason for the Soviet attack.

However, on June 23, Molotov made no mentioning of the Germans having been in Finland, when discussing the attack of June 22 with Mannerheim (Source: Mannerheim memoirs).

Additionally, the Soviet themselves forces Finland to take the first step away from neurality, when they demanded the passage rights to Hanko (dangerous to Finland, as this would have allowed the Soviets a possibility for surprise attack (Source: Mannerheim memoirs). Boris Novikov (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

USER YMB29 WANTS THE SOURCES TO BE REINTRODUCED. LET'S START FROM PROFESSOR MANNINEN BELOW. OTHERS HAVE SUPPORTED MANNINEN AS A SOURCE, INCLUDING POSSE72, ILLYTHR AND WHISKEY. WHY DO YOU DISAGREE WITH US OTHERS ?

In regard to the Soviet plans to conquer Finland, user YMBA29 just noted the following:

"And you have provided no proof of this, just empty talk and quoting out of context. -YMB29 (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)"

Answer to user YMBA29: I have provided a lot of "proof of this", 12 detailed and well introduced sources just for this particular piece of information. The exact page numbers and the related direct quotes from highly regarded historians - top specialists on the field - have been provided on this page.

However, yesterday you vandalized the article and removed all the sources in question and a few others (15 in total) - while having the article protected -, although the sources had not been criticized by any user on this talk page, including you.

I had asked you which particular source you disagree with, and why. You had refused to answer. Thus your removing of the sources - without answering to that question - is vandalism.

As you now brought this matter up again, I hereby ask you, why do you see the below-given source as inappropriate ? Will it help if I'll attach a picture of a Soviet war plan map to the article, as picture tells more than a thousand words ?

As at least the users Whiskey, Posse72 and Illythr - and I - have supported the use of Professor Manninen as a source, we need to know why you removed him from the article, and particularly without discussing your action and the source here first.

Below is the source. What is wrong with it in your view, user YMB29 ? Many supportive additional sources were included, 11 others, all in line with this source.

The source text was copied and pasted below from the earlier introduction of the source. Per request, I'll be happy to explain the source(s) in larger detail, so that user YMB29 will not view quotes having been taken "out of context":

Why don't you do that then. Again, I don't have a problem with the sources themselves but with how you use them. In this case, having a plan does not mean that it would have been used. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OHTO MANNINEN

Professor Ohto Manninen, PhD, has focused foremost on the history of WW2 and - in particular - the history of the Finnish wars during WW2. Manninen served as the associate professor at the University of Helsinki for 11 years, and as a professor of the history of Finland at the University of Tampere for three years. In 1998, Manninen became the professor of history of war at the National Defense University of Finland.

Professor Manninen has completed an extensive survey on the Soviet plans of operations for the Finnish front, having to do with the Winter War and the Continuation War.

In his book, 'Talvisodan salatut taustat', pages 48-52 , Professor Manninen introduces an offensive war plan map completed by the High Command of the Soviet Armed Forces on November 27, 1940.

The completion of this Soviet offensive war plan map took place only two weeks after the visit to Berlin, November 12-13, 1940, by the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, who sought for a renewed Hitler's approval for the Soviet take-over campaign over Finland, which had originally been agreed upon in Moscow on August 23, 1939, by the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany.

"On November 27, 1940, an operational plan map was completed at the High Command of the Soviet Armed forces. In it, the concentration of the Soviet forces and the offensive plans of the Soviet Northern front targeted against Finland were outlined."

"From the plan it can be seen that also this time the cutting of Finland in two was considered a priority, and that it was planned to be executed in lining of the railroad."

Additons to the above-mentioned offensive plan were made in May, 1941.

(In reference to the railroad in the quote above - editor's note: Massive offensive preparations had been made on the level of Salla on the Soviet side of the border during the Interim peace period. The Salla railroad which the Finns had been required to build during the Interim peace, played a key role in the Soviet plans to conquer Finland and to proceed to the Atlantic coast through Sweden and Norway. Please see the article on this page regarding the critical role of the Salla railroad in the Soviet plans to attack west.)

With 13 red arrows placed on the full length of the Finnish frontier, the map illustrates the Soviet invasion. In north, one attack route is marked to enter Finland on the level of Salla in northeastern Finland, and to penetrate in via Rovaniemi and Kemi to Oulu, on the west coast of Finland, facing Sweden.

In south, one Soviet attack route is marked to originate from Estonia, and to push in by the way of the Åland Islands to Turku and Helsinki, where the Soviet forces would meat another Soviet attack spearhead, which would have broken into Finland via the Karelian Isthmus.

In the over-all offensive plan produced by the Soviet Navy in the summer of 1940, the primary purpose of Hanko was to serve as the basin for the invasion of entire Finland.

This book by Professor Manninen is chosen as a source for the Soviet post- Winter War plan to occupy Finland, because Professor Manninen's extensive research work and findings are regarded highly by the academia and the general public at large.

Wikipedia user contributing to this article, such as users Posse72, Whiskey and Illythr - based on the Wikipedia history records -, have all supported the use of Professor Manninen as a source.

How do you see the above-given quote as having been taken "out of context", user YMB29 ? Boris Novikov (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Having a war plan does not mean actually using it. The Soviets had many war plans at that time, including one against Turkey. Now don't pretend that I did not tell you this before. All you do is repeatedly post your misused quotes and sources to avoid a real discussion. This page is almost unreadable because of you. -YMB29 (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes - you made it sound as if the Soviet had plans for just about anything (see your comment on this page). You were then told about Marshal Zhukov' memoirs, based on what the Soviets had no defensive plans at all - zero. Stalin had strictly prohibited such plans, as pointed out ion Marshal Zhukov's memoirs.

Please "don't pretend that I did not tell you this before."

You were then asked under a separate headline, are the Soviet leaders inappropriate and too unreliable to be used as sources, in your view. A list of Soviet leaders quoted were provided. You declined to answer anything to that comment.

Please do not pretend as if you did not notice that question.

Thus, as you ignored - did not notice (?) - the information provided about the memoirs of the Soviet Marshal Zhukov, please allow me to repeat that part and add the following: Boris Novikov (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I told you that you just quoted Zhukov out of context, which proves nothing... -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, user YMB29 - can you please pin-point to us where Marshal Zhukov has been quoted out of context ? Please take the rest of my answer below: Boris Novikov (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ACCORDING TO MARSHAL ZHUKOV, STALIN STRICTLY PROHIBITED ALL DEFENSIVE PREPARATIONS

Marshal Zhukov has not been quoted out of context by me. Reporting of the President of Finland - PhD - Mauno Kovisto was introduced, regarding Koivisto's summary about Marshal Zhukov's memoirs.

Koivisto has researched the related Soviet literature extensively. As Koivisto has pointed out, Marshal Zhukov has in several ways revealed in his memoirs, that all defensive preparations in USSR were "strictly prohibited" by Stalin.

Even all supportive structure for possible retreating of Soviet troops was ignored, as Koivisto points out Zhukov to reveal in his memoirs. Examples of this - borrowed from Zhukov's memoirs - are introduced by President Koivisto, and they can be added to the article, per request.

This fact - USSR having not prepared to defend itself - is no news. Per request, more President Koivisto's and Marshal Zhukov's related statements will be introduced, to further reinforce the fact and to show that nothing has been taken out of context.

I hereby move that Marshal Zhukov's memoirs and the President Koivisto's book in question will be included as sources for this important fact. Additional statements and sources available per request - including other related views presented by Zhukov. Boris Novikov (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Soviets had no alternative plans for Finland, only plan to conquer - also no defensive plans. Intention to conquer turned into attack to conquer on June 22, 1941

1) User YMB29: Repeated same questions deserve repeated same answers, and re-introduction of sources, and providng additional sources if necessary. When you ignore information, sources, questions, then too things must be repeated - I hope you understand that (user Wandered tried making this making this same point to you - to no prevail. Thus, I'll work on it with you).

2) User YMB29: You are the only one having shown any dissapointment about the 15 sources used for the Soviet intention to conquer (note: not only plans) and the actual Soviet execution to complete the plan, started on June 22, 1941, at 06:05 (sources have been provided for the Soviet starting of the war, and the Soviet addmitting that they started).

3) Note: Soviets had no alternative plans for Finland. The plan/intention to conquers was never given up, until the Soviet attack to conquer bagan. Instead, the plan was enhanced still in May, 1941, only shortly before the attacking against Finland began (Source: Ohto Manninen).

4) The Soviets also had no defensive plans (Marshal Zhukov's memoirs).

5) User YMB29: As you are not telling what source you see unsatisfactory and why, and as you provide no contradicting sources, you concern must be passed as invalid.

Please take the rest of my answer below (respectfully, hope you don't mind a bit of repeating: Boris Novikov (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Soviets had detailed plan and intention to conquer Finland: Execution of the plan began 06:05, June 22, 1941

1) I must most politely point to you once again, that the Soviets had not only detailed plans to conquer Finland, but - importantly - an intetiton to conquer Finland, as the historian emphasize.

2) Once again, the fact which you keep ignoring: The Soviets have officially admitted, even "emphasized" that they started the war. That question has already been solved and it does not need to be discussed here.

The appropriate source for the Soviet admitting has been attached to the article, and you had it protected. Thus, please do not remove that source any more, particularly since you have refused to answer what - if anything - you see wrong with that source.

You had that source - No. 6 - protected for the article, although you are misusing the source by trying to prove with that source your theory of the Soviet campaign of having been "defensive".

By removing that source from hear on, you'd again contradict your own editing and further disrupt the development of this article for all.

Again, there were not only the plan and the intention' to conquer Finland, but also the attempt to execute the plan. That attempt did not end before September, 1944. The attempt ended in Finnish defensive victory (as sourced).

An appropriate source will be soon included which shows what the Soviet man-power strength on the Finnish border territory was still in early June, 1941. Naturally, when the Soviet came under the German attack, a part of these forces were soon needed elsewhere. Boris Novikov (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, I can't find a quote about this "execution of a Soviet attack plan on June 22 at 06:05" here, in the translated section ("Summary") of Jokipii's book are referring to. He does write about extensive German-Finnish planning and offensive preparations, up to discussing the future (expanded) Finnish borders. --09:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't answer to questions related to the correctness of the info on the page you offer or the correctness of the translation, or why that particular information was chosen for that particular "summary".

Jokipii wrote about a lot. Different summaries can choose to "summarize" what they find interesting for their particular target group, their audience. Summaries of books, in the book covers for instance - due to their briefness - can seldom provide much of the details revealed in the book.

However, the emphasis of ours in the comment above was the starting point of the first Soviet war-opening attacking against Finland (not including the earlier Soviet aggressions relating to the shooting down of a Finnish passaneger plane, the numerous border violations, etc.).

Please find the sources relating to that particular fact - the starting point of the Soviet attacking against Finland - below: Boris Novikov (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Jokipii writes that the Soviet attack at 6:05 was in response to Finland's invasion of the demilitarized Åland Islands. So not exactly "war-opening"... -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Finland did not brake any agreements. The Soviets had no right to attack Finland because of Operation Kilpapurjehdus, or because Finland practized defensive exercises under a thread of war, as I believe user Wandered correctly pointed out to you (although I'd have to read his/her comment in full, before totally endorcing it). Boris Novikov (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

PROFESSOR JOKIPII: The first attack to Finnish territory was on June 22, 1941, starting 06:05, after which two Finnish submarines landed mines on the Estonian coast

Professor Mauno Jokipii has explained how the Soviet Union officially emphasized that it had launched the Continuation War, the first attack to Finnish territory having been on June 22, 1941, starting 06:05, after which two Finnish submarines landed mines on the Estonian coast :

1) Template:Fi icon Jokipii, Mauno, "Jatkosodan synty" ("The Launching of the Continuation War"), page 575. 1987.

2) Template:Fi icon Kijanen, Kalervo, "Sukellusvenehälytys" ("The Submarine Alarm"), page 94. 1977.

Manneheim's "Memoirs" further prove that the Soviet attack against Finland was not launched because of the Germans being in Finland, but - instead - because the Finnish invasion was something that the Soviets had decided to complete:

On June 23, 1941, Molotov made no mentioning of Germans being in Finland or of any Finnish-German deal made. This was in the line with the fact, that they were the Soviets themselves that had forced Finland to take the first step aside from its neutrality, when they had demanded passage rights to Hanko (dangerous for Finland, as Helsinki was on the route, allowing the Soviets a chance for surprise attack).

"Instead, he (Molotov) focused again in accusing Finland of an attack, which had not happened. The Soviet leadership had decided to draw Finland to a war." ("Memoirs", Mannerheim)

In accordance with the above, in its massive attack on June 25, the Soviet Union focused in only bombing Finnish targets, no German targets.

Later, the Soviets admitted to having made up the reason for the attack against Finland (see the Cold War period confession above).

"The Soviet Union does not even try to deny its own initiative in the launching of the massive offensive. In contrary, it is being emphasized. The question who started has been solved: The Soviet Union admits in an official publication to have started the air raid in Finland and the Nordic."

The source above: Template:Fi icon Jokipii, Mauno, "Jatkosodan synty" ("The launching of the Continuation War"), page 607. 1987.

Can you please post a quote from page 575 of "Jatkosodan synty" in English? --Illythr (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the second sentence in the book. Jokipii clearly says that the attack was in response to Finland's aid and cooperation with the German military, specifically the fear of the German airforce using Finnish airfields for massive air attacks on Leningrad. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes - the second sentence given above is in the book of Professor Jokipii as well, user YMB29. Below please find the two sentences as exact direct quotes from the book, in Finnish, just as published in 1987, followed by the English translation:

"Omaa aloitetta suurhyökkäyksessä Neuvostoliitto ei pyrikään kieltämään, sitä päinvastoin korostetaan. Aloittajakysymys on ratkennut: Neuvostoliitto myöntää virallisessa teoksessa aloittaneensa ilmasodan Suomessa ja Pohjolassa."

"The Soviet Union does not even try to deny its own initiative in the launching of the massive offensive. In contrary, it is being emphasized. The question who started has been solved: The Soviet Union admits in an official publication to have started the air raid in Finland and the Nordic."

The pages 575-577 provide quotes from the captains of the Finnish submarines. For instance - in reference to the voyage of 'Iku-Turso', and the date of June 22, 1941 (page 575):

"I began laying mines at 08:15, ending at 09:06." Boris Novikov (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

PRESIDENT BORIS YELTSIN ACKNOWLEDGED AND DENOUNCED STALIN'S AGGRESSIONS AGAINST FINLAND

During the first visit to Russia by the President of Finland Martti Ahtisaari (who later won the Nobel Piece Prize) on May 18, 1995, the Russian President Boris Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin is reported to have stated the following [18]:

"President Ahtisaari and I denounce the aggressive attacking politics of Stalin against Finland."

(From the Finnish quote: "Me Presidentti Ahtisaaren kanssa emme hyväksy Stalinin rikollista hyökkäyspolitiikkaa Suomea vastaan")

Before further re-introducing/explaining the article's sources previously addressed, or prior to introducing more sources for the points already sourced, I'll wait to hear what - if anything - user YMB29 wants to know. Boris Novikov (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If the argument is about the outcome of the war, the exhaustive research presented above is not the way to resolve this. Instead, reliable tertiary sources should be cited. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User Jaan Pärn: Please, do not confuse the various topics discussed on this page. Please notice, that the above comment makes no reference to the "outcome of the war" ? Thus, it is clearly not meant for that discussion.

The above comment and the President Yeltsin's statement presented have to do with who was the aggressor of the war.

Yeltsin denounced "the aggressive attacking politics of Stalin against Finland". As The Nobel Piece Prize -winning President Ahtisaari has reported, President Yeltsin has also admitted in private talks with him that the Soviets were the aggressor.

Please notice that the particular link above has not been used as a source in the article. Sources from credited historiography about Yeltsin's related views/statements may be introduced later.

However, this all is rather irrelevant, as that question has been solved a long ago:

"The Soviet Union does not even try to deny its own initiative in the launching of the massive offensive. In contrary, it is being emphasized. The question who started has been solved: The Soviet Union admits in an official publication to have started the air raid in Finland and the Nordic."

The source above: Template:Fi icon Professor Jokipii, Mauno, "Jatkosodan synty" ("The launching of the Continuation War"), page 607. 1987.

COURTESY NOTICE: Multiple more sources about the first attacking against Finland having started shortly after 6am on June 22, 1941, will be added soon. Boris Novikov (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As discussed several times previously, Yeltsin's statement refers to the Winter War. Likewise, Jokipii (using a somewhat odd formulation) refers to the air raid of 25 June 1941. He describes Finland during the "three days of neutrality" (22-25 June 1941) and even before that date as rather far from neutral as well. --Illythr (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just found the book. Yes that is what he describes. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not try confusing the issue by making off-the-topic statements like this, without clearly stating what you are referring to and without any source information to let us know what you referring to. Please stay in the topic.

If you mean to refer to Professor Jokipii, further down please find more detailed information about Jokipii and the Soviet attacks right after 6 am on June 22, 1941.

SOVIETS HAVE ADMITTED OFFICIALLY - EVEN EMPHASIZED - THEIR ATTACK: (exact quote from Professor Jokipii's book provided further down).

User Illythr: On the talk page which you refer to, you argue for Yeltsin having meant the Winter War. Importantly, your opponent does not agree, however.

A quote is requested on that page - and above, one quote is provided. In the quote, Yeltsin does not narrow Stalin's "aggressive attacking politics" to Winter War. Yelsin, like no other Soviet President either, has not denied the massive Soviet attack against Finland on June 25, 1941.

Why would he - after all, the Soviet Union has made a point of officially emphasizing its attack, rather than only "admitting" it.

Accordingly, please find the source information for the Soviets officially having admitted and explained in detail their massive attack against Finland on June 25, 1941:

1) Jokipii, Mauno, "Jatkosodan synty" ("The Launching of the Continuation War"), pages 606-607. 1987.

2) "The Soviet Air Force", pages 42-43. 1973. Boris Novikov (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are good with taking quotes and misusing them for your purpose. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been asked time and time again which source you see misused, if any. You have declined to answer. Thus, these type of comments of yours are meaningless.

A lot of historians and sources have been discussed. You can't expect me to explain all the sources all over again, unless I know what you are referring to. Thus, please do not generalize.

I'll be glad to tackle any source in further detail, if there is something that you'd like to know more about. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

PROFESSOR JOKIPII'S KNOWN TEACHING ABOUT THE 6 AM SOVIET ATTACKS ON JUNE 22, 1941, IS EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO ALL

Professor Jokipii is one among many great sources for the Soviet attacking before the Finnish laying of mines on June 22, 1941.

The exact wording of Professor Jokipii - in Finnish and in English - is given below. That wording leaves no room for misinterpretations or pointless speculations:

Professor Mauno Jokipii, "Jatkosodan synty" (1987), page 559, line 27, in reference to the Soviet attacks against Finnish target on June 22, 1941:

"Klo 6:n maissa aamulla venäläiset pommikoneet ilmestyivät alueelle ja yrittivät pommittaa panssarilaivoja Kihdin selällä, Alskärin linnaketta sekä tykkivene Uusimaata Korppoon länsipuolella ..."

"Approximately 6 am, the Soviet bombers appeared in the area and tried bombing the armored ships on the open sea of Kihti, the fortress of Alskäri and the gunboat Uusimaa on the west side of Korppoo ..." Boris Novikov (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing citation

There is a citation missing in the 'Initial stages' section on the Estonian-Finnish cooperation. Here it is:

Leskinen Jari: Veljien valtiosalaisuus. Suomen ja Viron salainen sotilaallinen yhteistyö Neuvostoliiton hyökkäyksen varalle vuosina 1918–1940 (Brothers' State Secret: Classified military cooperation of Finland and Estonia for the case of attack by the Soviet Union in 1918-1940. In Finnish). WSOY, Juva 1999.

If it is possible, could an admin please add it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Soviet prepared to conquer Finland - Finns prepared to defend themselves: New sources added

ALAN CLARK

1) In regard to the Soviets getting ready to conquer Finland:

"Talvella 1940-41 Novgorodin keskitysalueelle sijoitettujen joukkojen vahvuus supistui jälleen, ja Suomen rajoilla olevia voimia vahvennettiin vastaavasti (20 jalkaväki-, 2 ratsuväki- ja 5 panssaridivisioonaa). Tämä tosiasia sekä eräät Molotovin Berliinin neuvotteluissa esittämät huomautukset antavat aiheen olettaa, että venäläiset valmistautuivat uudistamaan hyökkäyksensä Suomea vastaan kesällä 1941."

The above quote translated to English:

"In the winter of 1940-1941, the strength of the forces staged on the Novgorod front diminished again, and the forces on the Finnish borders were strengthened accordingly (20 infantry, 2 cavalry and 5 tank divisions). This fact and certain statements made by Molotov in the Berlin negotiations point to the Soviets getting ready to renew their attack against Finland in the summer of 1941."

Source: Alan Clark, 'Operaatio Barbarossa' ("Barbarossa, The Russo-German Conflict 1941-45", 1965), page 30, 1968.

Only speculation here. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No "speculations", just facts about the Soviets getting ready to conquer Finland, operation which then began on June 22, 1941.

More evidence - and sources - about the the Soviet man-pover strenght on the Finnish borders in early June, 25, will be included. These sources go hand-in-hand with the rest of the sources showing that the Soviet intention was to conquer Finland. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

HANS METZGER

2) In regard to the Finns getting ready for a defensive war - instead of offensive war:

Muutamaa päivää ennen sotaa (19.6.1941) oli päivälliskutsut, joille osallistui korkeita suomalaisia ja saksalaisia upseereita. Käytiin keskusteluja sotilaallisista kysymyksistä "siltä varalta, että Venäjä hyökkäisi kimppuumme".

The above quote translated to English:

A few days before the war (June 19, 1941), a luncheon was held, in which high ranking Finnish and German officers participated. Military matters were discussed, "in case the Soviet Union would attack us."

Source: Hans Metzger, 'Kolmannen valtakunnan edustajana talvisodan Suomessa' ("As a Representative of the Third Reich in Finland during the Winter War"), page 309. 1984. Boris Novikov (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And...? -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just an additional source showing that the Finns had prepared for the continued Soviet take-over campaign of Finland - a new Soviet attack -, instead of attacking USSR. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

NO SOVIET OFFICIALS HAVE DENIED THE ATTACK. INSTEAD, THEY HAVE EMPHASIZED IT

Below, please find the source information for the Soviets officially having admitted, emphasized and explained in detail their massive attack against Finland on June 25, 1941:

1) Jokipii, Mauno, "Jatkosodan synty" ("The Launching of the Continuation War"), pages 606-607. 1987.

2) "The Soviet Air Force", pages 42-43. 1973.

So what? I have the Russian version and the author explains why they attacked. He emphasizes the point that Finland was far from neutral. So this source only works against you. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. You had argued whether or not the Soviets had officially admitted - even emphasized - that they attacked against Finland. Now you have the book, and you agree, only stating: "So what?".

Following the Soviet attack, various types of reasons - excuses - have been offered for the attack. On June 23, 1941, Molotov made it clear to Mannerhemi, that the reason was not the German forces then being in Finland (Mannerheim memoirs). Accordingly, the Soviets did not attack agaist any German targets in Finland. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

SOVIETS BEGAN ATTACKING AGAINST FINLAND ALREADY ON JUNE 22, 1941, RIGHT AFTER 6 AM

(Courtesy notice: A dozen sources will be added soon)

The numbers...

In the war box people are continuosly counting apples and oranges.

• 700,000 - Is the total number of Finns who served in the Defence forces at some time during the war. It includes all those demobilized due to age or wounds. The total number of those who served under the Finnish defence forces never rouse above 530,000
• In addition to those serving under the defence forces, some 19,000 people were obliged by the law (Työvelvollisuuslaki) to work to the state during the war, mainly building fortifications, some acting as specialists in their own field of expertice.
• Also in addition were those 25,000 who were obliged to work with civilian air defence, meaning mostly acting as fire brigades or maintaining air raid shelters and taking care that all people go to those shelters. They didn't operate any AA guns or searchlights.
• And naturally Lotta Svärd-organisation: 43,000 women volunteers who provided radio operators, clercks, air observers, food suppliers, nurses for wounded, washed the dead etc. etc. so freeing up men to the armed service. --Whiskey (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is Jokipii used as a source for the Cold War period USSR having "portrayed" the 1941 Soviet attack to have been a defensive move, a part of the 'Great Patriotic War'

Professor Mauno Jokipii is used as an additional source for this in the article, because the Jokipii's book, page 607, provides direct quotes from Soviet historiography showing that (1.) USSR officially admitted the attack of June 25, 1941, and (2.) USSR - during the Cold War period - portrayed the attack to have been a defensive move.

The Jokipii's book, page 607, quotes a 1975 publication of I.T. Inozemtsevin, Pohjolan siivekkäät puolustajat ("The Defenders of the Nordic with Wings"):

"Although Finland had officially not began war with the Soviet Union, airplanes took off from its airports to bomb Leningrad, Kronstadt and towns of the Karelian-Finnish Soviet republic." (in reality, this had not happened)

The Jokipii's book, page 607. also makes a reference to a related 1974 statement by The History of the Leningrad Military District.

Source: Jokipii, Mauno, Jatkosodan synty ("The Launching of the Continuation War"), page 607. 1987. Boris Novikov (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)