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]

The Finnish army helping to save Leningrad from Nazi occupation

Non of the points in the above comment lists any proof of Finnish participation in the siege of Leningrad - there is no such proof, as it didn't happen.

Furthermore, a quote given in the above comment fully supports the fact that the Finns did not participate in the siege of Leningrad. The quote says:

"Finnish allies had stopped on the outskirts of Leningrad". This is true, as the pre-WW2 Finnish-Soviet border ran on the outskirts of Leningrad.

"Allies" is a wrong term, however, as there was only limited cooperation between Finland and Germany, and no "official" agreement was ever signed between the two countries. The two countries were fighting their own wars. The Finns were fighting a war which had been launched by a massive Soviet attack against Finland on June 25, 1941.

The Finns refused to cooperate with the Nazis in many critical 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) 04:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

The Finns refused to participate in the siege of Leningrad, or to advance towards Leningrad around Lake Ladoga

On the east side of Lake Ladoga the Finns did not attempt to advance towards Leningrad - past the Svir River area - during the entire Continuation War.

The Finns came to the outskirts of Leningrad only where the legal nations' pre-WW2 border ran. Here, there were some skirmishes on both sides of the immediate border at the critical border-crossing areas of Valkeasaari (Russian: Beloostrov) and Siestarjoki (Russian: Sestroretsk) - 35 km northwest of the center of Leningrad -, but only to keep the Soviets away from the Finnish side of the border.

The Finns were fighting their own war. They had pushed the Soviets back behind the Finnish-Soviet borders, after having come under a massive Soviet attack on June 25, 1941.

The Germans and the Finns had the same enemy, but there was no official cooperation pact signed between Germany and Finland. The objectives of the two countries were very different.

By not participating in the siege of Leningrad - alone -, the Finns prohibited a huge strategic and moral victory from the Nazis. This very possibly may have effected the entire outcome of the WW2.

The Finns refused to cooperate with the Nazis in many critical 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.

05:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Boris Novikov (talk)

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)

The withdrawing of the Finnish troops to the VKT- defensive line was ordered and stopped according to a plan

The massive Soviet attack started the war. Thus, the Soviets were pushed back - not the Finns. Thereafter, the Soviets were never allowed to cross the nations' (1940) border. There was no plan for the Finns to stay deeper on the Soviet side, when the war would come to an end.

Accordingly, the Finnish withdrawing of troops from the north side of Lake Ladoga didn't happen because of a Soviet push, or Finnish losses in fighting. In fact, in the war's last major battle on the north side of Lake Ladoga, in Ilomantsi, two Soviet divisions were dismantled as the Soviets were pushed back.

After abandoning the city of Viipuri on June 20, 1944 (the delaying tactics cost the Finns 120 dead or missing in action that day), to save the city and to have the fighting to be done in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala instead, the Finns won the war's all major battles.

The plan for withdrawing the Finnish troops to the VKT -defensive line, and stopping the Soviets there, was agreed on June 17, 1941, before the major Soviet attack of the summer of 1941 (see also related discussion below). This plan was made under the leadership of General K.L. Oesch, and with Mannerheim's approval.

Thus - importantly -, the withdrawing of the Finnish troops to the VKT- defensive line was ordered and stopped according to a plan. Boris Novikov (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A few things...

1) SU never conducted massive land offensive at 1941. It was Finns who made the land offensive that year. There were several suggestions for the future eastern border for Finland east of the 1920 border given 1941, both before and after the start of the war coming from Ryti or Mannerheim's HQ.

2) It did happen because of the Soviet push, as Finns had too few men and resources to stand Soviet offensive. See for example Jatkosodan historia, part 5, p. 18-19.

3) The delaying tactics was not used in Viipuri. The troops were ordered to keep the city. And the Finns didn't wan all major battles. We have gone through this already, see Talk:Continuation_War/Archive_4#Par_3.

4) Soviet offensive started June 9, 1944, well before June 17 when Oesch made his proposal to Mannerheim. (And it was a discussion should Finns try to stop Soviet offensive at the former Mannerheim Line location. Mannerheim supported the idea, but Oesch managed to convince him that Finns didn't have enough troops and materiel yet to stand Soviet forces at the Isthmus.) --Whiskey (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In the beginning, the Soviets did cross the border to the Finnish side in Parikkala, but they were pushed back.

In regard to the fighting in 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.

Wrong: From Viipuri on, the Finns won all the war's major battles. Which battle did the Soviets win, according to you ?

Point "4": There indeed was discussion - of course. However, the withdrawing of the troops was conducted according to the plan, and the Soviets were not allowed to cross the VKT-line, just as planned.

In those sircumstances, it is fully understandable that there had to be room for flexibility, and the final decisions regarding the withdrawing could not be made until very late point (as the enemy movement had to be taken into consideration as well, etc.)

Please take the rest of my answer on the bottom of this page. Boris Novikov (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2009 (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)

Boris Novikov's recent edits

User:Boris Novikov (who very probably is a sock of the banned 'Kven user' User:Art Dominique) is now trying to amend the Aims section to represent his characteristic POV.

- He writes that "some post- Cold War period Finnish researchers have argued the Continuation War to have been an aggression initiated by the Finns" — hardly any historian denies that it was a Finnish war of aggression. Some have claimed that Finland had no other options than to join the German invasion of the USSR, but this view is largely rejected by modern-day historians.

- He also gives the 'official Finnish view' that the Continuation War was a) a separate war and b) a counterattack to push back an enemy invasion (not a part of Operation Barbarossa). His source for these statements is an article ([12]) by the chief editor of Helsingin Sanomat, the biggest Finnish daily newspaper. This is a prime example of how Boris Novikov/Art Dominique misrepresents things. The cited article in fact discusses the both sides of the argument of whether the Continuation War was separate or not, and states that a new generation of historians is very skeptical of the separate war view. And nobody—not the 'official view' nor any serious historian—claim that Continuation War was a counterattack, and there's not a single word about this fallacious view in the cited article.

Mikko H. (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An SPI already determined that Boris is unrelated to Art Dominique. No comment on the changes themselves. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that's interesting. User:Boris Novikov exhibits exactly the same style and obsessions as the legion of proven sock puppets of User:Art Dominique who have plagued this article earlier. Didn't Wikipedia have a rule that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck? Mikko H. (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The CU request I filed showed that several other accounts were ArtD socks, but that the Boris account was unrelated. I am not really very familiar with the situation, but two people with the same POV aren't necessarily related you know. Illythr told me that Boris "seems to be a significant upgrade from the usual" ArtD sock (while assuming he was one). So overall, it seems very likely it isn't the same person but rather two people with the same POV.

I don't really know anything about the subject, so I'm afraid I can't be much help with the content dispute. However, give Boris some credit - he is at least trying to discuss things. he may be horribly biased and/or off-base, but he is trying. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the SPU case said nothing about Boris-ArtD relation - which is why I said it'd be pointless in the first place (last confirmed ArtD puppet is stale). In this case it's not just the POV, but the editing style of this user, which was (so far) unique to the legion of sockpuppets attacking this page even now. Take a look at archive 4 and see for yourself. Adding to the confusion is perhaps the aid of another sockpuppeteer swelling the legion's ranks even more. --Illythr (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Who in your view qualifies to represent and/or state what the current 'official' Finnish stance is - if not the people referred to ?

Clearly, the Finnish views of "separate war" and "defensive victory" in regard to the Continuation War stem from the fact, that the Finnish offensive launched in 1941 was not a part of the German operation - but a counter-offensive against the massive Soviet attack of June 25, 1941.

No one could seriously suggest that the Finns should have answered to the Soviet attack by resuming the fighting only in the streets of the Finnish cities which the Soviets attacked, or inside Finland only, not pushing the invading enemy back behind the nation's borders, a safe distance away.

The Soviet attack of June 25, 1941, had been anticipated, based on development in the Baltic countries and elsewhere, and the communication between the Soviets and the Germans, as well as the continued Soviet aggression and pressure against Finland - enforced with numerous border and other violations -, among other things.

Based on all the information available, the Finns knew well that the Soviet aggression - the take-over attempt of Finland - would continue, and thus they knew that they had to prepare themselves for the defense against the upcoming and foreseeable attack.

After having said that, I'd like you to now kindly please offer us a source which in your view provides proof, that Finland would have attacked the Soviet Union in any case, even if the Soviet Union would have not attacked Finland first. Please make sure to offer the related page No. for such information, in case you suggest for us to look into any certain book.

Famously, Mannerheim's memoirs point out that Finland was prepared for a defensive - not offensive -, and that due to this it took total of six weeks to arrange the Finnish forces from the defensive formations to the offensive formations - three weeks to the north side of Lake Ladoga and other three weeks to the level of Viipuri (source: Mannerheim memoirs).

The Editor in Chief of Helsingin Sanomat clearly says in the source article provided, that the "official" Finnish stance remains, that the Continuation War was a "separate war". Here are Mr. Virkkunen's exact words: "Virallinen Suomi on edelleen erillissodan kannalla ...".

Please note: 'Virallinen Suomi' translated to English means 'official Finland' - there is no room for misinterpretation in that wording.

By telling about this national "official" stance, Mr. Virkkunen is in no way representing his own views, and - in fact - his paper has been accused of trying to make too much news - to sell the paper - out of the rather radical new view points expressed by a few original thinkers, such as Mr. Jokisipilä and Mr. Jokipii.

The statement by Mr. Virkkunen about the current "official" Finnish stance is re-enforced by voices in the Finnish political leadership - among them the quite recent and well-published statement of the President of Finland Tarja Halonen in Paris, France, in which she referred to the Continuation War as a "separate war" (of WW2). When faced with the question more recently again, President Halonen saw no need to change her stance.

Importantly, the view point of the President of Finland Tarja Halonen can indeed be added as a further source - or back-up - for the "official Finnish view/stance". I'll do that next. Many more related and good sources can be added for the support of this as well, if need.

However, how much differently or better can the official Finnish view be offered, than in the words of the current President of Finland, or the Editor in Chief of the largest and internationally most respected Finnish newspaper, who reminds of this being the "official" Finnish stance, in his newspaper's head column.

What different proof/sources can you offer to us of the 'official' Finnish view to be used in Wikipedia, user Mikko H. ? The 'citation needed' window has stood in the article for too long time already, to no prevail. How long more should we wait for the requested citation for the claim which you offer, in your opinion ?

Please act now in the providing of the requested valid backing for your claim(s), user Mikko H., instead of reverting the properly sourced information which shows your contribution to represent your personal POV, instead of the current state of the 'official' Finnish view. As such, your contribution is improper for presentation in Wikipedia.

If the two Presidents used here as references - Presidents Mannerheim and Halonen - do not qualify in your judgment as the right type of people to refer to, who in your opinion should be used for stating the status of the official Finnish view/stance - current and/or past - in regard to the Continuation War ?

In this matter - with their views given - the two presidents do not make an exception among other Finnish political or military leaders. Additionally, In 2004, Mannerheim and Halonen were voted among the "greatest Finns" of all time by the Finnish public, during the Suuret suomalaiset (Great Finns) competition [13], Mannerheim making the No. 1 spot. Other studies support this result.

In the same competition, the here-referenced General Adolf Ehrnrooth was voted "the 4th greatest Finn of all time". His referenced statement of the Finnish 'defensive victory' in the Continuation War fully matches the "official" Finnish view of the Continuation War having been a "separate war", not part of the German offensive - but clearly a part of a Finnish defensive, a defensive counterattack in other words.

The here-referenced and quoted Soviet General S.P. Platonov's statement of the Soviet failure/loss on the Karelian Isthmus fully supports General Ehrnrooth's statement of the Finnish war victory. A defensive war can only be won by a defensive victory.

In addition to not honoring the 'citation needed' window in the 'aims' segment of the article, you also insist in reverting the text to a broken link in another part of the same segment, despite of requests for you to please stop doing so, user Mikko H. Here's your broken link: http://www.taru.pp.fi/jutut/tiejatkosotaan.html (SUOMEN MARSSI JATKOSOTAAN).

Please, do not anymore revert the 'aims' segment, without providing answers to the above questions, backing up your answers with relevant and valid sources. Please make sure to include the page numbers of your source information in any suggested reading. Please understand, that Wikipedia articles cannot for ever hold on to unfounded claims, which have no valid academic support/sources for back-up. Boris Novikov (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kven!

Could you please stop mishandling sources? You cannot cherry-pick single sentences or paragraphs from the article or a book out of the context and claim they support your view. Three years ago we did go through this issue at length, and you failed to prove any of your claims. --Whiskey (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Halonen's statement of "separate war" in undisputable way proves Virkkunen's description of the 'official' Finnish stance to be accurate

Please drop false accusations and concentrate in the subject - providing the long requested citation for the un-sourced claim in question. The burden of proof is in your side. "Citation needed" window has waited to be honored for too long.

Now, a number of respected Finnish political and military leaders' citations and the Editor in Chief of the largest Finnish newspaper have been clearly shown to contradict your POV. These citations support the real "official" Finnish stance - and that stance is different from what you portray for Wikipedia it to be.

These most respected Finnish leaders of all time are perfect sources in telling what happened in this war - Mannerheim and Ehrnrooth having led the Finnish fight, and Tarja Halonen being the current long time President of Finland -, and perfect sources are also the Soviet specialist on the topic, General Platonov, and the Finnish President, Phd Mauno Koivisto who fought in the final major battle of the war.

Can you explain why in your view the statements given by these highest ranking Finnish officials should not be used in determining the "official" Finnish stance - and what statements should be used instead of theirs ?

For the President Halonen to publicly state that this war was a "separate war" (from WW2), is exactly the type of supportive statement from the highest political office in Finland which we are looking for, for showing what the "official" Finnish stance is.

This is the type of citation we'd like you to be able to provide for support of your claim of the "official" Finnish stance - or should the official Finnish stance not be told in Wikipedia at all in your view - and why not ?

Unlike most presidents in the Western world, the President of Finland has a substantial amount of political power, only surpassed by that of the President of USA and - perhaps - France, in the Europe-USA -axel.

Thus, what you call a "cherry-pick" statement - the statement of President Halonen -, perfectly supports what the Editor in Chief of Helsingin Sanomat says to be the "official" Finnish stance.

Please stop reverting this Wikipedia text to the unfounded claim in question - and leave intact the sourced and true information provided.

It doesn't matter what is the "official" Finnish view. It doesn't also matter what is the "official" Soviet/Russian view. Only thing what matters is what scholars write about the issue. Do not mix daily politics to the historical research.

I call you your handling of Platonov, Mannerheim and Koivisto as a cherry-picking. --Whiskey (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why try hiding Finland's "official" stance. It differs from Mr. Jokisipilä's stance, but it needs to be shown as well

The "official" view stands for the main stream thinking, just like the political leaders stand - if it didn't, different people would be voted in office.

It is true that Mr. Jokisipilä has presented rather radical new thoughts, and - as new - they have broken the news barrier.

It was not suggested, that his view should not be shown. However, the nation's "official" stance must be shown alongside his.

The 'aims' segment claimed "consensus" where there is no consensus, and thus the "citation needed" has not been honored.

It would be difficult to try proving what the mainstream view is on that, and wrong to claim "consensus" - even among scholars. Furthermore, there's no evidence at all that could be shown (thus the "citation needed" can't be filled).

Accordingly, rather than claiming - especially without evidence - something as controversial as that, it is better to simply leave it out.

However, the nation's "official" view is interesting, important and useful information for Wikipedia - and it can be quite easily verified as well.

The linked Helsingin Sanomat head column article by Mr. Virkkunen brings up the information about the existence of the differently thinking young scholar(s) (although Mr. Virkkunen over-generalizes), but - importantly - it too makes sure to point out what the nations "official" view is.

The link to Mr. Virkkunen is given as a source only for the country's "official" stance, nothing else - a different source or additional sources can be used as well.

So - can we now please stop removing this information from the article ? Boris Novikov (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So, if we follow your reasoning, then we should also add "official" Soviet/Russian and Western official stands, which are that Finland was an aggressor and started the war?

"Official" stands are political decisions, made by usefullness of the certain point of view and marred by ignorance and lack of facts. That is why I oppose to the end using any kind of "official" stands in articles with historical importance. Only historical research should define what would be included to the article.

By adding Finnish "official" stand here, you are degrading Finnish historical research on the issue to the populist crap. And the international readership of this article is simply reading along the lines that: "...despite all the evidence, Finns are in denial and claim falsely that they were the victims. Aren't they stupid? Surely their historical research in the issue is similar crap and cannot be trusted when their claims are so out of reality." --Whiskey (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

boris knows best

User Whiskey: Please, don't just talk about "historical research" - give us exact quotes from there, like you have been given

You talk about historical research, but you are not giving us any support from there for your reverts. First, answer finally please:

What evidence - and offered in what book and page - shows that Finland would have attacked the Soviet Union in any case, regardless whether or not the Soviet Union would have attacked Finland first.

I hope you realize that you have to be able to show us the evidence used for this claim, if you keep reverting to it. You have been given a number of quotes/citations that contradict this view of yours (please, do not answer by just telling us to read books of such and such - as there is no such evidence).

We must be able to see what evidence your possible source is using for that claim. Note: This evidence is needed - it is essential.

Mannerheim's memoirs, for one, is a source to the contrary, pointing out that Finland was prepared for defensive, not offensive, and that due to this it took six weeks to rearrange the troops from defensive formations into offensive formations, after the Soviet Union had launched a massive attack against Finland on June 25, 1941.

The Soviet "official" view is already in the article, and you keep reverting to it, claiming that Finland was the aggressor. That is the "official" Soviet view !

Thus, we must also at least mention what the Finnish "official" view is. Why are you afraid of this ?

This article cannot be just Mr. Jokisipilä's window to the world - to try selling a book with a theory, which fights against all evidence. Jokisipilä does not represent the main stream of Finnish research. The Finnish "official" stance represents the main stream of Finnish historical research, and this is exactly why the official stance must be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.246.213 (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, Olli Vehviläinen, Finland in the Second World War, p.87: "The negotiations with Germany's military leaders were continued in Helsinki at 3 June, when the detailed arrangement for the arrival of German troops in Finland, Finnish mobilization, and the general division of operations between Finland and Germany were agreed. In this way Finland committed itself in practice to Operation Barbarossa, although no formal treaty was signed."

Martti Turtola: Risto Ryti, Elämä isänmaan puolesta, p.259: "Suomi olisi joka tapauksessa - oli lentohyökkäyksiä ollut tai ei - liittynyt viiden päivän sisällä Saksan rinnalla hyökkäykseen Neuvostoliittoa vastaan."

Mauno Jokipii, Jatkosodan synty, chapter "Kolmen päivän puolueettomuus", Helge Seppälä, Suomi hyökkääjänä, Väinö Tanner's memoirs, Upton, Krosby, Jutikkala etc.

Why I oppose that so strongly? Because it is a losing position. It is arguing with feeling, with single mindedness feeling which will lose every time when facing facts. The only way Finns could press their view is through verifiable facts. Through thorough research which takes into account all existing facts and rests only to them. Politics come and politics go, but the facts remain. When arguing with a feeling, then a single fact which contradicts given view will collapse all credibility from the view. It will paint all supporters of that view ignorant fanatics repeating given propaganda who do not care about facts.

Offensive towards Rukajärvi started at July 3, and the main offensive at July 10. Last time I checked calendar it was less than two weeks from June 25 to July 10. Not six.

The main stream Finnish researchers support "Koskiveneteoria", which point out that Finns actively sought German protection and sought revanche from the Winter War. --Whiskey (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Finns actively prepared for protection and defensive - that is true.

Naturally, after the Soviet Union had attacked Finland, the Finnish counter-attack started the very next day, to push back the attacking enemy. That was done in the scale it could be done, and it continued stopples, in the scale that could be managed.

However, mobilizing the troops entirely from defensive formations into offensive formations took total of three weeks on the north side of Lake Ladoga, and another three weeks on the level of Viipuri (source: Mannerheim memoirs).

You gave us a list of books, which I had said we do not want. I asked for exact quotes, and you did come up with the following two quotes:

Vehviläinen: "... In this way Finland committed itself in practice to Operation Barbarossa, although no formal treaty was signed."

Turtola: "Suomi olisi joka tapauksessa - oli lentohyökkäyksiä ollut tai ei - liittynyt viiden päivän sisällä Saksan rinnalla hyökkäykseen Neuvostoliittoa vastaan."

Please note, that there are countless books written and varying opinions given regarding this matter. Those two are opinions, but the writers do not offer evidence, no cold undisputable facts or agreement signed - or something like that - to back up their opinion.

Vehviläinen's reference to the meeting between the Finns and the Germans "in Helsinki at 3 June" (in your quote) is no evidence, that Finland would have attacked, even if the Soviet Union would have not attacked first.

So, once more: We must be able to see what evidence your possible source is using for that claim.

I do appreciate you trying, user Whiskey. However, I hope you realize that your efforts prove that there really is no evidence which could be given for this type of opinion - only speculations can be offered, at the most, and that is what the philosophical part of your comment represents.

Many/most Finns indeed hoped for Finland to receive a "revenge from the Winter War", but launching a military campaign (a counter-offensive) to receive revenge was to take place only after the Soviet Union would attack Finland again first.

This Soviet attack - a continued aggression against Finland - was anticipated to come, and this is why Finland prepared for its defense.

Please, do not mix up what you think the average Finn to have hoped for, with the actual plans and preparations of the country.

Still today, most Finns would want the ceded areas back for Finland, but not if it meant war or troubles. However if the Soviet Union - or now, Russia - again attacked Finland, most would want a revenge and the areas back - just like during the Interim Peace period between the Winter War and the Continuation War.

I really wonder what calender you are using? I checked Mannerheim's memoirs and he doesn't speak anything about 3 weeks at Ladoga Karelia and 3 weeks more at the Isthmus. Also, it doesn't fit accepted timeframe Finns operated: There is no three weeks between June 25 and July 10; It is 15 days, or two weeks as you see.

Why don't you wat books? It is those books we have to use to base our writing here in WP. Everything we write has to be sourced, and preferably from the secondary sources. Primary sources can be used to prove exactly what they say, but otherwise we have to use secondary sources.

The primary sources all have used are proceedings from Finnish-German meetings before the war and actions reports of different Finnish and German units. From these sources historians have analyzed and produced the view that Finns were marching towards the war, and even without the Soviet offensive of June 25, the war would have started in a few days.

But as you say, Soviets blinked first, so any speculation what would have happened in a few days are in the realm of contrafactual history. --Whiskey (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Although the Finnish counterattack on the northwest side of Lake Ladoga began on July 10, 1941, the entire mobilization of troops was not fully processed yet. On the Karelian Isthmus, the counterattack began later - Käkisalmi was not concurred before August 21, and Viipuri on August 30.

The war-opening Soviet attack is a fact, pure evidence of what took place. What I am calling for is evidence used for the speculation for what might have happened if the Soviets didn't attack. Isn't it true, that Turtola can only speculate - but he cannot give any facts to back up his opinion.

The full acceptance and realization of the "Soviets blinked first" fact is what is needed, and we must give less value for speculations in Wikipedia - or at least we must try not to be one-sided. We must also not claim "consensus" where it does not exist, and when it cannot be verified or shown in any way.

We know what happened in this scenario, but no-one knows what might have happened if ... and there's no evidence to prove it. The Soviet attack was anticipated, and it happened - that is what is important. The Soviet attack justifies the Finnish counterattack - it cannot make Finland the aggressor.

Just referring to books, not providing the quotes and page numbers, when controversial information is discussed, simply isn't right.

For now, the 'aims' section has for long been waiting for the "citation needed". As you're the last one to revert to the non-sourced claim of "consensus", can you please provide us the "citation needed".

We need to see whether or not such citation even exists - and if does, what is the claimed "consensus" there based on.

Better yet - however - I am suggesting a different wording for the first paragraph of the 'aims'. Please take a look, user Whiskey. Can we agree on this version:

Aims

Unlike the Winter War, which was a Soviet war of aggression against Finland, some researchers - most notably Markku Jokisipilä - have argued the Continuation War to have been an aggression initiated by the Finns, to rectify the territorial losses of the Winter War. However, Finland's 'official' stance remains that the Continuation War was a "separate war" from WW2, in which the Finnish offensive launched in 1941 was primarily a counter-offensive, to push back the massive Soviet attack launched on June 25, 1941 - and not a part of the German campaign against the Soviet Union. The 'official' Finnish stance about the "separate war" has been re-enforced by statements given by the current President of Finland Tarja Halonen. Boris Novikov (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Novikov, President Halonen has stated that Finland was in fact involved in the Second World War: [14] or in Finnish if your prefer: [15]

Separate war

Yes - both speech writers as well as translators ought to be extra cautious with wordings.

Direct translation to English from the President's speech: " ... as a country that had gone through WW2, ...".

Because the definition of what can be considered to have been a part of WW2 varies somewhat, it is less confusing to just refer to the Continuation War as 'a separate war from the conflict between the Allied powers and the Axis powers'.

Famously, In Paris, France, Tarja Halonen made clear her stance in this regard, when stating that the Continuation War was a separate war.

The statement you are referring to was made in 2005. The link I provided was that of a speech made in 2006. Other than that, I do agree that issues surrounding translations and what is part of, or not part of WW2 lead to complications. Repdetect117 (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Finns helping the Soviet war efforts against the Nazis

The Finns were fighting a "separate war" - not to be mixed with the German campaign against the Soviet Union. The Soviet-Finnish war - the Continuation War - was launched by a massive Soviet attack against Finland on June 25, 1941.

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.

The current President of Finland Tarja Halonen has reminded of the war-time Finnish policy which secured the operation of the Allied "lifeline" of help over Lake Ladoga, helping to save Leningrad from the Nazi occupation.

By not participating in the siege of Leningrad - alone -, the Finns prohibited a huge strategic and moral victory from the Nazis.

In the Tehran Conference, ending December 1, 1943, the Allied leaders determined that Finland was fighting a separate war. 87.95.90.124 (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Markku Jokisipilä's book, Aseveljiä vai liittolaiset?, the Finnish political situation was similar comparing Italy, Hungary and Romania. All these countries did not have formal treaty with Nazi Germany, but they are still counted as allies. Only Italians had ideological similarities with Nazis. In page 34, there is also reference to Mauno Jokipii's study where he argues that Finland was a part of this group of countries as indepedent co-belligerence. And Finland signed Anti-Comintern Pact in 1941. Without Germany's help - economical and miltary - Finland would not have chance to fight against the USSR. In page 36, Jokisipilä writes that there is a consensus among studies outside Finland, that Finland was de facto a German ally. So, I think this conversation is end/finish/ende/kaput/loppu. Peltimikko (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting, as it was a Tripartite Pact which gave military guarantees to the participants. Anti-Comintern Pact didn't have any military articles, it mainly concerned intelligence and police co-operation between the countries. --Whiskey (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Finland did not sign a military alliance agreement with Germany. Italy, Hungary and Romania did, in contrary to your claim

If Markku Jokisipilä indeed claims what you're stating above, user Peltimikko - that Italy, Hungary and Romania "did not have formal treaty with Nazi Germany" -, Jokisipilä is mistaken:

1) - Italy joined the Tripartite Pact on September 27, 1940.

2) - Hungary joined the Tripartite Pact on November 20, 1940.

3) - Romania joined the Tripartite Pact on November 23, 1940.

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

The Anti-Comintern Pact, signed in 1941 by 13 nations, in no way established a military alliance between Germany and Finland, and the nature of that treaty is quite well described by user Whiskey above.

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)

Stalin knew best the nature of the Finnish struggle, and who was the aggressor. Stalin in Tehran: Finnish war - a separate war

Everyone must agree, that Joseph Stalin knew better than Markku Jokisipilä what the Soviet intentions were, and what the nature of the Finnish battle was, and who was the aggressor in the Continuation War.

Together with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin acknowledged in the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, ending on December 1, 1943, that the Finnish-Soviet Continuation War was a separate war - not a part of the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied powers.

Being the highest leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin knew in detail what the Soviet intentions regarding Finland were. He knew exactly what had taken place, and why.

Accordingly, - in Tehran - the Allied leaders decided that Finland was fighting a separate war against the Soviet Union - not the same as the one between Germany and the Soviet Union -, and that it was not 'de jure' member of the Axis, and therefore Finland could also get out of the war through negotiations and separate peace agreement.

Thus, the separate peace agreement was granted to Finland and the Continuation War's aftermath was dealt under a separate, conditional peace treaty. The Nazis were forced into a treaty of their own. It was unconditional and meant total surrender. Boris Novikov (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

After the abandonment of Viipuri in a half a day, leaving 120 MIA or dead (E. Tammi), there was no Soviet major battle victory

Clearly, on the Leningrad sector, the final showdown had to be fought on the Finnish side of the pre-WW2 Finnish-Soviet border, as the border ran along the outskirts of Leningrad, and as Marshal Mannerheim had given strict orders for the Finns to stay out of the city (although right by the border there were skirmishes on both sides of the border, particularly in the critical border-crossing areas).

The withdrawing of the Finnish troops to the VKT -defensive line, and stopping the enemy there, was conducted according to a plan, which got its final shape on June 17, 1944, under the leadership of General K.L. Oesch - and with Mannerheim's approval.

The summer's major battles included the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, the Battle of the Bay of Viipuri, the Battle of Vuosalmi, the Battle of Nietjärvi and the Battle of Ilomantsi, none of which were victorious for the Soviets.

There were other battles, such as the Battle of Tienhaara (important - as it lead to Tali-Ihantala), but none ended in a Soviet victory.

The Finns had fought of Viipuri in the Winter War, being able to hold on to the city - only to have to cede the city to the Soviets anyway, when the peace conditions were agreed upon.

This in mind and to save the Finland's second largest city from being destroyed, Marshal Mannerheim's wishes of fighting for the city were not honored.

The Finns executed a strategic abandonment of Viipuri in just a 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 (Source: Study by Eeva Tammi, 2006).

Ever since the start of the Continuation War, the Soviets had not been able to cross the preceding - 1940 - Finnish-Soviet border during the entire war, except for a short-lived moment in the very final major battle in Ilomantsi, in 1944, where the Red Army suffered a devastating loss, when two of its divisions were fully decimated and shattered, as the Soviets were pushed back.

Following the Soviet war-opening attack on June 25, 1941, and after about 15 days' defensive period first, the Finns had began a campaign to push the Soviets a safe distance away behind the Finnish border. The Finns then held the Soviets behind the (1940) border until the war's very final moment, accomplishing a brilliant defensive victory.

The Finnish defensive victory is reflected also from the statements made in the Soviet book 'Bitva za Leningrad, 1941-1944' - edited by the Soviet Lieutenant General S.P. Platonov:

"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."

Finland had prepared for a defensive, as Mannerheim has pointed out, and the war which started with the Soviet invasion on June 25, 1941, was not part of the German campaign against the Soviets, as the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, on December 1, 1943, concluded:

The Finnish-Soviet Continuation War was a separate war - not a part of the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied powers. Accordingly, Finland made a separate peace agreement as well, conditional by nature - not unconditional like the Nazis, who had to agree to a full surrender.

A defensive war can only be won by a defensive victory. Thus, the war's end result is correctly revealed by the words of the famed Finnish General of Infantry Adolf Ehrnrooth:

"The Continuation War in particular ended in (Finland's) defensive victory, in the most important meaning of the term." (Dec. 17, 2003)

Unlike Nazi leaders, many of whom were sentenced to death, the Marshal of Finland Mannerheim had advanced to become the President of Finland on August 4, 1944, continuing in office until March 4, 1946, when he resigned and retired - 19 months after the ending of the Continuation War. Boris Novikov (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate peace

Boris, you probably don't realise this, but by trying to insert a paragraph about Finland's separate peace with the Allies, you're arguing against your own point: A separate peace is something a member of a military alliance signs with that alliance's enemies, despite existing obligations not to do so. Therefore, any mention of Finland signing a separate peace implies that Finland was an ally of Germany.

Then there's the fact that the Treaty of Peace with Finland was signed in 1947 as part of general corpus of WWII peace treaties, where Finland is explicitly mentioned as having been an ally of Germany.

Lastly, without a page number, a link to the front page of a 900+ page document is all but useless as a reference. --Illythr (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please notice where the source was set, next to the word negotiations, as that is what it was given as a refence for, the fact that Finland could sue for early peace "through negotiations". Further sourcer, direct quotes and the respected page numbers are given in the following articles on this page.

On page 99 of the U.S. State Department report on Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, the 'Minister in Finland to the Secretary of State' Schoenfeld makes the following notion on November 30, 1942:

"The "separate war" would imply the possibility of a separate peace".

This, user Illythr, shows you that the term "separate peace" has at least one other definition, the one used in connection with the Continuation War. And, this "separate peace" refers to a "separate war", which Finland had.

The term became part of the popular language during the Continuation War, and it was not used by only the Finns, but also by others - such as diplomats and political and military abroad - discussing the Finnish peace terms.

The term "separate war" - 'erillisraura' in Finnish - is widely used in Finland, and it can be found under in Wikipedia too, for instance on this page , although it does not have a Wikipedia article of its own yet. I'll work on it, when time allows. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Separate peace - 'erillisrauha' in Finnish - needs to be given an additional definition in Wikipedia

I'll gladly provide you with page numbers from that report, when I have the time. Yet, they are quite easy to find under the search word 'Finland'.

The pages on the U.S. State Department report show how Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin discussed the withdrawing (separating / braking) of Finland out of its war in early stage, and how the conditions for peace for Finland were discussed.

As the source provided is a direct link to the State Department report, which has a search engine - the information given can be easily verified by anyone, unlike in case of numerous other sources - such as books - used as references.

The studies related to Tehran and to Finland's part in the talks there are based on research of a large number of documents, such as (in case of U.S. sources) various foreign policy reports, reports by the Secretary of State to Congress, congressional hearings, congressional books on Joseph Stalin, etc. Some of the research material is not available to the general public.

Rather than going through a large number of documents used for these studies and the research, the related sources can be provided in normal Wikipedia way. The research works by Tuomo Polvinen - the two sources provided - are given as sources for the paragraph in question. Other sources can be added.

Please not to remove sourced information. There is plenty of non-sourced information to delete.

It is true, that the general corpus of WWII peace treaties - which you refer to - gives a wrong picture of Finland's struggles during WW2.

To avoid confusion, the wording about the 'separate peace' can be clarified somewhat. The term used in Finland for Finland's "separate peace" is 'erillisrauha' (direct translation). It's definition - used in the context of the Continuation War - is not quite the same as the one which you refer to. Thus, 'separate peace' deserves an additional definition - another article - in Wikipedia.

In Tehran, the Allied leaders discussed the demand for the unconditional surrender of Germany and it allies. Roosevelt and Churchill talked on behalf of Finland.

Germany and its allies were going to be forced to an unconditional and full surrender, whereas for Finland an early separation from its war and a conditional treaty were sued.

In this context the wording "separate peace agreement" was used. However - for the sake of clarity -, alternative wording can be used.

Here's a quote from the U.S. State Department report which is given as a reference in the Continuation War article - United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, The Conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943 (1943) - page 591:

Mr. Churchill developed at some length the reasons why he did not consider reparations, in regard to such a country as Finland, either desirable or feasible. And he said in his ears there was an echo of the slogan "No Annexations and No Indemnities". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.130.40 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this didn't go any further than that (as the following sentence on that same page makes clear) - Stalin laughed off Churchill's musings and Finland eventually had to both cede territory and pay reparations. Thus, the source you cite does not support your claim, nor does the end result of all these conferences, the Paris Peace Treaties, where Finland is listed as a former German ally. The non-existence of the "special Finnish" meaning for "separate peace" in English literature may also give you a hint of acceptance your point of view has in Western historiography - minimal. Please do not insert text that is unsupported by cited sources, as this is highly misleading and considered disruptive. --Illythr (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

On page 99 of the U.S. State Department report on Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, the 'Minister in Finland to the Secretary of State' Schoenfeld makes the following notion on November 30, 1942:

"The "separate war" would imply the possibility of a separate peace". This, user Illythr, shows you that the term "separate peace" has at least one other definition, the one used in connection with the Continuation War. And, this "separate peace" refers to a "separate war", which Finland had.

The term became part of popular language during the Continuation War, and it was not used by only the Finns, but also by others - such as diplomats - discussing the Finnish peace terms.

The term "separate war" - 'erillisraura' in Finnish - is widely used in Finland, and it can be found under in Wikipedia too, for instance on this page , although it does not have a Wikipedia article of its own yet. I'll work on it, when time allows.

1) Petsamo was traded to Hanko, just as Stalin had had discussed. Besides that land trade, no areas were ceded.

2) Dr. Tuomo Polvinen, PhD, is the primary source for the paragraph. He is a specialist on the topic. Please pay attention to what sources are given, and where exactly the sources are placed on the text.

3) The later-added English language source was included to satisfy the request by user Repdetect117 to "show a direct quote from the Tehran Conference". It does not need to stay, if it bothers you.

4) 'Errillisrauha' - 'separate peace' - is a Finnish term used to describe Finland's peace treaty for the Continuation War. That term like a lot of other terms related to the Continuation war have just quite recently become - or are becoming - known for wider audiences. Even some Continuation War battles do still not have Wikipedia articles in major languages. Boris Novikov (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1) The extent of Finland's concession is listed in the linked treaty and on this map. It shows a quite different picture than "Petsamo was traded to Hanko".

2) Please provide a direct quote from Dr Polvinen so we can verify that he supports what you have written.

3) That source does not support your claim, nor the article text it was attached to. --Illythr (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Again, this is not about Paris. No-one has denied that concession were agreed to there. This is about 1943.

2) Dr. Polvinen studies are based on a large amount of archived documents, which reveal that Finland was shown in special light. Although it may be just slightly difficult to quickly point out any one sentence best to show this, his entire works describe this - but Polvinen is not the only, others agree. The Finland's handling in Tehran is no news to any bit more serious history fan - and I believe even you agree deep inside.

3) I find it a bit amusing that you don't like the State Department source in this context, where as I think it is a great first hand source for what it was given for. As I said, I don't mind it being removed though. It was added to satisfy someone's request for quotes from Tehran.

I read the related quotes from the report. Early separation of Finland from its war brought up and the peace conditions were discussed there as well - of course. Stalin suggested the exchange of Hanko to Petsamo. That is about all that the report was given for, as an additional read. I can provide links to those particular pages, if that helps.

The Allied leaders' statements in Tehran alone (the State Department report) unmistakably prove that Finland was wanted out of it's war a.s.a.p., and that decent peace conditions were sued for Finland.

1) Petsamo was traded to Hanko, just as Stalin had had discussed. Besides that land trade, no areas were ceded. - These are your words just above.

2) Unless a direct quote is provided, your claim remains groundless.

3) You have used the front page of this document to try and source a statement it doesn't actually support, thus wasting our time and yours. Not much to like here, really. --Illythr (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Notice the word "land". "Besides that land trade, no areas were ceded." --> that means compared to the 1940 borders. Thus, those two statements of mine in no way contradict each other. Boris Novikov (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

2) There are false claims in the article now. Those need "direct quotes", as has been requested. For instance, a source is needed to show that the Soviet Union would have perceived the Continuation War to be a part of the Great Patriotic War already before the Cold War period. It cannot provided, as the statement is false. The burden of proof is on the person who claims this, or who reverts to this.

3) This is a rather good point from you, Illythr. I agree with this one - and I apologize if I have wasted any of your time, for you having to search through pages there, perhaps. That wasn't my intention. I wanted to quickly provide something for the Wikipedia user who visited this article, not knowing if they'll be back later on (as I had previously not seen that username). Now I have pointed some individual pages from the report as well - and more can be pulled out.

4) Having said that, I hope you - and Whiskey too - can now stop wasting the time of all of us, when minor changes are made to the text, like the most recent ones, "Moscow Armistice" not including (although I hope you'll agree with that one too, as you previously have reverted to it yourself, Illythr). Boris Novikov (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Tuomo Polvinen is a good source on the Tehran Conference and for the views of the Allied leaders then. Others can be added

Note: Importantly - the sources are not given for the Paris treaty, or for what eventually became the final peace conditions. That is an entirely different matter.

This paragraphs tells how a different - "conditional" - peace treaty was sued for Finland, and why. It shows how the Finnish war was viewed by the Allied leaders, at the time of their Tehran Conference, in comparison to the war between the Allied powers and the Axis powers. That is what the sources are used for.

The handling of Finland in Tehran - and hundreds of documents related - shows that all Allied leaders were full aware of the uniqueness of the Finnish war, in comparison to the war between the Allied powers and the Axis powers, a part of which Finland was not.

Again: The sources are not used for what happened years later in Paris, and for what eventually became the exact peace conditions - although Finland became separated from its war in quite early stage, nine months later, just as the allied leaders had discussed in Tehran (they wanted it to be even sooner), and the views presented and discussed in Tehran eventually were honored to quite large extend.

When happy fellows meet, there will be - and there should be - laughter involved. Yet - importantly - it was the pressure of Roosevelt and Churchill, that ensured that Finland was not going to be taken even more advantage of than it was. However, despite of the separate - unique - nature of the Finnish war, there was only so much that Roosevelt and Churchill could do, in terms of getting a good deal for Finland from their partner, Stalin.

The Soviet Union had needed the help of its allies for saving USSR from the Nazi occupation. At this important point, 12/1/1943, Stalin had to take into consideration the demands/vies of its sponsors/partners.

Thus, please take the sources for what they are given for. The U.S. State Department report supports, what it is used for as a source (as discussed above) - but, additional/different sources can be used as well.

Tuomo Polvinen is a historian, who has specialized in the related history, including the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference. That is why his works are used as sources for the paragraph. Others can be added.

In the text, additional/other words can be used in place of "separate peace agreement", in such a way that there will be less room for confusion or misunderstanding. When/if we try to describe this matter in short, there indeed will be room for misinterpretations. There can be lots of definitions for "separate" anything, and the analyzing of the best fitting words/terms can be a bit tricky.

However, the truth is that the Finnish deal sued for in Tehran - which got its final shape later on - was "different". Thus, perhaps for instance that word or other similar words ought to be included to describe the nature of the Finnish agreement.

The U.S. State Department report shows how Roosevelt and Churchill protected the Finnish interest on their behalf, being pretty well aware of the Finnish situation and what the Finnish struggle was about. After all, the U.S. embassy worked actively in Helsinki during the war.

Stalin - naturally - tried to work out the best deal possible for USSR, while Molotov tried to help the Soviet cause by - for instance - portraying the Finns as participants in the siege of Leningrad and describing how long the Finnish (and German) artillery fire had bombarded Leningrad.

There are other documents that show more of the views presented by the Allied leaders and what went on in Tehran and in other talks between the Allied powers.

This having been said, I agree that the paragraph is not perfect, and that it ought to be improved, just like the entire Continuation War article. I'll go ahead and remove the "separate peace agreement" - 'erillisrauha' in Finnish - from the paragraph, for now anyway. Boris Novikov (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The first page of the 1947 Treaty of Peace with Finland, that is, "what eventually became the final peace conditions" is available here. The full text is here. It presents the views of the participating states quite clearly. Thoughts previously expressed in unofficial discussions and later freely interpreted by an anonymous Wikipedia editor hardly merit their inclusion into the lead section of this article. --Illythr (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

1) The paragraph is not about 1947. It's about 1943, and the views of the Allied leaders on the Continuation War then.

2) Professor Tuomo Polvinen, PhD, a former chief of the Finnish national archives, is just as merited source for the Tehran Conference as any other source used in the article - if not more merited.

3) The additional side source can be moved to "further reading", if it bothers you. It was later added in response to request by user Repdetect117 who wanted me to "show a direct quote from the Tehran Conference". However, I have not "interpreted" any quotes from there. Anyone can do that for themselves.

In the State Department report, anyone can quickly recognize how an early separation from its war was sued for Finland; how the peace terms were discussed; and how Roosevelt and Churchill talked on behalf of Finland. Interestingly, eventually Hanko became to be trated to Petsamo, between the Finns adn the Soviets, just as Stalin had discussed in Tehran. - Please take the rest of my answer below. Boris Novikov (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1) You are trying to present Churchill's words in a rather unusual fashion. Please provide supporting sources.

2) Direct quote, please.

3) As the source doesn't support your claim, the request stands open.--Illythr (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1) All those boys there were using the same tone of voice. Even Stalin made a reference about the Finns fighting bravely for their country, which could be taken into consideration when peace deals were made (those were not his exact words).

2) Dr. Polvinen studies are based on a large amount of archived documents, which reveal that Finland was shown in special light. Although it may be just slightly difficult to quickly point out any one sentence best to show this, his entire works describe this - but Polvinen is not the only, others agree. The Finland's handling in Tehran is no news to any bit more serious history fan - and I believe even you agree deep inside.

3) Wrong: There are many direct quotes showing how the Finnish peace conditions were discussed and how the early separation of Finland from its war was brought up. User Repdetect117 must have searched with the keyword as suggested, because he/she made no more reverts, and no further requests either. Boris Novikov (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, despite the back and forth editing of the beginning paragraphs of this article, I'm glad that the sentence, "Similarly, Germany saw its own operations in the region as a part of its overall war efforts of World War II" remains unchanged. I'm hoping this means that this contribution of mine is correct. Repdetect117 (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why, not only do we have Hitler's words on that, there has never been a controversy about Germany's position on the matter in the first place, to my knowledge. --Illythr (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if people can claim that the Soviets considered their fight against the Soviets to be not part of the "Great Patriotic War" from documents that state no such thing, then I thought they might do the same with Germany's position. Repdetect117 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BEANS. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When you say Hitler's word, are you talking about his Barbarossa speech? Repdetect117 (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The time before, during and after the war are different, with diffrent views - each must be told

Please do not continue mixing the Cold War period year of 1947 with the Continuation War year of 1943, when the war was not over yet. Those are different times, with different views.

The paragraph in question says nothing about other periods, such as the time before or after the war. Those are discussed in other paragraphs. This paragraph only tells the view of the Allied leaders during the war.

The lead of the article shows how the different participants saw the war. That is why the view of the Allied leaders should be mentioned. They saw the war as a separate war from the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied Powers.

The thoughts expressed, official and unnofficial - before, during and after Tehran - are interpreted by Professor Tuomo Polvinen, PhD, a former chief of Finnish national archives. He has specialized in the Finnish-Soviet relations. All along, his two works have been attached to the text in question as sources.

The distinguished historian Professor Polvinen has specialized in this part of history. His "interpretations" of history do qualify to be used as sources in this article just as well as any other given source on the page - if not better. Other sources can be added.

The U.S. State Department report was later included as a side source only, in response to request by user Repdetect117 who wanted me to "show a direct quote from the Tehran Conference". Yet, the source does not need to stay. Polvinen is the primary source - and others can be added.

In the war which the Soviets started, they had plans to move rather rapidly deep inside Finland, and then conquer such places in Finland as Helsinki, Kemi, Oulu, Rovaniemi, Turku and the Åland Islands - and more.

In the final peace treaty, Hanko was "traded" to Petsamo between USSR and Finland - as Stalin had discussed in Tehran -, but Finland agreed to no other land ceding or trading.

Thus, the conditions which the Allied leaders discussed for Finland in Tehran - and what appeared acceptable to Stalin there -, are rather decent in hindsight, in comparison to what might have happened, had the Soviets won the war, or had Finland been considered to be part of the Axis.

However, that is an entirely different matter, than the paragraph discussed, and the validity of the U.S. State Department report to be included as a source there. Again, please notice that the report was used only as an additional side source - as further concrete evidence - to show how in talks, official and unofficial, an early separation of its war and the conditions for peace for Finland were sued at the time.

The world was different in 1938, in 1943 and in 1947. In the Cold War period year of 1947, the views expressed by many leaders were very different from what they had been during the war, or before.

For one, the war plans of the Soviet Union (Ohto Manninen - 'How Finland is conquered: The operational plans of the Red Army, 1939-1949') show in detail, what the Soviet Union had in mind during the war - and before - 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 during the war and right before the war.

What was said three years later, after the war, in Paris, was - of course - very different.

Thus, it is important to reveal in Wikipedia not only the end result - which was eventually determined during the Cold War in 1947 -, but also the views of the participating nations and their leaders during the war and before the war.

As to further sources for how the Soviet leadership saw it's position on June 21, 1941, the comment below gives a few leads. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC) (broken original signature from 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC) was replaced)

The peace treaty of 1947 is a formal document that provides a definitive stance of the Allies towards the Axis and their allies. The statement They saw the war as a separate war from the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied Powers is not supported by the text of the Tehran Conference you cite. If Mr. Polvinen believes that this was as you say, we can add this as his interpretation with direct attribution, but no sooner as you provide a direct citation from his work that does support the text you are inserting. --Illythr (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

YOU MIX UP WHAT SOURCE IS USED FOR WHAT INFORMATION, USER ILLYTHR

User Illythr - you say: "The statement They saw the war as a separate war from the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied Powers is not supported by the text of the Tehran Conference you cite."

I say: No-one has claimed so. Where ? Can you show us please ?

Once again, the State Department report has never been used as a source for that sentence - and even the sentence is not exactly like that. Please take the rest of my answer on the bottom of this page. Boris Novikov (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff. Indeed, so far, you are the sole person who have claimed this. --Illythr (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That spot for the source would fit too. Yet, please notice that the source was very shortly moved to another spot - and you have complained while the source has been in the current spot. In the previous location too it clearly was not a source for the entire paragraph. The source for the paragraph is in the end of the paragraph.

There are others who have reminded of it here and in other related forums, that the Soviets (and the Americans) saw the Continuation War as a "separate war". For instance Peltimikko headlined at 09:35, 2 June 2009:

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

Also in Wikipedia, that information can be found (not brought there by me) - here for instance: Tehran Conference. - - Boris Novikov (talk) 07:24, 20 January 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)

Joseph Stalin and Andrei Zhdanov explain how USSR must now "move on from defense to attack"

In June, 1941, the Chairman of the RSFSR Supreme Soviet Andrei Zhdanov stated to the Military Council of the Supreme Soviet:

"We have become strong, and we can now begin accomplishing things by more active approach. The wars in Poland and Finland were not defensive wars. We already have started on the road of attacking politicks."

This followed the speech of Joseph Stalin given on May 5, 1941, where he stated the following:

"But now that we have modernisized our army, acquired weapons technology required for modern warfare, now that we have become strong - now we must move on from defense to attack.

As we were improving our nation's defense, we gave up attacking. We shall now move from defensive to offensive war politics. It is necessary for us to renew our educational work, propaganda, agitation and print in offensive spirit.

The Red Army is a modern army - but, it must be remembered, that a modern army is an army of attack." Boris Novikov (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Suvorov's theories are not accepted by the larger community of historians due to not presenting the sources of his analysis ans selective choice of facts (his idea of an "autobahn tank" became particularly infamous for the bad research it involved). Meltiukhov supports the idea of a Soviet first strike, but is much more cautious about the date and other details, citing lack of documentary evidence for an accurate scientific analysis of Soviet war plans. --Illythr (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It ought to be noted, that Sovorov's career was not that of historian's to begin with. Yet, I do not fully agree with your view on this, user Illythr. My sources have pointed out the contrary, showing the critics of Suvorov - one vocal and important critic in particular - to have not been a match to Suvorov's statements and claims.

If I recall correctly, the critic in question has claimed to have gotton access into some related archives of the Soviet Union, implying that Suvorov would not have been provided such access, despite the fact that Suvorov was a Soviet spy with a network of connections to various directions and with access to much secret information.

While making this claim - and other similar claims -, the critic has made some highly contradicting statements, by implying for instance that the related documents, a part of them at least, would have been destroyed, while at the same time also implying that the related archives (some of them at least) would still be hidden/protected/not given access to.

Please allow me to get back to you on this, after I have checked my records and verified who this known/vocal Suvorov's critic is. Thank you user Illythr.

Directly below, please find information about Gabriel Gorodetski. Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Most observers see Suvorov to have succeeded in proving a number of Gorodetski's critical claims to be false, and in proving Gorodetski to be a paid worker of the Russian Federation.

One of Suvorov's main critics has been Professori Gabriel Gorodetski.

In his book 'Viimane Vabariik', Suvorov has used an entire chapter - chapter No. 24 - to prove Gorodetski to be a paid worker of the Russian Federation. Most observers see Suvorov to have succeeded in proving a number of critical claims made by Gorodetski fo be false. Boris Novikov (talk) 08:08, 25 January 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)

Massive offensive preparations were conducted by the Soviet-Finnish border during the Interim peace

A "sideshow" of unprecedented proportions was planned for post- Winter War Finland

C. G. E. MANNERHEIM (MEMOIRS):

"The railroad construction that had started by the Soviets on the fall of 1939 proceeded rapidly. The most important stretches of the railroad, Petroskoi-Suojärvi, Louhi-Kiestinki ja Rutši-Salla were completed in a few months' time. To the last-mentioned stretch alone, over 100'000 forced labor workers were stationed. These railroad stretches were supported by 15 strategic roads for motor vehicles.

On approximately 200 kilometers wide boundary behind the border, airports were being built, the number of which was later concluded to be as many as 90."

ERKKI NORDBERG (former Chief of the Department of Education at the Main Headquarters of the Finnish Defence Forces):

"Only one conclusion can be made, and needs to be made, of the the Interim Peace period war preparations of the Soviet Union. The Red Army was preparing to attack west, and in the process to occupy Finland. This time it would be done immediately, and with even much larger forces that had been planned for 1939."

(Source: 'Arvio ja ennuste Venäjän sotilaspolitiikasta Suomen suunnalla' - "The Analysis and Prognosis of the Soviet Military Politics on the Finnish Front" -, 2003, page 181 .)

(Prior to his retirement in 2006, Colonel M.A. Erkki Nordberg served as the Chief of the Department of Education at the Main Headquarters of the Finnish Defence Forces. Nordberg has focused foremost in the history of the Finnish wars during WW2 and he has researched extensively the war plans of the Soviet Union, related to WW2.)

Please don't generalize "usage of sources" being correct or incorrect, user Whiskey. Please, be always specific and point out what source, when you make claims of that sort. Also, when you discuss my statements, please bring an exact quote, so that I know what you are referring to. Then I can defend myself and explain - perhaps there's something that you had not understood.

Yes, there was supposed to be other stages of the Soviet offensive, which never materialized, as unexpected things happened. I have said that many a time.

You must have read for instance about the Soviet operative orders given on May 14, 1941, for the formations of the Soviet forces and the execution of the Soviet attack, which was planned to reach 250-300 km westward, pass the Soviet border .

What would have been left of Finland already at this point ? Another similar "pre-emptive" Soviet attack - the one of the Winter War - had resulted to the moving of the Finnish-Soviet border considerably west the year before.

Below, please find more details of the post- Winter War offensive plans of the Soviet Union, which further reveal and proof the Soviet intention to invade the entire country of Finland. The Soviet attack plan and the related map - with arrows showing the Red Army attack routes to the Finnish cities - can be added).

A distinguished source, Ohto Manninen, - full with page numbers - is provided further down (notably, he has also been used as a source by you, and - importantly - user Illythr supported your use of the source).

You say: " ... plans do not mean that Soviets intented to conquer Finland in the beginning of the Continuation War." It doesn't have to be right in the "beginning", user Whiskey. Certainly, at least some in the Soviet leadership knew following the Winter War, that occupying Finland wasn't easy, all the circumstances considered.

Besides, at least some of the utmost military experts in the topic disagree with you on this. This time around, the occupation of Finland was supposed to be swift. Please, accept further evidence and a source in my article further down.

I asked you to please bring proof of the Soviets having moved troops away from Finland before the Battle of Tali-Ihantala - because you reverted that text in the article (as in reality, they didn't move troops away before that battle).

Instead, you tell me now that they had hard time getting more troops. That is not what I had asked you about, Whiskey. The Finns did too.

Naturally, partially destroyed units were sometimes pulled back, as otherwise they would have been fully destroyed. I am asking you to please provide proof, that any significant amount of forces were moved away from Finland, before the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. If you cannot provide such source, please do not remove the contrary information from the article. Thank you, Whiskey.

Finally: During earlier years of WW2, no-one knew where the war would be eventually finished. If the Finns would have cut the Murmansk railroad, and if they would have joined the attack against Leningrad, that would have released German forces south, and the entire WW2 would have been a different ballgame.

Therefore, the Finnish front was just as significant - if not more significant - than any other Soviet front. The Soviets had no idea in 1941, where the war would be finished, Whiskey. Thus, your "sideshow" theory/speculation - or that Finland would have become a "sideshow" already before the Battle of Tali-Ihantala - does not belong to Wikipedia. Nor is it supported by - arguably - the worlds' largest (at least up till then) artillery battle, the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User Illythr: You mix up what source is for what info. The U.S State Department report is meant for additional read only

You say: "The statement They saw the war as a separate war from the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied Powers is not supported by the text of the Tehran Conference you cite."

I say: No-one has claimed so. Where ?

Once again, the State Department report has never been used as a source for that sentence.

Please do not mix up sources and information. Clearly, at no point has the U.S. State Department report been attached as a source for that sentence or a similar sentence.

Even the sentence does not read exactly like that. Below, please find the entire paragraph in question, including the sentence. Please notice where the State Department source was attached, next to the word 'negotiations' - that is what it was given as a refence for, that Finland could sue for early peace through negotiations. I agree that links to the individual pages should be formed. I'll list some possible candidates further down.

In the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference, ending on December 1, 1943, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin acknowledged that the Finnish-Soviet Continuation War was not part of the conflict between the Axis powers and the Allied powers, and as Finland was not 'de jure' member of the Axis, ways for Finland to get out of its war through negotiations at early stage were sought.

The report was never offered as a source for the sentence in question or the paragraph as a whole. Polvinen was, however (for the entire paragraph) - and other sources can be added (more sources further down on this page).

The State Department report was added as a side read, but for that particular spot only, next to the word 'negotiations' - as a reference how the Allied leaders discussed Finland's early separation from its war, which was to be accomplished through negotiations.

The source was not necessarily meant to be left there permanently. It was added after user Repdetect117 had requested to be given something "from the Tehran Conference", "preferably sources in English or online, possibly even direct quotes".

In the State Department report there are direct quotes from and about the Allied leaders, in regard to the early ending of the Finnish war, peace negotiations, etc. There are not necessarily direct quotes for that particular sentence which you describe (although perhaps there are ?) - and importantly, that is why the source has not been attached to that type of sentence, and it is not used as a source for that type of sentence.

So - source was not used wrongly. You, Illythr, made it look like that, by claiming that the source was used for that sentence.

Here's a page from the U.S. State Department report, page No. 592 , which shows how the conditions for the Finnish peace deal were discussed between the Allied leaders. A Quote regarding Joseph Stalin from that page:

"Marshal Stalin said that the Treaty of 1940 was broken and must be restored, but is Hango were belonging to the Finns he was willing to accept Petsamo instead, which would give them a common boundary with Norway. He added that Petsamo had been in the first instance a gift from Russia to Finland." (Editor's note: Marshal Stalin lied. Petsamo had been traded in the previous deal too).

Page 590 shows how getting Finland out of the war was discussed. A quote from that page:

"He (President Roosevelt) said that he wished to help in every way to get Finland out of the war, and he would like to have the views of Marshal Stalin."

On page 591 an early separation for Finland from its war is being sued - a quote about Winston Churchill's statement:

"The Prime Minister (Churchill) stated that he attached a great importance to Finland's being out of the war and Sweden's being in, at the moment of the great attack im May."

On page 591 also the Finnish peace deal and getting Finland out of the war are discussed further. A quote regarding Stalin on that page:

"Marshal Stalin agreed on the desirability of getting the Finns out of the war, but not at the expense of the interests of the Soviet Union."

On page 99 , the 'Minister in Finland to the Secretary of State' Schoenfeld makes the following notion on November 30, 1942:

"The "separate war" would imply the possibility of a separate peace". This, user Illythr, shows you that the term "separate peace" has at least one other definition, the one used in connection with the Continuation War. And, this "separate peace" refers to a "separate war", which Finland had.

The term became part of popular language during the Continuation War, and it was not used by only the Finns, but also by others - such as diplomats - discussing the Finnish peace terms.

The term "separate war" - 'erillisraura' in Finnish - is widely used in Finland, and it can be found under in Wikipedia too, as a headline for instance on this page , although it does not have a Wikipedia article of its own yet. I'll work on it, when time allows.

Finland's early separation from its war and the peace conditions for Finland are discussed also on the following pages of the U.S. State Department report (this is only a part of the Finland related pages):

Page 112 (9 matches) Page 113 (11 matches) Page 114 (5 matches) Page 115 (6 matches) Page 116 (7 matches) Page 117 (4 matches) Page 118 (2 matches) Page 119 (4 matches) Page 120 (2 matches) Page 121 (4 matches) Page 122 (4 matches) Page 213 (5 matches) Page 214 (8 matches) Page 736 (1 match) Page 737 (4 matches) Page 738 (5 matches) Page 739 (5 matches) Page 740 (5 matches) Page 741 (5 matches) Page 742 (4 matches) Page 743 (5 matches) Page 744 (4 matches) Page 745 (3 matches) Page 746 (3 matches) Page 747 (4 matches) Page 748 (3 matches) Page 749 (7 matches) Page 750 (6 matches) Page 751 (5 matches) Page 752 (4 matches) Page 753 (8 matches) Page 754 (3 matches) Page 755 (9 matches) Page 756 (5 matches) Page 757 (2 matches) Page 757 (9 matches) Page 758 (2 matches) Page 759 (9 matches) Page 760 (7 matches) Page 761 (6 matches) Page 762 (11 matches) Page 763 (7 matches) Page 764 (11 matches) Page 765 (10 matches) Page 766 (11 matches) Page 767 (17 matches) Page 768 (6 matches) Page 769 (9 matches) Page 770 (8 matches) Page 771 (5 matches) Page 772 (1 match) Page 773 (4 matches) Page 774 (2 matches) Page 775 (4 matches) Page 776 (1 match) Page 777 (5 matches) Page 778 (6 matches) Page 779 (2 matches) Page 781 (5 matches) Page 782 (4 matches) Page 783 (3 matches) Page 784 (3 matches) Page 785 (3 matches) Page 786 (2 matches) Page 787 (4 matches) Page 788 (2 matches) Page 789 (4 matches) Page 790 (3 matches) Page 791 (4 matches) Page 793 (4 matches) Page 794 (6 matches) Page 794 (1 match) Page 795 (13 matches) Page 796 (4 matches) Page 797 (5 matches) Page 798 (5 matches) Page 799 (10 matches) Page 800 (10 matches) Page 801 (13 matches) Page 802 (9 matches) Page 803 (8 matches) Page 804 (4 matches) Page 805 (4 matches) Page 806 (1 match) Page 807 (2 matches) Page 808 (4 matches) Page 809 (5 matches) Page 811 (2 matches) Page 811 (2 matches) Page 812 (6 matches) Page 813 (4 matches) Page 814 (4 matches)

Boris Novikov (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This demonstrates further that the notion of a "separate war" was not supported by the members of the Tehran Conference as well as you remarkably bad usage of that source - note that the document cited on page 99 is not part of the conference, nor was is written by one of the participants. Moreover, the term "separate peace" is used in its direct sense there, dismantling your argument even further. Despite all this, a short mention of Finland's case in the Tehran Conference may be in order (Churchill's suggestions, Stalin's conditional, but firm refusal, etc), just not in the form you are trying to present things. --Illythr (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not correct. Please, take my answer in the articles below. Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

All the Allied leaders and Hitler saw the Continuation War as a "separate war", as reported in numerous sources (a few below)

All Allied leaders and - importantly - Adolf Hitler too (source provided, with a page number) saw the war as a separate war from the conflict between the Allied powers and the Axis powers.

As you suggested, user Illythr, I could indeed write a book for you about this, rather than continuing to bring in more and more sources and documents as evidence, for your review - something that we cannot expect from my opponent, you - or can we ?

However, others have done a great job. A number of books about the topic has already been written by the most appreciated and highly regarded historians and diplomats. One of them is Max Jakobson. His becoming the Secretary General of the United Nations was stopped only by the 'veto' right exercised by the Soviet Union.

In his book about the issue, the long time Finnish diplomat and government minister Max Jakobson points out many ways how the Soviet Union acknowledged the "separate" nature of the Continuation War. For instance, Jakobson itenerates: "Luopuessaan antautumisvaatimuksesta Moskova tunnusti Suomen sodan erillisen luonteen."

In English: "When giving up the demand for surrender, Moscow admitted (recognized/acknowledged) the separate nature of the Finnish war." Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

USSR agreed to a conditional truce in the "separate war" against Finland, while the war against the Axis continued

You say: "the term "separate peace" is used in its direct sense there".

You appear to agree with me, user Illythr. As I've said, the term can be used in different "senses", and there is not just one definition. I'll itenarate more further below.

You also took my "separate peace" out of context. The sentence in question talked about a "separate peace agreement", not "separate peace" - there's a difference (not that it is all that important, however).

The peace was separate from the one forced to Nazis - not the same - it was different - independent from - etc. Finland's peace was conditional, unlike the one forced to the Nazis.

The Soviet Union signed a (temporary) separate peace agreement with Finland while the war between the Allied powers and the Axis powers continued to be fought, for quite some time to come.

No Illythr - there's no room for misinterpretation in the U.S. official's statement. In a clear way, it supports the use of this particular terminology in conjunction with the Continuation War, and on its part it defines the meaning of the term in this context.

This is just one example - one among a large number of similar cases, in similar documents, used by researchers to evaluate how the Allied countries viewed the Continuation War.

Further down, please find more evidence and examples of the term's use in this context in historiography and in diplomatic language.

Among those more familiar with the Continuation War, this terminology is known widely. The term used in Finland for the "separate peace" is "erillisrauha". Boris Novikov (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no room for misinterpretation - a separate peace is an armistice or a peace agreement signed by a country behind the back of its allies in a war. --Illythr (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)'

If you see there not being room for misinterpretation, then we can include the wartime American diplomat's words next to Max Jakobson's in the article.

The important thing is the separate war. The peace can simply be called peace - Mannerheim is right - and Illythr is not wrong, as long as he accepts the war having been a "separate war" - what it was.

Additionally, our personal views are not important when telling a story in Wikipedia. We must report what happened and why, to the best of our knowlkedge, providing the facts and the related sources. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Jakobson is another example of a high ranking diplomat and a prior government minister saying the use of "separate war" is correct

Again, not only the American politicians and diplomats - as seen in the document provided above - but politicians, historians and diplomats at large, among others, have used widely both terms, 'separate war' and 'separate peace' with a "separate"/different definition in conjunction with the Continuation War, than the definition referred to by you, user Illythr.

In my article further below, please find additional evidence to confirm this, including a direct quote from - arguably - the all time best recognized Finnish diplomat and a prior Finnish government minister, Max Jakobson (whose becoming the Secretary General of the United Nations was stopped only by the 'veto' of the Soviet Union). Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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 (sources provided per request).

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', 1965, page 262).

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 (T. M. Kivimäki, 'Suomalaisen poliitikon muistelmat' - "the Memories of a Finnish Politician" -, 1965, page 262).

General Erik Heinrichs: "I 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." Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite of Mannerheim's concern, the new definition of "separate peace" became acceptable in this context

In time, the meaning and definition of some words and terms have changed, or got new nuances or additional definitions. This is an on-going process. In understanding of user Illythr's concern, the following interesting thing has been reported and should be mentioned:

Although he saw the war as "separate", of course, the Marshal of Finland Mannerheim did not accept the term "separate peace", for the very reason introduced here by user Illythr.

Here's a free translation from a quote: "When talking about the "separate peace", let it mentioned, that Mannerheim did not accept this word ('erillisrauha'). In his opinion - as a member of the Headquarters (of the Finnish Armed Forces) has expressed -, Finland who fought its own war against Russia, Finland who was not tied by any political or military agreement, did not have to make a "separate peace", but simply to make a peace, immediately when it was possible."

Same in Finnish: »Erillisrauhasta» puheen ollen tulkoon mainituksi, ettei Man­nerheim hyväksynyt tätä sanaa. Hänen mielestään - kuten eräs päämajan jäsen on asian ilmaissut - Suomen, joka kävi omaa sotaansa Venäjää vastaan ja jota ei sitonut mikään poliittinen tai sotilassopimus, ei tarvinnut tehdä »erillisrauhaa», vaan se yksinkertaisesti solmisi rauhan ja heti, kun tilaisuus siihen tarjoutui.

In this regard, user Illythr's concern is not entirely in the woods. However, since Mannerheim's days this linquistic concern has all but vanished, while historians and politicians have chosen to all but challenge Mannerheim's point, and since then the "separate" definition for "separate peace" - when used together with the Continuation War - has been widely accepted among scholars, diplomats, politicians and others.

Importantly - however -, this Mannerheim's view too supports the 'separate' nature of the Continuation War - the emphazis of ours. Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"The "separate war" would imply the possibility of a separate peace" - Minister in Finland to the Secretary of State, 11.30.1942

As the 'Minister in Finland to the Secretary of State Schoenfeld states in writing on November 30, 1942:

"The "separate war" would imply the possibility of a separate peace".

Or, if you prefer: The separate peace would imply the possibility of a "separate war".

This document, among thousands of other similar documents and other material, together with actual true life events that took place, tell historians how the Allied leaders saw Finland's struggle.

The Soviets gave up a demand for Finland's unconditional surrender, and signed truce with Finland, while the war between the Allied powers and the Axis powers continued.

Mannerheim was made the President of Finland right before the war's end, and he stayed in office until 19 months after the war, when he resigned and retired.

This all was possible, because the Allied leaders saw the Continuation war as a separate war. USA kept it's embassy working in Helsinki throughout the Continuation War, and Roosevelt and Churchill spoke on behalf of Finland during the war, including in the Allied leaders' Tehran Conference.

And - importantly -, also the Soviets saw the Continuation War as a "separate war", as user Peltimikko correctly headlined at 09:35, 2 June 2009:

"The Continuation War formally was seen as a separate war by both Moscow and Helsinki" Boris Novikov (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You should publish a book on this topic, get it peer-reviewed in serious journals than come back here. While your interpretation of history is interesting, it appears to be too marginal to be included as Finnish historiography views. --Illythr (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, user 'Illythr'. Please take my answer below - the next few articles. A number of great books on the topic have already been written, making it not necessary for me to bother, not right now anyway. I will refer to some very valuable sources below. Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

SOVIET POST- WINTER WAR PLAN TO CONQUER FINLAND - I AM INCLUDING A SOURCE PREVIOUSLY USED BY WHISKEY, SUPPORTED BY ILLYTHR

"Appears to be too marginal to be included as Finnish historiography views" ?

In my article below, please find yet more distinquishes sources which are in full accordance with my statements. The works are highly valued among academics - and they are "peer-reviewed" -, Max Jakobson's works being perhaps the most highly valued of them all.

Please notice that Ohto Manninen has been used as a source also by user Whiskey - and his use of Ohto Manninen as a source was backed by you, user Illythr.

I hope you won't contradict yourself in this case (as you have in for instance in reverting the war's result to "Moscow Armistice, only to later insist in reverting it away from "Moscow Armistice" - thank you for holding your horses on that one.) Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Errr... I do not remember defending "separate war" theory (maybe some sort of misunderstaning). The Finns tried to keep the war in political level as much separate as possible (Hitler tolerated this as long as military relations were working, formal agreements were unnecessary; Ribbentrop, as his own project, tried to form a formal alliance agreement from 1943, first without success), but military and economy relations were very close through the war - and in fact, the Finns would not have possible to fight without German military (troop in Northern Finland, tanks etc.) and economy (cereals, trade with German's allies etc) assistant. The Winter War gave lot of goodwill to the Finns, and that was one of the reason why U.S. did not declare war against Finland. And the U.K. warned several times before it declared war against Finland. But U.S.-Finland relations became much worse after Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement. Peltimikko (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And another thing. "Separate War" theory has never really get any foot outside Finland among historians. Though, after the WWII there was some small support in literature in Germany and in the Soviet Union. However, the Finnish historians changed their view in late 1980s and nowadays the war is seen as an alliance with Germany. Peltimikko (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User 'Peltimikko' - kindly please take my answer in the two articles below. Boris Novikov (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Numerour foreign sources - past and current - are in full accordance with the Continuation War having been a 'separate war'

A BRIEF ANSWER TO YOUR POINTS, USER PELTIMIKKO - PLEASE TAKE THE REST OF MY ANSWER IN MY ARTICLE FURTHER BELOW

You are mistaken. For example: In my article below, I refer to a book from 2005 by the Finnish Councilor of Education Erkki Hautamäki, which is in full accordance with the view that the Continuation War was a 'separate war'. The book provides details - including new evidence - of the Continuation War having been a separate war, a Soviet attempt to conquer Finland - a war, which was not part of the conflict between the Allied powers and the Axis powers.

The Swedish version of Erkki Hautamäki’s book was examined by the scientists of the University of Uppsala, Sweden. The introduction was co-written by Colonel, M.A. Erkki Nordberg, who until 2006 was the Chief of the Educational Department of the Main Headquarters of the Finnish Defense Forces. Professor Kent Zetterberg, a teacher of the Swedish Defense Academy, was the second writer.

1) Thus, you claim of "the Finnish historians" having "changed their view in the late 1980s" does not coincide with reality. The four additional distinquished sources provided in the article below are also in disagreement with your statement.

2) Furthermore, the above information also shows your claim wrong about the "separate war" not having got "foot outside Finland among historians".

In addition to the scientists at the University of Uppsala, Sweden the Swedish Defense Academy and the Swedish Professor Kent Zetterberg, the many historians shown in the list given on this page, who have stated in writing that they believe the Soviet Union to have intended to conquer the entire Europe (or at least most of it), at the same time see Finland to have been simply a peace of this European invasion intended by the Soviet Union.

The historians in the list - a great majority of them, if not all - see the Continuation War to have been an a Soviet attempt to occupy Finland. I have just added the Finnish Councilor of Education Erkki Hautamäki to that list.

3) Respectfully - you are now also contradicting yourself, and disagreeing with yourself, user Peltimikko. Again, below please find your own statement, a headline on this page, entitled by you at 09:35, 2 June 2009 (note: in this statement, you are absolutely correct):

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

4) As stated before, the limited Finland's co-operation with Germany as such has not been denied by me. However, the numerous critical ways in which Finland refused to co-operate with the Nazi Germany, explains how Finland's war was a 'separate war' from the war between the Axis powers and the Allied powers.

Finland refused to form or sign any official military alliance agreement with Germany, as determined by the Hornborg Committee report, released to the Finnish government on July 17, 1945.

The Anti-Comintern Pact - to which you referred to before -, signed in 1941 by 13 nations, in no way established a military alliance between Germany and Finland. The nature of that treaty is quite well described by user Whiskey above.

The list provided on this page, which points out 10 critical ways (more can be added) 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) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to pipe in on 3): In his post of 09:35, 2 June 2009, Peltimikko writes something completely different, and the header is a quote of the article text introduced to Talk:Co-belligerence by user Rakovsky four years ago in order to post a rebuttal. I'm not sure why you keep claiming things that are the opposite of truth and can be easily verified as such.--Illythr (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If there was a misunderstanding, I apologize. Following the headline, his signature came first - at least I thought so - assuming that he would also stand behind the headline.

And, there's no reason not to stand behind that headline. Please just see how and why Max Jakobson fully agrees with the headline. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: Soon including distinguished sources for the post- Winter War Soviet war plans to occupy Finland (more sources can be added)

Among others, the Wikipedia contributor Whiskey has used the distinguished historian, Professor Ohto Manninen, PhD, as a Continuation War source, and user Illythr has defended user Whiskey's use of the source. I fully agree with the two - Professor Manninen is a highly credited and valuable source for the Continuation War article.

I am soon adding to the Continuation War article Professor Manninen and several other distinguished WW2 history specialists as sources for the post- Winter War Soviet invasion plans of Finland. Below, please find information about the sources in question, and a brief explanation why they were chosen as sources. More sources are available per request, and can be added in the article.

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 below 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. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The Soviets had multiple plans to occupy Finland from 1930s as a part of assault against Germany - some of them did include Finland and some did not. (And it was just a matter of time which one, the USSR or Germany, would assault first.) Unlike Erkki Hautamäki, Manninen is very reliable source. Peltimikko (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe you may be surprised in time ahead - just hold your horses please, user Peltimikko. Hautamäki in an honest man who investicates his material thoroughly. We cannot accuse him of simply repoting the findings and the news. "Don't blame the messanger", user Peltimikko. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ERKKI NORDBERG

Prior to his retirement in 2006, Colonel M.A. Erkki Nordberg served as the Chief of the Department of Education at the Main Headquarters of the Finnish Defence Forces.

Erkki Nordberg has focused foremost in the history of the Finnish wars during WW2 and he has researched extensively the war plans of the Soviet Union, related to WW2.

In his book, 'Arvio ja ennuste Venäjän sotilaspolitiikasta Suomen suunnalla' (2003) - 'Analysis and prognosis of the Soviet military politics on the Finnish front' -, Colonel Nordberg explains why and how the Soviet Union intended to invade Finland, following the Winter War (1939-1940). The findings of Nordberg are based on extensive research of documents related to the war plans of the Soviet Union.

Nordberg point out that Joseph Stalin was happy with the end result of the Winter War, because now The Soviet Union could threaten Finland's "vital centers":

"Now the threath to Helsinki is materialised from two directions, from the direction of Viipuri and the direction of Hanko."

Colonel Erkki Nordberg, regarding the post- Winter War Soviet invasion plans of Finland:

"Only one conclusion can be made, and needs to be made, of the the Interim Peace period war preparations of the Soviet Union. The Red Army was preparing to attack west, and in the process to occupy Finland. This time it would be done immediately, and with even much larger forces that had been planned for 1939.". 87.93.99.132 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

MAX JAKOBSON HAS ENTITLED A CHAPTER IN HIS BOOK: "FROM SEPARATE WAR TO SEPARATE PEACE"

Do you see room for misinterpretation in this one too, user Illythr ? Doesn't that remind you of the statement by the American diplomat:

THE U.S. DIPLOMAT SCHOENFELD WROTE: "THE "SEPARATE WAR" WOULD IMPLY THE POSSIBILITY OF A SEPARATE PEACE"

The 'Minister in Finland to the Secretary of State' Schoenfeld wrote the above on November 30, 1942. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

MAX JAKOBSON

Max Jakobson is a retired Finnish Jewish diplomat and journalist. He began his career as journalist. He worked at the BBC. From 1953 to 1974 he was employed by the Finnish foreign ministry, eventually acting as Finland's ambassador to the United Nations and Sweden. He helped shape Finland's policy of neutrality during the Cold War.

In 1971 Jakobson was a candidate for the post of United Nations Secretary-General. His candidacy failed, ostensibly because of a Soviet Union veto. Jakobson has been active as a commentator on Finnish politics, having written several books and numerous articles on Finnish political history and contemporary Finnish politics.

He has acted as chairman of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity investigating Communist and Nazi crimes in Estonia.

According to Minister Jakobson:

If Germany would have executed its landing to England on the fall of 1940 (tying its forces to the western front) the Soviet Union would have attacked against Finland already then - in which case the Finns would not have been able to receive help even from Germany (as they were able to in the Continuation War).

Just like the wartime and post-war Finnish presidents Risto Ryti and C.G.E. Mannerheim - as well as the current president of Finland Tarja Halonen -, the long time Finnish diplomat and former Finnish government minister Max Jakobson says the Continuation War to have been a "separate war" from the conflict between the Allied powers and the Axis powers.

This is also the current official Finnish stance, as the Editor in Chief Janne Virkkunen confirms in the head column of the largest Finnish newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat (link provided originally by user 'Peltimikko').

Max Jakobson has written extensively about the "separate war" and the "separate peace" of Finland. Furthermore, he has also entitled one of the chapters in one of his his books 'From separate war to separate peace' (in Finnish: 'Erillissodasta erillisrauhaan').

In his book 'Väkivallan vuodet' ("The Years of Violence"), 1999, page 353 , Jakobson writes about the Continuation War:

"Luopuessaan antautumisvaatimuksesta Moskova tunnusti Suomen sodan erillisen luonteen." (same in English below)

"WHEN GIVING UP ITS DEMAND FOR FULL SURRENDER, MOSCOW ADMITTED THE SEPARATE NATURE OF THE FINNISH WAR"

87.93.99.132 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ERKKI HAUTAMÄKI

Erkki Hautamäki is a Finnish 'Councilor of Education' - 'opetusneuvos' in Finnish -, a 'major of the reserve' for the Finnish Defense Forces, a historian and a researcher who has - foremost - focused in the history of the Finnish Wars during WW2 and the Soviet war plans related to WW2.

In the 1960s, Erkki Hautamäki served in a special task force at the 'Main Headquarters of the Finnish Defense Forces'.

The Councilor of Education Erkki Hautamäki has published a book, 'Suomi myrskyn silmässä' ("Finland in the Eye of a Storm") , in 2005, in which both the pre- Winter War and the post- Winter War Soviet invasion plans for Finland are discussed and analyzed in detail.

Hautamäki's book brings forth details and information about the last Finnish wars, which were not discussed in the Finnish main media - nor elsewhere - during the Cold War period, due to the sensitive and friendly Finnish-Soviet relations, in particular.

In interpreting the part of the Finnish history in question and in preparing his book, "Finland in the Eye of a Storm", Hautamäki has utilized information from the so called File S32 of the Marshal of Finland Mannerheim, which has been classified as "secret".

For the book - the part I, of II - Hautamäki has also researched extensively a large amount of documents pertaining to Marshal Mannerheim's private statements and writings, his private correspondence with his friends, colleagues and enemies in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, as well as various types of other related documents.

According to Hautamäki, the evidence available shows that the Continuation War was triggered by the continued Soviet determination to occupy Finland.

Based on Hautamäki's findings, the Soviet Union did not only intend to occupy Finland, but Finland was just a part of a much greater Soviet invasion plan for Europe.

Hautamäki's book has helped to change the historiography of the war times in a significant way. Up to quite recently, there were mainly just hypothesis available, as there was only secondary evidence available of the documents that describe the Soviet war plans and operations, and their consequences.

The Swedish version of Erkki Hautamäki’s book was examined by scientists at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. The book's introduction was co-written by Colonel, M.A. Erkki Nordberg. Until his retirement in 2006, Nordberg served as the Chief of the Department of Education at the Main Headquarters of the Finnish Defense Forces. Professor Kent Zetterberg, a teacher at the Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences, was the second writer. 87.93.99.132 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

HANS PETER KROSBY

According to the American professor-researcher Hans-Peter Krosby, the Soviet Union had decided to exercise in the case of Finland exactly the same invasion procedure that was used with the Baltic Countries and Bessarabia:

"There is a reason to believe that the Soviet invasion of Finland was timed to take place in accordance with the assumed German landing to England, so that Germany getting totally stuck elsewhere could be used in advantage." 87.93.99.132 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

When the Finns had frozen their counterattack, the Soviets could concentrate to the fight against the Nazis and their allies

Ever since the war-opening Soviet offensive of June 25, 1941, the last major battle of the Continuation War - the Battle of Ilomantsi - turned out to be the war's most successful attempt of the Red Army to cross the war-preceding Finnish-Soviet border, although in the end two Red Army divisions were fully decimated and dismantled, as the Soviets were bushed back.

However, that battle is yet another evidence of the fact that up till the very end of the Continuation War, the Soviet intention to break through the Finnish defenses was serious.

At no point of the Continuation War, was the war considered to be a "sideshow" by the Soviet leadership. However, as the Soviets saw that the Finns were not going to participate in the siege of Leningrad or to try pushing further east, this gave the Soviets an opportunity to release forces elsewhere, to fight against the Nazis.

If the Finns would have joined the attack against Leningrad and if they would have cut the Allied supply lines over the Murmansk railroad and over Lake Ladoga, the Germans - instead - would have been able to release forces to the critical battles against the Soviets in south.

In that scenario, the final outcome of WW2 could very possibly have turned out to be very different than it did.

After its loss in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, the Red Army had began moving forces from the Finnish front, to be joined with the Red Army units marching towards Berlin, but - importantly -, not before.

It had become apparent to Stalin, that Finland could not be beaten militarily, and that it wouldn't be worth trying any harder at that stage, when additional Soviet forces were needed for the invasion on Germany.

Besides, continued large scale campaign to conquer Finland at this point would not have been viewed friendly by the Americans and English, who had pressured Stalin for early ending of the Finnish war and for fair conditions for the Finnish peace (Churchill's and Roosevelt's views and related quotes on this can be seen on the pages of the U.S. State Department report, provided earlier). 87.95.85.139 (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

THE SALLA RAILROAD PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE IN THE WESTWARD OFFENSIVE PLANS OF USSR

Breaking through northern Finland to northern Scandinavia - and conquering Finland in the process - played a major role in the Soviet over-all offensive plans against the west. Accordingly, what later became to be known as the Continuation War was in a key role on Stalin's drawing board (not a "sideshow", user Whiskey).

As a part of the Interim peace conditions, the Finns had been required to quickly build the railroad of Salla, enabling a railroad connection from the Soviet border to the Swedish border. During the Interim peace - before the Soviet war-opening attack on June 25, 1941 - the Soviets had demanded time after time that the Finns must speed up this work process.

Massive offensive preparations had been made on the level of Salla on the Soviet side of the border during the Interim peace period.

As historians have pointed out, the Salla railroad played a key role in the Soviet plans to conquer Finland, and to proceed through Sweden and Norway to the Atlantic coast and southward:

OHTO MANNINEN:

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.

BROR LAURILA:

This clearly shows that the intention of the Soviets was to conquer Finland and to proceed through Sweden and Norway to the Atlantic coast.

The railroad would not have had any meaningful commercial use. Also in Sweden, the military purpose of the railroad was seen in this way.

C. G. E. MANNERHEIM:

"The railroad construction that had started by the Soviets on the fall of 1939 proceeded rapidly. The most important stretches of the railroad, Petroskoi-Suojärvi, Louhi-Kiestinki ja Rutši-Salla were completed in a few months' time. To the last-mentioned stretch alone, over 100'000 forced labor workers were stationed. These railroad stretches were supported by 15 strategic roads for motor vehicles.

On approximately 200 kilometers wide boundary behind the border, airports were being built, the number of which was later concluded to be as many as 90."

HANS METZGER:

"There is no doubt that with the construction of the new railroad the Soviet Union sought purely militaristic goals against Finland, Sweden and Germany."

ERKKI NORDBERG:

"Only one conclusion can be made, and needs to be made, of the the Interim Peace period war preparations of the Soviet Union. The Red Army was preparing to attack west, and in the process to occupy Finland. This time it would be done immediately, and with even much larger forces that had been planned for 1939.". 87.93.111.58 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

INVASION OF FINLAND WAS FIRST INTENDED TO BE TIMED WITH GERMAN LANDING TO ENGLAND

MAX JAKOBSON:

If Germany would have executed its landing to England on the fall of 1940 (tying its forces to the western front), the Soviet Union would have attacked again against Finland then already - in which case the Finns would not have been able to receive help even from Germany (as they were able to in the Continuation War).

HANS PETER KROSBY:

"There is a reason to believe that the Soviet invasion of Finland was timed to take place in accordance with the assumed German landing to England, so that Germany getting totally stuck elsewhere could be used in advantage." 87.93.111.58 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DURING COLD WAR - NOT BEFORE - USSR PORTRAYED THE WAR AS PART OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR

User Whiskey: Please, don't remove important sourced information from the article. Please stop reverting against the statement in the above headline.

Despite requests, you haven't provided a single source, which supports your claim. All sources below show how and why USSR attempted to conquer Finland.

Among sources used are those from historians whom you have shown to respect - Ohto Manninen, Mauno Jokipii, etc.

Additionally, all of the sources in question are appropriate - known distinguished historians, and the related quotes and page numbers have been presented. More sources will be added, upon request.

The sources in question clearly show the following:

At the time when the Soviet Union started the Continuation War, it saw the war as an operation to conquer Finland, based on a plan which got its final shape in May, 1941, one month before the Soviet war-opening attack.

During the Cold War period, while admitting that it had started the war, the Soviet Union portrayed the war as a part of a greater "defensive" struggle, the Great Patriotic War. 87.93.111.58 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 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."

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

C. G. E. MANNERHEIM:

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:

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)

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)

USER WHISKEY: YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED ANY SOURCE SHOWING THE SOVIETS HAVING MOVED FORCES FROM THE AREA OF 'TALI-IHANTALA' BEFORE THE BATTLE. THUS, PLEASE DO NOT REVERT THE CORRECT INFO

As there isn't any support in historiography to the contrary, kindly please refrain from reverting the widely accepted true information:

The Soviets began moving forces from that front only after being defeated in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala - arguably the biggest artillery battle in history -, not before. 87.93.111.58 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of WWII?

If Finnish historians and leaders say that the Continuation War is not part of WWII (Mannerheim goes as far as saying that Finland was not part of the world war), would Finns prefer to not be associated with the history of the Second World War completely? For example, be taken off of maps, not be mentioned as a participant, etc. I'm asking this in all seriousness. Repdetect117 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not let one person's edits to confuse you. Sources are misused for his/her purposes. The mainstream Finnish academic research do not much differ from Western views (as it partly did before late 1980s). Peltimikko (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please find out below why and how user 'Peltimikko' is wrong in his supporting of Markku Jokisipilä's theory - critical facts on which have been proved falsely presented and untrue (article further below): 87.93.115.148 (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you view Finland's war with the Soviet Union to be not part of the fight between the Axis and the USSR. Please answer these two questions: - 1. Do you consider Finland to have been a participant in WW2? - 2. I'm sure WW2 is taught in Finland (schools, universities, etc). Is Finland seen as taking part in the conflict? Repdetect117 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In Finland, the Continuation War is seen/known to have taken place during WW2 and parallel to WW2 - of course -, but it is commonly referred to as "erillissota", a "separate war". Please take the rest of my answer directly below: 87.93.115.148 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a "separate war" from WW2 and a "parallel war" with WW2, i.e. the conflict between the Allies and the Axis

Respectfully, user Repdetect117:

I wish to help contribute the correct state of facts to Wikipedia, rather than my personal views, including - in the case of the Continuation War - how the Allied leaders, the Axis leaders and the Finnish leaders saw the Finnish-Soviet wars in the past, and how the wars are seen now by those who reflect the Finnish "official" and mainstream views/stances.

Based on all information available, the President of Finland Halonen, the much respected diplomat/minister/historian Jakobson and the Editor in Chief of Helsingin Sanomat Virkkunen represent well the Finnish "official" view and the view of an average Finn, whether a teacher, student or anyone else.

Not many would disagree with Virkkunen's statement that the current "official" Finnish view remains that the Continuation War was a "separate war". Some also refer to the Continuation War as a "parallel war". It was both.

"Separate" from what and "parallel" with what depends of the definition of WW2. Generally, however, the conflict between the Allied powers and the Axis powers is referred to as WW2 (in Wikipedia too) - and, with that definition, the Continuation War was a "separate war" from WW2 and a "parallel war" with WW2, i.e. the conflict between two opposing military alliances, the Allies and the Axis. 87.93.115.148 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it be an error then, to include Finland's wars (Continuation War, Lapland War) as part of of WWII? Repdetect117 (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As Finland was not a part of the Axis nor the Allies, the Lapland War was a "separate war" as well. 87.95.14.222 (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

While Finland may have seen its wars to be separate, Germany considered its own actions in Finland from 1941-1945 to be part of its overall war against the Soviet Union. Therefore, I do not believe it is wrong to consider Finland a theater of war during WWII (at least for Germany). Repdetect117 (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to think that the absence since your last response means that you agree with me. Repdetect117 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User Repdetect117: With the carefully chosen wording in your comment above, you are quite right.

The Germans had been fighting through the Finnish territories their war against the Soviet Union, and that conflict - unlike the Continuation War between the Finns and the Soviets - was a part of WW2.

Although the Lapland War was a "separate war" of WW2 (as Finland was not a part of the Axis nor the Allies), from the German point of view - however -, the Lapland War can be seen differently, as in that war the Germans were pushed away from Lapland, from where they had been fighting their war against the Allies.

For the above reason, many Germans view the Lapland War as a part of WW2, from the German perspective. Boris Novikov (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Peltimikko pushes personal POV, without sources. Opponent tells what sources say: Halonen, Jakobson, Virkkunen, etc.

Please notice the important difference in the two approaches mentioned in the above headline.

Although user Peltimikko's efforts are appreciated, he has clearly shown not to be a neutral source in this or other related questions. He does not represent the mainstream thinking in Finland.

For instance, on this page user Peltimikko defended and quoted Mr. Jokisipilä's view, according to which the Finnish participation during WW2 could be compared to that of Italy, Hungary and Romania, all of which were official allies of the Nazi Germany, all having signed the Tripartite Pact.

Finland, however, did not sign a military alliance with Germany. The Anti-Comintern Pact, signed in 1941 by 13 nations, in no way established a military alliance between Germany and Finland.

As user Whiskey pointed out to user Peltimikko, the Anti-Comintern Pact signed in 1941 by 13 nations, "didn't have any military articles, it mainly concerned intelligence and police co-operation between the countries".

In the link provided on this page by user Peltimikko himself, the Editor in Chief of the largest Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, Janne Virkkunen, stated in the newspaper's head column just a little over a year ago, that Finland's official stance currently remains, that the Finnish-Soviet Continuation War was a "separate war" (from the conflict between the Allied powers and the Axis powers).

Rather than pointing out what your own personal view is, user Peltimikko, it is much more appropriate in Wikipedia to bring up what the various main political and military leaders, historians and the main media representatives, such as Virkkunen, have stated about questions like this.

The sources provided are from after "late 1980s", thus showing that you're a wrong. Please just view the Max Jakobson's writings alone, provided above.

Again: Where are user Peltimikko's sources ? He did provide a quote and a page from Mr. Jokisipilä, but that quote was shown to be not true. These type of false claims of Mr. Jokisipilä and statements of his which have been proved to be untrue have all but made him an unreliable - a "no good" - source.

Please, take the rest of my answer below. User Peltimikko's statement shows that a few things need to be repeated: 87.93.115.148 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WHY DO HALONEN, JAKOBSON, VIRKKUNEN - AND OTHERS - KEEP REMINDING OF THE SEPARATE WAR

The Finns helped the Allied war efforts against the Nazis in important ways

The Finns were fighting a "separate war" - not to be mixed with the German campaign against the Soviet Union. The Soviet-Finnish war - the Continuation War - was launched by a massive Soviet attack against Finland on June 25, 1941, a Soviet continued determination to conquer Finland, as clearly shown in the following sources (the use of some of these historians as sources has been supported by the users Posse72, Peltimikko, Whiskey and Illythr, among others):

The Finns refused to cooperate with the Nazis in many critical 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.

The current President of Finland Tarja Halonen has reminded that the Continuation War was a "separate war" (from the conflict between the Allied powers and the Axis powers).

Halonen has also reminded of the war-time Finnish policy which secured the operation of the Allied "lifeline" of help over Lake Ladoga, helping to save Leningrad from the Nazi occupation.

By not participating in the siege of Leningrad - alone -, the Finns prohibited a huge strategic and moral victory from the Nazis.

If the Finns would have cut the critical Allied supply lines - the Murmansk railroad and the so called "lifeline" over Lake Ladoga; and if they would have kept the pressure high on the Soviet forces; and if they would have attacked against the city of Leningrad, the Soviets would have gotten into a very difficult situation.

In that scenario, not as much Soviet forces - if any - could have been freed for fighting in south, as they were now, after the Soviets had become convinced of the Finns having frozen their counterattack.

German forces could have been released from the Leningrad front instead, to the battles in south - and, the entire WW2 might very possibly have ended in a different outcome than it did.

Acknowledging the above fact, In the Tehran Conference, ending December 1, 1943, the Allied leaders sued for early separation of Finland from its war - and, due to the above, Stalin was pushed toward providing fair peace conditions to Finland. 87.93.115.148 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How user Peltimikko is wrong in his continued supporting of Jokisipilä's theory on this:

User Peltimikko says: "According to Markku Jokisipilä's book, Aseveljiä vai liittolaiset?, the Finnish political situation was similar comparing Italy, Hungary and Romania. All these countries did not have formal treaty with Nazi Germany, but they are still counted as allies. Only Italians had ideological similarities with Nazis."

We must remind user Peltimikko again:

If Markku Jokisipilä indeed claims what you're stating above, user Peltimikko - that Italy, Hungary and Romania "did not have formal treaty with Nazi Germany" -, Jokisipilä is mistaken:

1) - Italy joined the Tripartite Pact on September 27, 1940.

2) - Hungary joined the Tripartite Pact on November 20, 1940.

3) - Romania joined the Tripartite Pact on November 23, 1940.

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

The Anti-Comintern Pact, signed in 1941 by 13 nations, in no way established a military alliance between Germany and Finland, and the nature of that treaty is quite well described by user Whiskey above.

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. 87.93.115.148 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

SEPARATE WAR HAS ONLY BEEN FURTHER ENFORCED SINCE 1980s, USER PELTIMIKKO

MINISTER MAX JAKOBSON (1999): "WHEN GIVING UP ITS DEMAND FOR FULL SURRENDER, MOSCOW ADMITTED THE SEPARATE NATURE OF THE FINNISH WAR".

PRESIDENT OF FINLAND TARJA HALONEN (2005): "SEPARATE WAR"

EDITOR IN CHIEF OF HELSINGIN SANOMAT JANNE VIRKKUNEN (2008): THE FINNISH "OFFICIAL STANCE" REMAINS THAT IT WAS A "SEPARATE WAR". 87.93.115.148 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

INTENTION TO ATTACK FINLAND MATERIALIZED ACCORDING TO PLAN TO CONQUER, FINALIZED IN MAY, 1941

The intention to attack Finland materialized based on a plan to conquer, which got its final shape in May, 1941.

(Source for the May completion of the attack plan: Manninen, Ohto, 'Talvisodan salatut taustat', pages 48-52) 87.93.115.148 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Plans to "resettle" the entire population of Finland to Siberia

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"

This should be mentioned somewhere. Important, is not it?Biophys (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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 [16], [17].

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)

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)

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) [18] -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)

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 [19]. 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... [20] (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)

THE SOVIETS THEMSELVES HAVE "EMPHASIZED" THAT THEY STARTED THE AGGRESSIONS

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. Boris Novikov (talk) 03:20, 10 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." 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)

You have been given the exact well known fact, and the detailed source information and the related quote from the highly regarded historian.

I have no room in my briefcase to hold on to a large amount of books and/or Soviet documents continuously. The research work is something that the specialists on the field conduct, such as historians and researchers. I only report their findings. However, when I get a chance, I can look it up for you.

Please be specific, user YMB29: I have no idea what you are referring to by "Finland did before". The Soviets began attacking against Finland on June 22, 1941, at 06:05. As concluded, the Soviets have admitted and "even emphasized" that they started the war. Thus, no point for us to argue about that part. 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)

FIRST ATTACK TO FINNISH TERRITORY WAS ON JUNE 22, 1941, STARTING 06:05

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:

"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)

POW deaths

Just wondering why number of SU POWs died in Finnish captivity is prominently listed in the data while respective list like Finnish prisoners of war in the Soviet Union is not listed in same context even though - compared to ~ 30 % SU POWs lost in Finland - apparently ~ 40 % of Finnish POWs in SU died or went missing during captivity or transfers. Which IMO is a rather clear WP:NPOV violation. Either both sides should be represented or then neither. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please help to improve the article with correct information and appropriate sources. 87.95.136.112 (talk) 23:38, 4 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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

Our job is to report the findings of the specialists - scholars and historian - on the field, and to bring forth these sources full with the related page numbers and the exact quotes.

Wikipedia users can not be expected to brake down these findings of 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 - result of research - are.

However, when I return from my travels, I may be able to help provide more details about that particular Soviet admission.

As previously discussed on this page, also Molotov did not deny the Soviet attack to Mannerheim on June 23, 1941. Boris Novikov (talk) 14:34, 13 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)

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)

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":

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)

Wrong - please take my answer below: Boris Novikov (talk) 15:48, 13 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.

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 - and a bit of repeating - below: 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)

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.

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 [21]:

"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)

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)