![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Can there be some more balance by the choice of pics? This is not a Finnish school book. -- Voyevoda ( talk) 21:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
What does "nominally belligerent" mean? The only reason for Italy beeing in the list was that, that there was indeed an actual participation of Italy in the Lake Ladoga flotilla including combat action. This isnt a nominal participation, this is an actual participation. For example nominally also Romania or Bulgaria were belligerents, but actually they werent involved in any fighting (Bulgaria for the whole eastern front). Regarding Britain "nominally" doesnt fit too. The Continuation war lasted from 25 June 1941 to 19 September 1944 between Nazi Germany/Finland against the Soviet Union and in this timespan there was at least one major British action (carrier strike) and several minor actions (attack on German shipping, aerial support missions for the Soviets etc.). The fact that the British declaration of war happened after those incidents doesnt matter, because the war already started on 25 June. Those attacks may have been targeted more against Germany, but Germany was also a major player in the Continuation War. Countries have been added for lesser particiation than what the UK did here, so Italy and the UK should be just added as normal belligerents which they were, because "nominally" is just misleading in this case. StoneProphet ( talk) 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Currently listed as
Though these values, at least according to source criticism do not seem to be truly valid, note earlier criticism in Talk:Continuation_War/Archive_13#1.2C500.2C0000_from_Manninen. Second issue is that the citation is a reference to Krivisheyev's data from which the value of 451,500 is only the incomplete data for the offensive against the Finns. It does not include all the forced actually involved in that offensive nor does it include any of the forces facing the German AOK Norwegen nor does it include forces facing Finnish 14th Division (to my knowledge). - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
As per previously discussed Krivosheyev's data is lacking sizable portion of the formations that actually were involved in the offensive (at least for LF - Rifle Divisions: Krivosheyev, 16; other researchers roughly 25 - armored formations: Krivosheyev, 1 brigade; other researchers, 1-3 brigades, 14-15 regiments, and so on). Though the value might be accurate reference to the number of infantry units involved at the start of the offensive it is not accurate representation of actual Soviet strength involved in the summer offensive of 1944 nor it is in any way accurate representation of the full Soviet strength facing Finland either. Either the information must be qualified in the data box or replaced with more representative value. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate if some one could point out how the first value (450,390) is derived (either from the book or elsewhere), thank you. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
year | KIA/MIA | Died | WIA | Sickness | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1941 | 138 000 | 3 000 | 121 000 | 13 500 | 275 500 |
1942 | 46 000 | 3 500 | 82 000 | 61 000 | 192 000 |
1943 | 12 000 | 1 000 | 22 000 | 47 000 | 82 000 |
1944 | 57 500 | 2 000 | 157 500 | 68 000 | 126 000 |
253 500 | 9 500 | 382 500 | 188 500 | 835 000 |
For those new to this page, the disputes here have entered mediation at the Mediation Cabal. The mediation page can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala. For the involved parties, Wanderer602 and YMB29, I think it would be best if all discussion on this talk page stops until the mediation starts properly. You have both agreed to the ground rules, one of which was this: "Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature." Note that this does extend to the talk page as well - it wouldn't make any sense to refactor incivility on the mediation page but to ignore it on the talk page, for example. I can see that there has been some animosity between both of you, and this really has to stop if we are going to make progress in resolving this dispute. For now, the best way to do that is to stop discussion here and wait for the mediation to start properly. To this end, I will archive the discussion on this page to remove the temptation to reply to previous threads. Please bear with me while I review the dispute and decide the mediation agenda. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Collapsed comment
|
---|
I went quickly through Mannerheim's memoirs, Finnish HQ War diaries and couple of other sources in addition to Internet sources. All agree that Finnish offensive into Ladoga Karelia did not start until 10 July. First Finnish led unit (ie. south of the operational boundary) to start its offensive was Finnish 14th Division which crossed the border on July 4 (but to East Karelia, not to Ladoga Karelia). Finnish war diaries do mention repeated Soviet attacks against Finns before 10 July - even makes note of capturing anti-tank guns after beating Soviets back - in addition to sort of artillery duels. What happened on the stated 29 June was that German led AOK Norwegen started its offensive - even then it was only the German Platinfuchs operation (which included a regiment of Finnish troops) aimed at Murmansk which started at that time. German operation Polarfuchs (first offensive to actually have Finnish divisions) started on 1 July. If Baryshnikov can't get even such a simple fact regarding the time when the offensive started right how do you consider what he reports as reliable? - Wanderer602 ( talk) 15:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
835,000 casualties from Manninen includes of the civilian population? If so, please specify where he says that Finland has not participated in the siege of Leningrad.-- Germash19 ( talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Removed from the template strength in 1944, the user Wanderer602 was agree with it.-- Germash19 ( talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted information is not relevant to the article. Removed a great piece about the USSR - the text is not associated with the topic of the article, it does not show the reasons for the entry of the USSR into the war, the analysis of the actions in the war.-- Germash19 ( talk) 20:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is an ongoing dispute at Continuation War and related articles about the name we should use for the town of Viipuri/ Vyborg during World War II. Viipuri is the Finnish name for this town, and Vyborg is the Russian name.
Today, the town is known as Vyborg, but it has changed hands several times during the course of history, including three times in World War II. The town was part of Finland until the Peace of Moscow, and was handed to Russia in March, 1940; it became part of the Karelo-Finnish SSR. Finnish troops recaptured the town on August 29, 1941 and claimed it as part of Finland soon afterwards, although it was still laid claim to by Russia throughout the rest of the war. Russian troops captured it again in June 1944, and on September 19 the Moscow Armistice was signed, in which Finland agreed to recognize it as part of the USSR again. Also at this time, it was transferred from the Karelo-Finnish SSR to the Russian SSR. Finland formally relinquished all claim to the town in 1947. (For more details see Vyborg#History.) In this RfC we are concerned with what name should be used for the town from the start of World War II in 1939 to the Moscow Armistice in September 1944. This affects articles involving the Winter War and the Continuation War, which include Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945), and others.
This issue is one of the issues being debated in the Continuation War MedCab mediation, and before filing this RfC we have gone through some of the steps in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) in a fairly systematic fashion, to try and determine if there is a widely-accepted English name for Vyborg/Viipuri during the time period in question. After some decent discussion, which can be found here, we came to the conclusion that there was no such name. However, there is disagreement among the mediation participants as to what exactly the guideline specifies we should do in this event. Through this RfC we would like both clarification on how to interpret the guideline in this case, and also to build a lasting consensus about what name should be used in the articles involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Please include either Viipuri or Vyborg in bold to indicate which name you think should be used in the article, along with your rationale. If you would like to make a general comment you can indicate that by prefacing it with Comment if you like. General discussion of the issues should go in the "threaded discussion" section below. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
So as such, I think this RfC contains a false premise: that Vyborg is the Russian name. Paavo273 ( talk) 18:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
If the mediation participants would like to make other editors aware of these comments, the information in them should be added to the statement sections below. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
If the mediation participants would like to make other editors aware of these comments, the information in them should be added to the statement sections below. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
IN RESPONSE TO REMARK IN PELTIMIKKO'S VOTE ABOVE WHICH WAS A RESPONSE TO PAAVO273'S REMARK ABOUT OCCUPATION/OCCUPYING TERRITORY IN P273'S VOTE
Hi YMB29: I think the meaning of "occupy" kind of depends on *whose* point of view, kind of like who's a patriot and who's a terrorist. To speak of treaties and such is pretty academic, not real' dispositive of actual rights, when one of the parties to the treaty is taking by force, is the government of a warring culture of bullies (just e.g., the Soviet empire, American empire, British empire, Roman empire) Whiskey, I never understood until you pointed it out that the "official languages of the [Karelo-Finnish SSR] republic was Finnish and Russian." That seems pretty straightforward to me. Paavo273 ( talk) 16:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
YMB29: You are correct, that no treaty gave Viipuri back to Finland. After the Finns conquested most of (Finnish and Soviet) Karelia, they immediately incorporated the Finnish Karelia (just lost over a year earlier) back to motherland. For the conquested part of Karelia, so called East Karelia, was established a separated (and temporary) military administration. Peltimikko ( talk) 21:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
If the mediation participants would like to make other editors aware of these comments, the information in them should be added to the statement sections below. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
To the mediation participants, Wanderer602, YMB29, and Whiskey: please stop arguing about who occupied who, and who Vyborg/Viipuri might have "officially" belonged to during 1940-1944. This is already covered in the text of the RfC itself, and in a version to which you all agreed, no less. All this back-and-forth arguing is getting in the way of thoughtful debate, and is likely off-putting to outside editors coming in to comment on this RfC. Please don't forget that the precise reason we are having an RfC is to get outside input; if we could have solved this by agreement among ourselves then we would have done that already. I think I shall instigate a new rule - from now on, you can't reply directly to other mediation participants in this RfC thread. Instead, you should put your comments in a section which I will create below, and you are only allowed to edit your own sections. Also, if the statements become too long, I may require you to reduce their size, so please be concise. Thanks for your cooperation. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This section is for participants in the MedCab mediation on the Battle of Tali-Ihantala and the Continuation War; namely, Wanderer602, YMB29, and Whiskey. Instead of replying directly to each other on this talk page, they should write in their own sections here, and should not edit each other's sections. Statements here should also be kept as concise as possible. Please note that other editors are still free to ask them questions in the "comment" section and the "threaded discussion" section, and they are free to reply, but if continuing the conversation involves one mediation participant replying to another, then the statements here should be updated instead. I would also like to politely ask other editors to refrain from commenting in this section or from adding their own statements here, and instead direct them to either the "comments" or "threaded discussion" sections above. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
From Danzig vs. Gdansk we know that we have to use the historical name (English or local). We already know this so there is no need to constantly refer to it or to other cases. We have to establish a historical name for this case. Saying that Viipuri has to be used until 1944 "following the Talk:Gdansk/Vote ruling" or because Istanbul was known as Constantinople is not helping to resolve this dispute...
Comparing the Finnish annexation of the city during the war to the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in general is also not helping. - YMB29 ( talk) 17:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
So I guess if Vyborg was still Finnish after the Winter War, we must accept the legitimacy of the Karelo-Finnish SSR as a truly Finnish republic... Just because the city was not part of the Russian SFSR does not mean that it was not known by its Russian name in the USSR. - YMB29 ( talk) 04:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
According to Danzig/Gdansk vote, the local historical name should be used in the situations when the town changes ownership. This is a good, diplomatic solution which recognizes the value of the town to both countries, and offers a simple, concise policy to follow in similar cases. Like this one.
I think we all agree, that the town should be called Viipuri until March 13 1940, when the Winter War ended and the town with the surrounding area was ceded to Soviet Union. Also, I think we all agree, that the town should be called Vyborg after the November 1944, when the area was incorporated to Russian SSR and Leningrad Oblast.
To decide what was the local historical name of the town between those two dates, one should know a little bit about the history: According to contemporary Soviet history writing, the Finnish Democratic Republic, the Soviet minded puppet government Stalin created in the beginning of the Winter War, consisted after the Moscow Peace Treaty only those areas Finland ceded to Soviet Union. Immediately after the war Finnish Democratic Republic formed an union with Karelian Autonomic SSR, and formed a Karelo-Finnish SSR, where Finnish was a first official language and Russian the second. Even the national anthem was a Finnish song! At that time the official name of the town was Viipuri, although written in Cyrilic alphabet: Виипури. It was only after November 1944, when the local governance of the town was changed from Karelo-Finnish SSR to Russian SSR, and the official name was changed to Vyborg (Выборг). -- Whiskey ( talk) 20:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The article says that the United Kingdom followed Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India in declaring war on Finland. Just one problem: only Canada was in the Commonwealth or had the power to declare war at the time (along with South Africa and Ireland: the two other members of the Commonwealth). Australia acquired control of foreign policy with the passage of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, New Zealand with the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947, and India with independence in 1947. They all joined the war automatically when the United Kingdom declared war. Indeed, Australia symbolically back-dated the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 so that it took effect on 3 September 1939 - allowing Australia's legally-redundant 'declaration of war' to be effective (and thus convey their willingness to fight, rather than obligation to do so). Bastin 13:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:DefenceOfTheSovietTransarcticMedal.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
There is edit warring going on over KIA, so I have blocked the page for three days to allow those editors who are interested time to present their evidence and come to some sort of consensus. -- PBS ( talk) 12:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to say that the only clear data which can show the Soviet losses is the Russian archives. Krivosheev worked with the archives of the Russian defence ministry and his numbers are officially adopted in Russia, they also recognized by David Glantz who on the West considered as the best military historian on the USSR. So I insist on keeping his numbers, otherwise it is a double standard policy where Wiki shows the numbers of Axis from the Axis sources (in Russia they are accepted) yet they refuse to accept the Russian numbers on the Russian casualties. This is not concensus whatsoever. Russian historians also give higher casualties of Axis however I do not insist on putting them here. The most fair solution is to put Finnish/German data on the Finnish/German losses and Russian data on the Russian losses. Both sides know better how many they lost, let's omit revisionism and stick to the facts. The numbers of Russian casualties taken from foreign historians do not depict the reality, cos those historians have never seen Russian records.
Alexander Pastukh ( talk) 08:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
For example the ВЫБОРГСКО-ПЕТРОЗАВОДСКАЯ СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКАЯ НАСТУПАТЕЛЬНАЯ ОПЕРАЦИЯ entry in Krivosheyev's work, it contains several errors which cast considerable doubt over the reported numbers. First the Leningrad fronts offensive is marked as having ended on June 20, while in reality that was merely the day the offensive stalled, LF attempted to advance all the way until mid July, but Krivosheyev disregards theses losses from his table - and those losses were much heavier than what preceded them. Second, the number of units in the tables, even cursory glance on Soviet TOE (БОЕВОЙ СОСТАВ СОВЕТСКОЙ АРМИИ - ЧАСТЬ IV -(Январь – декабрь 1944 г.) - МОСКВА, ВОЕННОЕ ИЗДАТЕЛЬСТВО, 1988) shows that Krivosheyev's numbers for the units involved in the fighting are wildly misleading - Krivosheyev: (LF) 15 rifle div, 1 armored brigade, 2 fortified regions, official TOE (for 21st & 23rd armies, July 1) 24 rifle divisions, 1 armored brigade (+10 armored battalions), without even taking into account front reserves of which a lot are known to have been involved in the fighting - again casting doubt on how the casualty numbers reported by Krivosheyev could ever be complete. These are exactly the issues which the Manninen and other researchers have addressed. Hence their numbers have more validity than what Krivosheyev's does.
Looking at СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКАЯ ОБОРОНИТЕЛЬНАЯ ОПЕРАЦИЯ в Заполярье и Карелии we can see that Krivosheyev arbitrarily assigns the end date of the operation on October 1 while Finnish offensive continued all the way until December. Also the Leningrad fronts losses are totally absent from the list.
When full front is missing from one entry and another omits a full army from its listing (59th Army at Viborg area in 1944) and when the end dates of the operations do not correspond with the actual events that took place during the war the numbers provided by Krivosheyev are not the full truth, far from it. Furthermore instead of following casualties formation by formation throughout the war Krivosheyev divides these to 'operations' which conveniently omits the time between the operations (with Finnish front that means Krivosheyev's data omits the losses from the utterly failed offensives by the Karelian Front (x2) and the 7th Separate Army during 1942). Other authors have merely worked to address these deficiencies of Krivosheyev's data. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 12:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Find me evidence and numbers of Soviet losses suffered by the Karelian front and 7th Separate Army against the Finns in spring 1942 and those suffered by Karelian front in autumn 1942? Find me the numbers of Soviet losses suffered by Karelian front and 7th Separate Army both after 1 October to the end of Finnish offensive phase? Soviet losses during the trench warfare (incl. 1st Partisan Brigade)? Find me evidence and numbers of Leningrad Fronts losses in the Karelian Isthmus (against the Finns) after 20 June 1944? Find me the numbers of the losses suffered by the Soviet 59th Army in Bay of Viborg from June 30 to July 10? All those are relevant and absent from the data you offered.
Units identified in the TOE are the same as identified in joint Finnish-Russian books regarding the war by Ari Raunio & Juri Kilin, published 2007 & 2008, who used both Finnish and Russian archival data - only contradictory source is Krivosheyev, others (both Finnish and Russian historians) agree that number of formations was much higher.
And you still have not addressed the issue that the scope of the Krivosheyev's numbers does not fit into that which is the scope of the war or even the articles of individual battles - which alone invalidates the use of his numbers. For example for the Leningrad Front after 20 June 1944 there exists Stavka orders for attack to continue, Finnish & German & Soviet war diaries, casualty reports the works which other researchers have used, however these all are omitted by Krivosheyev.
Finnish offensive phase ended in Karelian Isthmus on early September after receiving orders in late August to form a defensive line (at the time facing 23rd Army of the Leningrad Front), in Svir area on mid September after reaching per orders the roads running parallel to the river on the south shore of Svir, in Maaselkä/Povonets area in December 5 when Finns captured Povonets. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Manninen actually does not include everything - which he openly admits - as the loss reports he used were from rather low level, which as per Manninen and others means that number of 'non-irreplaceable' losses (wounded) actually ended up being 'irreplaceable' (dead) as some wounded soldiers died after they had left from the bookkeeping of front line units - so his numbers are slightly biased into having elevated numbers of wounded and diminished number of 'irreplaceable' losses. However since the scope of his study and the numbers actually cover the whole operation and not just certain portion of it is far more representative than what Krivosheyev has. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 09:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Or can you explain why does Krivosheyev's table have an explicit cut off date of June 20 for the Leningrad Fronts offensive (which in reality continued until mid July)? Or can you explain how there are so many formations (including whole army, the 59th Army) missing from his listing that other lists - like official TOE have? - Wanderer602 ( talk) 13:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
So despite the fact that initial plans called for longer advance and that STAVKA itself ordered the LF's offensive to continue far deeper than it had it is by all rights valid to agree that the offensive ended on 20 June? Besides hiding matters would not exactly be a surprise from the former Soviet Union, it took long enough from it or its successor to start admissions regarding the Winter War (some 50 years). - Wanderer602 ( talk) 06:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
So despite that the offensive of the Karelian Front started in adjacent sector it is perfectly ok to forget that inconvenient fact that the LF also attempted to to keep advancing all the way until mid July, or at least its ok to forget the casualties it suffered, time when losses easily surpassed those suffered between 9-20 June? I'm afraid i do not quite follow your insinuations, could you please state (and answer the question) the issue plainly instead of avoiding it? - Wanderer602 ( talk) 05:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes it could be viewed as a success - or a victory - since Finland survived WWII, into which Soviets forced Finns to take part, without being overrun or taken over unlike most of the countries in the Baltics or in the Eastern Europe. But is not saying it was a victory in generic terms. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 05:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Problem with Krivosheyev is how it is portrayed. It is not a book about Soviet losses, it is a book about Soviet losses suffered in operations as they are defined in Soviet historiography (well, that section of the book anyway). That there lies the problem. Russian historians admit that LF continued it's offensive until nearly mid-July but the Soviet/Russian historiography does not. And instead of actually following through or even noting that heavy fighting continued Krivosheyev does not even acknowledge that there was anything going on after 20 June at Karelian Isthmus. It does not mean that it is worthless but it means that the values from the book can not be used unless very specific conditions are fulfilled. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 05:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Soviet historiography tried to hide the whole Winter War ever took place to make the Soviet Union look better for more than 50 years. Given the extent of that attempt it is not exactly far fetched to apply some criticism on 'traditional Soviet historiography' with regards of other failures at the front lines.
And what would i be ignoring? That Krivosheyev uses wrong dates to describe the offensive? Mind you, even though the 'Vyborg operation' would have ended on 20 June, the offensive in which LF continued from Viipuri towards Lappeenranta after 20 June was still part of the overall offensive and that phase is totally absent from Krivosheyev's work. It is not mentioned, it is not hinted, there is nothing about it. Even though STAVKA orders make it crystal clear that it was part of the offensive. Please provide something concrete should you have anything. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It took until 1988 for the Soviet Union to admit that it had attacked in the Winter War. And some circle's still seem to be refuting the Mainila shelling.
Finnish independence was somewhat repressed by Finlandization (avoiding antagonizing the Soviet Union), that is true, however all the same it still remained free from the Soviet Union's control, also Finland maintained democratically elected government throughout and after the war. Same was not true with the Eastern European countries. They were nothing more than satellite states of the Soviet Union. Only formally independent, however not in practice.
I would be happy to stick with the topic but last i checked you inquired several times for more information which i seemed obliged to provide. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 05:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Assuming you actually read the posts i mentioned several times that they were merely formally independent, please read about that from Eastern Block and related pages - it is discussed there. Also Finland does not fit under vassal state by any definition. And again, could you please stop with the insinuations, if you have something to say, say it. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
After the offensive Soviets changed their demands to address the terms in the previous demand that Finns had found impossible to accept - judging from the treaty texts the offensive was a net loss to the Soviets regardless of the perspective. Do not forget that Finns had been willing to seek a way out of war since 1943 and only the few sticking points (which Soviets reduced after the offensive) mentioned with regards to spring 1944 negotiations caused them to fail. Democratic system works in different manner than a dictatorship. Also, once again, Germans had never been Finnish allies in any formal sense. Neither were they referred to as such by Finns (or AFAIK even by Germans). Again, keeping the facts clear makes it easier to reach a conclusion. And yes they did start a war against the Germans, after first jointly evacuating the area which was expected to be fought upon and by leasing more transportation equipment to Germans in order to facilitate smoother evacuation (since Germans were leaving even without a war). - Wanderer602 ( talk) 22:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
It would be beneficial to all involved if you would avoid making false claims. Only you have stated that they were puppet states, only you have insisted on that discussion. I merely pointed out, with several references that they were 'satellite states' (hence as per definition only formally independent).
I think you missed the word 'ironically' which meant that rest were there only to point out the folly of calling Finland as a vassal state. While Finnish politics took the Soviet Union union into account (ie. Finlandization) it still remained fully independent, something which did not held true with regards to the Eastern European Soviet satellite states. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The way I see the Finno-German relations in 1941-1944, there is no simple definition for them, in 1941 Finland was preparing for a war with Soviet Union, that's the reason we allowed the German presence in Lapland, but we (I am a Finn-) did not want to be the ones to start the war, and once the Operation Barbarossa started Finland, while mining the Gulf of Finland in cooperation with Germany, did not attack Soviet Union until the Soviet Union started bombing Finnish civilian population, while the casus belli of the Continuation war can be disputed the fact remains that Finland attacked to retake the lost territories and after that secured a buffer zone, we could have helped the Germany to crush the siege of Leningrad but we didn't (in fact the buffer on the Karelian isthmus was non-existent), so I'd say that after the war started the Finno-German relationship regarding Soviet Union was that of co-belligerence, and in 1944 when the
Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement was signed Finland became de facto ally of Germany, what was the case in between is open for dispute.
Ape89 (
talk)
19:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
YMB29 in Spring 1944 Finland started discussions with Soviet Union about ending the war, and the Soviet Union demanded unconditional surrender, the same demand was repeated after the Summer offensive started, but after battle of Tali-Ihantala Soviets denied ever having demanded unconditional surrender and the peace talks began. As per my policy of citing only sources available online I am currently unable to provide sources for this.
However, I do have a source that supports the above; The Moscow Declaration: "Joined Four-Nations Declaration
The governments of the United States of America, United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China;
United in their determination, in accordance with the declaration by the United Nations of January, 1942, and subsequent declarations, to continue hostilities against those Axis powers with which they respectively are at war until such powers have laid down their arms on the basis of unconditional surrender;..." Ape89 ( talk) 11:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually with regards to this topic, does there exist any other source for summaries of Soviet losses than Krivosheyev? Either at Army or even lower level summaries (10-day reports perhaps)? Thing is we do know which Soviet units were facing the Finns, or at least which larger formations were, so it could be possible to go around that route - even if it is slightly OR-ish. If the reports are accurate enough then it might even be possible to split losses according to Finnish/German operational boundary if desired. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 07:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
What would people think about using "Viborg" for the name of the disputed town between 1939-1944? I personally found this suggestion the most persuasive of all the arguments put forward during the RfC, and I heartily thank PMAnderson for posting this Google NGram link showing how popular the different names have been in books over time. I also hope that Viborg could be a compromise of sorts, and that it might be possible for all the editors involved to learn to live with it. I think it is worth discussing this now, as I don't think this issue was discussed in any depth in the RfC, and it seems to me like it could be an acceptable solution. All opinions are welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Results of the Google Books searches are in. These searches are all limited to between November 1939 and September 1944:
Note that many of these results overlap - any source that talks about Viborg and Finland at the time is quite likely to talk about Russia as well, for example. For our purposes, the most obvious result is that Viborg was much more common in relation to Finland than it was to Denmark. Whether "Viborg" or "Viipuri" was more common is less clear. We have slightly more results for Viborg Finland than for Viipuri Finland, but this is reversed for Viborg Russia and Viipuri Russia. More analysis is welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
So should it be changed to Viborg? -
YMB29 (
talk)
16:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I am going to change it to Viborg. -
YMB29 (
talk)
20:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Can there be some more balance by the choice of pics? This is not a Finnish school book. -- Voyevoda ( talk) 21:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
What does "nominally belligerent" mean? The only reason for Italy beeing in the list was that, that there was indeed an actual participation of Italy in the Lake Ladoga flotilla including combat action. This isnt a nominal participation, this is an actual participation. For example nominally also Romania or Bulgaria were belligerents, but actually they werent involved in any fighting (Bulgaria for the whole eastern front). Regarding Britain "nominally" doesnt fit too. The Continuation war lasted from 25 June 1941 to 19 September 1944 between Nazi Germany/Finland against the Soviet Union and in this timespan there was at least one major British action (carrier strike) and several minor actions (attack on German shipping, aerial support missions for the Soviets etc.). The fact that the British declaration of war happened after those incidents doesnt matter, because the war already started on 25 June. Those attacks may have been targeted more against Germany, but Germany was also a major player in the Continuation War. Countries have been added for lesser particiation than what the UK did here, so Italy and the UK should be just added as normal belligerents which they were, because "nominally" is just misleading in this case. StoneProphet ( talk) 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Currently listed as
Though these values, at least according to source criticism do not seem to be truly valid, note earlier criticism in Talk:Continuation_War/Archive_13#1.2C500.2C0000_from_Manninen. Second issue is that the citation is a reference to Krivisheyev's data from which the value of 451,500 is only the incomplete data for the offensive against the Finns. It does not include all the forced actually involved in that offensive nor does it include any of the forces facing the German AOK Norwegen nor does it include forces facing Finnish 14th Division (to my knowledge). - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
As per previously discussed Krivosheyev's data is lacking sizable portion of the formations that actually were involved in the offensive (at least for LF - Rifle Divisions: Krivosheyev, 16; other researchers roughly 25 - armored formations: Krivosheyev, 1 brigade; other researchers, 1-3 brigades, 14-15 regiments, and so on). Though the value might be accurate reference to the number of infantry units involved at the start of the offensive it is not accurate representation of actual Soviet strength involved in the summer offensive of 1944 nor it is in any way accurate representation of the full Soviet strength facing Finland either. Either the information must be qualified in the data box or replaced with more representative value. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate if some one could point out how the first value (450,390) is derived (either from the book or elsewhere), thank you. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
year | KIA/MIA | Died | WIA | Sickness | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1941 | 138 000 | 3 000 | 121 000 | 13 500 | 275 500 |
1942 | 46 000 | 3 500 | 82 000 | 61 000 | 192 000 |
1943 | 12 000 | 1 000 | 22 000 | 47 000 | 82 000 |
1944 | 57 500 | 2 000 | 157 500 | 68 000 | 126 000 |
253 500 | 9 500 | 382 500 | 188 500 | 835 000 |
For those new to this page, the disputes here have entered mediation at the Mediation Cabal. The mediation page can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala. For the involved parties, Wanderer602 and YMB29, I think it would be best if all discussion on this talk page stops until the mediation starts properly. You have both agreed to the ground rules, one of which was this: "Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature." Note that this does extend to the talk page as well - it wouldn't make any sense to refactor incivility on the mediation page but to ignore it on the talk page, for example. I can see that there has been some animosity between both of you, and this really has to stop if we are going to make progress in resolving this dispute. For now, the best way to do that is to stop discussion here and wait for the mediation to start properly. To this end, I will archive the discussion on this page to remove the temptation to reply to previous threads. Please bear with me while I review the dispute and decide the mediation agenda. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Collapsed comment
|
---|
I went quickly through Mannerheim's memoirs, Finnish HQ War diaries and couple of other sources in addition to Internet sources. All agree that Finnish offensive into Ladoga Karelia did not start until 10 July. First Finnish led unit (ie. south of the operational boundary) to start its offensive was Finnish 14th Division which crossed the border on July 4 (but to East Karelia, not to Ladoga Karelia). Finnish war diaries do mention repeated Soviet attacks against Finns before 10 July - even makes note of capturing anti-tank guns after beating Soviets back - in addition to sort of artillery duels. What happened on the stated 29 June was that German led AOK Norwegen started its offensive - even then it was only the German Platinfuchs operation (which included a regiment of Finnish troops) aimed at Murmansk which started at that time. German operation Polarfuchs (first offensive to actually have Finnish divisions) started on 1 July. If Baryshnikov can't get even such a simple fact regarding the time when the offensive started right how do you consider what he reports as reliable? - Wanderer602 ( talk) 15:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC) |
835,000 casualties from Manninen includes of the civilian population? If so, please specify where he says that Finland has not participated in the siege of Leningrad.-- Germash19 ( talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Removed from the template strength in 1944, the user Wanderer602 was agree with it.-- Germash19 ( talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted information is not relevant to the article. Removed a great piece about the USSR - the text is not associated with the topic of the article, it does not show the reasons for the entry of the USSR into the war, the analysis of the actions in the war.-- Germash19 ( talk) 20:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is an ongoing dispute at Continuation War and related articles about the name we should use for the town of Viipuri/ Vyborg during World War II. Viipuri is the Finnish name for this town, and Vyborg is the Russian name.
Today, the town is known as Vyborg, but it has changed hands several times during the course of history, including three times in World War II. The town was part of Finland until the Peace of Moscow, and was handed to Russia in March, 1940; it became part of the Karelo-Finnish SSR. Finnish troops recaptured the town on August 29, 1941 and claimed it as part of Finland soon afterwards, although it was still laid claim to by Russia throughout the rest of the war. Russian troops captured it again in June 1944, and on September 19 the Moscow Armistice was signed, in which Finland agreed to recognize it as part of the USSR again. Also at this time, it was transferred from the Karelo-Finnish SSR to the Russian SSR. Finland formally relinquished all claim to the town in 1947. (For more details see Vyborg#History.) In this RfC we are concerned with what name should be used for the town from the start of World War II in 1939 to the Moscow Armistice in September 1944. This affects articles involving the Winter War and the Continuation War, which include Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945), and others.
This issue is one of the issues being debated in the Continuation War MedCab mediation, and before filing this RfC we have gone through some of the steps in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) in a fairly systematic fashion, to try and determine if there is a widely-accepted English name for Vyborg/Viipuri during the time period in question. After some decent discussion, which can be found here, we came to the conclusion that there was no such name. However, there is disagreement among the mediation participants as to what exactly the guideline specifies we should do in this event. Through this RfC we would like both clarification on how to interpret the guideline in this case, and also to build a lasting consensus about what name should be used in the articles involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Please include either Viipuri or Vyborg in bold to indicate which name you think should be used in the article, along with your rationale. If you would like to make a general comment you can indicate that by prefacing it with Comment if you like. General discussion of the issues should go in the "threaded discussion" section below. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
So as such, I think this RfC contains a false premise: that Vyborg is the Russian name. Paavo273 ( talk) 18:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
If the mediation participants would like to make other editors aware of these comments, the information in them should be added to the statement sections below. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
If the mediation participants would like to make other editors aware of these comments, the information in them should be added to the statement sections below. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
IN RESPONSE TO REMARK IN PELTIMIKKO'S VOTE ABOVE WHICH WAS A RESPONSE TO PAAVO273'S REMARK ABOUT OCCUPATION/OCCUPYING TERRITORY IN P273'S VOTE
Hi YMB29: I think the meaning of "occupy" kind of depends on *whose* point of view, kind of like who's a patriot and who's a terrorist. To speak of treaties and such is pretty academic, not real' dispositive of actual rights, when one of the parties to the treaty is taking by force, is the government of a warring culture of bullies (just e.g., the Soviet empire, American empire, British empire, Roman empire) Whiskey, I never understood until you pointed it out that the "official languages of the [Karelo-Finnish SSR] republic was Finnish and Russian." That seems pretty straightforward to me. Paavo273 ( talk) 16:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
YMB29: You are correct, that no treaty gave Viipuri back to Finland. After the Finns conquested most of (Finnish and Soviet) Karelia, they immediately incorporated the Finnish Karelia (just lost over a year earlier) back to motherland. For the conquested part of Karelia, so called East Karelia, was established a separated (and temporary) military administration. Peltimikko ( talk) 21:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
If the mediation participants would like to make other editors aware of these comments, the information in them should be added to the statement sections below. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
To the mediation participants, Wanderer602, YMB29, and Whiskey: please stop arguing about who occupied who, and who Vyborg/Viipuri might have "officially" belonged to during 1940-1944. This is already covered in the text of the RfC itself, and in a version to which you all agreed, no less. All this back-and-forth arguing is getting in the way of thoughtful debate, and is likely off-putting to outside editors coming in to comment on this RfC. Please don't forget that the precise reason we are having an RfC is to get outside input; if we could have solved this by agreement among ourselves then we would have done that already. I think I shall instigate a new rule - from now on, you can't reply directly to other mediation participants in this RfC thread. Instead, you should put your comments in a section which I will create below, and you are only allowed to edit your own sections. Also, if the statements become too long, I may require you to reduce their size, so please be concise. Thanks for your cooperation. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This section is for participants in the MedCab mediation on the Battle of Tali-Ihantala and the Continuation War; namely, Wanderer602, YMB29, and Whiskey. Instead of replying directly to each other on this talk page, they should write in their own sections here, and should not edit each other's sections. Statements here should also be kept as concise as possible. Please note that other editors are still free to ask them questions in the "comment" section and the "threaded discussion" section, and they are free to reply, but if continuing the conversation involves one mediation participant replying to another, then the statements here should be updated instead. I would also like to politely ask other editors to refrain from commenting in this section or from adding their own statements here, and instead direct them to either the "comments" or "threaded discussion" sections above. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
From Danzig vs. Gdansk we know that we have to use the historical name (English or local). We already know this so there is no need to constantly refer to it or to other cases. We have to establish a historical name for this case. Saying that Viipuri has to be used until 1944 "following the Talk:Gdansk/Vote ruling" or because Istanbul was known as Constantinople is not helping to resolve this dispute...
Comparing the Finnish annexation of the city during the war to the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in general is also not helping. - YMB29 ( talk) 17:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
So I guess if Vyborg was still Finnish after the Winter War, we must accept the legitimacy of the Karelo-Finnish SSR as a truly Finnish republic... Just because the city was not part of the Russian SFSR does not mean that it was not known by its Russian name in the USSR. - YMB29 ( talk) 04:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
According to Danzig/Gdansk vote, the local historical name should be used in the situations when the town changes ownership. This is a good, diplomatic solution which recognizes the value of the town to both countries, and offers a simple, concise policy to follow in similar cases. Like this one.
I think we all agree, that the town should be called Viipuri until March 13 1940, when the Winter War ended and the town with the surrounding area was ceded to Soviet Union. Also, I think we all agree, that the town should be called Vyborg after the November 1944, when the area was incorporated to Russian SSR and Leningrad Oblast.
To decide what was the local historical name of the town between those two dates, one should know a little bit about the history: According to contemporary Soviet history writing, the Finnish Democratic Republic, the Soviet minded puppet government Stalin created in the beginning of the Winter War, consisted after the Moscow Peace Treaty only those areas Finland ceded to Soviet Union. Immediately after the war Finnish Democratic Republic formed an union with Karelian Autonomic SSR, and formed a Karelo-Finnish SSR, where Finnish was a first official language and Russian the second. Even the national anthem was a Finnish song! At that time the official name of the town was Viipuri, although written in Cyrilic alphabet: Виипури. It was only after November 1944, when the local governance of the town was changed from Karelo-Finnish SSR to Russian SSR, and the official name was changed to Vyborg (Выборг). -- Whiskey ( talk) 20:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The article says that the United Kingdom followed Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India in declaring war on Finland. Just one problem: only Canada was in the Commonwealth or had the power to declare war at the time (along with South Africa and Ireland: the two other members of the Commonwealth). Australia acquired control of foreign policy with the passage of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, New Zealand with the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947, and India with independence in 1947. They all joined the war automatically when the United Kingdom declared war. Indeed, Australia symbolically back-dated the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 so that it took effect on 3 September 1939 - allowing Australia's legally-redundant 'declaration of war' to be effective (and thus convey their willingness to fight, rather than obligation to do so). Bastin 13:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:DefenceOfTheSovietTransarcticMedal.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
There is edit warring going on over KIA, so I have blocked the page for three days to allow those editors who are interested time to present their evidence and come to some sort of consensus. -- PBS ( talk) 12:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to say that the only clear data which can show the Soviet losses is the Russian archives. Krivosheev worked with the archives of the Russian defence ministry and his numbers are officially adopted in Russia, they also recognized by David Glantz who on the West considered as the best military historian on the USSR. So I insist on keeping his numbers, otherwise it is a double standard policy where Wiki shows the numbers of Axis from the Axis sources (in Russia they are accepted) yet they refuse to accept the Russian numbers on the Russian casualties. This is not concensus whatsoever. Russian historians also give higher casualties of Axis however I do not insist on putting them here. The most fair solution is to put Finnish/German data on the Finnish/German losses and Russian data on the Russian losses. Both sides know better how many they lost, let's omit revisionism and stick to the facts. The numbers of Russian casualties taken from foreign historians do not depict the reality, cos those historians have never seen Russian records.
Alexander Pastukh ( talk) 08:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
For example the ВЫБОРГСКО-ПЕТРОЗАВОДСКАЯ СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКАЯ НАСТУПАТЕЛЬНАЯ ОПЕРАЦИЯ entry in Krivosheyev's work, it contains several errors which cast considerable doubt over the reported numbers. First the Leningrad fronts offensive is marked as having ended on June 20, while in reality that was merely the day the offensive stalled, LF attempted to advance all the way until mid July, but Krivosheyev disregards theses losses from his table - and those losses were much heavier than what preceded them. Second, the number of units in the tables, even cursory glance on Soviet TOE (БОЕВОЙ СОСТАВ СОВЕТСКОЙ АРМИИ - ЧАСТЬ IV -(Январь – декабрь 1944 г.) - МОСКВА, ВОЕННОЕ ИЗДАТЕЛЬСТВО, 1988) shows that Krivosheyev's numbers for the units involved in the fighting are wildly misleading - Krivosheyev: (LF) 15 rifle div, 1 armored brigade, 2 fortified regions, official TOE (for 21st & 23rd armies, July 1) 24 rifle divisions, 1 armored brigade (+10 armored battalions), without even taking into account front reserves of which a lot are known to have been involved in the fighting - again casting doubt on how the casualty numbers reported by Krivosheyev could ever be complete. These are exactly the issues which the Manninen and other researchers have addressed. Hence their numbers have more validity than what Krivosheyev's does.
Looking at СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКАЯ ОБОРОНИТЕЛЬНАЯ ОПЕРАЦИЯ в Заполярье и Карелии we can see that Krivosheyev arbitrarily assigns the end date of the operation on October 1 while Finnish offensive continued all the way until December. Also the Leningrad fronts losses are totally absent from the list.
When full front is missing from one entry and another omits a full army from its listing (59th Army at Viborg area in 1944) and when the end dates of the operations do not correspond with the actual events that took place during the war the numbers provided by Krivosheyev are not the full truth, far from it. Furthermore instead of following casualties formation by formation throughout the war Krivosheyev divides these to 'operations' which conveniently omits the time between the operations (with Finnish front that means Krivosheyev's data omits the losses from the utterly failed offensives by the Karelian Front (x2) and the 7th Separate Army during 1942). Other authors have merely worked to address these deficiencies of Krivosheyev's data. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 12:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Find me evidence and numbers of Soviet losses suffered by the Karelian front and 7th Separate Army against the Finns in spring 1942 and those suffered by Karelian front in autumn 1942? Find me the numbers of Soviet losses suffered by Karelian front and 7th Separate Army both after 1 October to the end of Finnish offensive phase? Soviet losses during the trench warfare (incl. 1st Partisan Brigade)? Find me evidence and numbers of Leningrad Fronts losses in the Karelian Isthmus (against the Finns) after 20 June 1944? Find me the numbers of the losses suffered by the Soviet 59th Army in Bay of Viborg from June 30 to July 10? All those are relevant and absent from the data you offered.
Units identified in the TOE are the same as identified in joint Finnish-Russian books regarding the war by Ari Raunio & Juri Kilin, published 2007 & 2008, who used both Finnish and Russian archival data - only contradictory source is Krivosheyev, others (both Finnish and Russian historians) agree that number of formations was much higher.
And you still have not addressed the issue that the scope of the Krivosheyev's numbers does not fit into that which is the scope of the war or even the articles of individual battles - which alone invalidates the use of his numbers. For example for the Leningrad Front after 20 June 1944 there exists Stavka orders for attack to continue, Finnish & German & Soviet war diaries, casualty reports the works which other researchers have used, however these all are omitted by Krivosheyev.
Finnish offensive phase ended in Karelian Isthmus on early September after receiving orders in late August to form a defensive line (at the time facing 23rd Army of the Leningrad Front), in Svir area on mid September after reaching per orders the roads running parallel to the river on the south shore of Svir, in Maaselkä/Povonets area in December 5 when Finns captured Povonets. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Manninen actually does not include everything - which he openly admits - as the loss reports he used were from rather low level, which as per Manninen and others means that number of 'non-irreplaceable' losses (wounded) actually ended up being 'irreplaceable' (dead) as some wounded soldiers died after they had left from the bookkeeping of front line units - so his numbers are slightly biased into having elevated numbers of wounded and diminished number of 'irreplaceable' losses. However since the scope of his study and the numbers actually cover the whole operation and not just certain portion of it is far more representative than what Krivosheyev has. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 09:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Or can you explain why does Krivosheyev's table have an explicit cut off date of June 20 for the Leningrad Fronts offensive (which in reality continued until mid July)? Or can you explain how there are so many formations (including whole army, the 59th Army) missing from his listing that other lists - like official TOE have? - Wanderer602 ( talk) 13:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
So despite the fact that initial plans called for longer advance and that STAVKA itself ordered the LF's offensive to continue far deeper than it had it is by all rights valid to agree that the offensive ended on 20 June? Besides hiding matters would not exactly be a surprise from the former Soviet Union, it took long enough from it or its successor to start admissions regarding the Winter War (some 50 years). - Wanderer602 ( talk) 06:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
So despite that the offensive of the Karelian Front started in adjacent sector it is perfectly ok to forget that inconvenient fact that the LF also attempted to to keep advancing all the way until mid July, or at least its ok to forget the casualties it suffered, time when losses easily surpassed those suffered between 9-20 June? I'm afraid i do not quite follow your insinuations, could you please state (and answer the question) the issue plainly instead of avoiding it? - Wanderer602 ( talk) 05:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes it could be viewed as a success - or a victory - since Finland survived WWII, into which Soviets forced Finns to take part, without being overrun or taken over unlike most of the countries in the Baltics or in the Eastern Europe. But is not saying it was a victory in generic terms. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 05:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Problem with Krivosheyev is how it is portrayed. It is not a book about Soviet losses, it is a book about Soviet losses suffered in operations as they are defined in Soviet historiography (well, that section of the book anyway). That there lies the problem. Russian historians admit that LF continued it's offensive until nearly mid-July but the Soviet/Russian historiography does not. And instead of actually following through or even noting that heavy fighting continued Krivosheyev does not even acknowledge that there was anything going on after 20 June at Karelian Isthmus. It does not mean that it is worthless but it means that the values from the book can not be used unless very specific conditions are fulfilled. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 05:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Soviet historiography tried to hide the whole Winter War ever took place to make the Soviet Union look better for more than 50 years. Given the extent of that attempt it is not exactly far fetched to apply some criticism on 'traditional Soviet historiography' with regards of other failures at the front lines.
And what would i be ignoring? That Krivosheyev uses wrong dates to describe the offensive? Mind you, even though the 'Vyborg operation' would have ended on 20 June, the offensive in which LF continued from Viipuri towards Lappeenranta after 20 June was still part of the overall offensive and that phase is totally absent from Krivosheyev's work. It is not mentioned, it is not hinted, there is nothing about it. Even though STAVKA orders make it crystal clear that it was part of the offensive. Please provide something concrete should you have anything. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It took until 1988 for the Soviet Union to admit that it had attacked in the Winter War. And some circle's still seem to be refuting the Mainila shelling.
Finnish independence was somewhat repressed by Finlandization (avoiding antagonizing the Soviet Union), that is true, however all the same it still remained free from the Soviet Union's control, also Finland maintained democratically elected government throughout and after the war. Same was not true with the Eastern European countries. They were nothing more than satellite states of the Soviet Union. Only formally independent, however not in practice.
I would be happy to stick with the topic but last i checked you inquired several times for more information which i seemed obliged to provide. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 05:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Assuming you actually read the posts i mentioned several times that they were merely formally independent, please read about that from Eastern Block and related pages - it is discussed there. Also Finland does not fit under vassal state by any definition. And again, could you please stop with the insinuations, if you have something to say, say it. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
After the offensive Soviets changed their demands to address the terms in the previous demand that Finns had found impossible to accept - judging from the treaty texts the offensive was a net loss to the Soviets regardless of the perspective. Do not forget that Finns had been willing to seek a way out of war since 1943 and only the few sticking points (which Soviets reduced after the offensive) mentioned with regards to spring 1944 negotiations caused them to fail. Democratic system works in different manner than a dictatorship. Also, once again, Germans had never been Finnish allies in any formal sense. Neither were they referred to as such by Finns (or AFAIK even by Germans). Again, keeping the facts clear makes it easier to reach a conclusion. And yes they did start a war against the Germans, after first jointly evacuating the area which was expected to be fought upon and by leasing more transportation equipment to Germans in order to facilitate smoother evacuation (since Germans were leaving even without a war). - Wanderer602 ( talk) 22:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
It would be beneficial to all involved if you would avoid making false claims. Only you have stated that they were puppet states, only you have insisted on that discussion. I merely pointed out, with several references that they were 'satellite states' (hence as per definition only formally independent).
I think you missed the word 'ironically' which meant that rest were there only to point out the folly of calling Finland as a vassal state. While Finnish politics took the Soviet Union union into account (ie. Finlandization) it still remained fully independent, something which did not held true with regards to the Eastern European Soviet satellite states. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 21:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The way I see the Finno-German relations in 1941-1944, there is no simple definition for them, in 1941 Finland was preparing for a war with Soviet Union, that's the reason we allowed the German presence in Lapland, but we (I am a Finn-) did not want to be the ones to start the war, and once the Operation Barbarossa started Finland, while mining the Gulf of Finland in cooperation with Germany, did not attack Soviet Union until the Soviet Union started bombing Finnish civilian population, while the casus belli of the Continuation war can be disputed the fact remains that Finland attacked to retake the lost territories and after that secured a buffer zone, we could have helped the Germany to crush the siege of Leningrad but we didn't (in fact the buffer on the Karelian isthmus was non-existent), so I'd say that after the war started the Finno-German relationship regarding Soviet Union was that of co-belligerence, and in 1944 when the
Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement was signed Finland became de facto ally of Germany, what was the case in between is open for dispute.
Ape89 (
talk)
19:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
YMB29 in Spring 1944 Finland started discussions with Soviet Union about ending the war, and the Soviet Union demanded unconditional surrender, the same demand was repeated after the Summer offensive started, but after battle of Tali-Ihantala Soviets denied ever having demanded unconditional surrender and the peace talks began. As per my policy of citing only sources available online I am currently unable to provide sources for this.
However, I do have a source that supports the above; The Moscow Declaration: "Joined Four-Nations Declaration
The governments of the United States of America, United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China;
United in their determination, in accordance with the declaration by the United Nations of January, 1942, and subsequent declarations, to continue hostilities against those Axis powers with which they respectively are at war until such powers have laid down their arms on the basis of unconditional surrender;..." Ape89 ( talk) 11:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually with regards to this topic, does there exist any other source for summaries of Soviet losses than Krivosheyev? Either at Army or even lower level summaries (10-day reports perhaps)? Thing is we do know which Soviet units were facing the Finns, or at least which larger formations were, so it could be possible to go around that route - even if it is slightly OR-ish. If the reports are accurate enough then it might even be possible to split losses according to Finnish/German operational boundary if desired. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 07:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
What would people think about using "Viborg" for the name of the disputed town between 1939-1944? I personally found this suggestion the most persuasive of all the arguments put forward during the RfC, and I heartily thank PMAnderson for posting this Google NGram link showing how popular the different names have been in books over time. I also hope that Viborg could be a compromise of sorts, and that it might be possible for all the editors involved to learn to live with it. I think it is worth discussing this now, as I don't think this issue was discussed in any depth in the RfC, and it seems to me like it could be an acceptable solution. All opinions are welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Results of the Google Books searches are in. These searches are all limited to between November 1939 and September 1944:
Note that many of these results overlap - any source that talks about Viborg and Finland at the time is quite likely to talk about Russia as well, for example. For our purposes, the most obvious result is that Viborg was much more common in relation to Finland than it was to Denmark. Whether "Viborg" or "Viipuri" was more common is less clear. We have slightly more results for Viborg Finland than for Viipuri Finland, but this is reversed for Viborg Russia and Viipuri Russia. More analysis is welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
So should it be changed to Viborg? -
YMB29 (
talk)
16:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I am going to change it to Viborg. -
YMB29 (
talk)
20:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)