![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
J don't know if it is trougth that jeltsin sed that but j have heard of it.J think that that the Sovjetunion framed Finland for the Shelling of Mainila to get a reason to declare war on and conquer Finland. and Finland did never want to side with the nazis but to keep it's independence they had to! and so it could be realy trought that jeltsin sed wath he sed. j don't think that this article should be deleted or removed!! and j think that you could write where this "propaganda" is that it is not neceserily the trought.
I'd like the author to give me the source of their contention that Finnish public opinion views the Continuation War as inevitable. I can find plenty of evidence for this view about the Winter War but none from Turku's Library of Political Sciences for this view about the Continuation War, even from contemporaneous sources.
I do believe that the articles are slightly skewed to an unflinchingly Finnish Nationalist pov and I say that as a long-term foreign resident of the country, which I hope qualifies me to pronounce on such things without fear of being insensitively blind to cultural pressures to conform to the state's view of history.
Can whoever wrote the article's introduction please insert some definite articles (THEs to English speakers) but that is a minor point.
As regards Nazism, there is a synagogue in Turku, which was closed down in 1943. A friend Antti has told me of a similar event in Naantali, but I have no dates for that. Also, the article skates around the thousands of Finns who joined the Viking Division of the SS to fight under the colours of Nazi Germany.
Jatrius 08:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I've refrained from editing until there may be a deeper consensus arrived at on the issue of inevitability.
Outright falsehoods and propaganda. I have never attempted to edit this article but requested it to be renamed. I see new gems appearing (or wasn't I too careful at reading this propagandist pamphlet the first time?) Like this "The break up of the Soviet Union appeared to have brought a significant change in the policies and attitudes acquired by the new Russian leadership in this respect, when in 1991 President Boris Yeltsin publicly admitted that the Soviet Union had started the Continuation War.[citation needed]"
Tell me, when and where exactly did this scandal take place? How? Any reference to anything? Any media link? Did Yeltsin really call the war of aggression waged by Finland and Nazi Germany against Soviet Union "war of continuation?" as the article claims? I am quite certain that we have a case of presenting totally fabricated statements which attributed to person (president Yeltsin) who never made them and who, in all likelihood, is not even aware of the term Continuation War. Roobit
This article violates the Wikipedia neutrality policy in and by its very name (not to mention its contents). To be included in an encyclopedia, free or otherwise, especially in a multilingual encyclopedia, the subject of each entry must at least be a valid concept recognized by all, that actually exists at least as an abstraction. For instance, an article on water can be clearly translated from English into French and into Russian, and so and on, and the water can be defined as H2O. Likewise, an article on the US Civil War is a valid concept even though it can be mentioned that the war is also called the War of Southern Independence, the War between the States, and mention and create referral pages for whatever other name no matter how fanciful or marginal exists. But the American Civil War (the Civil War) is a concept univerally recognized; it would be recognized (in a translated form) by speakers of most languages without any disclaimer. It is an accepted historic term.
In the case of the Continuation War or of the War of Continuation we are confronting a concept that is not universally recognized and which also bears politically charged name. It is as if the Civil War article (which I had not seen) was wirtten solely from the Southern perspective and the article itself was titled the War of Southern Independence. In fact the author of the article would have made a disclaimer in the text that the other side knows it differently. In case of the Continuation War it is even worse than that - we have a monstrous violation of neutrality policy because the other side in question does not even recognize the validity of the term and is not aware it exists (since clearly it was not a separate war but a part of the WWII in which Finnish and German Nazis fought alongside, invaded the same country, espoused similar ideology and methods. I have a book here by Waldemar Erfurth, a Nazi general attached to the Finnish HQ during their war of aggression against the Soviet Union. The book, published in 1950, is titled Der Finnische Krieg - or the Finnish War. It is not titled the Continuation War since even the Nazi generals in Finland's own headquarters did not regard it or call it Continuation War.
Unfortunately, through Wikipedia and similar sources this preposterous name for the Finnish front operations gets currency in the English speaking world, at least online.
You should either delete this article entirely or rename it to something neutral as Finnish front or Finland's alliance with Germany, or Finland's war against USSR (which again would not be accurate because Finnish and German troops were together on Finnish territory, it was not "Finland's war") or move it to the WWII section. There is most certainly no place for any article titled the War of Continuation - at least if you intend or at the very least pretend to maintain Wikipedia's stated policy of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit ( talk • contribs)
How come this worthless propagandist piece with its very name being total bunk was nominated for good article category? Where is the button to vote against it? Is any new war by party that lost previous one a war of continuation? Is Iraq America's War of Continuation (after Vietnam)? You cannot take a preposterous term used by nationalists and Nazis in a certain country and present it as if the term is acceptable to all because it is clearly not. In Russia no one calls joint Finnish-Nazi aggression a war of continuation, the term is unknown, so why would narrow and again utterly preposterous Finnish term be presented as is the only one. For example, World War Two or let's say the War of Austrian Succession are valid historic terms, the fact that they happened (and were not a part of something is else) is agreed by all and these terms exist in all written languages. An article like the War of Succession can be translated parallelly into —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit ( talk • contribs)
This is total garbage - there should be no article called Continuation War as this episode of World War II when Finland attacked Soviet Union with the help of Nazi Germany and participated in what effectively became one of the worst war crimes in the history of humanity (blockade of Leningrad) is referred to as Continuation War only by modern Finnish Nazis. An war of aggression cannot be continuation of anything. Not even the German Nazis call WWII the "War of Continuation" merely because they lost WWI and decided to "continue" the affair on a later date.
Get rid off this article entirely. Move the topic to WWII section.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 November 2006
Mikael Agricola wrote in Finnish before William Shakespeare was born in 1564. Agricola's Finnish writing is very understandable even as we speak.
Many of those who speak both, English and Finnish, could tell you, that Agricola's Finnish is by no means a "tribal dialect", and that Acricola's Finnish is easier to understand than Shakespeare's English.
Which language has changed more? "There is the question."
Before the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776, the news could be already read from a Finnish language newspaper in Finland.
Due to the geographical isolation of the Finnic peoples, and the history of relatively little assimilation of the Finnic population, and due to the far reaching tradition of Finnish oral poetry and songwriting, the Finnish language is seen to have stayed its course, by not changing much, compared to many other languages.
Thus, linguistic experts have been able to claim for instance, that the modern-day Finnish words tulla (come) and mennä (go) were in use in the Ural mountains already 8000 years ago, and perhaps before, and the word lähteä (to go) already 6000 years ago, and presumably before.
The original language of at least some the southwestern parts of the modern-day Russia was the mother language of the modern-day Finnish. How much could the contemporary Finn understand of that language of their distant relatives, is debatable.
By descend, an average Russian today is said to be - to a large extend - an approximate three way mixture of Finnish tribes, Slavic tribes and Vikings, of whom many are said to have been Finnish as well.
Thus user Robeet/Illythr/Whisky, your related remarks, comparisons and comments indeed do not seem "inoffensive", but very much offensive. One might even ask whose civilization should we really be concerned about. With comparisons like this, you may not reach very far in diminishing any resentments felt toward Russians in the west.
Due to some 44 known wars, which the Finns have participated in, Russophobia must have been present and discussed in Finland much before the term ever appeared in English usage, according to you around "1820s". For comparison, based on historic writings, the Finnish tribes were battling against Slavic peoples already during the Viking Age (and who knows how long before that). Ahven is a fish 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Where do casualty figures and such come from? Any credible sources for anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 26 November 2006
The talk page texts above and the offered ending for the conclusion part of the Continuation War article are tide with evidence, widely accepted facts, sources and exact quotes from both, the war-time leaders and the current leaders of USSR, Russia and Finland. Naturally, more can be added and sources can be included, and wordings can be altered. All suggestions are welcome.
Thus, what "facts" are you referring to, user Whiskey? Aren't there already plenty of facts on the table? Although asked, you have not pointed out anything wrong in the text or provided a single counter claim so far. Instead, without challenging a single offered fact, you have resorted only to the reverting of the article, or suggesting its removal to somewhere else (such move has been suggested only by you).
Others have shown their willingness to keep the entire article in the Continuation War as such, and yet others keeping at least parts of it there. Any attempt to simply revert away the text in question should be reasoned by at least a counter claim or a showing of any information challenged as incorrect. Valid sources for counter claims must be provided.
The information about PM Hackzell above obviously refers to a study in progress. At this point, no definite conclusions should be made to one direction or another - of course -, before something concrete can be provided. In most democracies, no one is guilty before proven guilty. Thus, nothing about even a possible murder should be mentioned in actual Wikipedia articles, or anywhere else really, hereafter. Furthermore, if it makes anyone feel better, I'll take back this speculation at the time being, even if it is tempting, and even if it is only slightly touched on a talk page.
The PM Hackzell mentioning in this context plays no role with the current Continuation War article, even the ending of it.
At this point, user Whiskey, this is a non-issue, similar to your "cultivated land" dilemma. There too, you didn't appear to have gotten the point of the talk page comment, which correctly referred to the Finns not wanting to join the Battle of Leningrad, and not wanting to fully destroy Viipuri, Finland's second biggest city at the time.
The Finns rather took the fight to the "woods" - rhetorically speaking. There, tens of thousands of artillery shells could be targeted against the enemy, without having to destroy a city which took hundreds of years to build, and which - in case of Viipuri - was an important center of the Karelian and Finnish culture.
It really makes no difference whether or not there were "cultivated lands" around the battle areas of Tali and Ihantala. Neither "cultivated lands" nor "woods" compete with the cities in question, when it comes to the national and cultural wealth and heritage of the two countries. In terms of Helsinki - a capital - the situation might have been a bit different. More than delaying tactics most probably would have been used there.
Nevertheless, the majority of the land both in Tali and Ihantala were woods and forests. Tali and Ihantala happened to represent the areas where the Soviets had decided to march through. There, as anywhere, - if it could be avoided - no officer wanted to bring his troops to an open field, where his soldiers would make a clearly visible and easy target for the enemy. Thus, the men were mainly kept in the "woods" - even literally speaking - when ever possible, and when they were not traveling on the roads. For the cover, the men used fox holes, large rocks, trees and bushes, trenches, etc.
Furthermore, the Soviet spearhead was destroyed on and near the roads where the Red Army was advancing westbound (for the most time). Those roads went through woods and forests, sometimes also through "cultivated lands", of course. The war-time accounts and images from the battle scenes portray these roads, and the woods around them (see a typical related war time image attached).
The recently added ending of the "conclusion" section of the Continuation War article is not meant to hurt anyone's feelings - yours including, user Whiskey. Perhaps you will feel somewhat better, if the heading will be changed. I just inserted a new one, for your review. Your suggestions are welcome, of course!
Clearly, until the recent times, a whole lot of people have been under the spell of the history writing of the overwhelming propaganda machine of the long time super power, USSR.
For instance, user Whiskey, your protection of - and reverting back - the following sentence in the Continuation War article, hopefully doesn't reflect your personal views, rather than "facts" which you claim to be after (when asked for you to reason your urge to hold on to the following sentence, you declined to respond):
"In retrospect the Continuation War can be seen as the result of a series of political miscalculations by the Finnish leadership in which Finland's martial abilities clearly outshone its diplomatic skills."
Most historians and researchers widely agree, that if Finland indeed would have done something very differently, it might have not received the same, quite favorable outcome. Thus, the Finnish policies hereby have received much praise from abroad.
So - once again -, what do you have to support you claim with, user Whiskey? If you indeed continue insisting something like this to be saved in the article, without any appropriate sources to back you up, it seems only fair, that the utmost experts, the actual key figures from the both sides, the people in charge then and now, have their say for the Wikipedians to review, as well.
What could be wrong about that? Is there anything that could be more right? Why do you wish to prevent the presenting of the non-Soviet sponsored facts? Please, let people make up their own minds about what happened, after the facts have been laid down. Wikipedia is here to present the neutral facts as the tools for all people to use, in search for the ultimate truth. We must try presenting the truth the best way we can, whether we like it or not. I assure you, I'm always trying my very best to achieve exactly that.
After all, this is not a KGB bulletin board, but the worldwide Wikipedia instead. Wikipedia represents the very electronic medias, which helped to destroy the totalitarian Soviet Union, and to bring democracy to large amounts of people in Eastern-Europe and to the prior protectorates of USSR, where presenting of real "facts" was not tolerated.
If you do believe that Finland should have realized to prepare itself much better before the Soviet-initiated Winter War, and that Finland should have accepted the western help offered during the Winter War, many would agree with you - because the Western help would have put the Soviets in a very difficult situation. Yet, others would not agree, because the offered Western help was not very substantial (although it might have turned bigger later, perhaps).
However, in the case of the Continuation War, what Finnish "series of political miscalculations" are you referring to, in the article? Why do you fiercely want to protect this claim in Wikipedia.
If you aren't able to offer anything to back up your view of the said "series of political miscalculations", please do no longer revert back to that sentence, which already was moderated. Otherwise, you clearly aren't being neutral - and thus your continued non-sourced reverts would constitute vandalism.
Please - also -, do not revert away the ending part of the "conclusion" section of the Continuation War Article, unless you appropriately reason yourself, backing up your view by acceptable, appropriate and valid neutral sources.
Currently, the added text in the conclusion part clearly asks an extremely valid and important question, and then offers material for the answers. This is vitally important, and thus the very same conversation has - during the recent years - been going on strongly in Finland, and the topic has even been touched by the current Finnish and Russian Presidents, Putin and Halonen, and now the conversation has flamed up amongst the researchers in Sweden, … and so on.
The added text offers some key facts and tools, and includes reasoning, sources and appropriate direct quotes from key figures from both sides of the border, people in charge, many of whom actually participated in the war itself, including the top leaders of USSR, Russia and Finland. The text also discusses the goals of both sides, based on facts, concrete agreements, or non-alliance. The exact dates for different main events are offered, such as the date of Molotov's meeting in Berlin, etc.
Although no one has suggested it, more detailed information, sources, dates, etc., will be added a.s.a.p. (lack of time is the problem, isn't it).
Just because a lie has been set forth, and because it has been repeated over and over again, it does not turn it into the truth. Thus, it is up to the pushers of a claimed "Finnish defeat" to concretely show what they have to support their claim with.
So far, only ceding of land has been offered for a support of this view/theory. It is often forgotten that there were many strange and unusual things about the Finnish wars. In retrospect, one of the strangest things indeed must have been the outcome, which - according to some - was necessary at the time, regardless how well Finland won its defensive war.
It appears that the opponents of the claimed "defeat" have presented their case fairly well now. Giving out land to achieve a lasting peace does not make Finland a loser of the war, which preceded the land ceding.
A defensive war could only be won by a defensive victory! In the battle field Finland reached the only goal it had, and in only way possible, by winning the war - and in doing so, it could not have performed better. How? Loosing the war would not have saved Finns from the treatment the peoples of the Baltic States had to face.
Finland had refused to participate in the encirclement of Leningrad and to concentrate large formations near Leningrad, or to proceed to the Soviet land on this area. Accordingly, the determining battle in this particular area could only be fought on the Finnish soil - and it was.
Thus, this Red Army spearhead was to be met on the Finnish territory, because the Finns themselves clearly had decided to take the fight of this particular front to the Finnish soil, for diplomatic reasons (as explained in the article and the talk comments). The advancement of the spearhead soon became stopped.
In Finland's case, the ceding of land - following the victorious defensive war - was not determined so much by the preceding battles and war themselves, but the foreseeable future instead. Finland wanted a lasting peace.
If a winner of a boxing match agrees to pay for the loser's broken nose (willingly or unwillingly) - and to even offer him a piece of land somewhere, for compensation -, this does not make the winner a loser of the boxing match!
Anno Domino 06:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems fair to state that determining the winner/s of the Continuation War is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Finland had succeeded in her goal to save her independence and sovereignty. The Soviet Union - on the other hand - had fallen far from its objective, conquering Finland, although in the armistice it was to gain a little land, for a heavy price paid.
Only a token of this land USSR had gained on the battle fields. In the war's end, Finland had - after abandoning the City of Viipuri - won all the remaining nine consecutive final battles, which would determine the outcome of the war. In the very final Battle of Ilomantsi the Finns had even succeeded in pushing the enemy back.
Ever since its initial attack in the beginning of the war on June 25, 1941, and the following retreat, the Red Army had not been able to cross the 1940 Finnish-Soviet border, except for a short-lived moment in the final Battle of Ilomantsi in 1944, where it suffered a lose, after two of its divisions were decimated and shattered by the Finns, while those escaping death were driven back east.
In these respects - from the military point of view - Finland clearly had come out a winner on the final battle stages. In the end, her troops were deep on the Soviet soil, except for a narrow Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus, which was stopped in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.
However, if Finland was to be portrayed as an ally of Germany, it would be fair to view Finland to at least have been on the losing side of the World War.
Yet again - from Finland's perspective -, as the Finnish leaders have consistently reminded the world; forced to do so, the Finns had accepted help from Germany, but they by no means took the relationship much further that that. There was no official pact signed between the two nations, and although there was a common enemy, the objectives were very different.
Finland wanted to live, and to protect her sovereignty, and in order to do so it had to accept help from anywhere available, as by 1940 it was evident that the Soviet Union was not about to honor the promises set forth in the end of the Winter War. Finland was rapidly losing all control of her internal matters. What the Soviet Union had not been able to gain in the battle arena of the Winter War, it was now grapping during the interim peace period.
By this time the Soviet Union had committed numerous border violations, it had controlled the Finnish elections, it had taken control of some vitally important Southern Finnish railroads, and its army was building up forces on the Finnish border, etc.
All the access from Finland to the rest of the world had become sealed by either the Soviets or the Germans, who at this stage had taken control of the Baltic nations and Norway and Denmark. Thus, even in theory, Germany now was the only place from where Finland could receive help for her protection. Pressed between a rock and a hard place, Finland saw that she had no choice but to go for the minimum amount of cooperation necessary for her protection. Nevertheless, a bulk of Hitler's key demands Finland refused to honor:
Besides refusing to hand out her Jews to the Nazis (except for eight deported refuge seekers), the Finns refused to join Germany's - nearly successful - attack against Leningrad, the lose of which could have been detrimental to USSR in several ways, not least from the moral stand point of view. The Finns also held back from interrupting the American "lifeline" of help to the defenders of Leningrad, over the Lake Ladoga. Furthermore, the Finns categorically refused to cut the Murmansk railroad near its border, along which the crucially important and massive American help was transported to the Soviet Army, and Finland also held her forces from advancing any further east than the River Svir (Syväri).
These all were among the attempts on Finland's behalf to make the Soviet counterparts - and the rest of the world - to realize that Finland sincerely was only fighting for her survival, against Josef Stalin's continued attempt to conquer Finland, for which the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov had sought for Adolf Hitler's final approval - on his visit to Berlin on November 12 -13, 1940 -, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939.
User Petri Krohn: That Pudeo's message above was not "deleted". It is in its correct spot - timeline-wise -, right before the long continuously updated text above, and my answer to it is there as well (signed 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)).
If you needed to make a duplicate of this Pudeo's comment, why couldn't you just place it right here, on the bottom of the line of messages, where I just carried it (above). You duplicated the comment right in the middle - inside - an unrelated text, the very long text right above. You did that at 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Why in the middle of unrelated text? And why a duplicate? Are you trying to make a mess of the information provided here? Do the facts not please your ideology ? Why nothing productive from you ?
Earlier, you also placed the following comment inside another contributor's text:
Elsewhere in Wikipedia, we stopped the very same counterproductive tactics, as this can easily create confusion, and mix-ups:
If we continue building the counter-commenting - with even unrelated messages and pointless remarks - inside someone else's message, we run out room inside the original message, we distort the original message, we create mix-up and confusion, and separating the contributions from one another becomes a bit difficult inside the mess.
Besides, if we do this, where is a possible newcomer supposed to place her/his unrelated new comment, when - timeline-wise - it may seem that the posting of the comment should be made right below the very last reply, which may be posted right in a middle of someone's long message.
So everyone, at least when it comes to my comments, please, set your replies below - not inside - my text (you too user Whiskey/Illythr)
User Petri Krohn: These tactics may have fit your purposes, as all I've seen you contribute so far, is the above counterproductive duplicate and your quoted "crap" remark.
Could you try performing at least a bit better than this, please! Hereafter, if and when you do reverting, removing or adding, make sure to provide clear reasoning, full with detailed sources to back up your counterclaims.
I you are not familiar with the topic and you have no appropriate counterclaims, please do not revert anything, even if the information in question may be new for you.
If everyone only provided "crap" to Wikipedia, what would this be? So, please, no more creating confusion, no more reverts without reasoning, no more anarchy, no more "crab"!
Thank you for your co-operation!
213.216.199.6 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Due to page protection, I introduce contested text here (once again). Please write your comments of the text here. The purpose is to produce neutral text what is acceptable to all parties. The participants could present their opinions of the acceptable entry at the end of the paragraph under the heading "Proposed paragraph:". Remember to sign also your proposals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskey ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 20 December 2006
Please, refrain using highlight in excess (=more than one word) inside the discussion, let's reserve them to the paragraph text and proposal text. The intention is that you propose what should be the text of the paragraph under the "Proposed paragraph:" and it could be modified constantly. The area above is reserved for argumenting and counterargumenting.
I also modified the places of some your signatures to make discussion more tight.-- Whiskey 13:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
As I wish to break this deadlock, I'm ready to accept the insertion of this chapter to the end of the article (I still prefer NOT to have the chapter at all!), with following restrictions:
I'm going to play this according the book, so we follow the rules defined in Wikipedia's official policy. If we cannot reach consensus, I'm going to ask RfC. -- Whiskey 00:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems fair to state that determining the winner/s of the Continuation War is largely in the eyes of the beholder citation needed. Finland had succeeded in her goal, to save her independence and sovereignty and to prevent the take-over attempts by the Soviet Union, set forth by two all-out attacks citation needed by the Red Army citation needed, one initiating the Winter War on November 30, 1939, and the other initiating the Continuation War on June 25, 1941. unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph: (Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-->to be saved in either one of the following ways that were suggested previously, below ( Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)):
1. It seems fair to state that determining the winner/s of the Continuation War is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Finland had succeeded in her goal to save her independence and sovereignty. The Soviet Union - on the other hand - had fallen far from its objective, conquering Finland, although in the armistice it was to gain a little land, for a heavy price paid.
2. It seems fair to state that determining the winner/s of the Continuation War is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Finland had succeeded in her goal, to save her independence and sovereignty and to prevent the take-over attempts by the Soviet Union, set forth by two massive attacks by the Red Army, one initiating the Winter War on November 30, 1939, and the other initiating the Continuation War on June 25, 1941.
213.216.199.6 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
--> Keep the text (preferably the no. 2 version above). Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
--> Version 2. with a change "Finland had succeeded in keepeng it's independence"-- Mtjs0 05:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
--> Version 2. keep the text preferably number 2 -- Masa62 10:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The Soviet Union - on the other hand - had fallen far from its main objective citation needed, conquering Finland citation needed, a goal set forth in Moscow on August 23, 1939, by the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Stalin and Hitler citation needed.
Proposed paragraph: (Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-->SAVE TEXT AS IT IS Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-->SAVE TEXT AS IT IS -- Mtjs0 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Finland had abandoned the City of Viipuri citation needed, using only hours of delaying tactics citation needed on June 20, 1944, up to 16:40 (20th Br, 120 dead/MIA; research by Eeva Tammi, 8/2006). The following nine consecutive final battles were victorious for the Finnish Armed Forces citation needed. In the very final Battle of Ilomantsi the Finns had even succeeded in pushing the enemy back.
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
--> Save the original text as it is. Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ever since its initial attack citation needed in the beginning of the war on June 25, 1941, and the following retreat, the Red Army had not been able to cross the 1940 Finnish-Soviet border, except for a short-lived moment in the final Battle of Ilomantsi in 1944, where it suffered a loss, after two of its divisions were decimated and shattered by the Finns.
Proposed paragraph:
(Included to the next chapter) -- Whiskey 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Ever since the initial Soviet attack in the beginning of the war on June 25, 1941, and the following retreat, the Red Army had not been able to cross the 1940 Finnish-Soviet border, except for a short-lived moment in the final Battle of Ilomantsi in 1944, where it suffered a loss, after two of its divisions were decimated and shattered by the Finns. 213.216.199.6 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with that. Save the suggestion above by 213.216.199.6. Ahven is a fish 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The text tells just the reality, and it must be saved -- Masa62 10:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
A narrow citation needed but massive Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus had been stopped in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala citation needed. On other areas, Finns were on the Soviet soil. Of the territory eventually ceded to USSR, the Red Army had won only a fraction in battles citation needed, by fighting citation needed. In this respect - from military point of view - Finland clearly had come out a winner on the final battle stages. citation needed unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
Finns were able to stop Soviet offensive well before the border of 1940, approximately to the same positions were the frontline was at the end of the Winter War. The only place where Soviets reached Finnish border was in Ilomantsi, and even there they were beaten back in the following battle. -- Whiskey 00:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the sentence just as it is. Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you tell the truth and everything here earns to be respected -- Masa62 10:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
However, if Finland was to be portrayed as an ally of Germany, it would be fair to view Finland to at least have been on the losing side of the World War.
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the text just as it is (pls, see reasoning above) Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yet again - from Finland's perspective -, as the Finnish leaders have consistently reminded the world; forced to do so citation needed, the Finns had accepted help from Germany, but they by no means took the relationship much further that that citation needed. There was no official pact signed between the two nations citation needed, and although there was a common enemy, the objectives were very different.
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the sentence intact! Ahven is a fish 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Finland wanted to live, and to protect her sovereignty, and in order to do so it had to accept help from anywhere available, as by 1940 it was evident that the Soviet Union was not about to honor the promises set forth in the end of the Winter War. Finland was rapidly losing all control of her internal matters citation needed. What the Soviet Union had not been able to gain in the battle arena of the Winter War, it was now grapping during the interim peace period. unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether)
Whiskey
09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep this text. Ahven is a fish 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. -- Mtjs0 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
By this time the Soviet Union had committed numerous border violations citation needed, it had controlled the Finnish elections citation needed, it had taken control of some vitally important Southern Finnish railroads citation needed, and its army was building up forces on the Finnish border citation needed, etc. unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No not take anything out. Perhaps even expand a bit, as Illythr suggests. Ahven is a fish 14:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
All the access from Finland to the rest of the world had become sealed by either the Soviets or the Germans, who at this stage had taken control of the Baltic nations and Norway and Denmark. Thus, even in theory, Germany now was the only place from where Finland could receive help for her protection citation needed. Pressed between a rock and a hard place, Finland saw that she had no choice but to go for the minimum amount of cooperation necessary for her protection citation needed. Nevertheless, a bulk of Hitler's key demands citation needed Finland refused to honor citation needed:
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Nothing ought to be touched in this paragraph either. Ahven is a fish 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. -- Mtjs0 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Besides refusing to hand out her Jews to the Nazis (except for eight deported refuge seekers), the Finns refused to join Germany's - nearly successful - attack against Leningrad, the lose of which could have been detrimental to USSR in several ways, not least from the moral stand point of view. The Finns also held back from interrupting the American citation needed "lifeline" of help to the defenders of Leningrad, over the Lake Ladoga citation needed. Furthermore, the Finns categorically refused to cut the Murmansk railroad citation needed near its border, along which the crucially important and massive American help was transported to the Soviet Army citation needed, and Finland also held her forces from advancing any further east than the River Svir (Syväri) citation needed. unbalanced opinion?
This is factual information. It is critically important to point out these facts in this context. This explains the information given in the paragraph ahead of this one (Par 10). Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the information unchanged. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
remove -- Mtjs0 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
These all were among the attempts on Finland's behalf to make the Soviet counterparts - and the rest of the world - to realize that Finland sincerely was only fighting for her survival citation needed, against Josef Stalin's continued attempt to conquer Finland, for which the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov had sought for Adolf Hitler's final approval - on his visit to Berlin on November 12 -13, 1940 -, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (Keep the text as it is currenrtly)
The text must be kept as it stands now (more reasoning above). Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
remove. -- Mtjs0 06:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thus, as Finland's current President Tarja Halonen recently once again reminded the world in a speech in Paris, the Continuation War was a separate war from the World War Two, with a separate armistice in 1944 unbalanced opinion?, independent from the German armistice and trials of WW2 later. Whereas many of the Italian citation needed and German key figures were executed, Field Marshal Mannerheim had advanced to become the President of Finland on August 4, 1944, continuing in the job until March 4, 1946. unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the information. This piece is an important part of the conclusion as a whole. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. -- Mtjs0 06:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In his memoirs, the Field Marshal Mannerheim emphasizes, how Finland - importantly - had prepared for a defense - rather than offense -, coming up to the Soviet attack of June 25, 1941. Thus, rearranging the troops to offensive formations to the level of the city of Viipuri took all of three weeks to accomplish, and another three weeks had to be spent to spread the offensive to the north side of the Lake Ladoga. citation needed unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the text as it is. This must be saved (including a direct quote from Finland's Marshal Mannerheim is supported by me, as the importantly related quotes by the other key leaders are presented in this part as well.) Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the text as it is. -- Mtjs0 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Although the Soviet history writing of the Cold War period had appeared to have all but forgotten the Winter War, since the break up of the Soviet Union the new Russian leaders - beginning from Boris Yeltsin - have publicly admitted to the Soviet Union having started not only the Winter War but the Continuation War as well citation needed. This has encouraged a new choir of voices to join those no longer chanting the mantras of the Gold War period about a Finnish defeat: citation needed unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the text as it is. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the text as it is. -- Mtjs0 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In his last interview, on December 17, 2003, the Finnish General Adolf Ehrnrooth followed the suite:
"I, having participated in both the Winter War and the Continuation War, could stress: I know well, how the wars ended on the battle fields. Particularly the Continuation War ended to a defensive victory, in the most important meaning of the word."
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the text as it is. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove -- Mtjs0 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In his memoirs, Josef Stalin's predecessor Nikita Khrushchev points out how the Soviet Union categorically lied about the results and casualties of the battles on the Finnish front citation needed. In the praised Russian book "Bitva za Leningrad 1941-1944" ("The Battle of Leningrad") edited by Lieutenant General S.P. Platonov, it is stated: unbalanced opinion?
"The repeated offensive attempts by the Soviet Forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and repulse 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 on the orders of the Supreme Command issued on June 21."
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the text as it is. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. Same reason as Par 16 -- Mtjs0 06:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The President of Finland Mauno Koivisto spoke at a seminar held in August, 1994, in the North Karelian city of Joensuu, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Finnish victory in the crucial Battle of Ilomantsi. The future President of Finland witnessed this battle as a soldier in a reconnaissance company commanded by the legendary Finnish war hero and a Knight of the Mannerheim Cross, Captain Lauri Törni (who later became a legend also in USA as a Green Beret under the name Larry Thorne, raised to the rank of major upon his disappearance in Laos in 1965, during the Vietnam War): clarification needed
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 itenerated, but they "did not capitulate".
"We succeeded in stopping the enemy cold at key points", the President said, "and in the final battle at Ilomantsi even in pushing him back."
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the text just as it is. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. Irrevelant. -- Mtjs0 06:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In a speech held on September 4th, 1994, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the armistice, ending the Finnish-Soviet hostilities, the Prime Minister of Finland Esko Aho declared:
"I do not see a 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 ..."
"Finland ... won the peace."
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Do not leave out any of these important parts. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. Irrevelant. -- Mtjs0 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In the 1943 Allied leaders' Tehran conference, Josef Stalin referred to the Finnish over-all war efforts as a "defensive" campaign clarification needed. In Moscow, in 1948, Stalin reminded about his respect for the Finnish defense:
"Nobody respects a country with a bad army. Everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish army." - Josef Stalin
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the paragraph -- Mtjs0 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The proposed paragraphs are POV, irrelevant and/or contain shoddy scholarship. They should be removed. - Mikko H. 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
After all the debate above, I also agree with Whiskey. -- Illythr 16:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not know if I agree with anyone, there is just too much text with italics and bold and italics and bold to read through. Why do we not just recognize User:213.216.199.6/ User:Love is all we need as the permabanned user User:Art Dominique, also known as the "Kven user", and close the issue. -- Petri Krohn 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I know little of the subject matter at hand, but simply the language alone is enough to indicate that these sentences are POV. I agree with Whiskey's suggestions of removal. DarwinPeacock 10:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
We should just keep in facts as Whiskey says. But why all the good facts should be removed as you propose. There is lots of good true information. It is a big mistake if those well prepared sentences are removed. It is against Wikipedia principles. It is not finnish people fault if the knowledge of Whiskey and Illythr is based on red biased information. I propose that those users are blocked from these pages. -- User:Water-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.169.161 ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 December 2006
User Illythr / Whiskey: Today, Dec., 23, 2006, you just deleted a lot of messages from the Continuation War's talk page, the ones which you didn't like.
Yet, you left your own, much older - and radical - writings intact for the opening of the page, under the headline Introduction Query (in it you want e.g. the internationally used name of the war changed).
Please, go and revert that action now. Do archiving in chronological order (after first consulting with other users), please. Thank you for your cooperation. 213.216.199.6 20:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The ending of the Wikipedia's current Continuation War article - Contentious history views - must be saved in its place, althoug some minor alterations can be made, of course, and even the headline can be changed.
Oviously, the information provided in the segment in question was not aimed to be entirely total, complete, perfect or final by the very first shot.
However, although the formation of the sentences can be cleaned somewhat, and although minor informational additions and/or deletions can be worked out, the facts in question must be presented in unison, to provide a conclusive and easily understandable picture of the real historical events, and the related reason and results, to counter the Cold War period propaganda POV represented by the so called "official" USSR history interpretation.
This is known to be the aim of Wikipedia, as a whole - to provide the tools, the facts, for all to utililize, in an easily digestable form. The facts must not be hidden into a massive bulk of text on one page, reading and understanding of which can prove to be just too much to handle for nealry any of us.
The Finnish areas ceded to USSR in the armistice of 1944 (compared to the 1941 borders) were not conquered by USSR in battles, except for a fraction, on the Karelian Isthmus.
There, during the war, Finns had all along deliberately refrained from penetrating deeper to the Soviet side of Finland's 1939 border (except minimally). On that side of Finland's 1939 border, the Germans were fighting their own battle, the Battle of Leningrad, for approximately 900 days.
As Finns had not entered further eastbound in this area, the Soviets took the final fight on that sector to the Finnish area in the summer of 1944. There, the - relatively - narrow Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus was destroyed in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, and some of the near-by areas.
Elsewhere, ever since the beginning "moments" of the war - launched by a Soviet attack on June 25, 1941 -, the Soviets had never been able to penetrate to the Finnish side of the 1941 border.
The Red Army tried crossing that border in the very final major battle fought in the Continuation War, the Battle of Ilomantsi, but to no prevail. Two Soviet divisions were shattered there, and those Soviets troops who survived from the battle, retreated eastbound, to the Soviet side of the border.
Thus - clearly -, Finland came out a winner from the final battles of the Continuation war, what comes to the fighting with arms. Defensive battles can only be won by defensive victories. How else? This - its goal - Finland accomplished well.
An entirely different matter - all together - is, that Finland indeed agreed to cede land to its super power neighbor, to secure a lasting peace, despite of its final and conclusive defensive victories.
USSR tried to force Finland to agree to an unconditional surrender, but it was not able to accomplish that. Finland was not beaten militarily. That is one of the key points, that the ending of the Continuation War article is making - as it should.
Wikipedia needs to make this important point clearly - of course -, but particularly more so now, as the currently stated text (protected by the user Whiskey) in the conclusion segment of the Continuation War article offers the following statement, which simply does not match the widely accepted view about the matter abroad (although this view - to as large extend - was consciously included in the Cold War period propaganda represented by USSR):
"…the Continuation War can be seen as the result of a series of political miscalculations by the Finnish leadership in which Finland's martial abilities clearly outshone its diplomatic skills."
Whereas all other capitals of Europe were occupied by enemy troops (in the nations participating in fights during WW2), Helsinki and London were the only ones not. How could this explain a "series of miscalculations" by Finland - or even by England ?
Can anyone - at this time and age - seriously even try denying, that if it wasn't for the very mandatory steps Finland followed, although often quite reluctantly - for understandable reasons -, Finland too in the end would have been - most certainly - in the same boat with the rest of the bunch ? 213.216.199.6 09:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You're using that rhetoric again. Please consult the original quote. -- Illythr 13:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The below answer deals with the above questions, raised by the comments of user Illythr. The answer is a follow up for the comments below (I've highlighted the parts, which I wich to deal with in my respond):
User
Illythr: In the only other available option, Finland indeed would have become a SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic), just as the neighboring Baltic Countries were forced to become, and as you clearly appear to agree above.
The Baltic countries too were victims of the illegal Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Stalin and Hitler, under the auspices of which Josef Stalin annexed those previously independent nations into USSR.
In other words (please, tell me if I am not understanding you right), you appear to be suggesting, that Finland should have simply put her hands up, surrendered, and become a SSR?
If Finland would have done that, only then it would have not - based on you view - "made a series of miscalculation". Do we read you right ?
Currently that is what the Continuation War article is stating, and the user name Whiskey has protected that statement, by reverting back to it, after the sentence was modified.
Would all parties now agree, please, that the statement in question indeed needs to be modifies - including user Whiskey. You, user Whiskey, already appeared to go as far as to admit, that whether or not this is true, is a matter of its own (was that correctly enough recalled ? - should we bring up your exact statement). Thank you. 213.216.199.6 09:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's the answer to that text's KGB-style name change request:
The Continuation War has continuously been known only by that name, although during the Cold War KGB tried denying the name.
A simple and quick Google search will point this out clearly to anyone unfamiliar with the topic.
Stalin wanted to forget about the Winter War. Later, he also wanted to deny that he continued the war on June 25, 1941.
As the war was continued, the contemporaries automatically began calling it the Continuation War - understandably, due to lack of better term -, to separate it from references made to the Winter War (which had been fought at winter time 1939-1940, whereas the continuation went on in the following summer, beginning 1941).
Perhaps not a single person foresaw or thought of any overturns or political reasoning for the name at the time of the war, when the name was already being used.
Illythr, please do not send newer messages of others to the archives, while protecting old radical writings of your own. Here was the answer. Go and move that propaganda to the archives, please. 213.216.199.6 17:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to stir up anything, but in regard to the opening request at the beginning of the talk page, the author has a point about German military personel not calling their actions apart of the Continuation War. While this may not constitute a merging of this article with WW2, it is still worth noting that the other foriegn power fighting on Finnish soil regards their actions as a part of the Second World War. I would like to hear anyone's thoughts on this. Repdetect 12/24/06
User Illythr: Yesterday evening you archived messages, but - strangely - you left untouched the long and radical opening message of the Continuation War page (it's still there). Why?
That message - in an unprecedented manner - suggests for this entire topic (Continuation War) to be taken out of this context, and to be made just a part of the WW2 article, if anything. Why?
The article also suggests that the name, Continuation War, should be changed, forgotten about. Why?
We find it very concerning, that below that article the following signatures can be found (in this order) and that you now insist protecting those radical suggestions of that article, by leaving it unarchaived:
It is also concerning, that the account of
Jatrius was established on "18 April 2006", for that one and only contribution to be inserted to Wikipedia (no other contributions was ever made from that account), the very same contribution which you so fiercely now want to protect.
You have been asked to please revert your action from yesterday. If you archived the much newer neutral messages, this strongly Stalinist POV must go to archives as well !
Out of the three accounts, only Illythr reveals the contributions made, and no user pages exist for the two accounts.
On the talk page, only Whiskey and Jatrius talk about Jokipii and Jatkosodan synty, and both make a point of discussing each two.
Those terms are mentioned several times. Jokipii is clearly considered highly controversial figure in Finland, to say the least. Thus in this way too you're protecting strongly one-sided POV. Furthermore, even Jokipii does not support even in slightest ways the kind of radical moves, context of which you bring his name up.
The arguments and reasoning by the two user accounts, Illythr and Whiskey, are - pointedly - exactly matching, and the accounts are - accordingly - fiercely protecting the same, strangely unprecedented viewpoints, in equally rotating, repeated, and long contribution times. Seems like a strange project for Moldovian ? Why to protect Stalin, who lead to the killings of tens of million people, and Stalin lies?
The consensus between your two accounts in question include all POVs presented, including the very odd ones, such as lie turning into truth over time, after having been repeated long enough, etc.
Together these two accounts recently contacted an administrator, in attempt to have removed the factual and much needed (although quickly compiled and not yet perfect) description of the main reasons and results having to do with the Continuation War.
Strangely, as the two accounts now were hinted to belong to just one person (i.e. Illythr), this time became to present the very first and only occasion ever for the two accounts to have made contact (Dec. 19, 2006) on their respected talk pages (no user page was ever established for Whiskey. Is it because you already have one?).
Despite of extreme cooperation and kinship and fierce coinsiding in Wikipedia, this type of contacting had never happened before. Strange, would you not agree?
Thus, the user Water's concerns about the deletion of the "good facts" (as the user put it), by Illythr / Whiskey, must be taken seriously, as not a single other user has presented any war related arguments for the removal of the contested text (although few-word general remarks have been signed by a couple of other user names).
A quick scan indeed indicates, that the two accounts in question have a number of other similarities in their contributions (besides the fiercely protected, unprecedented POV), including choice of wording, spelling, signs, etc.
For instance, these accounts are the only ones to ever have used an extremely rare and personal "nah" word in their respected writings. Each of the two accounts used the term once in the Continuation War talk page, over two months apart:
Other signs used in equal amounts by the two accounts include ;-) , -- , etc., as for instance in the examples below:
Somebody seems to believe that if something is found in the textbooks published in Soviet Union, it has to be marxist. ;-) (BTW, this is the first time I have been said to be marxist. … . ;) --Illythr 20:34, 15 December 2006
Illythr: 4 x ;-) Whiskey: 3 x ;-)
These reasons and you very Stalinistic POW appear to be why (according to you) you have been called Marxist. What do you think? Do you seriously still pretend to claim, that you represent a NPOV? Nadja Polpova 18:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh, looks like
User:Roobit was indeed a sockpuppet. Too bad his puppeteer was already banned... Of course, perhaps, I can be the puppeteer of that puppeteer, making me the master of Roobit by the
rule of transitivity... Whoa, that is rather convoluted. :-[] --
Illythr
10:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Based on your own comments, you appear not to only want to hide facts from the ending part of the Continuation War article alone, but, as for instance the texts below by Whiskey / Illythr indicate, also from the beginning: You call it "Minimalist Introduction paragraph".
Why all the facts should be hidden to the massive middle part, where - without much anergy and effort - nothing can be really found? Why?
Besides, in the article's massive middle part you're protecting a very one-sided POV, full with the concentration camp type of photo, with Soviet children, etc. Why such POV?
In the meanwhile, you're terrorizing any new contributors by hard talk, so that you could continue controlling the text at this page (do you wish to receive examples).
You call yourself a "main contributor" of the article (08:06, 3 October 2006). If you wish be a contribute, can you agree not to force extremism?
Not only that, but you clearly also want to end the entire article for good, by saving that old an radical POV in the beginning of the talk page, while at the same time archiving much newer, neutral and factual messages ? Why?
In that radical text you also suggest for at least the war's name to be changed. You mean to suggest, that the war didn't continue? Is that the idea? In other words, you want the Winter War to be wiped out form history books, which Stalin's Soviet Union so desperately tried to accomplish.
In same manner you have attempted to make Finland the initial attacker of the Continuation War. You are attempting to portray Finns as Nazis, who began the war, and lost (because Germany lost), although neither point matches facts.
Perhaps these are some of the reasons why - according to your own message exchange - you have been referred to as Marxist. What could be so terrbly far fetching about that. The Soviets - after all - have for so long terrorized the history writing in that area ? Nadja Polpova 19:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Stalin's genocide of over 100 000 Finnish people before and after WW2 (he had over 60 000 Ingrian Finns alone put to death after WW2) and his long time plan to conquer Finland are well documented.
Below, please find just one such documented example of Stalin's plan to conquer Finland, from shortly before the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler:
In his speech on August 19, 1939 to the Soviet Politburo, Josef Stalin concretely laid down the Soviet Union's goals, to be set in motion by the signing of the illegal Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on August 23, 1939, with Adolf Hitler's Germany.
In this speech, Stalin revealed his plans for territorial expansion of
USSR to the
Baltic countries,
Finland) and
Poland, with the approval of either the Western powers or Germany (Source: Wikipedia
[6]).
To old Russia's borders? So what is so remarkably offensive about it?
Roobit
Stalin expressed an expectation, that the war would be the best opportunity to weaken both the Western nations and Nazi Germany, and make Germany suitable for "Sovietization" (Source: Wikipedia [7]).
In Pravda of November 30, 1939, the day of the outbreak of the Winter War against Finland, Stalin's interview relating to the speech in question was published.
Among other things, Stalin was asked for his opinion about the part of the speech, in which he expressed the thought, that the war should go on for as long as possible, so that the belligerents are exhausted.
Any quote in Russian by any chance? Or just propaganda? I have one handy here, but wait a second - it in English by Harry Truman, the massmurder of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that's perhaps what you meant:
The user
Illythr (
Whiskey) should be well aware about this
Josef Stalin's continued attempt to conquer
Finland, which was reaffirmed by the Soviet Union's Foreign Minister
Vyacheslav Molotov, on his visit to
Berlin on
November 12-
13,
1940, in a follow up meeting for the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of
1939.
Indeed, at 08:38, December 20, 2006, the user Illythr himself was the very last contributor to the Wikipedia article about the Stalin's speech on August 19, 1939, given to the Soviet Bolitbyro.
The user Illythr appears to have contributed to that page also under the user accounts 64.231.36.226 (used only for a single delete of an entire paragraph) and Whiskey.
Preemptive war by Finland and its Nazi friends? A nice justification for a war of aggression. Roobit
Whatever else may be contested in this article, it remains true that the quality of English is appalling. It has been written either by Americans or by a translation machine - often not very different in outcome.
I refer you to paragraph 11 under 'Contentious History Views'. The paragraph appears as:
Besides refusing to hand out her Jews to the Nazis (except for eight deported refuge seekers), the Finns refused to join Germany's - nearly successful - attack against Leningrad, the lose of which could have been detrimental to USSR in several ways, not least from the moral stand point of view. The Finns also held back from interrupting the American "lifeline" of help to the defenders of Leningrad, over the Lake Ladoga. Furthermore, the Finns categorically refused to cut the Murmansk railroad near its border, along which the crucially important and massive American help was transported to the Soviet Army, and Finland also held her forces from advancing any further east than the River Svir (Syväri).
It should be worded thus:
In addition to refusing to hand their Jews over to the Nazis (except for eight deported refugees), the Finns declined to join Germany's - near successful - siege of Leningrad, the loss of which could have been detrimental to the USSR in several ways, not least as a blow to morale. The Finns also refused to disrupt the American "lifeline" to the defenders of Leningrad over Lake Ladoga and to cut the Murmansk railway line near their own border, along which massive, crucially important Allied help was transported to the Soviet Army. Finland also held her forces from advancing any further east than the River Svir (Syväri).
I would urge more quality control here.
T A F—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.136.138 ( talk • contribs)
You keep pushing the same false information to Wikipedia by your different user accouts, user Illythr, and now you continue pushing incorrect grammar to be inserted to the Wikipedia, as well, by yet another new user account, 88.108.136.138. Why?
Let us once again show another example of how the user account Illythr fiercely supports an false approach - an error, really - made by the account Whiskey:
The above English language grammar error of yours, Illythr, was already discussed with you under your other account, Whiskey. You reverted the Continuation War article back to "the USA" ( [8], line 28), whereas the more correct grammar prefers just USA (the United States …, however, would be correct).
(Please, double check at the same time, what five Stalinst changes you made during the same contribution)
Now, you opened yet another user account to suggest that we should talk about the USSR, rather that just USSR. Where are you trying to take this debate. These types of thing things can be worked on, althoug on this final point of yours you appear to be wrong also.
Just USSR (without "the") presents the (more) correct grammar that the USSR (don't think of the song). However, here for instance, "the" is needed: … "the" Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also, sometimes: "the" Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
In song writing, for instance, sometimes improper grammar is used, so that the wording can be fit to the melody. Such is the case for instance in the Beatles song, "Back to the USSR". In this case too, please remember, repeating an error (lye), doesn't make the error correct (the truth), in contrary to your believes which you expressed in you comments.
User Illythr, that paragraph's message indeed can be presented in many ways. However, above, you only rewrote the original text nearly the same way, only adding errors. So, why do you bother?
Please, do not try claiming that your English language is somehow superior to the American English, or English used by people on the related talks. For instance, which are the only user accounts in Wikipedia that use the word "nah"? Correct, those are the ones of yours. Have many ever heard anyone using that term? Right, we don't think so, either.
You propose for the text to read: … "blow to morale" (in place of the current version).
You have advertised the usage of the same term in KGB style before, too, in you attempst to humiliate other Wikipedai contributors, as you claim to be the main contributor.
The wording, American "lifeline" of help, was already discussed before. Yet, as all hints strongly that you do not want to talk about the American assistance anywhere, perhaps we can just use the word Allied then.
User Illythr, please stop insulting the Americans, as you did in your text here under the account 88.108.136.138, or the Finns and the Latvians (or anyone else) Anno Domino 15:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC), as you did under the account of Roobit here: [9].
Ps.: The sock puppet account Whiskey has been met on same Russophobia site, defending fake images:
Ps.: In the following sentence there indeed was an accidental tiny blooper: "... refusing to hand out her Jews over to the Nazis (except for eight deported refugees), the Finns declined to join Germany's ...
Shoud be: their Jews (or: Finland declined)
The check up for possible bloopers had just began (see history), when you contacted an administrator, and suceeded in locking the page from fixing that blooper.
Anno Domino 15:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You do not use an article before the names of countries except where they indicate multiple areas or contain the words (state(s), kindom, republic, union). Kingdom, state, republic and union are nouns, so they need an article.
I requested the removal or renaming of the article because the term Continuation War is not shared by all participants of that conflict, which never occurred as a separate war (Continuation, Re-continuation of whatever is the translation of this nonsense) but was a part of the war waged by Germany against the Soviet Union. I have found no contemporary references in German war sources that would call Finland's aggression against Soviet Union a war of continuation. It is outlandish that Wikipedia would have an article which very title is so biased in favor of one side in the conflict - in this case the Nazis (and their Finnish helpers) and which does not even exist in the other side's historic terminology. If an international encyclopedia is to have an article on an event then at the very least the name of that event should be recognized and shared by all parties. It is certainly not the case here. Roobit
Google books test
In all western contires, atleast, the term "continuation war" is used. The name also dominates English language usage, on print sources also. -- Pudeo ( Talk) 13:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Google books test #2
You have a point there. Should we rename the Great Patriotic War article as well? -- Illythr 14:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The name Continuation War became about spontaneously, instantaneously and naturally. The war continued, Josef Stalin's attempt to conquer Finland. That's all. There is nothing fake or pretentious about the name.
However, the name given in the Soviet Union for the Soviet over-all war during WW2, the Great Patriotic War, is seen by many even in Russia as fake, a name given under false pretense.
Why wasn't history taught correctly in USSR? Because, the country was a communist totalitarian society, and because the entire system of USSR - on all levels - was based on a big totalitarian lie, which was built of millions of smaller lies.
Should the Great Patriotic War article be ended in Wikipedia? No, but the article must be made to reflect the truth. A lie must be reported as a lie, and the truth must be reported as the truth.
The Russian people themselves must take the initiative in the healing process and re-education of the Russian people. Ahven is a fish 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
In the article is says: President Boris Yeltsin publicly admitted that the Soviet Union had started the Continuation War.(citation needed) citation provided-
Where is a reference to the actual statement by Boris Yeltsin, not an insinuation by someone in Finland? It does not exist because Yeltsin never said anything like that. Becuase he could not have said it as the term is unknown in Russia. Roobit
What does Winter war have to do with this so-called Continuation War - it is alleged that Yeltsin publicly said that the Soviet Union attacked Finland so launched this so-called "Continuation War?" Any proof he said that? Any scrap of paper. Anything? These are fairly fantastic claims. Happy New Year;-) Roobit
User Whiskey and everyone else: The proposal by user Whiskey [12] on December 29, 2006 for cooperation is appreciated.
His suggestion for us to hold on to the previously contested text, and to allow further sources and links to be added, and some minor alterations to be made, is in the spirit of the widely accepted Wikipedia standards and "rules".
The decision by the user Whiskey is met by a friendly handshake from the user Ahven is a fish, as long as it can be agreed to extend the exact same Wikipedia standards to cover the entire Continuation War article and its various claims, instead of this segment only. We - of course - must not have a double standard.
We must try allowing ourselves to act sensibly and sensitively with any changes proposed and made to the Continuation War article from here on.
Let us hope that others will not disagree with this attempt to cooperate. If we do not hear of opposing views by January 8, 2007, please allow the user Ahven is a fish to provide a new version of the text by January 9, 2007, in which minor alterations will have been made to the text, taking into consideration some of the suggestions that have been brought up and/or agreed upon in this forum. Also, further sources will be added.
The source below, provided by the user Bejnar on January 3, 2007, will also be added. This source confirms two very important key facts mentioned in the previously contested text, which has been under scrutiny in this forum:
1. Russian President
Boris Yeltsin did admit, that the
Soviet Union started the
Continuation War, by its attack against Finnish targets (a claim fiercely contested by the user
Illythr) .
...... When? Any reference? Link? Statement? In Russian? How can he have "admitted" to something that he cannot admit to (becuase Russia is not Soviet Union, and Soviet Union is not old Russia which included FInland in its present entirety) or even claim something that he cannot possibly claim because the term for this does not exist and is unknown except to a very small group of people familiar with postwar Finnish historiography? Roobit
2. President of Finland Tarja Halonen did remind in Paris, that - importantly - Finland had a separate war, siding the official Finnish view of the Government of Finland and the Parliament of Finland (a point fiercely contested by the user Illythr).
...... She can claim anything she wants. Germany provided weapons, advice, had staff generals commandeered to the front, there were German troops in Finland (did they merely come to fish?), there are heaps of literature published in Germany right after the war on the subject. It is preposterous to suggest that Finland was not ethnuasistic ally of Nazi Germany and not willing aggressor. You can only claim that when the other side is unaware of the claims or is silent, which has more or less been the case all these years, but it does not make your claims true or right. Roobit
As the above points have formed the central backbone of the entire debate in this forum [13], it is solemnly requested, that the previously contested text will be allowed to stay intact from any further revert warring, and that sufficient time will be allowed for providing more sources, such as related book and page information, for support of the previously contested information. --- Ahven is a fish 06:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
President Boris Yeltsin also admitted to President Martti Ahtisaari, that the Soviets had started the war. Book, Menetetty Karjala (Lost Karelia), page 196:
"Presidentti Jeltsin tunnusti Stalinin hyökkäyksen, mutta yritti saada asiaa pois päiväjärjestyksestä" (President Yeltsin admitted Stalin's attack, but tried to get the matter out of calendar). 213.216.199.26 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The break up of the Soviet Union appeared to have brought a significant change in the policies and attitudes acquired by the new Russian leadership in this respect, when in 1991 President Boris Yeltsin publicly admitted that the Soviet Union had started the Continuation War. citation needed When confronted with the question, President Vladimir Putin referred to President Yeltsin's earlier statements, saying that there was no reason for the Russian leaders to further apologize about the matter.
The Continuation War is widely perceived as a continuation for the Finnish-Soviet Winter War (1939–1940), Stalin's attempt to occupy Finland, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed between Stalin and Hitler in 1939.
PS: My Kremlin masters demand that the information revealing my KGB affiliation as well as the Truth of what user Whiskey (et al) actually is on this talk page should be censored as fast as possible. Therefore, I humbly propose to archive all sections not related to the actual article. -- Illythr 00:42, 8 January 2007 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
J don't know if it is trougth that jeltsin sed that but j have heard of it.J think that that the Sovjetunion framed Finland for the Shelling of Mainila to get a reason to declare war on and conquer Finland. and Finland did never want to side with the nazis but to keep it's independence they had to! and so it could be realy trought that jeltsin sed wath he sed. j don't think that this article should be deleted or removed!! and j think that you could write where this "propaganda" is that it is not neceserily the trought.
I'd like the author to give me the source of their contention that Finnish public opinion views the Continuation War as inevitable. I can find plenty of evidence for this view about the Winter War but none from Turku's Library of Political Sciences for this view about the Continuation War, even from contemporaneous sources.
I do believe that the articles are slightly skewed to an unflinchingly Finnish Nationalist pov and I say that as a long-term foreign resident of the country, which I hope qualifies me to pronounce on such things without fear of being insensitively blind to cultural pressures to conform to the state's view of history.
Can whoever wrote the article's introduction please insert some definite articles (THEs to English speakers) but that is a minor point.
As regards Nazism, there is a synagogue in Turku, which was closed down in 1943. A friend Antti has told me of a similar event in Naantali, but I have no dates for that. Also, the article skates around the thousands of Finns who joined the Viking Division of the SS to fight under the colours of Nazi Germany.
Jatrius 08:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I've refrained from editing until there may be a deeper consensus arrived at on the issue of inevitability.
Outright falsehoods and propaganda. I have never attempted to edit this article but requested it to be renamed. I see new gems appearing (or wasn't I too careful at reading this propagandist pamphlet the first time?) Like this "The break up of the Soviet Union appeared to have brought a significant change in the policies and attitudes acquired by the new Russian leadership in this respect, when in 1991 President Boris Yeltsin publicly admitted that the Soviet Union had started the Continuation War.[citation needed]"
Tell me, when and where exactly did this scandal take place? How? Any reference to anything? Any media link? Did Yeltsin really call the war of aggression waged by Finland and Nazi Germany against Soviet Union "war of continuation?" as the article claims? I am quite certain that we have a case of presenting totally fabricated statements which attributed to person (president Yeltsin) who never made them and who, in all likelihood, is not even aware of the term Continuation War. Roobit
This article violates the Wikipedia neutrality policy in and by its very name (not to mention its contents). To be included in an encyclopedia, free or otherwise, especially in a multilingual encyclopedia, the subject of each entry must at least be a valid concept recognized by all, that actually exists at least as an abstraction. For instance, an article on water can be clearly translated from English into French and into Russian, and so and on, and the water can be defined as H2O. Likewise, an article on the US Civil War is a valid concept even though it can be mentioned that the war is also called the War of Southern Independence, the War between the States, and mention and create referral pages for whatever other name no matter how fanciful or marginal exists. But the American Civil War (the Civil War) is a concept univerally recognized; it would be recognized (in a translated form) by speakers of most languages without any disclaimer. It is an accepted historic term.
In the case of the Continuation War or of the War of Continuation we are confronting a concept that is not universally recognized and which also bears politically charged name. It is as if the Civil War article (which I had not seen) was wirtten solely from the Southern perspective and the article itself was titled the War of Southern Independence. In fact the author of the article would have made a disclaimer in the text that the other side knows it differently. In case of the Continuation War it is even worse than that - we have a monstrous violation of neutrality policy because the other side in question does not even recognize the validity of the term and is not aware it exists (since clearly it was not a separate war but a part of the WWII in which Finnish and German Nazis fought alongside, invaded the same country, espoused similar ideology and methods. I have a book here by Waldemar Erfurth, a Nazi general attached to the Finnish HQ during their war of aggression against the Soviet Union. The book, published in 1950, is titled Der Finnische Krieg - or the Finnish War. It is not titled the Continuation War since even the Nazi generals in Finland's own headquarters did not regard it or call it Continuation War.
Unfortunately, through Wikipedia and similar sources this preposterous name for the Finnish front operations gets currency in the English speaking world, at least online.
You should either delete this article entirely or rename it to something neutral as Finnish front or Finland's alliance with Germany, or Finland's war against USSR (which again would not be accurate because Finnish and German troops were together on Finnish territory, it was not "Finland's war") or move it to the WWII section. There is most certainly no place for any article titled the War of Continuation - at least if you intend or at the very least pretend to maintain Wikipedia's stated policy of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit ( talk • contribs)
How come this worthless propagandist piece with its very name being total bunk was nominated for good article category? Where is the button to vote against it? Is any new war by party that lost previous one a war of continuation? Is Iraq America's War of Continuation (after Vietnam)? You cannot take a preposterous term used by nationalists and Nazis in a certain country and present it as if the term is acceptable to all because it is clearly not. In Russia no one calls joint Finnish-Nazi aggression a war of continuation, the term is unknown, so why would narrow and again utterly preposterous Finnish term be presented as is the only one. For example, World War Two or let's say the War of Austrian Succession are valid historic terms, the fact that they happened (and were not a part of something is else) is agreed by all and these terms exist in all written languages. An article like the War of Succession can be translated parallelly into —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit ( talk • contribs)
This is total garbage - there should be no article called Continuation War as this episode of World War II when Finland attacked Soviet Union with the help of Nazi Germany and participated in what effectively became one of the worst war crimes in the history of humanity (blockade of Leningrad) is referred to as Continuation War only by modern Finnish Nazis. An war of aggression cannot be continuation of anything. Not even the German Nazis call WWII the "War of Continuation" merely because they lost WWI and decided to "continue" the affair on a later date.
Get rid off this article entirely. Move the topic to WWII section.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 November 2006
Mikael Agricola wrote in Finnish before William Shakespeare was born in 1564. Agricola's Finnish writing is very understandable even as we speak.
Many of those who speak both, English and Finnish, could tell you, that Agricola's Finnish is by no means a "tribal dialect", and that Acricola's Finnish is easier to understand than Shakespeare's English.
Which language has changed more? "There is the question."
Before the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776, the news could be already read from a Finnish language newspaper in Finland.
Due to the geographical isolation of the Finnic peoples, and the history of relatively little assimilation of the Finnic population, and due to the far reaching tradition of Finnish oral poetry and songwriting, the Finnish language is seen to have stayed its course, by not changing much, compared to many other languages.
Thus, linguistic experts have been able to claim for instance, that the modern-day Finnish words tulla (come) and mennä (go) were in use in the Ural mountains already 8000 years ago, and perhaps before, and the word lähteä (to go) already 6000 years ago, and presumably before.
The original language of at least some the southwestern parts of the modern-day Russia was the mother language of the modern-day Finnish. How much could the contemporary Finn understand of that language of their distant relatives, is debatable.
By descend, an average Russian today is said to be - to a large extend - an approximate three way mixture of Finnish tribes, Slavic tribes and Vikings, of whom many are said to have been Finnish as well.
Thus user Robeet/Illythr/Whisky, your related remarks, comparisons and comments indeed do not seem "inoffensive", but very much offensive. One might even ask whose civilization should we really be concerned about. With comparisons like this, you may not reach very far in diminishing any resentments felt toward Russians in the west.
Due to some 44 known wars, which the Finns have participated in, Russophobia must have been present and discussed in Finland much before the term ever appeared in English usage, according to you around "1820s". For comparison, based on historic writings, the Finnish tribes were battling against Slavic peoples already during the Viking Age (and who knows how long before that). Ahven is a fish 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Where do casualty figures and such come from? Any credible sources for anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 26 November 2006
The talk page texts above and the offered ending for the conclusion part of the Continuation War article are tide with evidence, widely accepted facts, sources and exact quotes from both, the war-time leaders and the current leaders of USSR, Russia and Finland. Naturally, more can be added and sources can be included, and wordings can be altered. All suggestions are welcome.
Thus, what "facts" are you referring to, user Whiskey? Aren't there already plenty of facts on the table? Although asked, you have not pointed out anything wrong in the text or provided a single counter claim so far. Instead, without challenging a single offered fact, you have resorted only to the reverting of the article, or suggesting its removal to somewhere else (such move has been suggested only by you).
Others have shown their willingness to keep the entire article in the Continuation War as such, and yet others keeping at least parts of it there. Any attempt to simply revert away the text in question should be reasoned by at least a counter claim or a showing of any information challenged as incorrect. Valid sources for counter claims must be provided.
The information about PM Hackzell above obviously refers to a study in progress. At this point, no definite conclusions should be made to one direction or another - of course -, before something concrete can be provided. In most democracies, no one is guilty before proven guilty. Thus, nothing about even a possible murder should be mentioned in actual Wikipedia articles, or anywhere else really, hereafter. Furthermore, if it makes anyone feel better, I'll take back this speculation at the time being, even if it is tempting, and even if it is only slightly touched on a talk page.
The PM Hackzell mentioning in this context plays no role with the current Continuation War article, even the ending of it.
At this point, user Whiskey, this is a non-issue, similar to your "cultivated land" dilemma. There too, you didn't appear to have gotten the point of the talk page comment, which correctly referred to the Finns not wanting to join the Battle of Leningrad, and not wanting to fully destroy Viipuri, Finland's second biggest city at the time.
The Finns rather took the fight to the "woods" - rhetorically speaking. There, tens of thousands of artillery shells could be targeted against the enemy, without having to destroy a city which took hundreds of years to build, and which - in case of Viipuri - was an important center of the Karelian and Finnish culture.
It really makes no difference whether or not there were "cultivated lands" around the battle areas of Tali and Ihantala. Neither "cultivated lands" nor "woods" compete with the cities in question, when it comes to the national and cultural wealth and heritage of the two countries. In terms of Helsinki - a capital - the situation might have been a bit different. More than delaying tactics most probably would have been used there.
Nevertheless, the majority of the land both in Tali and Ihantala were woods and forests. Tali and Ihantala happened to represent the areas where the Soviets had decided to march through. There, as anywhere, - if it could be avoided - no officer wanted to bring his troops to an open field, where his soldiers would make a clearly visible and easy target for the enemy. Thus, the men were mainly kept in the "woods" - even literally speaking - when ever possible, and when they were not traveling on the roads. For the cover, the men used fox holes, large rocks, trees and bushes, trenches, etc.
Furthermore, the Soviet spearhead was destroyed on and near the roads where the Red Army was advancing westbound (for the most time). Those roads went through woods and forests, sometimes also through "cultivated lands", of course. The war-time accounts and images from the battle scenes portray these roads, and the woods around them (see a typical related war time image attached).
The recently added ending of the "conclusion" section of the Continuation War article is not meant to hurt anyone's feelings - yours including, user Whiskey. Perhaps you will feel somewhat better, if the heading will be changed. I just inserted a new one, for your review. Your suggestions are welcome, of course!
Clearly, until the recent times, a whole lot of people have been under the spell of the history writing of the overwhelming propaganda machine of the long time super power, USSR.
For instance, user Whiskey, your protection of - and reverting back - the following sentence in the Continuation War article, hopefully doesn't reflect your personal views, rather than "facts" which you claim to be after (when asked for you to reason your urge to hold on to the following sentence, you declined to respond):
"In retrospect the Continuation War can be seen as the result of a series of political miscalculations by the Finnish leadership in which Finland's martial abilities clearly outshone its diplomatic skills."
Most historians and researchers widely agree, that if Finland indeed would have done something very differently, it might have not received the same, quite favorable outcome. Thus, the Finnish policies hereby have received much praise from abroad.
So - once again -, what do you have to support you claim with, user Whiskey? If you indeed continue insisting something like this to be saved in the article, without any appropriate sources to back you up, it seems only fair, that the utmost experts, the actual key figures from the both sides, the people in charge then and now, have their say for the Wikipedians to review, as well.
What could be wrong about that? Is there anything that could be more right? Why do you wish to prevent the presenting of the non-Soviet sponsored facts? Please, let people make up their own minds about what happened, after the facts have been laid down. Wikipedia is here to present the neutral facts as the tools for all people to use, in search for the ultimate truth. We must try presenting the truth the best way we can, whether we like it or not. I assure you, I'm always trying my very best to achieve exactly that.
After all, this is not a KGB bulletin board, but the worldwide Wikipedia instead. Wikipedia represents the very electronic medias, which helped to destroy the totalitarian Soviet Union, and to bring democracy to large amounts of people in Eastern-Europe and to the prior protectorates of USSR, where presenting of real "facts" was not tolerated.
If you do believe that Finland should have realized to prepare itself much better before the Soviet-initiated Winter War, and that Finland should have accepted the western help offered during the Winter War, many would agree with you - because the Western help would have put the Soviets in a very difficult situation. Yet, others would not agree, because the offered Western help was not very substantial (although it might have turned bigger later, perhaps).
However, in the case of the Continuation War, what Finnish "series of political miscalculations" are you referring to, in the article? Why do you fiercely want to protect this claim in Wikipedia.
If you aren't able to offer anything to back up your view of the said "series of political miscalculations", please do no longer revert back to that sentence, which already was moderated. Otherwise, you clearly aren't being neutral - and thus your continued non-sourced reverts would constitute vandalism.
Please - also -, do not revert away the ending part of the "conclusion" section of the Continuation War Article, unless you appropriately reason yourself, backing up your view by acceptable, appropriate and valid neutral sources.
Currently, the added text in the conclusion part clearly asks an extremely valid and important question, and then offers material for the answers. This is vitally important, and thus the very same conversation has - during the recent years - been going on strongly in Finland, and the topic has even been touched by the current Finnish and Russian Presidents, Putin and Halonen, and now the conversation has flamed up amongst the researchers in Sweden, … and so on.
The added text offers some key facts and tools, and includes reasoning, sources and appropriate direct quotes from key figures from both sides of the border, people in charge, many of whom actually participated in the war itself, including the top leaders of USSR, Russia and Finland. The text also discusses the goals of both sides, based on facts, concrete agreements, or non-alliance. The exact dates for different main events are offered, such as the date of Molotov's meeting in Berlin, etc.
Although no one has suggested it, more detailed information, sources, dates, etc., will be added a.s.a.p. (lack of time is the problem, isn't it).
Just because a lie has been set forth, and because it has been repeated over and over again, it does not turn it into the truth. Thus, it is up to the pushers of a claimed "Finnish defeat" to concretely show what they have to support their claim with.
So far, only ceding of land has been offered for a support of this view/theory. It is often forgotten that there were many strange and unusual things about the Finnish wars. In retrospect, one of the strangest things indeed must have been the outcome, which - according to some - was necessary at the time, regardless how well Finland won its defensive war.
It appears that the opponents of the claimed "defeat" have presented their case fairly well now. Giving out land to achieve a lasting peace does not make Finland a loser of the war, which preceded the land ceding.
A defensive war could only be won by a defensive victory! In the battle field Finland reached the only goal it had, and in only way possible, by winning the war - and in doing so, it could not have performed better. How? Loosing the war would not have saved Finns from the treatment the peoples of the Baltic States had to face.
Finland had refused to participate in the encirclement of Leningrad and to concentrate large formations near Leningrad, or to proceed to the Soviet land on this area. Accordingly, the determining battle in this particular area could only be fought on the Finnish soil - and it was.
Thus, this Red Army spearhead was to be met on the Finnish territory, because the Finns themselves clearly had decided to take the fight of this particular front to the Finnish soil, for diplomatic reasons (as explained in the article and the talk comments). The advancement of the spearhead soon became stopped.
In Finland's case, the ceding of land - following the victorious defensive war - was not determined so much by the preceding battles and war themselves, but the foreseeable future instead. Finland wanted a lasting peace.
If a winner of a boxing match agrees to pay for the loser's broken nose (willingly or unwillingly) - and to even offer him a piece of land somewhere, for compensation -, this does not make the winner a loser of the boxing match!
Anno Domino 06:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems fair to state that determining the winner/s of the Continuation War is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Finland had succeeded in her goal to save her independence and sovereignty. The Soviet Union - on the other hand - had fallen far from its objective, conquering Finland, although in the armistice it was to gain a little land, for a heavy price paid.
Only a token of this land USSR had gained on the battle fields. In the war's end, Finland had - after abandoning the City of Viipuri - won all the remaining nine consecutive final battles, which would determine the outcome of the war. In the very final Battle of Ilomantsi the Finns had even succeeded in pushing the enemy back.
Ever since its initial attack in the beginning of the war on June 25, 1941, and the following retreat, the Red Army had not been able to cross the 1940 Finnish-Soviet border, except for a short-lived moment in the final Battle of Ilomantsi in 1944, where it suffered a lose, after two of its divisions were decimated and shattered by the Finns, while those escaping death were driven back east.
In these respects - from the military point of view - Finland clearly had come out a winner on the final battle stages. In the end, her troops were deep on the Soviet soil, except for a narrow Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus, which was stopped in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala.
However, if Finland was to be portrayed as an ally of Germany, it would be fair to view Finland to at least have been on the losing side of the World War.
Yet again - from Finland's perspective -, as the Finnish leaders have consistently reminded the world; forced to do so, the Finns had accepted help from Germany, but they by no means took the relationship much further that that. There was no official pact signed between the two nations, and although there was a common enemy, the objectives were very different.
Finland wanted to live, and to protect her sovereignty, and in order to do so it had to accept help from anywhere available, as by 1940 it was evident that the Soviet Union was not about to honor the promises set forth in the end of the Winter War. Finland was rapidly losing all control of her internal matters. What the Soviet Union had not been able to gain in the battle arena of the Winter War, it was now grapping during the interim peace period.
By this time the Soviet Union had committed numerous border violations, it had controlled the Finnish elections, it had taken control of some vitally important Southern Finnish railroads, and its army was building up forces on the Finnish border, etc.
All the access from Finland to the rest of the world had become sealed by either the Soviets or the Germans, who at this stage had taken control of the Baltic nations and Norway and Denmark. Thus, even in theory, Germany now was the only place from where Finland could receive help for her protection. Pressed between a rock and a hard place, Finland saw that she had no choice but to go for the minimum amount of cooperation necessary for her protection. Nevertheless, a bulk of Hitler's key demands Finland refused to honor:
Besides refusing to hand out her Jews to the Nazis (except for eight deported refuge seekers), the Finns refused to join Germany's - nearly successful - attack against Leningrad, the lose of which could have been detrimental to USSR in several ways, not least from the moral stand point of view. The Finns also held back from interrupting the American "lifeline" of help to the defenders of Leningrad, over the Lake Ladoga. Furthermore, the Finns categorically refused to cut the Murmansk railroad near its border, along which the crucially important and massive American help was transported to the Soviet Army, and Finland also held her forces from advancing any further east than the River Svir (Syväri).
These all were among the attempts on Finland's behalf to make the Soviet counterparts - and the rest of the world - to realize that Finland sincerely was only fighting for her survival, against Josef Stalin's continued attempt to conquer Finland, for which the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov had sought for Adolf Hitler's final approval - on his visit to Berlin on November 12 -13, 1940 -, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939.
User Petri Krohn: That Pudeo's message above was not "deleted". It is in its correct spot - timeline-wise -, right before the long continuously updated text above, and my answer to it is there as well (signed 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)).
If you needed to make a duplicate of this Pudeo's comment, why couldn't you just place it right here, on the bottom of the line of messages, where I just carried it (above). You duplicated the comment right in the middle - inside - an unrelated text, the very long text right above. You did that at 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Why in the middle of unrelated text? And why a duplicate? Are you trying to make a mess of the information provided here? Do the facts not please your ideology ? Why nothing productive from you ?
Earlier, you also placed the following comment inside another contributor's text:
Elsewhere in Wikipedia, we stopped the very same counterproductive tactics, as this can easily create confusion, and mix-ups:
If we continue building the counter-commenting - with even unrelated messages and pointless remarks - inside someone else's message, we run out room inside the original message, we distort the original message, we create mix-up and confusion, and separating the contributions from one another becomes a bit difficult inside the mess.
Besides, if we do this, where is a possible newcomer supposed to place her/his unrelated new comment, when - timeline-wise - it may seem that the posting of the comment should be made right below the very last reply, which may be posted right in a middle of someone's long message.
So everyone, at least when it comes to my comments, please, set your replies below - not inside - my text (you too user Whiskey/Illythr)
User Petri Krohn: These tactics may have fit your purposes, as all I've seen you contribute so far, is the above counterproductive duplicate and your quoted "crap" remark.
Could you try performing at least a bit better than this, please! Hereafter, if and when you do reverting, removing or adding, make sure to provide clear reasoning, full with detailed sources to back up your counterclaims.
I you are not familiar with the topic and you have no appropriate counterclaims, please do not revert anything, even if the information in question may be new for you.
If everyone only provided "crap" to Wikipedia, what would this be? So, please, no more creating confusion, no more reverts without reasoning, no more anarchy, no more "crab"!
Thank you for your co-operation!
213.216.199.6 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Due to page protection, I introduce contested text here (once again). Please write your comments of the text here. The purpose is to produce neutral text what is acceptable to all parties. The participants could present their opinions of the acceptable entry at the end of the paragraph under the heading "Proposed paragraph:". Remember to sign also your proposals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskey ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 20 December 2006
Please, refrain using highlight in excess (=more than one word) inside the discussion, let's reserve them to the paragraph text and proposal text. The intention is that you propose what should be the text of the paragraph under the "Proposed paragraph:" and it could be modified constantly. The area above is reserved for argumenting and counterargumenting.
I also modified the places of some your signatures to make discussion more tight.-- Whiskey 13:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
As I wish to break this deadlock, I'm ready to accept the insertion of this chapter to the end of the article (I still prefer NOT to have the chapter at all!), with following restrictions:
I'm going to play this according the book, so we follow the rules defined in Wikipedia's official policy. If we cannot reach consensus, I'm going to ask RfC. -- Whiskey 00:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems fair to state that determining the winner/s of the Continuation War is largely in the eyes of the beholder citation needed. Finland had succeeded in her goal, to save her independence and sovereignty and to prevent the take-over attempts by the Soviet Union, set forth by two all-out attacks citation needed by the Red Army citation needed, one initiating the Winter War on November 30, 1939, and the other initiating the Continuation War on June 25, 1941. unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph: (Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-->to be saved in either one of the following ways that were suggested previously, below ( Ahven is a fish 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)):
1. It seems fair to state that determining the winner/s of the Continuation War is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Finland had succeeded in her goal to save her independence and sovereignty. The Soviet Union - on the other hand - had fallen far from its objective, conquering Finland, although in the armistice it was to gain a little land, for a heavy price paid.
2. It seems fair to state that determining the winner/s of the Continuation War is largely in the eyes of the beholder. Finland had succeeded in her goal, to save her independence and sovereignty and to prevent the take-over attempts by the Soviet Union, set forth by two massive attacks by the Red Army, one initiating the Winter War on November 30, 1939, and the other initiating the Continuation War on June 25, 1941.
213.216.199.6 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
--> Keep the text (preferably the no. 2 version above). Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
--> Version 2. with a change "Finland had succeeded in keepeng it's independence"-- Mtjs0 05:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
--> Version 2. keep the text preferably number 2 -- Masa62 10:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The Soviet Union - on the other hand - had fallen far from its main objective citation needed, conquering Finland citation needed, a goal set forth in Moscow on August 23, 1939, by the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Stalin and Hitler citation needed.
Proposed paragraph: (Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-->SAVE TEXT AS IT IS Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-->SAVE TEXT AS IT IS -- Mtjs0 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Finland had abandoned the City of Viipuri citation needed, using only hours of delaying tactics citation needed on June 20, 1944, up to 16:40 (20th Br, 120 dead/MIA; research by Eeva Tammi, 8/2006). The following nine consecutive final battles were victorious for the Finnish Armed Forces citation needed. In the very final Battle of Ilomantsi the Finns had even succeeded in pushing the enemy back.
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
--> Save the original text as it is. Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ever since its initial attack citation needed in the beginning of the war on June 25, 1941, and the following retreat, the Red Army had not been able to cross the 1940 Finnish-Soviet border, except for a short-lived moment in the final Battle of Ilomantsi in 1944, where it suffered a loss, after two of its divisions were decimated and shattered by the Finns.
Proposed paragraph:
(Included to the next chapter) -- Whiskey 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Ever since the initial Soviet attack in the beginning of the war on June 25, 1941, and the following retreat, the Red Army had not been able to cross the 1940 Finnish-Soviet border, except for a short-lived moment in the final Battle of Ilomantsi in 1944, where it suffered a loss, after two of its divisions were decimated and shattered by the Finns. 213.216.199.6 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with that. Save the suggestion above by 213.216.199.6. Ahven is a fish 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The text tells just the reality, and it must be saved -- Masa62 10:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
A narrow citation needed but massive Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus had been stopped in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala citation needed. On other areas, Finns were on the Soviet soil. Of the territory eventually ceded to USSR, the Red Army had won only a fraction in battles citation needed, by fighting citation needed. In this respect - from military point of view - Finland clearly had come out a winner on the final battle stages. citation needed unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
Finns were able to stop Soviet offensive well before the border of 1940, approximately to the same positions were the frontline was at the end of the Winter War. The only place where Soviets reached Finnish border was in Ilomantsi, and even there they were beaten back in the following battle. -- Whiskey 00:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the sentence just as it is. Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you tell the truth and everything here earns to be respected -- Masa62 10:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
However, if Finland was to be portrayed as an ally of Germany, it would be fair to view Finland to at least have been on the losing side of the World War.
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the text just as it is (pls, see reasoning above) Ahven is a fish 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yet again - from Finland's perspective -, as the Finnish leaders have consistently reminded the world; forced to do so citation needed, the Finns had accepted help from Germany, but they by no means took the relationship much further that that citation needed. There was no official pact signed between the two nations citation needed, and although there was a common enemy, the objectives were very different.
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the sentence intact! Ahven is a fish 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Finland wanted to live, and to protect her sovereignty, and in order to do so it had to accept help from anywhere available, as by 1940 it was evident that the Soviet Union was not about to honor the promises set forth in the end of the Winter War. Finland was rapidly losing all control of her internal matters citation needed. What the Soviet Union had not been able to gain in the battle arena of the Winter War, it was now grapping during the interim peace period. unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether)
Whiskey
09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep this text. Ahven is a fish 13:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. -- Mtjs0 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
By this time the Soviet Union had committed numerous border violations citation needed, it had controlled the Finnish elections citation needed, it had taken control of some vitally important Southern Finnish railroads citation needed, and its army was building up forces on the Finnish border citation needed, etc. unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No not take anything out. Perhaps even expand a bit, as Illythr suggests. Ahven is a fish 14:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
All the access from Finland to the rest of the world had become sealed by either the Soviets or the Germans, who at this stage had taken control of the Baltic nations and Norway and Denmark. Thus, even in theory, Germany now was the only place from where Finland could receive help for her protection citation needed. Pressed between a rock and a hard place, Finland saw that she had no choice but to go for the minimum amount of cooperation necessary for her protection citation needed. Nevertheless, a bulk of Hitler's key demands citation needed Finland refused to honor citation needed:
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Nothing ought to be touched in this paragraph either. Ahven is a fish 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. -- Mtjs0 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Besides refusing to hand out her Jews to the Nazis (except for eight deported refuge seekers), the Finns refused to join Germany's - nearly successful - attack against Leningrad, the lose of which could have been detrimental to USSR in several ways, not least from the moral stand point of view. The Finns also held back from interrupting the American citation needed "lifeline" of help to the defenders of Leningrad, over the Lake Ladoga citation needed. Furthermore, the Finns categorically refused to cut the Murmansk railroad citation needed near its border, along which the crucially important and massive American help was transported to the Soviet Army citation needed, and Finland also held her forces from advancing any further east than the River Svir (Syväri) citation needed. unbalanced opinion?
This is factual information. It is critically important to point out these facts in this context. This explains the information given in the paragraph ahead of this one (Par 10). Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the information unchanged. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
remove -- Mtjs0 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
These all were among the attempts on Finland's behalf to make the Soviet counterparts - and the rest of the world - to realize that Finland sincerely was only fighting for her survival citation needed, against Josef Stalin's continued attempt to conquer Finland, for which the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov had sought for Adolf Hitler's final approval - on his visit to Berlin on November 12 -13, 1940 -, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (Keep the text as it is currenrtly)
The text must be kept as it stands now (more reasoning above). Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
remove. -- Mtjs0 06:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thus, as Finland's current President Tarja Halonen recently once again reminded the world in a speech in Paris, the Continuation War was a separate war from the World War Two, with a separate armistice in 1944 unbalanced opinion?, independent from the German armistice and trials of WW2 later. Whereas many of the Italian citation needed and German key figures were executed, Field Marshal Mannerheim had advanced to become the President of Finland on August 4, 1944, continuing in the job until March 4, 1946. unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the information. This piece is an important part of the conclusion as a whole. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. -- Mtjs0 06:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In his memoirs, the Field Marshal Mannerheim emphasizes, how Finland - importantly - had prepared for a defense - rather than offense -, coming up to the Soviet attack of June 25, 1941. Thus, rearranging the troops to offensive formations to the level of the city of Viipuri took all of three weeks to accomplish, and another three weeks had to be spent to spread the offensive to the north side of the Lake Ladoga. citation needed unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the text as it is. This must be saved (including a direct quote from Finland's Marshal Mannerheim is supported by me, as the importantly related quotes by the other key leaders are presented in this part as well.) Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the text as it is. -- Mtjs0 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Although the Soviet history writing of the Cold War period had appeared to have all but forgotten the Winter War, since the break up of the Soviet Union the new Russian leaders - beginning from Boris Yeltsin - have publicly admitted to the Soviet Union having started not only the Winter War but the Continuation War as well citation needed. This has encouraged a new choir of voices to join those no longer chanting the mantras of the Gold War period about a Finnish defeat: citation needed unbalanced opinion?
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the text as it is. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the text as it is. -- Mtjs0 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In his last interview, on December 17, 2003, the Finnish General Adolf Ehrnrooth followed the suite:
"I, having participated in both the Winter War and the Continuation War, could stress: I know well, how the wars ended on the battle fields. Particularly the Continuation War ended to a defensive victory, in the most important meaning of the word."
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the text as it is. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove -- Mtjs0 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In his memoirs, Josef Stalin's predecessor Nikita Khrushchev points out how the Soviet Union categorically lied about the results and casualties of the battles on the Finnish front citation needed. In the praised Russian book "Bitva za Leningrad 1941-1944" ("The Battle of Leningrad") edited by Lieutenant General S.P. Platonov, it is stated: unbalanced opinion?
"The repeated offensive attempts by the Soviet Forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and repulse 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 on the orders of the Supreme Command issued on June 21."
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Save the text as it is. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. Same reason as Par 16 -- Mtjs0 06:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The President of Finland Mauno Koivisto spoke at a seminar held in August, 1994, in the North Karelian city of Joensuu, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Finnish victory in the crucial Battle of Ilomantsi. The future President of Finland witnessed this battle as a soldier in a reconnaissance company commanded by the legendary Finnish war hero and a Knight of the Mannerheim Cross, Captain Lauri Törni (who later became a legend also in USA as a Green Beret under the name Larry Thorne, raised to the rank of major upon his disappearance in Laos in 1965, during the Vietnam War): clarification needed
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 itenerated, but they "did not capitulate".
"We succeeded in stopping the enemy cold at key points", the President said, "and in the final battle at Ilomantsi even in pushing him back."
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the text just as it is. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. Irrevelant. -- Mtjs0 06:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In a speech held on September 4th, 1994, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the armistice, ending the Finnish-Soviet hostilities, the Prime Minister of Finland Esko Aho declared:
"I do not see a 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 ..."
"Finland ... won the peace."
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Do not leave out any of these important parts. Ahven is a fish 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove. Irrevelant. -- Mtjs0 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In the 1943 Allied leaders' Tehran conference, Josef Stalin referred to the Finnish over-all war efforts as a "defensive" campaign clarification needed. In Moscow, in 1948, Stalin reminded about his respect for the Finnish defense:
"Nobody respects a country with a bad army. Everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish army." - Josef Stalin
Proposed paragraph:
(Removed altogether) Whiskey 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the paragraph -- Mtjs0 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The proposed paragraphs are POV, irrelevant and/or contain shoddy scholarship. They should be removed. - Mikko H. 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
After all the debate above, I also agree with Whiskey. -- Illythr 16:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not know if I agree with anyone, there is just too much text with italics and bold and italics and bold to read through. Why do we not just recognize User:213.216.199.6/ User:Love is all we need as the permabanned user User:Art Dominique, also known as the "Kven user", and close the issue. -- Petri Krohn 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I know little of the subject matter at hand, but simply the language alone is enough to indicate that these sentences are POV. I agree with Whiskey's suggestions of removal. DarwinPeacock 10:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
We should just keep in facts as Whiskey says. But why all the good facts should be removed as you propose. There is lots of good true information. It is a big mistake if those well prepared sentences are removed. It is against Wikipedia principles. It is not finnish people fault if the knowledge of Whiskey and Illythr is based on red biased information. I propose that those users are blocked from these pages. -- User:Water-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.169.161 ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 December 2006
User Illythr / Whiskey: Today, Dec., 23, 2006, you just deleted a lot of messages from the Continuation War's talk page, the ones which you didn't like.
Yet, you left your own, much older - and radical - writings intact for the opening of the page, under the headline Introduction Query (in it you want e.g. the internationally used name of the war changed).
Please, go and revert that action now. Do archiving in chronological order (after first consulting with other users), please. Thank you for your cooperation. 213.216.199.6 20:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The ending of the Wikipedia's current Continuation War article - Contentious history views - must be saved in its place, althoug some minor alterations can be made, of course, and even the headline can be changed.
Oviously, the information provided in the segment in question was not aimed to be entirely total, complete, perfect or final by the very first shot.
However, although the formation of the sentences can be cleaned somewhat, and although minor informational additions and/or deletions can be worked out, the facts in question must be presented in unison, to provide a conclusive and easily understandable picture of the real historical events, and the related reason and results, to counter the Cold War period propaganda POV represented by the so called "official" USSR history interpretation.
This is known to be the aim of Wikipedia, as a whole - to provide the tools, the facts, for all to utililize, in an easily digestable form. The facts must not be hidden into a massive bulk of text on one page, reading and understanding of which can prove to be just too much to handle for nealry any of us.
The Finnish areas ceded to USSR in the armistice of 1944 (compared to the 1941 borders) were not conquered by USSR in battles, except for a fraction, on the Karelian Isthmus.
There, during the war, Finns had all along deliberately refrained from penetrating deeper to the Soviet side of Finland's 1939 border (except minimally). On that side of Finland's 1939 border, the Germans were fighting their own battle, the Battle of Leningrad, for approximately 900 days.
As Finns had not entered further eastbound in this area, the Soviets took the final fight on that sector to the Finnish area in the summer of 1944. There, the - relatively - narrow Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus was destroyed in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, and some of the near-by areas.
Elsewhere, ever since the beginning "moments" of the war - launched by a Soviet attack on June 25, 1941 -, the Soviets had never been able to penetrate to the Finnish side of the 1941 border.
The Red Army tried crossing that border in the very final major battle fought in the Continuation War, the Battle of Ilomantsi, but to no prevail. Two Soviet divisions were shattered there, and those Soviets troops who survived from the battle, retreated eastbound, to the Soviet side of the border.
Thus - clearly -, Finland came out a winner from the final battles of the Continuation war, what comes to the fighting with arms. Defensive battles can only be won by defensive victories. How else? This - its goal - Finland accomplished well.
An entirely different matter - all together - is, that Finland indeed agreed to cede land to its super power neighbor, to secure a lasting peace, despite of its final and conclusive defensive victories.
USSR tried to force Finland to agree to an unconditional surrender, but it was not able to accomplish that. Finland was not beaten militarily. That is one of the key points, that the ending of the Continuation War article is making - as it should.
Wikipedia needs to make this important point clearly - of course -, but particularly more so now, as the currently stated text (protected by the user Whiskey) in the conclusion segment of the Continuation War article offers the following statement, which simply does not match the widely accepted view about the matter abroad (although this view - to as large extend - was consciously included in the Cold War period propaganda represented by USSR):
"…the Continuation War can be seen as the result of a series of political miscalculations by the Finnish leadership in which Finland's martial abilities clearly outshone its diplomatic skills."
Whereas all other capitals of Europe were occupied by enemy troops (in the nations participating in fights during WW2), Helsinki and London were the only ones not. How could this explain a "series of miscalculations" by Finland - or even by England ?
Can anyone - at this time and age - seriously even try denying, that if it wasn't for the very mandatory steps Finland followed, although often quite reluctantly - for understandable reasons -, Finland too in the end would have been - most certainly - in the same boat with the rest of the bunch ? 213.216.199.6 09:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You're using that rhetoric again. Please consult the original quote. -- Illythr 13:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The below answer deals with the above questions, raised by the comments of user Illythr. The answer is a follow up for the comments below (I've highlighted the parts, which I wich to deal with in my respond):
User
Illythr: In the only other available option, Finland indeed would have become a SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic), just as the neighboring Baltic Countries were forced to become, and as you clearly appear to agree above.
The Baltic countries too were victims of the illegal Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Stalin and Hitler, under the auspices of which Josef Stalin annexed those previously independent nations into USSR.
In other words (please, tell me if I am not understanding you right), you appear to be suggesting, that Finland should have simply put her hands up, surrendered, and become a SSR?
If Finland would have done that, only then it would have not - based on you view - "made a series of miscalculation". Do we read you right ?
Currently that is what the Continuation War article is stating, and the user name Whiskey has protected that statement, by reverting back to it, after the sentence was modified.
Would all parties now agree, please, that the statement in question indeed needs to be modifies - including user Whiskey. You, user Whiskey, already appeared to go as far as to admit, that whether or not this is true, is a matter of its own (was that correctly enough recalled ? - should we bring up your exact statement). Thank you. 213.216.199.6 09:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's the answer to that text's KGB-style name change request:
The Continuation War has continuously been known only by that name, although during the Cold War KGB tried denying the name.
A simple and quick Google search will point this out clearly to anyone unfamiliar with the topic.
Stalin wanted to forget about the Winter War. Later, he also wanted to deny that he continued the war on June 25, 1941.
As the war was continued, the contemporaries automatically began calling it the Continuation War - understandably, due to lack of better term -, to separate it from references made to the Winter War (which had been fought at winter time 1939-1940, whereas the continuation went on in the following summer, beginning 1941).
Perhaps not a single person foresaw or thought of any overturns or political reasoning for the name at the time of the war, when the name was already being used.
Illythr, please do not send newer messages of others to the archives, while protecting old radical writings of your own. Here was the answer. Go and move that propaganda to the archives, please. 213.216.199.6 17:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to stir up anything, but in regard to the opening request at the beginning of the talk page, the author has a point about German military personel not calling their actions apart of the Continuation War. While this may not constitute a merging of this article with WW2, it is still worth noting that the other foriegn power fighting on Finnish soil regards their actions as a part of the Second World War. I would like to hear anyone's thoughts on this. Repdetect 12/24/06
User Illythr: Yesterday evening you archived messages, but - strangely - you left untouched the long and radical opening message of the Continuation War page (it's still there). Why?
That message - in an unprecedented manner - suggests for this entire topic (Continuation War) to be taken out of this context, and to be made just a part of the WW2 article, if anything. Why?
The article also suggests that the name, Continuation War, should be changed, forgotten about. Why?
We find it very concerning, that below that article the following signatures can be found (in this order) and that you now insist protecting those radical suggestions of that article, by leaving it unarchaived:
It is also concerning, that the account of
Jatrius was established on "18 April 2006", for that one and only contribution to be inserted to Wikipedia (no other contributions was ever made from that account), the very same contribution which you so fiercely now want to protect.
You have been asked to please revert your action from yesterday. If you archived the much newer neutral messages, this strongly Stalinist POV must go to archives as well !
Out of the three accounts, only Illythr reveals the contributions made, and no user pages exist for the two accounts.
On the talk page, only Whiskey and Jatrius talk about Jokipii and Jatkosodan synty, and both make a point of discussing each two.
Those terms are mentioned several times. Jokipii is clearly considered highly controversial figure in Finland, to say the least. Thus in this way too you're protecting strongly one-sided POV. Furthermore, even Jokipii does not support even in slightest ways the kind of radical moves, context of which you bring his name up.
The arguments and reasoning by the two user accounts, Illythr and Whiskey, are - pointedly - exactly matching, and the accounts are - accordingly - fiercely protecting the same, strangely unprecedented viewpoints, in equally rotating, repeated, and long contribution times. Seems like a strange project for Moldovian ? Why to protect Stalin, who lead to the killings of tens of million people, and Stalin lies?
The consensus between your two accounts in question include all POVs presented, including the very odd ones, such as lie turning into truth over time, after having been repeated long enough, etc.
Together these two accounts recently contacted an administrator, in attempt to have removed the factual and much needed (although quickly compiled and not yet perfect) description of the main reasons and results having to do with the Continuation War.
Strangely, as the two accounts now were hinted to belong to just one person (i.e. Illythr), this time became to present the very first and only occasion ever for the two accounts to have made contact (Dec. 19, 2006) on their respected talk pages (no user page was ever established for Whiskey. Is it because you already have one?).
Despite of extreme cooperation and kinship and fierce coinsiding in Wikipedia, this type of contacting had never happened before. Strange, would you not agree?
Thus, the user Water's concerns about the deletion of the "good facts" (as the user put it), by Illythr / Whiskey, must be taken seriously, as not a single other user has presented any war related arguments for the removal of the contested text (although few-word general remarks have been signed by a couple of other user names).
A quick scan indeed indicates, that the two accounts in question have a number of other similarities in their contributions (besides the fiercely protected, unprecedented POV), including choice of wording, spelling, signs, etc.
For instance, these accounts are the only ones to ever have used an extremely rare and personal "nah" word in their respected writings. Each of the two accounts used the term once in the Continuation War talk page, over two months apart:
Other signs used in equal amounts by the two accounts include ;-) , -- , etc., as for instance in the examples below:
Somebody seems to believe that if something is found in the textbooks published in Soviet Union, it has to be marxist. ;-) (BTW, this is the first time I have been said to be marxist. … . ;) --Illythr 20:34, 15 December 2006
Illythr: 4 x ;-) Whiskey: 3 x ;-)
These reasons and you very Stalinistic POW appear to be why (according to you) you have been called Marxist. What do you think? Do you seriously still pretend to claim, that you represent a NPOV? Nadja Polpova 18:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh, looks like
User:Roobit was indeed a sockpuppet. Too bad his puppeteer was already banned... Of course, perhaps, I can be the puppeteer of that puppeteer, making me the master of Roobit by the
rule of transitivity... Whoa, that is rather convoluted. :-[] --
Illythr
10:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Based on your own comments, you appear not to only want to hide facts from the ending part of the Continuation War article alone, but, as for instance the texts below by Whiskey / Illythr indicate, also from the beginning: You call it "Minimalist Introduction paragraph".
Why all the facts should be hidden to the massive middle part, where - without much anergy and effort - nothing can be really found? Why?
Besides, in the article's massive middle part you're protecting a very one-sided POV, full with the concentration camp type of photo, with Soviet children, etc. Why such POV?
In the meanwhile, you're terrorizing any new contributors by hard talk, so that you could continue controlling the text at this page (do you wish to receive examples).
You call yourself a "main contributor" of the article (08:06, 3 October 2006). If you wish be a contribute, can you agree not to force extremism?
Not only that, but you clearly also want to end the entire article for good, by saving that old an radical POV in the beginning of the talk page, while at the same time archiving much newer, neutral and factual messages ? Why?
In that radical text you also suggest for at least the war's name to be changed. You mean to suggest, that the war didn't continue? Is that the idea? In other words, you want the Winter War to be wiped out form history books, which Stalin's Soviet Union so desperately tried to accomplish.
In same manner you have attempted to make Finland the initial attacker of the Continuation War. You are attempting to portray Finns as Nazis, who began the war, and lost (because Germany lost), although neither point matches facts.
Perhaps these are some of the reasons why - according to your own message exchange - you have been referred to as Marxist. What could be so terrbly far fetching about that. The Soviets - after all - have for so long terrorized the history writing in that area ? Nadja Polpova 19:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Stalin's genocide of over 100 000 Finnish people before and after WW2 (he had over 60 000 Ingrian Finns alone put to death after WW2) and his long time plan to conquer Finland are well documented.
Below, please find just one such documented example of Stalin's plan to conquer Finland, from shortly before the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler:
In his speech on August 19, 1939 to the Soviet Politburo, Josef Stalin concretely laid down the Soviet Union's goals, to be set in motion by the signing of the illegal Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on August 23, 1939, with Adolf Hitler's Germany.
In this speech, Stalin revealed his plans for territorial expansion of
USSR to the
Baltic countries,
Finland) and
Poland, with the approval of either the Western powers or Germany (Source: Wikipedia
[6]).
To old Russia's borders? So what is so remarkably offensive about it?
Roobit
Stalin expressed an expectation, that the war would be the best opportunity to weaken both the Western nations and Nazi Germany, and make Germany suitable for "Sovietization" (Source: Wikipedia [7]).
In Pravda of November 30, 1939, the day of the outbreak of the Winter War against Finland, Stalin's interview relating to the speech in question was published.
Among other things, Stalin was asked for his opinion about the part of the speech, in which he expressed the thought, that the war should go on for as long as possible, so that the belligerents are exhausted.
Any quote in Russian by any chance? Or just propaganda? I have one handy here, but wait a second - it in English by Harry Truman, the massmurder of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that's perhaps what you meant:
The user
Illythr (
Whiskey) should be well aware about this
Josef Stalin's continued attempt to conquer
Finland, which was reaffirmed by the Soviet Union's Foreign Minister
Vyacheslav Molotov, on his visit to
Berlin on
November 12-
13,
1940, in a follow up meeting for the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of
1939.
Indeed, at 08:38, December 20, 2006, the user Illythr himself was the very last contributor to the Wikipedia article about the Stalin's speech on August 19, 1939, given to the Soviet Bolitbyro.
The user Illythr appears to have contributed to that page also under the user accounts 64.231.36.226 (used only for a single delete of an entire paragraph) and Whiskey.
Preemptive war by Finland and its Nazi friends? A nice justification for a war of aggression. Roobit
Whatever else may be contested in this article, it remains true that the quality of English is appalling. It has been written either by Americans or by a translation machine - often not very different in outcome.
I refer you to paragraph 11 under 'Contentious History Views'. The paragraph appears as:
Besides refusing to hand out her Jews to the Nazis (except for eight deported refuge seekers), the Finns refused to join Germany's - nearly successful - attack against Leningrad, the lose of which could have been detrimental to USSR in several ways, not least from the moral stand point of view. The Finns also held back from interrupting the American "lifeline" of help to the defenders of Leningrad, over the Lake Ladoga. Furthermore, the Finns categorically refused to cut the Murmansk railroad near its border, along which the crucially important and massive American help was transported to the Soviet Army, and Finland also held her forces from advancing any further east than the River Svir (Syväri).
It should be worded thus:
In addition to refusing to hand their Jews over to the Nazis (except for eight deported refugees), the Finns declined to join Germany's - near successful - siege of Leningrad, the loss of which could have been detrimental to the USSR in several ways, not least as a blow to morale. The Finns also refused to disrupt the American "lifeline" to the defenders of Leningrad over Lake Ladoga and to cut the Murmansk railway line near their own border, along which massive, crucially important Allied help was transported to the Soviet Army. Finland also held her forces from advancing any further east than the River Svir (Syväri).
I would urge more quality control here.
T A F—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.136.138 ( talk • contribs)
You keep pushing the same false information to Wikipedia by your different user accouts, user Illythr, and now you continue pushing incorrect grammar to be inserted to the Wikipedia, as well, by yet another new user account, 88.108.136.138. Why?
Let us once again show another example of how the user account Illythr fiercely supports an false approach - an error, really - made by the account Whiskey:
The above English language grammar error of yours, Illythr, was already discussed with you under your other account, Whiskey. You reverted the Continuation War article back to "the USA" ( [8], line 28), whereas the more correct grammar prefers just USA (the United States …, however, would be correct).
(Please, double check at the same time, what five Stalinst changes you made during the same contribution)
Now, you opened yet another user account to suggest that we should talk about the USSR, rather that just USSR. Where are you trying to take this debate. These types of thing things can be worked on, althoug on this final point of yours you appear to be wrong also.
Just USSR (without "the") presents the (more) correct grammar that the USSR (don't think of the song). However, here for instance, "the" is needed: … "the" Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also, sometimes: "the" Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
In song writing, for instance, sometimes improper grammar is used, so that the wording can be fit to the melody. Such is the case for instance in the Beatles song, "Back to the USSR". In this case too, please remember, repeating an error (lye), doesn't make the error correct (the truth), in contrary to your believes which you expressed in you comments.
User Illythr, that paragraph's message indeed can be presented in many ways. However, above, you only rewrote the original text nearly the same way, only adding errors. So, why do you bother?
Please, do not try claiming that your English language is somehow superior to the American English, or English used by people on the related talks. For instance, which are the only user accounts in Wikipedia that use the word "nah"? Correct, those are the ones of yours. Have many ever heard anyone using that term? Right, we don't think so, either.
You propose for the text to read: … "blow to morale" (in place of the current version).
You have advertised the usage of the same term in KGB style before, too, in you attempst to humiliate other Wikipedai contributors, as you claim to be the main contributor.
The wording, American "lifeline" of help, was already discussed before. Yet, as all hints strongly that you do not want to talk about the American assistance anywhere, perhaps we can just use the word Allied then.
User Illythr, please stop insulting the Americans, as you did in your text here under the account 88.108.136.138, or the Finns and the Latvians (or anyone else) Anno Domino 15:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC), as you did under the account of Roobit here: [9].
Ps.: The sock puppet account Whiskey has been met on same Russophobia site, defending fake images:
Ps.: In the following sentence there indeed was an accidental tiny blooper: "... refusing to hand out her Jews over to the Nazis (except for eight deported refugees), the Finns declined to join Germany's ...
Shoud be: their Jews (or: Finland declined)
The check up for possible bloopers had just began (see history), when you contacted an administrator, and suceeded in locking the page from fixing that blooper.
Anno Domino 15:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You do not use an article before the names of countries except where they indicate multiple areas or contain the words (state(s), kindom, republic, union). Kingdom, state, republic and union are nouns, so they need an article.
I requested the removal or renaming of the article because the term Continuation War is not shared by all participants of that conflict, which never occurred as a separate war (Continuation, Re-continuation of whatever is the translation of this nonsense) but was a part of the war waged by Germany against the Soviet Union. I have found no contemporary references in German war sources that would call Finland's aggression against Soviet Union a war of continuation. It is outlandish that Wikipedia would have an article which very title is so biased in favor of one side in the conflict - in this case the Nazis (and their Finnish helpers) and which does not even exist in the other side's historic terminology. If an international encyclopedia is to have an article on an event then at the very least the name of that event should be recognized and shared by all parties. It is certainly not the case here. Roobit
Google books test
In all western contires, atleast, the term "continuation war" is used. The name also dominates English language usage, on print sources also. -- Pudeo ( Talk) 13:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Google books test #2
You have a point there. Should we rename the Great Patriotic War article as well? -- Illythr 14:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The name Continuation War became about spontaneously, instantaneously and naturally. The war continued, Josef Stalin's attempt to conquer Finland. That's all. There is nothing fake or pretentious about the name.
However, the name given in the Soviet Union for the Soviet over-all war during WW2, the Great Patriotic War, is seen by many even in Russia as fake, a name given under false pretense.
Why wasn't history taught correctly in USSR? Because, the country was a communist totalitarian society, and because the entire system of USSR - on all levels - was based on a big totalitarian lie, which was built of millions of smaller lies.
Should the Great Patriotic War article be ended in Wikipedia? No, but the article must be made to reflect the truth. A lie must be reported as a lie, and the truth must be reported as the truth.
The Russian people themselves must take the initiative in the healing process and re-education of the Russian people. Ahven is a fish 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
In the article is says: President Boris Yeltsin publicly admitted that the Soviet Union had started the Continuation War.(citation needed) citation provided-
Where is a reference to the actual statement by Boris Yeltsin, not an insinuation by someone in Finland? It does not exist because Yeltsin never said anything like that. Becuase he could not have said it as the term is unknown in Russia. Roobit
What does Winter war have to do with this so-called Continuation War - it is alleged that Yeltsin publicly said that the Soviet Union attacked Finland so launched this so-called "Continuation War?" Any proof he said that? Any scrap of paper. Anything? These are fairly fantastic claims. Happy New Year;-) Roobit
User Whiskey and everyone else: The proposal by user Whiskey [12] on December 29, 2006 for cooperation is appreciated.
His suggestion for us to hold on to the previously contested text, and to allow further sources and links to be added, and some minor alterations to be made, is in the spirit of the widely accepted Wikipedia standards and "rules".
The decision by the user Whiskey is met by a friendly handshake from the user Ahven is a fish, as long as it can be agreed to extend the exact same Wikipedia standards to cover the entire Continuation War article and its various claims, instead of this segment only. We - of course - must not have a double standard.
We must try allowing ourselves to act sensibly and sensitively with any changes proposed and made to the Continuation War article from here on.
Let us hope that others will not disagree with this attempt to cooperate. If we do not hear of opposing views by January 8, 2007, please allow the user Ahven is a fish to provide a new version of the text by January 9, 2007, in which minor alterations will have been made to the text, taking into consideration some of the suggestions that have been brought up and/or agreed upon in this forum. Also, further sources will be added.
The source below, provided by the user Bejnar on January 3, 2007, will also be added. This source confirms two very important key facts mentioned in the previously contested text, which has been under scrutiny in this forum:
1. Russian President
Boris Yeltsin did admit, that the
Soviet Union started the
Continuation War, by its attack against Finnish targets (a claim fiercely contested by the user
Illythr) .
...... When? Any reference? Link? Statement? In Russian? How can he have "admitted" to something that he cannot admit to (becuase Russia is not Soviet Union, and Soviet Union is not old Russia which included FInland in its present entirety) or even claim something that he cannot possibly claim because the term for this does not exist and is unknown except to a very small group of people familiar with postwar Finnish historiography? Roobit
2. President of Finland Tarja Halonen did remind in Paris, that - importantly - Finland had a separate war, siding the official Finnish view of the Government of Finland and the Parliament of Finland (a point fiercely contested by the user Illythr).
...... She can claim anything she wants. Germany provided weapons, advice, had staff generals commandeered to the front, there were German troops in Finland (did they merely come to fish?), there are heaps of literature published in Germany right after the war on the subject. It is preposterous to suggest that Finland was not ethnuasistic ally of Nazi Germany and not willing aggressor. You can only claim that when the other side is unaware of the claims or is silent, which has more or less been the case all these years, but it does not make your claims true or right. Roobit
As the above points have formed the central backbone of the entire debate in this forum [13], it is solemnly requested, that the previously contested text will be allowed to stay intact from any further revert warring, and that sufficient time will be allowed for providing more sources, such as related book and page information, for support of the previously contested information. --- Ahven is a fish 06:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
President Boris Yeltsin also admitted to President Martti Ahtisaari, that the Soviets had started the war. Book, Menetetty Karjala (Lost Karelia), page 196:
"Presidentti Jeltsin tunnusti Stalinin hyökkäyksen, mutta yritti saada asiaa pois päiväjärjestyksestä" (President Yeltsin admitted Stalin's attack, but tried to get the matter out of calendar). 213.216.199.26 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The break up of the Soviet Union appeared to have brought a significant change in the policies and attitudes acquired by the new Russian leadership in this respect, when in 1991 President Boris Yeltsin publicly admitted that the Soviet Union had started the Continuation War. citation needed When confronted with the question, President Vladimir Putin referred to President Yeltsin's earlier statements, saying that there was no reason for the Russian leaders to further apologize about the matter.
The Continuation War is widely perceived as a continuation for the Finnish-Soviet Winter War (1939–1940), Stalin's attempt to occupy Finland, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed between Stalin and Hitler in 1939.
PS: My Kremlin masters demand that the information revealing my KGB affiliation as well as the Truth of what user Whiskey (et al) actually is on this talk page should be censored as fast as possible. Therefore, I humbly propose to archive all sections not related to the actual article. -- Illythr 00:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)