This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have connected the first and the second name of the article therefore the intrusion of finnish interventionists into the territory of the Soviet Russia ocurred also. Civil war for this moment (november 1921) in Russia has ended (for exception of the Far East). There was a government controlled all territory of Russia ((for exception of the Far East)). But even civil war is not the valid reason for foreign intervention and capture of historical territory of the country by foreign troops. The events 1921-1922 were not the internal civil conflict of Russia and they ended with the Agreement between the governments of two countries, the Soviet Russia and Finland. Ben-Velvel 10:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
very detailed article in German Wikipedia could be translated into English — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.51.132 ( talk) 09:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
5000-6000 Finnish volunteers? That must be a joke. And yes, the German article should be linked with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinist ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
As the page is now, it is a bewildering mishmash, almost unreadable coherently. Compared for example to the Finnish article's clear and concise no-nonsense take on the issue, it is quite clear someone has tampered with it and added bits here and there without any heed for the whole. The intention to downplay that this particular East Karelian uprising was the idea of East Karelians themselves after being displeased after a year of bolshevik rule and dissatisfied with the Tartu treaty is all too evident, as is the opinion of blaming Finland for starting the rebellion. A country letting its citizens volunteer as private mercenaries in a conflict abroad has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting. What about various mercenaries, for example those from United States in the Spanish civil war? Was their homeland supporting either faction in any way? Did USA intervene? Germany and Soviet union certainly were as nations. Sadly, this is proof of the now common opinionated and at worst revisionist sabotage on any history concerning certain countries that has now seeped into Wiki as well. Comment added by Joonavainio 22:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for polishing my pretty thorough overhaul of this page, dudes and dudesses. I must admit I gawked a bit at my typos and weird stuff when I finally slept after 30 hours straight writing and cross-referencing. I understand apparently some feel the thorough background of what and why Karelians and Finns have a special kindred relationship does not necessarily belong here. And that thing about suddenly 350 000 Karelians "disappearing" when Finns get there is more of a matter of the forties when the genocide was discovered. But it belongs somewhere. Next target: the highly opinionated article on East Karelia. Next time I promise to sleep a bit before submitting. -Joona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joonavainio ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I might add that the German military aid by its standing army in the end of Finnish civil war is not considered "intervention" by most Finns, as the White Guard asked for help (there is a controversy, though, as some of the Whites opposed asking for German aid). The terms intervention or incursion are a bit hazy, but it does have a ring of active meddling without asking for it. Civil wars are always a bitch when trying to determine who is the "rebel" and who is the incursor. I hope this article stays neutral without labeling anyone as the guilty part. Or on the other hand, both just as guilty. This does not have anything to do with this wiki article in question, but I guess most partaking in the article are military history buffs, this might interest them, if you haven't watched it before. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5v_RziBNOg And the two parts after that. I hope your Flash player is up to date to see the English subs. In part 3/3 I have subs embedded. This is a hypothetical scenario, but it does make it pretty clear Finns do not trust the Russian state. Although the enemy in that "what if" is not directly stated. Nothing I can do about it, but I hope the situation will eventually evolve into mutual trust. This is, of course just talk page talk. Articles should remain as strictly factual as possible. Joonavainio ( talk) 12:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. This seems to be an one on now. No prob, as long as we stick to facts and try to understand each other. I try to keep this as brief as possible. First, military material aid was not sent by the Finnish government. The Japanese rifles were sent by the jäger movement. Which is not the same as Finnish government. This is only speculation, but I have a hunch why they were Japanese. Wherever they had been obtained (my guess is from some obscure source from Russo-Japanese war), by being Japanese was probably an attempt to cover traces to the official Finnish Defence Force.
In any case, the more or less covert weapons shipments for operation Bear's Den (yeah I know I called it Nest before) to the East Karelians was before the treaty of Tartu. And as I have referred to history, the Finnish government called it quits after the treaty where RSFSR was recognised and borders were defined.
As for pilkunnussinta (committing sexual intercourse with commas, and a fairly non-obscene term in Finnish) in the treaty of Tartu, I still don't see any clause that makes humanitarian aid and allowing private citizens to volunteer as a violation. Surely you noticed Finnish government explictly prohibited even volunteers crossing the border when the diplomatic relations and interpretation of the Tartu treaty became a thing too hot to handle. I must repeat: is the "intervention" of Swedish volunteers in Winter War a military incursion by the Kingdom of Sweden according to Soviet standards?
As for genocide and / or mass deportations or population transfers, I told you I gotta have a few days to get it exactly right as far as refs are concerned. So just hold your horses, please. Before the proper refs, I won't touch the article.
About the cadets... The anecdote someone put in there several years ago does not claim they were Finnish cadets, but rather implies they were Soviet cadets led by a Finnish defector. Heh, you said you're too lazy to check right now, so I say I am likewise. Thanks for the link anyway. I will check it.
I have no interest beyond trivia in what is positive or negative connotation. I have watched my share of Star Wars to know "rebel" may indeed be a positive connotation. I have also watched Battlestar Galactica with all its episodes of the "resistance" in New Caprica. To that I cannot say anything else than: so what? Any wiki article should be as neutral as possible, but it should also explain in these delicate matters how the belligerents in question were viewed that at the time. That's one reason I used Finnish/Karelian names for places as they did use those then, and at least tried to provide the Russian and Anglic ones in the refs.
No, my significant other is not editing, but she does read these, and naturally has a lot of things to say on this subject. She can read English fluently, but as you prolly know, fluent reading does not guarantee fluent writing. What she wanted me to ask for her, was simply whatchagonna do as a Finn (volunteer, mind you) when East Karelians say: "Ryssät tulloo, auttakaa!" - "The Russkie's a-comin, help us!" I made some pretty lame typos and grammatical errors myself, but I blame sleep deprivation. I can of course ask my Californian, Hungarian and other friends to barge in. But I think we have enough volunteers in this "fight" already ;)
(a rare smiley from me) Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joonavainio ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but you seem to miss or disagree on one point there. Weapons shipments were not from Finnish government to begin with, and the ones jäger movement sent were before Tartu and recognising RSFSR as a sovereign nation. So, de facto, Karelians were not rebels then. As is apparent from the article, weapons shipments and support for the project Bear's Den ceased before that, and Sivén was asked to account for the arms he had received so far, and explictly told not to use them in arming Rekola paramilitary troops. Their further fate seems to be unknown, but I suppose they were used anyway. And after Tartu and apparently Soviet Russians getting nervous about the volunteer activity, Finland did not allow volunteers with their weapons and munitions to cross the border anymore. As then it would have been supporting an armed rebellion with military materiel. Or rather letting volunteers to do so. And yeah, before someone (maybe you, doesn't matter) removed the Russian term someone had provided, it was indeed "Finnish incursion/invasion to Karelia". That much I can read Russian assisted with a bot translator. Thanks for more info on Antikainen's ski troops. The way it was represented before this overhaul was as I described in my last post. I'll be glad to do some further research on it. But naturally I could not leave there a suspect anecdote whose ref was a dead link to a webpage with 404. Unfortunately I cannot read Russian more than a little bit without the aid of a machine translation (which is asking for trouble), but I'll take a look at those links just out of curiosity, thanks. As for rebel being negative/positive, argument seems to be pointless. I only wish English had a more neutral word for participants in a civil war. -Joona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joonavainio ( talk • contribs) 07:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC) A minor point I thought of on a smoke break. My POV is East Karelians were resistance fighters as in French Resistance in WW2. Or partisans as in Poland or Yugoslavia etc... Not "partisans" as in the Finnish-Russian wars during WW2, though. Those are a whole different kettle of fish and do not deserve the title partisan. Joonavainio ( talk) 07:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to East Karelian uprising, a suggestion for which there was unanimous support. ( non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
East Karelian uprising and Soviet–Finnish conflict of 1921–1922 →
Soviet–Finnish conflict of 1921–1922 – Having two titles for the same thing is kinda redundant. It seems like pro-Finnish sources prefer the more localised naming of 'Karelian Uprising', though to stay neutral, it might be more optimal to use the 'Soviet–Finnish conflict of 1921–1922'. --► Sincerely:
Sola
virum 14:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
an attempt by a group of East Karelian separatists to gain independence from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic [..] aided by a number of Finnish volunteersas solely a conflict between two nation states (as the proposed title, in my view, does) does not seem proper. If East Karelian uprising (either with or without years) is acceptable given any recent'ish Russian scholarship, I'd be inclined to go with that. If it is not acceptable, then I suppose the current paragraph of a heading is at least kinda balancing the viewpoints, even if it's not something I'd ever Google for. - Ljleppan ( talk) 09:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have connected the first and the second name of the article therefore the intrusion of finnish interventionists into the territory of the Soviet Russia ocurred also. Civil war for this moment (november 1921) in Russia has ended (for exception of the Far East). There was a government controlled all territory of Russia ((for exception of the Far East)). But even civil war is not the valid reason for foreign intervention and capture of historical territory of the country by foreign troops. The events 1921-1922 were not the internal civil conflict of Russia and they ended with the Agreement between the governments of two countries, the Soviet Russia and Finland. Ben-Velvel 10:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
very detailed article in German Wikipedia could be translated into English — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.51.132 ( talk) 09:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
5000-6000 Finnish volunteers? That must be a joke. And yes, the German article should be linked with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinist ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
As the page is now, it is a bewildering mishmash, almost unreadable coherently. Compared for example to the Finnish article's clear and concise no-nonsense take on the issue, it is quite clear someone has tampered with it and added bits here and there without any heed for the whole. The intention to downplay that this particular East Karelian uprising was the idea of East Karelians themselves after being displeased after a year of bolshevik rule and dissatisfied with the Tartu treaty is all too evident, as is the opinion of blaming Finland for starting the rebellion. A country letting its citizens volunteer as private mercenaries in a conflict abroad has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting. What about various mercenaries, for example those from United States in the Spanish civil war? Was their homeland supporting either faction in any way? Did USA intervene? Germany and Soviet union certainly were as nations. Sadly, this is proof of the now common opinionated and at worst revisionist sabotage on any history concerning certain countries that has now seeped into Wiki as well. Comment added by Joonavainio 22:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for polishing my pretty thorough overhaul of this page, dudes and dudesses. I must admit I gawked a bit at my typos and weird stuff when I finally slept after 30 hours straight writing and cross-referencing. I understand apparently some feel the thorough background of what and why Karelians and Finns have a special kindred relationship does not necessarily belong here. And that thing about suddenly 350 000 Karelians "disappearing" when Finns get there is more of a matter of the forties when the genocide was discovered. But it belongs somewhere. Next target: the highly opinionated article on East Karelia. Next time I promise to sleep a bit before submitting. -Joona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joonavainio ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I might add that the German military aid by its standing army in the end of Finnish civil war is not considered "intervention" by most Finns, as the White Guard asked for help (there is a controversy, though, as some of the Whites opposed asking for German aid). The terms intervention or incursion are a bit hazy, but it does have a ring of active meddling without asking for it. Civil wars are always a bitch when trying to determine who is the "rebel" and who is the incursor. I hope this article stays neutral without labeling anyone as the guilty part. Or on the other hand, both just as guilty. This does not have anything to do with this wiki article in question, but I guess most partaking in the article are military history buffs, this might interest them, if you haven't watched it before. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5v_RziBNOg And the two parts after that. I hope your Flash player is up to date to see the English subs. In part 3/3 I have subs embedded. This is a hypothetical scenario, but it does make it pretty clear Finns do not trust the Russian state. Although the enemy in that "what if" is not directly stated. Nothing I can do about it, but I hope the situation will eventually evolve into mutual trust. This is, of course just talk page talk. Articles should remain as strictly factual as possible. Joonavainio ( talk) 12:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. This seems to be an one on now. No prob, as long as we stick to facts and try to understand each other. I try to keep this as brief as possible. First, military material aid was not sent by the Finnish government. The Japanese rifles were sent by the jäger movement. Which is not the same as Finnish government. This is only speculation, but I have a hunch why they were Japanese. Wherever they had been obtained (my guess is from some obscure source from Russo-Japanese war), by being Japanese was probably an attempt to cover traces to the official Finnish Defence Force.
In any case, the more or less covert weapons shipments for operation Bear's Den (yeah I know I called it Nest before) to the East Karelians was before the treaty of Tartu. And as I have referred to history, the Finnish government called it quits after the treaty where RSFSR was recognised and borders were defined.
As for pilkunnussinta (committing sexual intercourse with commas, and a fairly non-obscene term in Finnish) in the treaty of Tartu, I still don't see any clause that makes humanitarian aid and allowing private citizens to volunteer as a violation. Surely you noticed Finnish government explictly prohibited even volunteers crossing the border when the diplomatic relations and interpretation of the Tartu treaty became a thing too hot to handle. I must repeat: is the "intervention" of Swedish volunteers in Winter War a military incursion by the Kingdom of Sweden according to Soviet standards?
As for genocide and / or mass deportations or population transfers, I told you I gotta have a few days to get it exactly right as far as refs are concerned. So just hold your horses, please. Before the proper refs, I won't touch the article.
About the cadets... The anecdote someone put in there several years ago does not claim they were Finnish cadets, but rather implies they were Soviet cadets led by a Finnish defector. Heh, you said you're too lazy to check right now, so I say I am likewise. Thanks for the link anyway. I will check it.
I have no interest beyond trivia in what is positive or negative connotation. I have watched my share of Star Wars to know "rebel" may indeed be a positive connotation. I have also watched Battlestar Galactica with all its episodes of the "resistance" in New Caprica. To that I cannot say anything else than: so what? Any wiki article should be as neutral as possible, but it should also explain in these delicate matters how the belligerents in question were viewed that at the time. That's one reason I used Finnish/Karelian names for places as they did use those then, and at least tried to provide the Russian and Anglic ones in the refs.
No, my significant other is not editing, but she does read these, and naturally has a lot of things to say on this subject. She can read English fluently, but as you prolly know, fluent reading does not guarantee fluent writing. What she wanted me to ask for her, was simply whatchagonna do as a Finn (volunteer, mind you) when East Karelians say: "Ryssät tulloo, auttakaa!" - "The Russkie's a-comin, help us!" I made some pretty lame typos and grammatical errors myself, but I blame sleep deprivation. I can of course ask my Californian, Hungarian and other friends to barge in. But I think we have enough volunteers in this "fight" already ;)
(a rare smiley from me) Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joonavainio ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but you seem to miss or disagree on one point there. Weapons shipments were not from Finnish government to begin with, and the ones jäger movement sent were before Tartu and recognising RSFSR as a sovereign nation. So, de facto, Karelians were not rebels then. As is apparent from the article, weapons shipments and support for the project Bear's Den ceased before that, and Sivén was asked to account for the arms he had received so far, and explictly told not to use them in arming Rekola paramilitary troops. Their further fate seems to be unknown, but I suppose they were used anyway. And after Tartu and apparently Soviet Russians getting nervous about the volunteer activity, Finland did not allow volunteers with their weapons and munitions to cross the border anymore. As then it would have been supporting an armed rebellion with military materiel. Or rather letting volunteers to do so. And yeah, before someone (maybe you, doesn't matter) removed the Russian term someone had provided, it was indeed "Finnish incursion/invasion to Karelia". That much I can read Russian assisted with a bot translator. Thanks for more info on Antikainen's ski troops. The way it was represented before this overhaul was as I described in my last post. I'll be glad to do some further research on it. But naturally I could not leave there a suspect anecdote whose ref was a dead link to a webpage with 404. Unfortunately I cannot read Russian more than a little bit without the aid of a machine translation (which is asking for trouble), but I'll take a look at those links just out of curiosity, thanks. As for rebel being negative/positive, argument seems to be pointless. I only wish English had a more neutral word for participants in a civil war. -Joona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joonavainio ( talk • contribs) 07:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC) A minor point I thought of on a smoke break. My POV is East Karelians were resistance fighters as in French Resistance in WW2. Or partisans as in Poland or Yugoslavia etc... Not "partisans" as in the Finnish-Russian wars during WW2, though. Those are a whole different kettle of fish and do not deserve the title partisan. Joonavainio ( talk) 07:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to East Karelian uprising, a suggestion for which there was unanimous support. ( non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
East Karelian uprising and Soviet–Finnish conflict of 1921–1922 →
Soviet–Finnish conflict of 1921–1922 – Having two titles for the same thing is kinda redundant. It seems like pro-Finnish sources prefer the more localised naming of 'Karelian Uprising', though to stay neutral, it might be more optimal to use the 'Soviet–Finnish conflict of 1921–1922'. --► Sincerely:
Sola
virum 14:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
an attempt by a group of East Karelian separatists to gain independence from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic [..] aided by a number of Finnish volunteersas solely a conflict between two nation states (as the proposed title, in my view, does) does not seem proper. If East Karelian uprising (either with or without years) is acceptable given any recent'ish Russian scholarship, I'd be inclined to go with that. If it is not acceptable, then I suppose the current paragraph of a heading is at least kinda balancing the viewpoints, even if it's not something I'd ever Google for. - Ljleppan ( talk) 09:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)