Talk:Continuation War/Archive 6

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 4

→

German losses in the north

The casualties box does not include German losses, does anyone have a figure? --MoRsE 23:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

RAF 151 Wing kill ratio

The geographical distribution of Finnish and German troops

Kurt. The 15:1 claimed kill ratio (RAF claim) sounds high and may have been an exaggeration. But the claim was made and it seems fair to report it. Axis aircraft at the front were manned by both German and Finnish aircrew. The RAF would not distinguish between them. Bob BScar23625 14:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there known instances of air-to-air battles between Finnish aircraft and the 151 Wing? I haven't heard of any, and the region they fought in was Luftwaffe's responsibility, AFAIK. 62.183.251.50 07:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The RAF was active in Finnish and Russian airspace at several stages in the 1941 to 1944 period. It seems likely that there were encounters between the RAF and planes manned by Finnish aircrew - although, I cannot readily find evidence of it. I will take another look sometime. Bob BScar23625 08:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read a lot about the Finnish Air Force in the WWII, but never encountered any mention of FAF vs RAF encounters. The RAF activity in 1941-42 was in far north where the Luftwaffe was in responsibility. RAF bombers overflew Finnish territory in 1944, but after the end of the Continuation War. If there had been any aerial combat between FAF and RAF it would certainly merited a comprehensive treatment in histories of the FAF. 62.183.251.50 10:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The German troops were fighting in Northern Finland. In the image on the right, the most Northern Finnish division was actually fighting as a part of the German XXXVI Corps, so the aircover for that division was provided by Luftwaffe. The FAF was active mostly in the Baltic Sea and Karelia which could not be reached by the RAF in 1941–44. There were no FAF units situated in Lapland or any other areas which could have been overflown by the RAF. --MPorciusCato 10:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys. I am reluctant to draw attention (again) to the long-standing Finnish sense of denial about their role in WWII. I doubt that FAF records would give any prominence to clashes between the FAF and RAF. Also, Luftwaffe units in northern Finland had Finnish personnel attached to them. 151 Wing operated from satellite airfields far to the south of Vianga, so in providing fighter escorts to Russian bombers they could have hardly failed to encounter the FAF. BScar23625 12:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that I lack some information, so could you please inform me, as you seem to know, which Finnish AF units were attached to Germans in northern Finland and what were their flying equipment? --Whiskey 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... where does the 'denial' kick in? I haven't seen any mention of FAF vs. RAF combat in any of the histories of the FAF I've read, and am damn sure that any such combat would have been thoroughly discussed. Instead of shouting 'Denial! Denial!' you should be presenting evidence that Finnish and British aircraft met and were engaged in combat. BTW, in a recent issue of either Aeroplane or Flight Journal there's an article about Hurricanes of 151 Wing. All combat mentioned in the article was against Germans; no Finns mentioned. 85.76.254.192 15:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also Mark Sheppard in his article (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/sheppard/hurricanes/index.htm) about 151.Wing doesn't mention any contacts with Finnish aircrafts. He also doesn't mention any other operational bases than Vianga the wing had used. Bob, could you please give some sources? --Whiskey 15:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, the Luftwaffe units had Finnish personnel attached. However, that personnel did not fly. The German units in Finland had Finnish liason officers and hired a rather lerge number of Finnish civilians for support duties, such as cooks, cleaners, etc. Finland was by no means an occupied country and the relations between the German troops and Finnish population were for the most part good until 1944. I do not think that this is a case of denial. The FAF history is a rather big topic among the Finnish history buffs, as is the history of the Luftwaffe units in Finland. The available literature recounts about every single dogfight that took place during the war. Such an important event as a Fenno-British engagement would have drawn significant attention, as would have Finnish pilots serving in Luftwaffe. I have no information about either, and neither does anyone else have. Please give us some clues about where to find such information.

I believe you are mixing the Finnish persons who served in the Finnish volunteer battallion of Waffen-SS in 1941–43 and the German units in the north of Finland. The SS-battallion fought in Russia (Crimea, Ukraine and Caucasus) before its personnel were withdrawn by the Finnish political leadership. The unit was a pure infantry battallion, so it definitely did not include a flying staff. The German units in the north of Finland, on the other hand, were purely German units. They did not recruit Finns for combat duties, as the Finnish youths of suitable age went on to serve in our own national Defence Forces which were fighting alongside Germans.

There was, however a small group of Finnish youths who were recruited by the Wehrmacht in August and September 1944. Those boys (almost all from Lapland or Oulu province) had not yet reached military age but when Finland was withdrawing from the war, the Wehrmacht accepted the boys (some 100 in number) for its own, partially politically motivated reasons. (Partially, the recruitment was due to the desperate manpower needs of the Wehrmacht.) These boys did not participate in actual hostilities against Finland in the subsequent Lapland war and returned in 1945–46. Subsequently, they were convicted to rather short (of the order of one year) prison sentences in Finland. Some of the youths did participate in German wehrwolf-training but as far is known, none served in the Luftwaffe, much less flew a military plane. So, as far as I know, I have no information about Finns who would have had the opportunity to serve as Luftwaffe pilots. Please enlighten us! --MPorciusCato 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys. Firstly, that was a great article by Mark Sheppard. Thanks to Whiskey for drawing it to my attention. I would just point out that the references I used are contemporary accounts written by Hubert Griffith, who was there at the time. Note that Griffiths describes the RAF's opponents as "Huns", not "Germans". In 1941 the RAF applied the term Hun to any opponent with German affiliations. The RAF's activity in the Murmansk area did not end with 151 Wing's departure. Leave it with me and I will research the matter fully when I have the time. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The article was rather good, I agree. Its attention to details was particularly interesting. If you read it well, you can see what airplane types the RAF squadron in Archangel engaged during its stay there. The unit only engaged with Junkers 88's and Messerschmitt Bf190's of different types. However, at the time, Finnish Air Force was not flying these planes. Finland did not aquire either of these plane types until 1943, while the RAF wing in question operated in Murmansk in 1941-1942. Sheppard seems to list all aerial battles of the 151st Wing, so I think this concludes the question. The 151st Wing did not encounter any plane types that might have belonged to the Finnish Air Force. In addition, Sheppard notes that RAF did not send any more fighter squadrons to Kola peninsula during the war. Of course, individual RAF planes may have operated in the area, but still, the Finnish Air Force did not. The Kola area was German responsibility. --MPorciusCato 08:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys. Just one further thought. The comparison of the Sheppard (2006) and Griffiths (1942) accounts throws an interesting light on the use of sources for historical analysis. Sheppard refers to Russia as "a new and unusual" ally of the UK (see para 2). The Griffiths account contains no such statement or implication.

Russia is at the opposite end of Europe to the UK and the interests of the two have only rarely conflicted over the last 400 years. Consequently, Russia and the UK have always tended to be something close to strategic allies. There was nothing new or unusual about the Anglo-Soviet alliance of 1941.

The Sheppard account is a modern interpretation of past events. The "new and unusual" is a perspective seen through the prism of the Cold War. But almost nobody foresaw the Cold War in the early 1940s. Bob BScar23625 13:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... No. During the last 900 years the main enemy for Brits has been France, and the main ally against her has been Germany, mostly in the form of Holy Roman Empire. It was only during the last decades of 19th century when British-German relations soured.

Up to that time the main policy of the British FO was to keep Poland/Lithuania and Russia from backstabbing Germany (and the French policy was exactly the opposite.) Also, You surely remember the Great Game during the 19th century, even today Russians are bitter to Brits for demonizing Russians (Russophobia). Also the Brits were not very fond of Soviet government who had abandoned them in WWI and defaulted all loans Imperial Russia had taken from Western Europe, not to mention nationalizing British owned industry in the country. After the WWI Britain were in league with France to isolate new Bolshevist state, and it took pains to change that policy before the WWII. Just remember Churchill's words when he promoted co-operation with Soviet Union after the beginning of Barbarossa: "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." --Whiskey 14:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Whiskey. The Great Game was the late nineteenth century rivalry between British and Russian empires for influence in Central Asia. Note that Central Asia was then one of the remotest places on earth. Who are all these Russophobe Brits?. Be aware that British governments have nationalized far more British owned industry than the Russians ever did. Bob BScar23625 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You raised the question about the kill ratio of 151st Wing, claiming that the wing had engagagements with Finnish flying personnel. Now your arguments have been questioned and you should provide us with definite citations and factual data. We would be sincerely interested to hear about the eventual engagements, as they are fully unknown to all Finnish literature. You should not try to derail the discussion to other subjects but discuss the actual problems of your argument. --MPorciusCato 08:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MPC. My contention was that the RAF was active in Finnish and adjoining Russian airspace at several stages during WWII. Therefore it seems likely that encounters between RAF and FAF planes would have happened at some point. Further, I think it likely that the Luftwaffe would have used Finnish aircrew on occasion. Leave it with me. I will come back to the group when I have had an opportunity to research the matter. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 10:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh,no the propaganda have started all over again trying to prove somthing that never happend. The main goal of the FAF was to protect the Finnish cities and the finnish army, and where were they? In the south of Finland. For such a small airforce as the FAF it would be pointless to flew fuel consuming mission up in the north, when the situation in the south aquierd all attention. The claim that finnish crews flew luftwaffe airplane is so absurd. As pointed out finns didnot have the german planes as me-109 ju-88 etc 1941. And this where stat of art aircrafts who requierd some traning.

Futher more the cooperation beetwen FAF was not so good as for exampel the famouse finnish pilot downed a german recomplane later in the war, when germans did not mark thiere plan propebly. Bob when you show such great intrest in Finland during the continuationwar, maybe you want to get a littrature list, so you dont have to speculate.--Posse72 22:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. The RAF was active over northern Finland throughout the war. From 1942 onwards that activity was mainly in support of the arctic convoys. My guess is that the RAF must have encountered FAF planes at some time. I will research the matter when I have time. I haven't visited Finland since November 2000, but I plan to come again soon. I would offer to buy you a beer, were it not for the price of beer in Finland - which was about GBP5 per half litre compared to about GBP1.50 in the UK. I cannot afford Finnish prices. Bob BScar23625 08:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"The RAF was active over northern Finland throughout the war. From 1942 onwards that activity was mainly in support of the arctic convoys. My guess is that the RAF must have encountered FAF planes at some time." There is this little mistake in your guess. FAF forces were mainly concentrated on southern Finland leaving only some squadrons protect the port of Petsamo and Petsamo's mines, this job was later assigned to the few Luftwaffe forces stationed in Norway and Petsamo. Which comes to protecting arctic convoys, FAF forces were never assigned to sabotage or engage non-russian convoys or supplies. I would still want to remind that main focus of winter war was in southern Finland and Petsamo was only valueable because it was Finland's only port to the arctic sea and in petsamo there was rather valueable ore mines. I do not wonder if RAF forces never engaged or even saw FAF forces because FAF forces were engaged in defending strategic points (mainly the frontline and mostly in south.), surprise bombings to the Russia's strategic points or reinforcement of frontline. It would seem unlikely that they would ever been assigned to bomb convoys or support german ambitions in norway. "The German attack on the Soviet Union, commenced on 22 June 1941, with Operation Barbarossa. The intended Fleet Air Arm strikes on Petsamo & Kirkenes were decided at the highest level by Winston Churchill himself in an effort to practically support his new found ally, Stalin. The effort was intended to strike at the enemy lines of communications in Northern Norway and Finland. Operation "EF" entailed the passage of the high-speed minelayer, HMS Adventure to Archangel with a large load of mines, while the air groups of the two carriers struck at the presumed concentration of shipping in the two northern ports used by Nazi Gebirgs Korps Norge. The two strikes were from HMS Furious and Victorious on Petsamo and Kirkenes respectively on 30 July 1941. " (citate taken from http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/RollofHonour/Battlehonour_crewlists/Petsamo_Kirkenes_1941.html) from this we can clearly see that the RAF forces bombings were mainly directed to Kirkenes and Nazi shipments in Petsamo, as well as the nazi Gebirgs Korps Norg stationed there. If we further look at the statistic on that page we can see that both recon planes in Petsamo were shot down by GERMAN AIRCRAFTS, and the bombing of Petsamo was intended only on german naval fleet stationed there, and when Germans abandonned the port, british bombed remaining ships there, which were mainly german or civilian. This action was NOT a act of war against Finland only a mere Casus Belli for the finns, which was thou never used in political conversation. If we would claim this be part of continuation war, Finland would have been war with Russia over 2000 RECORDED times, because of the russian raids near the border (see history books about Karelia and Russian raids on Finland there. I would like also state that Germany and Finland were only brothers-in-arms contract not in a defence pact or anything. Germany and Finland were fighting seperate wars against common enemy, Continuation war was proclaimed by the finns, fought by the finns against Russia and germans just there securing the operation Barbadossa's northern part, NOT FIGHTING FOR THE FINNS OR THE CONTINUATION WAR. (statements backed by basics stuff like: Horisontti (Finnish middle school history book.), Historia ( Finnish High School history book) or reliable sources like Sotilaspoika (Finnish WWII magazine) and statements by WWII veterans in Finland, frankly I'd say that 100 % of living veterans nowadays haven't ever heard british RAF forces acting in Finland other ways than the one futile strike in Petsamo and they were in the goddamn war and we weren't) - Standard Finn.

As Standard Finn so well points out, this event should not have this big part in the artical, as continuation war and the RAF involment in Murmansk is to seperate things. I would also want to se the original text who says that the RAF squadron was an warning to Finland, as i belive this is Bobbys own singel handed conclusion.--Posse72 (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You could get an understanding of Finnish airforce by reading Kalevi Keskinen and Kari Stenman books of the finnish airforce at least half a dussin of them are published in english. They are very detailed, so you could not only trace FAF units, but also individual planes and pilots and there whereabouts during the war. So sorry, but ill live in Sweden.--Posse72 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. Thankyou for the references. I will look them up sometime. regards. Bob BScar23625 07:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Heres a link where you could get the books, they are all writen i English/Finnish. http://www.kolumbus.fi/kari.stenman/ --Posse72 09:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I just finished reading "Hurricane Aces" ([1]), which has a chapter on the 151 Wing. The book is fairly new, but the author still claims the 15:1 ratio (although these are claims, all were not verified). He also mentions that they only encountered German aircraft (about half of the claims were Bf 109s and the rest bombers attacking Murmansk). The first patrol were further south against the Finnish border, but no aircraft were encountered. Okay, there is an excellent book on German losses in Northern Finland, called "Luftwaffen Pohjoinen Sivusta" by Hannu Valtonen (one of the foremost experts on WW2 air warfare around Finland) which lists all German losses in northern Finland and Norway, also, another way could be to contact the aviation historian Carl-Fredrik Geust who has done massive research in Russian archives, trying to correct information and numbers of Finnish, German and Soviet air victory claims in WW2. --MoRsE (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The morals and the NPOV

I suggest we drop the discussion wheter Finland was right or wrong to wage the Continuation War. It is not our job to tell that. Our job is to tell the historical facts (referenced properly) and tell the different views about the facts, where differing views exist, again with proper references to the sources. The moral questions are not for us at all. We are not to make any moral convictions. However, we may and we must discuss the later debate on the Continuation War and the different views presented. These views must be presented neutrally and compassionately, referencing each view properly. So, we may not say: Continuation War was a result of Finnish /Soviet (strike unnecessary) aggression. Instead, we may say: According to contemporary Finnish leadership, the Continuation War was begun as a result of Soviet aggression against Finland (proper reference here). In contemporary Soviet discussion, the Finnish attack was viewed as a part of fascist aggression against Soviet Union (proper reference here). After the war, --. The questions about the morals must be discussed in the same way. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss the morality of war in Wikipedia. We do not write about it. We write about what others have written about it. --MPorciusCato 11:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Mikko H. 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does the artical have a russian propaganda picture?

The picture of the "petroskoi kids" behind the cattle fence is a known propaganda picture staged by soviet autohrities, why are we using it in the article?--Posse72 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That is was made after the camp was liberated doesn't negate the fact that the camp and those kids were kept there, so as long as the caption properly addresses the date issue, the picture is fine. --Illythr 23:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, deliberate use of propaganda pictures shows a certain preconceived attitude, which should have no place in an unbiased article. What would people say if similar pictures prepared by the Nazi party propaganda office would be pasted to history articles, with the text like "picture possibly taken for dis-information purposes". 130.231.167.174 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Wettim

I don't see you complaining about the propagandist nature of the picture of "finnish civilians killed by soviet partisans". Exibition of such double standarts casts doubts about your desire for an "unbiased article". Ko Soi IX (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No one invited the Soviets to first invade Finland originally, so it's not Finnish propaganda versus Soviet propaganda as if both are on an equal footing. How are pictures of Soviet atrocities propagandist? —PētersV (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my frankness, but the statement that Finnish propaganda is somehow more objective than Soviet propaganda because "nobody invited the Soviets to first invade Finland originally" is utter nonsense. Also, in Continuation war, the Finns were the agressors, not the Russians. As for the picture of Soviet atrocities - all I see is two corpses. For all I know, they could've been killed by bandits, for example. In my opinion, this picture is only there to counter-balance the "kids in camps" photo. The Eastern Front article has 12 photos, out of which 2 deal with atrocities and deaths of civilians - which, for a conflict in which up to a half of the victims were civilians, is reasonable. However, the Continuation war article has the same proportion (1 out of 6), which seems strange, since civilian losses were rather small in this war (if we are to treat it as a separate war and forget about Leningrad). What would you say to an Eastern Front article in which the only civilian corpses shown on photos were those belonging to agressor states? Does that answer your question about propaganda? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 05:38, 24 December

2007 (UTC)

Oh no. another so called expert that probably either have read nothing about the conflict...phu of all the nonsens you write who i dont have any intention to correct, the moste revealing fact of your lack of knowledge is that you blame the Soviet attrocitis on "bandits"!? Well Finland hasent have roaring bandits since the 16th century.So if you dont know, pls dont guess!--Posse72 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What a good way to have a discussion - make a point that your opponent didn't make, and than succesfully argue against it. I never said anything about roaring bandits. Ok, so even if those atrocities were commited by Soviet partisans, they resulted in a whopping 200 deaths. Yet it is of them that we have a picture of corpses - a strong image - not of the 1 000 000 civilians who starved in Leningrad thanks in part to the Finnish army, not of the thousands of Russians who starved in Finnish internment. And yes, Finland was also an agressor in this war. Care to argue why this picture of two corpses shouldn't be replaced by pictures of starving leningraders? There were 5000 times more of them than of partisan victims, anyways... Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The image we are talking about is definitely not a Finnish propaganda photo. It was held in the secret military archives until 2006. The Soviet raids to the Finnish villages near the front were not published by the Finnish media during the war. This was done in order not to make peace talks any harder. The photo in question was taken by the Finnish military personnel investigating the massacre and buried in archives for decades. Even after the war, it remained closed in secret archives alongside with other photos with distastefully cruel subjects. These links give more info about the history of the photograph in question: [2], [3]. However, in general, I agree with you: no propaganda is good or "neutral", regardless of origin. --MPorciusCato (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, MPorcius, for clearing the origins of the photo. However, I still maintain that it doesn't belong in the article. Photos of corpses send a very strong image, and I think that having such a photo for a relatively minor aspect of the war (2.4-3.6% of total civilian casualties without Leningrad) violates neutrality. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle. However, in its context, the image is acceptable. We are not illustrating the civilian casualties in general, but the Soviet partisan activity on Finnish front. However, a better image would be preferable. As far as I know, Commons does not have any good photos on the Soviet partisans operating in Finland, so we must satisfy ourselves with the results of raids. The image itself is not a bad illustration: the photo has a good technical quality and its composition is rather harmonic. Indeed, this harmony increases the horror of the photo. I also have no qualms about the other image, which Posse72 has critized strongly. --MPorciusCato (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against propagandapictures in the article, if they are recognized as such. I agree with MPC that Finnish image is strong but acceptable. At the Finnish side, the partisan attacks consisted about 15%-20% of all civilian casualties. Also, the Soviet partisan activity inside the Finnish territory is a sorry chapter of the whole movement, and it is partially recognized also the Soviet military and NKVD. For example 2/3 of all attacks were against civilian targets: no other Soviet unit has worse track record! --Whiskey (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the consensus here seems to keep the brutal photo, than for the sake of neutrailty we have to find a picture of finnish atrocities of similar brutality. If we can't find one, the picture in question must go. Personally, I would rather remove it, than balance it out, since civilian losses weren't characteristic in the conflict (without Leningrad, of course). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you read the other discusion topics here you could get some answer to your delusion.

1 Finland did not actively participated in the sige (did not attacked the iceroad or shelled the city etc)and the reason for the war was because the aggresive Soviet policy during the winterwear e.g NO Winter war woulde mean no Continuation war. The main reason for so many civilian death was ofcurse due to the Soviet refuse to evacute the pepole in time. Finnish intrest stopped at its border, the city of Leningrad was not of Finnish concerne.
2 The Soviet open the first shots of the war, and must there for be called the agressor.--Posse72 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, I strongly recomend you to cease using words such as "so called expert" and "delusion" in regards to my persona. If I don't know something which you do, your argument will look stronger without stupid personal attacks. My main argument is - the "partisan victim" photo should be removed, as it uses a very strong image for a minor aspect of the war, and isn't balanced out by a similar photo of Finnish atrocities. Now to the points you made: 1a - At any rate, Finland participated in the siege, even though "passively". 1b - So some historians justify Finnish agression in 1941 by Soviet agression of 1939, and they are not without point - but generally speaking, revaunchism is problematic excuse. The finnish leadership decided to use the German invasion to achieve their own goals - return the territories lost in the previous war + some more land. A rather pragmatic choice, in my opinion. And not much different from Soviet actions in 1939. 1c - yes, it's the Soviet's fault that so many starved in Leningrad, they didn't evacuate, it's the Soviet's fault that Germany starved several million prisoners of war, they didn't ratify the Geneva accord, the invaders are innocent. Yeah, right. Btw, evacuation from Leningrad saved many lives; but due to Leningrad's importance in the military-industrial complex, near total evacuation was never an option. 1d - At the border, eh? Petrozavodsk too? 2 - Are you seriously implying that without those strikes, Finland would just sit there with a mobilized army? Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1b) I'd say it was more the Soviet foreign policy towards Finland *after* the Winter War which resulted Finland to search support from Germany. By February 1941 both Mannerheim and Ryti have lost their belief to the peaceful solution between SU and Finland, and they thought it was only a question when the SU would attack again. And if the war was coming anyway, it should be better to fight it at the best possible time for Finland. --Whiskey (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There were many factors which led to adopting a militarist stance by the Finnish leadership. It was a rather pragmatic decision - who than knew that the war would end in Berlin? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ko Soi wrote"and isn't balanced out by a similar photo of Finnish atrocities pls name any incident where Finnish soldiers delibrated at point blank murderd children?--Posse72 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A problem with partisans is that there are always bandits posing as partisans. The line itself is blurred. A partisan may even be a bandit one day, a patriot the next. I find it doubtful that there were direct orders by the co-ordinators of the partisan movement in Kremlin that led to the tragic and untimely deaths of those 200 Finnish civilians. However, Finnish forces took part ("passively" if you prefer) in a siege that caused over 1 000 000 civilian deaths from starvation. The scale is rather incompatible. So why do we have a brutal picture for 200 Finnish civilians, but not for a million Soviet civilians? Or, say, the 4 to 7 thousands Soviet civilians that were starved in consentration camps? Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that those partisans didn't operate inside the occupied territory, but they had their bases in Soviet controlled territory and only made raids to the Finnish controlled territory, so no local bandits. Also, as 10-20% of all men were criminals, and the ration rose much higher closer you got to the grunts on the field, it is no wonder they cared nothing about the legalism of their actions. And based on the official reports about their achievements, they didn't bother to tell the truth about their doings to their superiors either.--Whiskey (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What you said makes sense, but I hardly see what does it have to do with the tendentious choice of which atrocities deserve a brutal image, and which don't. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well actually there is in one memoar by a Soviet partisan (translated to Finnish) a part where 3 civilan Finns is captured and the Soviet partisan HQ gives order by radio to execute the civilians. The Partisan war in Finland was not a spontaneous one (like the ones in Belrussia Russia and Ukraine), but a deliberated build up of resources, training facilities, military leadership etc. all leading to the 1st Parisanbrigade and its action, to be fair idont think the aim of the brigade in the beging was to terrorize civilains. While two dead children or 200 murrderd civilians is not much compeared with the attrocities made on the easternfront, Finnish war veterans would say that -"real soldiers dont murder children". That why this picture has such big impact in Finland still to this day.--Posse72 (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide the name of the author and the book, please? Surely, "real soldiers don't murder children", yet as we all know, there were many kids among the starving leningraders... As for this picture being important - it has been declassified in 2006, so I'm not sure what you mean "to this day". Basically, all my arguments about neutraility still stand. This image must be paired up with a similar one, or be removed. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So do you think we have to remove the sections on Oradour-sur-Glane just because there is no western-allied action to balance up the event with? You can not blame the Finns on the siege of Leningrad on the fact that the Finnish border was north of the city. The pictures of this event and others have been know and published well before 2006, ill have it from a book from 1999, and my father have them from books published in the 1970s. ill come back to you on the author.--Posse72 (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That massacre was a one-sided affair, just like, say Katyn or Khatyn - unlike this war. After all, Finns killed more civilians than Soviets, even if we disregard the siege of Leningrad (majority of russian historians and some western ones don't share the view that one "can not blame the Finns of the siege", which seems to be dominating in Finnish historiography). Also I would like to note, that the Oradour-sur-Glane, while being an article specifically dealing with a massacre (in which 3 times more civilians were killed in a single day, than in Finland by Soviet partisans (or attributed to them) during the entire war) still doesn't have any brutal corpse pictures. Neither does the Khatyn article. Strong images have to be dealt with carefully, so that neutrality is maintained. Personally, I'd rather remove it, but the consensus seems to favour keeping it. I've been looking for good pictures to balance it out with, but found nothing befitting so far. As for the origins of the picture in question, MPorciusCato had a different version - look above. Thanks in advance for looking for the author. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

quot: "Finns killed more civilians than Soviets" the civilaians mostly died of starvation, that was a effect of the war, not Finnish soldiers. Also the "collectivization" of the agriculture in East karelia prio to the war made ineffective food production even more ineffectivie, and would with or without the war have killed civillians in the area as it did before the war. Also the Finnish occupation of East karelia ended the terror that killed at least 20 000 Eastkarelianns in 1938-1941. That is approxemently 5 times more that those died during the Finnish occupation. Still could you find any massacre made delibrated by Finnish solders at pointblank?--Posse72 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it's never the agressor's soldier's fault, it's either the "special ss units" or "war itself" or "stupid criminal policies" of the invaded country... Ended "the terror"? Surely not for those poor souls who perished in finnish concentration camps. How is starving people in concentration camps any less of an atrocity than conducting raids against civilians? Same criminal negligence of leaders - only feeding 20 thousand people is probably much easier than controlling thousands of partisans. Well, since you're picky about wording, let me rephrase it for you: in this war, even without Leningrad, the Finnish side is responsible for more deaths of Soviet civilians than vice versa. The article is about the war, right? As for any deliberate massacres by Finns - I will look for it during the week. I'm quite sure Finns were no less human than the rest. Ko Soi IX (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You miss the big picture in your Soviet appolgistic view,

1 Finnish army succesfully held of the red hordes from its mainland during the whole war, If Soviet would be successful in its vicious plan to capture Finland, civilain casulties in Eastkarelia would have been Peanuts compeared to what NKVD would have done to the Finnish population. (In the Soviet occupation of East Poland 1939 1.8 milions Poles was sent to the Gulag, after 1 year 900 000 where dead.
2 The thing that upsets Finns about those picture is the merciless eastern form of warfare that sprungs from the time of Djingis Khan, where children are legitime targets.--Posse72 (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So my view is apologetic because I want NPOV to be maintained?

You have not in any of your postings showed anything that resembles remotley to a NPOV.--Posse72 (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Such an accusation coming from the person who tried to keep Soviet civilian casualties from the infobox? Please, tell me, where is the lack of NPOV prevalent in the changes that I propose? In my desire to have all atrocities illustrated, not just the ones where Finns were the victims? In the finnish POW data that I provided? Ko Soi IX (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting logic. Than it will be no problem for you to articulate without making moral choices, why 200 dead Finns deserve a strong picture, unlike thousands of victims of Finnish concentration camps or over a million of victims of the siege of Leningrad. To your points:

1 The Soviet Union probably wanted to caputure Finland during Winter war. During the Continuation war, the Soviets, realizing Finnish stuborness, prefered not to occupy Finland after the Finnish army was smashed in 1944 - for it would lead to large scale partisan warfare - and finnish determination was already well known.

Ahem! Could you please specify and source the claim? By recalling demobilized men back to the service, the strength of the army rose about 60 000 men during the summer 1944 even as losses are reduced. The will of fight increased when all the fighting moved to the pre-1940 Finnish soil. And also the material situation improved: The number of modern fighters in FiAF doubled, number of "modern" tanks (read: "capable taking any Soviet tanks out") quadrupled, and hand-held anti tank weapons were delivered and trained to the troops. And in the last large scale operation of the war Finns shattered two Soviet rifle divisions at Ilomantsi. Doesn't sound as a smashed army.:-)

1943 Soviet government prepared a document for Finnish unconditional surrender, which included the occupation of the country. The original was found in the Soviet archives. And June 22, 1944 when Finns sued for peace, Soviet response was for unconditional surrender. (Although afterwards Mme Kollontai explained that it was an unfortunate misunderstanding...) --Whiskey (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I can't. I must withdraw it instead - for as you clearly demonstrated, this was never as simple as I thought. Although the manpower losses of the Finnish army were considerable, they were far from being finished. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As for your what if questions - if the Germans and their Finnish allies succeded, the civilian casualties ALREADY INFLICTED by them would be dwarfed by what would come after the Axis victory. What's your point? PS.The numbers of Polish deportees your provide are greatly exagurated. 1.8 million is about the total population of Gulag in 1939-1940, and mortality never exceeded 25% a year in those camps (and that was during WW2). Sure, the Soviet actions were often crude and brutal, but that is no indulgence for crimes of others.

2 All this "eastern form of warfare" concept is frankly eurocentric bs. "Westerners", for instance, didn't discriminate in their carpet bombings. Finnish allies, the Germans, who are also by all merits "westerners" were extremely barbaric in that war. Finns themselves starved several thousand civilians in concentration camps... Personally, I think those raids aimed at civilians were despeakable, and I'm absolutely sure that the Soviet leadership didn't see children as legitimate targets. My argument is not about morality, it's about adhering to NPOV principles. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll only note that Ko Soi IX has a rather simplistic view of the GULAG. For example, as far as I am aware, GULAG deaths don't include those who died on the way. Your contention about being "absolutely sure" the Soviet leadership didn't see children as targets is based on what documentation? If you're going to throw around figures and profess certainty about what was going on inside Stalin's head (!), please provide your sources. —PētersV (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In turn, I'll note that you are simply not informed about the number of poles in Gulag. On Jan.1 of 1939 there were 16,680 poles, on Jan.1 of 1940 there were 16,133 poles, and on Jan.1 of 1941 there were 29,457 poles incarcerated in Gulag camps (http://publicist.n1.by/articles/repressions/repressions_gulag2.html). So if the 1.8 million Poles were indeed deported to Gulag camps, over 1.7 million didn't reach them, which seems rather unlikely. As for me being absolutely sure - the harsh punishments given to those Soviet soldiers who commited crimes against civilians are more than enough for me; even if Stalin though that killing children is the right thing to do, it is not what was being done. As for sources on what Stalin actually thought, ask God. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

God was probably on the Finnish side in this conflict!--Posse72 (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is going to make my list of best arguments of all time! :-) --Illythr (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but ill rather believe in profesor Norman Davies than in your Soviet statistic, what your are saying is that no Poles was ever sent to Gulag as a result of the Soviet 1939 invasion, just that should for a normal objective student requier self critizism. ANd more on eastern warfare, Profesor John Keegan does in several of his books portrai the primitiv warfare of eastern cultures, and phenomen as mass rape and child murder seen recently in Balkans and chechnya.

You can believe him, sure, but if he claims that the deported Poles (or others) went to Gulag labor camps en-mass, he is mistaken. Very few Poles (out of the several hundred thousands deported) were sent to labor camps. Most were exiled. This is what modern Russian research, which is based on archival documents, indicates - the number of poles in labor camps was significantly lower than the number of deportees. As for "eastern warfare" - please do not hesitate to provide a reference (or at least a book name, for Keegan has quite a few, and I haven't read them all). Personally, I see no difference between "eastern" warfare in Chechnya in 1820s and "western" warfare in Phillipines in 1900s. Or between "eastern" warfare in Chechnya in 1990s and "western" warfare in Iraq in 2000s. As always, regardless of "westerness" or "easterness", civil wars are brutal, civilians are killed, crimes are commited (scale varies, depending on a multitude of factors such as the quality of troops etc). Ko Soi IX (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Already during the winterwar in the very few occations where Finnish civilians where cought by the Red Army there are Stories of Murder and atrocities, like horrible accounts of Finnish women murded by as stck beeing drow th there genitsals.

An australian journalist, in Prague in June 1945, asked a woman about Russian crimes. The woman started talking about mass rapes, murders, etc. The journalist asked her, what did she see herself. She replied she saw drunk Russian officers breaking glasses and shooting in the air. The journalist asked her, did any of her friends see any rapes or murders. The woman said no. Ko Soi IX (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As and answer to several of your absurd postings that Whiskey and P-Cato answerd, I have told you before and ill tell you now, -You seems to lack some basic knowledge of this conflict.--Posse72 (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Fortunately, unlike you, both Whiskey and P-Cato are willing to share their knowledge. Ko Soi IX (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ko Soi IX, this is inconsequential to the article, but your reference contradicts strongly well-founded historical knowledge on Estonian deportations. According to table Национальный состав лагерных заключенных ГУЛАГа {1}, there were somewhat more than 18.000 Estonians deported to GULAG. In 1941, in particular, there should have been 278 deportees However, this contradicts strongly the fact that during June 1941, 9,254–10,861 Estonians, of whom 2,500 were children and were deported. Nonetheless, your source may be technically correct, if PetersV consideres both deportees and GULAG prisoners, while your source defines the group of victims much more stringently. What comes to the fact that Soviet troops would have been restrained from atrocities, you can refer to Anthony Beevor, who has shown, like many others, that Soviet troops systematically raped Eastern European women.

Yet the above conversation has no impact on whether we should keep the images as they are. Your premises are incorrect. Your idea is that the Finnish Army must have engaged in atrocities which are as bad (or worse) in scale than the crimes committed by Soviet partisans on Finnish soil. However, please consider the fact that Finland was the losing party of the war. After the war, several Finnish servicemen faced criminal charges for their crimes on the basis of charges raised by Soviet populace in Eastern Karelia or by former Soviet POVs. (In a celebrated case, a Finnish military doctor was convicted of grave-robbing Soviet cemetaries for unauthorised anthropological studies.) The Finnish communists and the Soviets took advantage of every bit of propaganda value that could be gained from the trials. Yet, as far as I know, no one has ever accused any Finnish unit of a massacre of Soviet civilians. Considering the facts, I would think this makes a good case for the nonexistance of such massacres. The worst crime that was committed by the Finnish military administration of Eastern Karelia was the unequal treatment of Fennic and Russian populations, which in winter 1942 resulted in famine among the Russians, who were detained. This, indeed, constitutes a war crime according to the Rome statute. In my opinion, the image of the children in the camp illustrates this point quite as well as does the other image illustrate the partisan activity. --MPorciusCato (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a simpler answer. If I remember correctly, the overwhelming majority of the deportees were not sent to labor camps, they were exiled (like Kersnovskaya). You are incorrect in asessing my idea. Posse72 requested me to find a documented instance of Finnish soldiers killing civilians (that will have to wait until the weekend). I said nothing of comparing the scale of crimes of Finnish army and the Soviet partisans on Finnish soil. Generally speaking, apart from the starvations of Russian detainees, and participation in the siege of Leningrad, the Finns were not at all known for killings of civilians. At best I think I can find perhaps an isolated incident or two (not a massacre by a unit). As for Soviet military crimes - sure, there were crimes. But their existance doesn't prove or disprove the intentions of Soviet leadership - and that was the question; such crimes were punished severely, often by death despite the humane practice of penal troops. I wouldn't consider Beevor a reliable source. His Berlin book depended too strongly on anecdotal evidence. Now back to the actual argument. Ok, let's keep it. Let's just throw a picture of some starved leningraders into the mix. Because, as I said before, the well done picture of two dead young females is far too strong of an image. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is humor!--Posse72 (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against the picture you describe as such, but what should it illustrate? At present, the Section about the reconquest of Karelian Isthmus shows only a link to Finnish reconquest of the Karelian Isthmus (1941). If you want the article to benefit from such a picture, we must have also text about the siege of Leningrad and the Finnish part in it. Although I do not fully agree with your sympathies and choice of sources, I believe in your honest intentions to make this article better. Go ahead and write about the Finnish culpability for the siege of Leningrad! The subject has been amply researched and if you go astray from the path of neutrality, someone will surely correct you. :-) --MPorciusCato (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll post suggested draft on talk page first. Also, I think we're missing information about Finnish prisoners of war. According to archival research (http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_13_11.html), the Soviets captured 2377 Finns, of which 1974 returned home and 403 died in captivity - mortality of 17% (Russian prisoners in Finland - 28.5% mortality). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this is moving to the direction of removing both of the pictures. I'm not certain if I should support it or not... --Whiskey (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My source about the Polish victims is from "Risining '44" by the brittish proffesor Norman Davies (S-Bob could need to read some of his books)btw Finland was not allied with Nazi-germany but cobelligrent.--Posse72 (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Soviet war aims?

The phrase "that all Soviet policies up to the Continuation War are best explained as defensive measures by offensive means: the sharing " sounds like it was taken from Orwells Animal farm.

1 The change from Maxim Litvinov to Molotov as forign minister in May 1939 was a great paradigm shift in Soviet forign policy, as Litvinov played for mutal security and Molotov was all in for land grab.

2 The Molotov froign policy of restoring all former European tsar-russian land back to Soviet hand was a total success in all cases (Baltics, Poland, Bessarabia) with the exception of the outcome of the Winter War. To explain this as "defensive measure" and not Soviet-Russian imperialism is very naive and only plays in the hand of Soviet war apologist, as NO one forced the Russians to sign the Molotov_Ribentrop treaty. And should be viewed as a active choice of the Russian leadership.

Therefore this phrase must be replaced.--Posse72 12:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, "Soviet-Russian imperialism" is just a POV description of the measures taken by the Soviet leadership - creating as large a buffer zone between the Soviet Union and German territories as possible before the inevitable war begins. Funny that the very word, "imperialist" was generally used by the Soviets as a very negative description of Western countries. --Illythr 13:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well with the same arguments you could say that Nazi Germany created a buffer zone between 1936-1942. If you are a Pole, Estonian, Karelian etc, the word Russian imperialism does not sound a bit funny.--Posse72 15:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Germany expanded its territories as part of the Lebensraum policy. It would be just as wise to call it "Prussian imperialism". --Illythr 11:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So where there great differences between Soviet and Nazi occupation? For example according to Norman Davis in his book "Rasing 44" he points out that the Nazis killed 50 000 people in there occupied part of Poland during the first month of occupation, while the Soviet union deported 1.8 million poles, who among 900 000 where dead after 1 year due to starvation and hardship. Witch one was worse? And Who is PVO pushing in this case...?--Posse72 12:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Differences between occupations are to be discussed in a different article. The question "Which one was worse?", as well as any other question that passes judgment is outside of the scope of Wikipedia. We could as well say that Berlin was liberated from Nazism in 1945, but that, too, would be POV. --Illythr 12:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So say that the soviet policy only was just one of security buffer zone and not recognize the murders, deportation and ethnic cleansing in order to restore the old tzar-russian border is also POV pushing. I have in one of my books a message from Soviet foreign office the 3 of September to the German foreign office where the first one congratulates the German attack on Poland as a first step in reestablish the borders between Soviet and Germany back to its pre WWI drawing.--Posse72 13:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Soviet policy had indeed only included the creation of a security buffer between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That is, by any means necessary. Denying the numerous atrocities committed by the Soviet administration throughout the territories it controlled is pointless.

Each of the three key players of that time (British-French allies, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) wanted to maneuver the other two to fight each other and then defeat them both when they are weak. Stalin had nearly succeeded in this with the nonaggression treaty, but the war with Germany was unavoidable from the start. Hitler knew this and had attacked first. --Illythr 13:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So the Soviet needed a buffer zone against Sweden? That buffer zone theory is a extreme Soviet POV and are not supported by historians as Norman Davis.--Posse72 (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweden? The concern was that Germany or France and Great Britain would use Finland as a bridgehead for an attack on Leningrad, which was only about 30 km away from the original border. --Illythr (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah, and Finland as a springboard for an invasion on Russia/Soviet was not an option during the crimwar, WWI, and WWII and the Finnish intelligence officer col Pasonen pointed out during the Moscow talks during the fall of 1939 the impractical in using Finland as a stage for an invasion. As WWII worked out the Baltic state was much better option than Finland to stage a attack on Leningrad. As we know Finland did not attack Leningrad. So maybe its time for the Russians to rewrite history from Soviet propaganda.--Posse72 (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Crimean War? But Finland, part of the Russian Empire at the time, was attacked - and held out. Don't know much about the possibility of using Finland during the foreign intervention period of WW1. As for WW2, the Soviet position was that the invasion caught them unaware and that fortification of the newly acquired borders was still incomplete. Even then, the isthmus bought Leningrad around two months. Oh, and the Baltic states ALSO were part of the Soviet defenses during Barbarossa. --Illythr (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

topic break 1

No Land-invasion was made during the French invasion of 1812 as Finlad was bad land to invade from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No land-invasion was either planed or carried out during the crimean war from Finland, obviously because Finland was not a good area to stage an land-invasion from.
No Land-invasion was carried out during wwi or during the russian civilwar from FInland.
The Finnish liberation of the carelian isthmus started on the 22nd of August 1941 the first finnish units to reach the old border did so on the 2nd of September. During this time the finnish army crossed a heaveliy fortifed zone, the Vouksen-river, Liberatede Viipuri, seriuslly beaten 3 of 23th Soviet armies divisons (42rd, 113th and 115th) with quit light losses 700 dead and 2300 wounded. How do you fit 2 months in this time span? (its more or less a two week offensive) And the Soviet week defence was not the key factor that made the finnish army to stop on the old border. Between a victorious and very self confident troops of the finnish army and Leningrad stod only six badlly beaten Soviet division who hade lost its majortiy of its heavy equipment in the fighting previously.
And as you point out the baltic state was Soviet held and heaveliy fortified (Finland was not) still the germans chosed to attack Leningrad trough the baltic states and not by Finland. Says it all about how good Finland was for foreign armies to stage offensives from, doesn't it?--Posse72 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If you say that Soviet occupation of the carelian isthmus gave the Soviet two months, you really (As Soviet/Russain history writting always does) miss the whole point:

1 there would not have been a Continuation war if there haden't been a winterwar. The Soviet army could have used its division on more important sectors than trying to stop the Finns from liberating its former land.
2 The Finnish political goal was the remain a neutral state like the rest of scandinavia as WWII started in 1939, not to attack the Soviet.

--Posse72 (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm sure you'll agree that during the course of the 127 years between 1812 and 1939 both military strategies and weapons changed quite significantly, hmm? For example, the last "invincible fortress" fell just a year ago (1940) rendering the strategy of passive warfare obsolete.
The border was crossed already on the 10th of July 1941 with Finnish advances in the south by the end of July. By the 9th of September, Finnish forces were facing the hastily rearmed KaUR. They managed to grab some of the forward bunkers, but lacked the necessary heavy artillery to break through the rest of the line without taking some serious losses [4]. Since the Germans were intent on destroying Leningrad and later giving the whole area to Finland anyway, Mannerheim wisely decided not to waste the lives of his men and let the Germans do the killing and dying for him.
- This is complet "bullshit" as the Finnish army allready smashed a Soviet bunkerline without problems, The operation of liberating Carelian Isthums strated the 22nd and was practical Finnished around the 2nd of septemberill can spam you with sources on that. the Soviet units from the 23rd army was badly demorlized hade lost its heavey equipment, and did not fight well. There would not have been a great problem for the Finnish army to attack Leningrad from the north. I do agree on you in one point that it was wisely for the FInnsh not to attack Leningrad because 1) We skip ridiculus discusion of wheter Finland was a treat to Leningrad or not. 2)It clearlly shows that Finland fought another war than Nazigermany and had other goals.--Posse72 (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, do provide a source on Finns taking all of the KaUR. Preferably in English and not from ProKarelia or associates. --Illythr (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    - As it didn't happend its quit hard to give a source on that, but al Finnish source agree that the 23nd Soviet army fought bad, and would have done so in september 1941, by the way witch artillery would have protected the Soviet at the KaRU, as you lost your guns in the Porlammi motti?--Posse72 (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
      - Eh, I didn't lose any of my guns... Yeah, I'm sure Finnish sources agree that Finnish army would've done great. Artillery - read again what I wrote above. --Illythr (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        If a fortified area dont have artilery support its it would not work effectivelly, pioneers and infantry can then sneek up more easily with firethrowers and satelcharges. The Soviet only had 6 half strenght demorilzed divisions without heavey eqiupment, actually the Finnish army would had have no problems, and where do you get the idee that the Finns did not posses any heavy artilery? And If KaUR was so good as you claim, why did the russians needed a security buffert zone? I dont make sence???????????--Posse72 (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        Artillery: Do read what I wrote above. The KaUR wasn't "that good", undermanned and underpowered as it was, it proved to be a sufficient deterrent to Finnish forces by preventing them from advancing through it without taking significant losses. --Illythr (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        Your week argumentation show your involment int this artical i only up to defend Soviet war propaganda. Like the invincible 23rd army!--Posse72 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
        Invincible? Are you actually reading this page? --Illythr 12:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

topic break 2

We do not have to discuss the morality of the war. The point that is important to the article, however, is whether Finnish advance towards Leningrad was stopped by Mannerheim or by the Soviet troops. Illythr claims that the Finnish attack was stopped due to Finnish side lacking sufficient artillery to cut through the defensive line of Leningrad. The usual Finnish viewpoint has been that the Finnish government ordered the advance to be stopped. Especially the social democrats wanted Finland to refrain from the attack against Leningrad. Between 1st and 8th September 1941, the I Corps advanced to the line Ohta river - Lake Lempäälänjärvi-Old border with a permission to stop attack even before this line if opposition was heavy. There were no orders to attack the KaUR line and already on 5th September, the Soviets were able to transfer two divisions to fight the Germans south of Leningrad. Of course, you might say that the decision not to attack Leningrad was due to the existance of KaUR fortifications. Cutting through those fortifications would have required moving significant amount of troops from East Karelia to the Karelian Isthmus. Nonetheless, if there had been political will to capture Leningrad, the Finnish attack would not have been stopped but continued, perhaps with German assistance. As it were, Finnish troops did not engage in aggressive warfare against the Soviets on the Isthmus after reaching the assigned line. Two divisions were transferred from the Isthmus to Eastern Karelia where significant advance could be made with less political trouble. (Here's a good map of the Finnish invasion.) --MPorciusCato (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What Russian sources claim is that there was indeed no political will to capture the city, yet not just because of some pretty ideology (although that too may have been a factor), but due to serious (and unnecessary) losses that would result from such an endeavor.

Hey, can anybody verify the following: modern Russian sources (Baryshnikov[5]) state that on 11 September 1941 Ryti told a German representative that if Leningrad would cease to exist as a city, then Neva would be the best Finnish border on the isthmus and that Leningrad should be liquidated as a large city (by Germans, that is). I'm interested to know whether there was indeed a mistranslation there. --Illythr (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Wikipedia NPOV principle requires us to relate both opinions in a neutral, compassionate form. However, I personally believe that the situation was rather complex. You quoted Ryti talking to the German side. Naturally, he wanted to make sure that in the event of German victory, the Finnish borders would be drawn as benefited Finland. To the Western allies and to the Finnish people, Finnish government presented the decision not to attack Leningrad as a political decision stemming from the separateness of Finnish war effort. Finland made a point of not trying to cut the Murmansk-Archangel railway, Mannerheim personally ordering the attacks at Kiestinki to stop. Finland was playing a very complex game with Germans, Britons and Americans, trying to keep the favour of everyone. In addition, although the was very verbal support for the annexation of East Karelia, the Finnish official line always stated that East Karelia was occupied due to military necessity and for use as a bargaining chip in the peace conference that would end the war. (And oh yes, there were ideological differences inside the Finnish government, a multi-party coalition as it was.) Of course, you may, with a good basis, argue that the true Finnish aims were different from the official line, but the question of Finnish aims of war is rather complex. --MPorciusCato (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not argue what "the true" goals of Finland were. I personally believe that there was a mixture of the two. Point is, there are two reasonable views on this moment (ideological and pragmatic) and only one is presented in the article. I'd rather have both, with proper attribution. The readers may then decide for themselves which one is "true". --Illythr (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, as I also believe that the Finnish aims of war were a mixture of pragmatism and Greater Finland ideology. (During the war, the censorship limited discussion about the aims of war to avoid creating divisions in the public opinion.) The two aims had a differing support base and even single persons varied in their opinions, as the war progressed. Urho Kekkonen is a very notable example of this. I also agree that both aims of war must be addressed in the article. We are not here for white- or blackwashing. --MPorciusCato (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Heres from the Book Finland at war 1940-1944 about the sitiuation in the begining of September 1941 "There are hardley no doubt that that the Finnish forces with ease hade been abel to continue the offensive all the way to Leningrad"--Posse72 (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Mannerheim says "The Reason for halting the offensive was due to political reasons, in his belife this had much biger impact than the millitary resons. The Russian argument was that an independent Finland was a treat to Leningrad. We did not want to Fuel this argument, who still would be argueed after the war"--Posse72 (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  - The facts you points out is the facts that the Finnish leaders gave to the German for stopping the offensive, witch was not the true reason. Ofcurse the Finnish leaders could not have told the German that we are in a diffrent war and are not willing to participate in conquering Leningrad, espcially with german grain supply on its way. another very importen reason was also that Leningrad hade the same population as the whole of Finland, where would the Finnish state get the food to that amount of pepole? As the situation was Finland had great difficulties in geting Foods to its own population. Your whole argumention points down to the fact that the Soviet army was invicible. 23rd Soviet army was anything from invicible in September 1941.--Posse72 (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mannerheim isn't exactly the most neutral source on the issue, don't you think? Neither are the Russians, of course, but only his account of the events is present here. I have no idea how did you dig out the claim of the Soviet army being invincible out of my posts. Did you actually read what I wrote? --Illythr (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither are your russian suorces, are your archives still closed?Ill wonder why, maybe you have something to hide--Posse72 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why, yes, I'll never tell you that I just received a payslip from KGB for my activity here. That's a secret you'll never uncover. --Illythr 12:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Posse72, we are here as individuals, not as members of our respective nations. The Russian archives are closed all right, but Illythr has no personal merit or guilt in that. After all, s/he is hardly a high Russian official with authority to open such archives. Yet, even if it were as you repeatedly imply, that Illythr were here on behest of Russian government, we, as Finns and good neighbours, should show a much more friendly and constructive attitude than that mentality which you repeatedly reveal. --MPorciusCato (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes and if we accept the Russian history writting we can all go to sleep and wonder what a bad facist our grandpaps where--Posse72 14:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Demonizing the Soviet Union while glorifying Finnish troops and their actions isn't right either. A balanced approach is the way to go. Fringe Finnish nationalist views may also be included, but only as such. --Illythr 14:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sovietunion under Stalin is one of the worste nation we seen i Europe on this side of the renesance, i hopp you dont argue about that, and the Finnish troops where much more efficent and well led compared to there Soviet counterpart.Basic fact--Posse72 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union was not a nation. Passing a moral judgment on it is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Finnish troops did indeed do quite well on the battlefield, much better than Finnish politicians in their cabinets. By 1944, however, the war was mainly about holding out and waiting for a right moment to quit to minimize personnel and territorial losses. That much is already stated in the article, though. --Illythr 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Your nagging about my sources not beeing neutral and request of "independent" non finnish sources to verify the information, How can it be that your sources then is allowed to be Russian? And Russian web pages, hmm sounds very reliable...(not) How about you go and find some "independent" non Russian sources to claim your thesis? For my concern is that just a Russian folklore, being whraped up one more round, and how could you prove your right? with your archives still being closed?--Posse72 15:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it's properly attributed as the point of view of the Soviet side. Of the three sources presented, Baryshnikov is more in line with the "classic" Soviet position, Kozlov uses mainly Finnish sources (His book is called "A look from the other side") and Meltyukhov, a sort of "renegade historian" mentions it in passing while mainly focusing on his own somewhat controversial position. Actually, Meltyukhov extensively uses Soviet archives declassified in the 1990s for his work. --Illythr 16:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have babelfished the Russian wikipedia about the Soviet offensive 1944, it gave a great perspective of history manipulation. Among very many strange thing its said that combat operation finnished 20th june 1944 aftter the capture of Viipuri, that sentence forgets that the offensive was renewed the 24th june with the biggest battle of the campaign Tali-Ihantala who Soviet lost not even being mentioned. And the goal was not even then just to get a security zone it was to conquer whole of Finland, and ill can prove it. Good work.--Posse72 16:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Ruwiki article is called "Vyborg attack operation"... hmm, I'll get the proper interwiki in place, thanks for pointing that one out. By 1944 the primary Soviet goal was to drive the Axis forces out of Soviet territory and destroy them. Stalin would've certainly liked to conquer all of Finland, but the race to Berlin was deemed more important. --Illythr 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That ill agree on!--Posse72 22:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

topic break 3

Germans did not "choose" to attack Leningrad from the Baltics - they had to, because Finland refused to let German ground troops commence attack from its territory, despite German demands - another wise decision.
- So why did you need the security zone and clealy it shows that the security zone discusion is notvalid, as when there finnally begins the war that would threaten Soviet from Finland that does not happens ?--Posse72 (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC) And later on the mater "The Russians should be thankfull of the FDinnish army who halted thiere offensive"
  - I'm sorry I couldn't make out the odds and ends in the above. What did I need again? --Illythr (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    - When the situation that the security zone appologist stick to finally arrived with Barbarossa it turned out that that threat didnot materelized? Strange or bad planing?
      - You mean, Finnish forces didn't cooperate with other Axis armies to blockade Leningrad? Or let German troops through its territory on their way to invade the Soviet Union? --Illythr (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        Actually not, it would have been easy for the finns to cut the ice road, they chosed not to do that.--Posse72 (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        So, you are saying that the northern blockade force was just touring the area? And not a single attempt to cut the lifeline was made with Finnish participation? --Illythr (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        Yes exactlly.--Posse72 (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        Thanks, good enough. --Illythr (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
As for the whole point: Nobody took the Finnish army seriously before the Winter war. Seeing the rapid pace of German advance through Europe, the Soviets assumed that Finland will be quickly occupied too, and took steps against this by "offering military aid and cooperation". --Illythr (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Heres what Norman Davies writtes about the Soviet war aims of the winterwar No simpel victory page 79-80. "Soviet apologist justified the aggression by claming that the USSR was merely 'strengthning the defence of Leningrad. In reality the action was designed to remove a problem that had existed ever since Peter the great built his capital on captured foreign land over two centuries before. Historical Finnish settlements reached still right up to the suburbs of Leningrad, and Stalin was aiming to deport the entire Finnish population of the area. Finland, proudly independent was to be tamed"

My refections to this is that Profesor Davis is cautioneus in his statment and according to him the reason behind the winterwar was to etnic cleans the Carelia from Carelians, and not to secure some security zone. As we see there are more stabil interpetation from UK over this conflict than our freind Bobby have.--Posse72 (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this passage does present some strong anti-Russian POV, then. I mean, it's usually ok to talk about Stalin wanting to kill everybody, but Peter the Great? That's new to me. What "problem" if Finland has been a part of Russia almost all this time? Does he present any kind of proof that Peter (or the rest of Russian leadership) wanted to kill/deport all the Finns around the city? Ignoring the "Evil Russians" rhetoric of the passage, he actually confirms the stated Soviet goal - to acquire the area around Leningrad (unless there's more context to it).

Your statement on Karelians does not require any comments. --Illythr (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Didnt you know that St Peterburg was build on Finnish ground? Note that he dont says anywhere that the Finns treathen Leningrad, and about the Carelians my statement does perfectly fit as my familiy (greek ortodox in faith) had to move because of this policy--Posse72 (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal with Finland threatening Leningrad? The Soviet concern was Nazi Germany, after its occupation of Finland, being the main threat.

And how would such an invasion been made? Over sea?--Posse72 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It turned out to be unnecessary, thanks to Soviet efforts in alienating the Finns. As for how - doesn't matter point is - Finnish military was not believed to be able to put up a real fight until it actually did. --Illythr (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Soviet government even believed Finland unwilling to commit to defending Soviet union from an invasion by Germany (or Britain). It had a good reason for this. In 1919, Finland had allowed a British Navy motor torpedo boat squadron to operate from Finnish coast against Kronstadt and in 1930's, the Finnish and Estonian navies had prepared and trained for blockading the Soviet navy to the bottom of the Gulf of Finland with submarine patrols and heavy coastal artillery. As there was quite a lot of pro-German sentiment in Finland, Soviet Union could not calculate on the trustworthiness of Finnish government. Since the war, Finnish foreign policy has been largely based on the idea that a foreign force must not threaten Russia through Finnish area. --MPorciusCato (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Soviet Union believe that the Finnish state was too unreliable to be so close to one of its key cities, so it took steps to eliminate that risk, initially by trying to coerce Finland to either yield strategic territory or become a Soviet satellite, and when that failed, with military force. --Illythr (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does this debatt bear so much illness of Finlandization and Soviet appologist? If you look to the parlamenatarian Finnish election 1939 the most right-wing party of the Finnish Parlament the IKL went from 12 to 8 mandate. IKL was no way a naziparty and the party hade condemed Germany after its occupation of Checoslovakia. So where is that pro-german sentiment? I have not been abale to find it. As your arguementation its sound like the half of the finnish pepole where pro-nazis. All Soviet action during the winterwar, the interim peace and during the countinuation war shows that goal ofd the Soviet union was to occupy the whole of Finland. In that context the securty buffert zone crap is not valid.--Posse72 (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The pro-German sentiment is already described in the article, trade, military cooperation and all that. That concerns only the actions of the Finnish government, although I supposed there may have been some sympathy towards the Germans from the populace on the "enemy of my enemy" basis. I'm not sure if you're getting this, but total occupation of Finland would have ALSO fulfilled the main goal of creating a buffer zone. --Illythr (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here, we also see two different sides. The Soviet claim of their actions being purely defensive is rather ludicurous, but then again, the importance of defending Leningrad must have affected the Soviet thought. On the other hand, the occupation and annexation of Estonia and other Baltic states showed that Soviet Union was not a most trustworthy partner. Here, we must also show all sides of the question, leaving it up to the reader to decide what's correct. --MPorciusCato (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, St Peterburg was built in a swamp in former Novgorodian territory recently retaken from Sweden. Some Finnic indigenous peoples did indeed live in the general area. Hm, perhaps you mean Izhorians? --Illythr (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard of the Swedish town of Nyen? it use to be there before StPetersburg, and there lived Karelians and Finns but no Russians. There reson for the area belong to the Novgrod during brife turn was that the Karelians and Novgrods shared the same faith and Fought aginst the Swedish-Finnish Catholics (later Protestants)--Posse72 (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nyenschantz? What about it? The article says the Swedes burned it down... I read that it was a Swedish town, where no Russians, Karelians or Izhorians were allowed to settle even if they converted to the Lutheran faith. Those who didn't convert were removed. --Illythr (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not an essential point, but there were more Finns than Izhorians around St. Petersburg. These Ingrian Finns (Finnish immigrants during the Swedish era) were an important population group in this area from the 17th to the 20th century, so they should not be ignored in Russian history. Nowadays many of them have migrated to Finland. Liberating the Ingrian Finns from the Soviet power was, of course, an important dream for the Finnish chauvinists of the pre-war era.--130.232.100.1 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ingrian Finns, I see. Not very relevant, though.--Illythr (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

For Finnish chauvinism of interwar period, they were rather relevant. Indeed, the men of AKS (Akateeminen Karjala-Seura) dreamed about a federation of Greater Finland and Estonia, which would have encompassed Ingria, too. (With total destruction of Leningrad, naturally.) The Ingrian Finns are still so relevant to Finns, that in 1991, we instituted a law of return which allowed all persons living in the area former Soviet Union with at least one grandparent of Finnish nationality to "return" to Finland. The idea was promoted by president Mauno Koivisto, a social democrat, so it was by no means a brainchild of right-wing ideology. --MPorciusCato (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant, for this article. I'm not even sure why posse brought it up in the first place. --Illythr 12:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Liberation of east karelia instead of occupation.

Fact is that the finnish form of goverment was parlametarian democracy while Soviet at that time had Stainism under the most brutal forms. The finnish "occupation" brought a good school and god health system to the region, if Finland would have won the war there would also have inclouded a democtaic system to the east karelians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree you about the facts. Finland was parlamentarian democracy, but this mean that you could call the occupation of Eastern Karelia "liberation". Calling any annexation or occupation liberation is classic propaganda. If anything qualifies as POV-pushing, that does. For the Russians, the occupation of Eastern Karelia was an act of aggression by a fascist state allied with nazis. Both opinions are notable (regardless of their factual accuracy) and therefore, we may not call the phenonmenon we discuss "liberation". "Occupation" is rather NPOV. BTW, in my opinion "recapture" and "reconquest" carry exactly the same meaning, without any moral undertones. --MPorciusCato 09:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Since East Karelia had never been part of Finland before (Petrozavodsk was a Russian city), the term "occupation" was perfectly fine. As the previous Soviet-Finnish conflict ended with a treaty, any consequent annexation of territory through military action may be called "reconquest". So, I'm reverting to the way it was before. --Illythr 12:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the Soviet opened the first shots in the conflict, with there bombing, showing in a long rack of actions that they where not intressted in keeping the deals they had forced Finland to sign. And how du you as a Finn re-conquest your own land???????--Posse72 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Finns had provided military aid to invading German forces and Hitler proclaimed that Germans will fight alongside Finns in the war, so that point is moot. As for "your own land" - check the Moscow Peace Treaty article. --Illythr 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew its a Sensitive question for Russians, but how many Russian could call for exampel Viipuri for there hometown? especially in 1941? To call the finnish recapture of the land as recoquest is VERY MUCH SOVIET APPOLIGISM and POV. And if there where in fact one side that during the interim-peace period brook the peacetreaty it was the Soviet. How do you explain Molotovs request to start a new war in Berlin in October 1940?--Posse72 13:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the word "reconquest" does not carry any moral undertones. In fact, the Soviets defended the area rather vigorously. I would say even that it infringes the honour of the Finnish troops that carried out the reconquest and the honour of the Soviet troops that were forced to withdraw to use the word "recapture". This sounds like there would have been only sporadic fighting, while in truth, the Red Army fought ferociously. --MPorciusCato 13:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

MR/Ms MPorciusCato, do you have familly from either Karelia, Petsamo, Salla or Suursaari? Well i have, and we dont even know when we setteled down there in the first place, so the word reconcuest sound very silly.--Posse72 13:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

At the present, I do not have any relatives in Karelia. However, two of my grandparents were born in the ceded Karelia. They were evacuated from there in 1940. I think that your attempt to play down the intensity of the battles fought in the area infringes the honour of the troops involved on both sides. The Soviet troops fought well in 1941 in Karelia, but they were overwhelmed by the Finnish attack. Finnish Army paid dearly for the lands taken back and also performed well. The reconquest of the area was by no means easy, so calling it a "capture" is misleading. In addition, it is a standard practice to call winning areas back in a war a "reconquest". For example, the reconquista in Spain means thhe process where the Christians won back the long-lost lands from the Muslims. The word itself does not carry any moral judgement on the war itself. --MPorciusCato 13:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

MPorciusCato: I suppose this was done just to avoid using "re-re-re-conquest" constructions.

Posse72: Vyborg was among the territories Finland had to cede to the Soviet Union, recognizing their new owner with a treaty. A successful attempt to reclaim these territories would be called "reconquest". (post edit conflict) That is, I agree with MPorciusCato) --Illythr 13:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

IN western law tradition a treaty signed under gun threat is not a vaild treaty, dont try to make the Moscow peace a fair and good treaty, not even the Russian respected that treaty. This is very alarming that you have that view, VERY pro-soviet!--Posse72 12:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please believe, I did consider quite thoroughly which words to use here. I used the word reconquest as there was a peace treaty in effect before the war. Also, I have used recapture in situations when control of the place changes during the conflict.

Also, the occupation of East Karelia has been used as that is how the situation is defined in the point of view of the international law, for example in Geneve accords.

The legality of the Moscow Peace Treaty is not relevant here, and especially you cannot claim it's illegality arises from the situation it was written: The peace treaties which were not written under the threat of violence/war/occupation are few and far between.--Whiskey 10:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

With you defenition of Reqoncuest who ill not agree on, you colud say that writting "recapture" of the Soviets in 1944 as the artical stats means that finnish soldiers didnt fight with honour in 1944? And actually iv can not recall one statment from famelliy or other finnish war vets als Soviet soldier fought with honor in the summer/fall of 1941. Qiut the opposit actually. Especially on the Karelian Isthmus the Soviet army was badlly kicked, and they where not better of in the east.--Posse72 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. Have you ever heard the terms "captured after heavy fighting" or "captured with heavy losses"? Also, I wonder what have you read, as I even now have JR58's unit history on my table, and they (as the other regiments of 19.D) had a quite good adversary from Soviet 168.D.--Whiskey 10:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read a lot, and talked to at least 100 finnish war veterans. Im notsaying there where not hard figthing it sure was, but in the end the Soviet defence colapsed resulting in Mottis like the Porlammi motti and Sortaval motti, and finnish liberating finnish Karelia. The word conquest really have a negative sound bringing to the mind a force capturing something that they dont belonged to as Spain conquerd the aztecs. Recapture has the sound of takeing back what orginally belonged to you. So is it neutral to sugest that county of Viipuri was origonally belonging to Soviet? And im very much worried about the suggestion that legality should not be "relevant" here, That treaty have given namn to the conflict "THE CONTINUATION WAR" means its the continuation of something, and also during the interim peaceperiod Soviet brook sevral times aginst the treaty making the question of the leagalty of the treaty an importent issue for this artical and the war. So was creating of Vicey-France a fiar traty? And about Soviet figthing with honor. Grandpaas favorit story from 1941 was when a whole Soviet labour company in preperd defence surrended to him and his mate with out one shot was fired. The are many stories of Finnish soldier who was not so impressed, like Harry Järv who thought he would have the plesure of seeing art at the emirtage at Leningrad during the fall of 1941--Posse72 13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Soviet 168.D didn't "collapse" but it did perform very skillful retreat to the coast of Lake Ladoga, what you describe as "Sortavalan motti", and it was evacuated from there with most of it's material leaving only minor loot to the Finns. If you have noticed, I have not used the term conquer, but reconquest, which holds the meaning of capturing something you previously owned, although you don't own it currently. If we start lawyering about the peace treaties, we will get into the bottomless swamp with no hope to get neutral article. It has nothing to do with "fairness": Most of the peace treaties have been unfair all along, but it hadn't made them any less binding. It is true that Soviets presented additional demands after the peace, and it is also true that they interpreted the text of the treaty differently from the Finns, but can you really point any actions they did against the exact text of the treaty? --Whiskey 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

About the 168th Soviet division, it fought good, but acording to Col. Järvinens Book jatkosota taktika. it was not so much the Soviet effort as the inexperianced Finnish staff who saved that division. But we can both agree on that the Soviet defence of Sortavala collapsed? The best exempel of Soviet act of violation is of curse Molotovs visit to Berlin where he wanted to solve the Finnish question. Also Soviet attempt to get control of Avhenamaa and Petsamo, areas out of the scope of the peacey treaty must clearly be seen as violations. The interferance of the Finnsh president election and the massive spying campaign doesent either shows good faith.--Posse72 14:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so much staff, but insufficient amount of air support and artillery as well as domestic political reasons, which were driving military decision making: It was politically impossible to not liberate the second largest city of the lost territories. Unfortunately this diverted enough forces that 168.D was able to load most of it's material to the waiting ships and barges south of the city. One can say that the defence of Sortavala collapsed, but it was insignificant as it didn't led any further gains, unlike when defences in Korpiselkä and Tuulos collapsed, on the contrary, the time needed to overcome the defences was a distraction enough which allowed 168.D to escape.

I asked about which Soviet actions were in violation with the text of the peace treaty, not which were against the spirit of the treaty or not handled in the treaty. If we start lawyering, there wasn't no provision in the treaty which forbade Soviet government bullying Finnish counterpart. So not against the treaty, but unpolite, undiplomatic and - in the end - highly counterproductive for the Soviets.--Whiskey 09:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Whiskey, what I mean is that the artical now says that the Soviet only had it securty buffert zone problem, as only reason for acting as they did, (but the Soviet get through with thiere demand 100% or even 105% as they reverted treaty to incloud Enso who was not on Soviet side in orignal peace trarty.) Still they where not satisfied making more demand for taking over the Petsamo Nikel concsesion, demanded that they with Finland put up a armed defence of Avhenamaa. So to say that the Moscow traty was the document that regulated the relation with the two countries and that Soviet only where in for a Security Zone according to my option falls plat.

1:If the Winterwar was only a Security buffert zone issue,they got all what they asked for, so the pressure 1940-41 and Molotovs question to Hitler about solving the finnish question doesnt fit the picture. They got there "ZONE" why did they countinue to put great pressure, why was there according to Molotov still a finnish question in November 1940?
2:If the peace treaty was a treaty to build normal and stabil relation between Finland and Soviet, the Soviet involment and futher demand seems very strange. The accuse that Finland (Who even did not start the war) brook aginst the Moscow peace treaty and therefor was the agressor as a main them doesnt fit the historic reallity. Soviet had with there action showed that they where not saticfeid, and that they did not wanted to use the treaty to build good and normal realtion with Finland.--Posse72 14:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please tell where the article says so, as I can't find it? The MPT didn't regulated the relations, but it was crafted to end the war. The only long-standing regulations were article 5 which limits Finnish military presence at Petsamo and article 3 which forbids participation to alliances or coalitions directed against each other. Finns initially thought it would mean only offensive military alliances, but it became quite quickly evident that Soviet Union would consider any international agreement which lessened Soviet possibilities to pressure Finnish government economically or militarily as a breach of this article. In the Soviet interpretation the third article should have made Finland Soviet protectorate, and any Finnish action which didn't have Soviet acceptance would be a breach to the MPT. The zone idea don't fall apart, as Soviet Union gained a zone with MPT, but not the zone they wanted to have. --Whiskey 11:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The artical as I pointed out earlier, take a stand of in the "war aims section" that Finlands goals was offensive and Soviet; "It is argued that all Soviet policies up to the Continuation War are best explained as defensive measures by offensive means:" AND "the Continuation War was a war of aggression by the Finns,[10][11] an attempt to rectify the result of the Winter War and pre-empt Soviet aggression" This to lines is very onesided and prosovietic.

About the MPT Soviet clearlly brook aginst Article 3, when they shot down the passengerplane Kaleva in the summer of 1940, when Molotov wanted to solve the Finnish question in Berlin November 1940, and when they open up hostility the 25 june 1941. then Illythr said of curse Karelia was Soviet because they get it by Finland in the MPT, so if we agree with Illyther that Karelia was rightlly Sovietic, and dont see the obvious Soviet breaches aginst the MPT, this artical is NOT a NPOV artical. TO make things even worse we should accept Soviet buffert zone policey a defensive and truthfull interpretation of Soviet Policy. SO wheres the boderline between pure imperilaism and a Security zone policey? Maybe we should rewright Germanys war aims in other artical as "defensive" as there buffert zone also where aimed to make room and security for there pepole they just called it Lebensraum. AS the MPT does not regulat Finnish domstic politic in any artical, the Soviet involment and interception of Finnish domstic affirs must be see as hostile.

*1:I dont agree on that the countinuation war was a "war of Finnish agression", Finland did not start the war, and did not build up the tension who ignited the war. Soviet was the first side to break the MPT.

*2:The only place in the world where where so hostile act as the one Soviet carried out aginst Finland, is as just called a "security issue" is in the relation between Finland and Soviet /Russia. --Posse72 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Posse72 is right in his opinion that mpt was broken by russia first? Since i saw it mentioned in wiki, i assume it is possible to dig up (the) some incidents or mention in what way that treaty was broken. The other thing is every nazi-allie advance must be called agression from the allied pov. This causes some confusion now. I assume the alied reason not to bother over karelia, wich had been apparently depopulated, is the post-war wish not to conflict the SU. Sortta like if the allies after berlin handed over karelia to the winterwar result. I don't exactly know why else, perhaps some kind of retribution over the Finnish "joining the axis"? The finnish for their part, were all quitte sure what they did was about not becoming the victim of a sovjet invasion in the near future. The choice to join the germans was a pragmatic one (a major factor the weapons Germany did and the allies didn't supply), one should also take into account that the regional geopolitical context rewarded this thought. The other baltic states that had been succesfully invaded by the SU, initially perceived the german actions against the russians as a liberation or at least a great support. Those are among finlands closest neighbours. The actual result after ww2 proved the finnish right btw.: The populations of the baltic states and to a lesser extend finland were left alone, despite already ancient political promises of the allies. Immediatly several groups continued the struggle against Russia still hoping for the allied(GB,USA) support as promised off and around ww1. Likewise the argument for finland to try to recapture the karelia area was: (reconquest is perhaps for whole nations then) A promising buffer against the russians in the ancient land of the discriminated karelians, that had suffered a lot of interference from tsarist russia in recent centurys. Perhaps that the finns, like the estonians, discovered their fellow people in the other army, made them decide not to capture leningrad, however i understood it was because they wished not to involve in such agression. Possibly anticipating rather accurately the outcomes for the post war situation. dunno if that is interesting, but i also heard or saw no mention of fenno brittish air combat, I would think the RAF has not interfered with finnish operations in the south. Can't some RAF-researcher verify this? Such should be obvious in the records , if not even explicit. Or maybe those orders have been secret. The postwar SU would not have apreciated such attitude. On a side note one can view the whole finnish diplomacy as one that acknowledges the economical relevance of the north scandinavian iron-ore, they may have assumed that a post-war west would try to remain some kind of 'finnish' buffer against the SU capturing the iron. The iron was so obviously the only motif for any allied action. In this light the karelian isthmus shows a handy bargain more obvious. Also the capitalist forces could be expected to negotiate whatever extra finland the finnish captured. 77.251.179.188 02:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that from Finland's part it was not an aggression against soviets, but vise versa. I can't confirm that if the Russians broke the MPT first or not, but it is simple to understand the geopolitical position of Finland, as Finland was right in the middle of these two combatants way. Allies couldn't send any weapons to Finland, as Germany had conquered Norway, effectively cutting Finland of from the allies and America denied that aid from their part. Not sure if it was because Amercans were arming Russia with the lend-lease aid, or why, but trusting SU was not an option, because Finland didn't wanna go the way of Baltic countries. Naturally, only option left was either to sit alone, as SU had even before the winter war demanded that Finland wouldn't try to make the Scandinavian Defensive Pact with Sweden and Norway (Before the negotiations were complete, the Russians started the aggressions against Finland and Sweden backed out and only aided materially and giving evacuees shelter, effectively leaving the Scandinavian defense pact a carcase.). As Nazis conquered Norway, the Swedes were delivering goods to Nazis and strongly remained neutral, as Finland tried after and before the winter war. Reality was more harsh, as Finland was in it self the northern frontier of the Nazis and Soviets. So, in this light, Finland did what it had to do. And as previously said, Finland did not accept the request from Hitler to join in the conquest of St. Petersburg/Leningrad, neither Finland didn't agree to cut off the railway connection to Murmansk, even when Hitler asked then to. It is usually found also in resent studies that Finnish POW camps were more hospitable than those supervised by Germans in Finlands territories. Also, about the buffer zone Finland ceded from the Russia during the war, I'm using the word buffer zone, because Finland renounced only those territories to Finlands territories that were depicted in the Treaty of Tartu, never claiming those territories as part of Finland, that didn't belong to it in the first place. Also, about who the Eastern Karelia belonged, as it never officially was part of Finland, Karelia has always been a habitant place of Finns, as it is even today, with minority of 11% Finnish (or Finnish speaking) population. That does not make it Finlands territory, but that was one reason, why they tried to make it a part of Finland before 1920, even though not officially but voluntary with expeditions, unlike how Mannerheim wanted it, that Finlands government should support the uprising Finns living in Eastern Karelia. In continuation war, they could have pushed forward and cut the lines to Murmansk, but they didn't, they stationed to where they stood. One thing also is a relevant point, that it is not in anyway a war criminal act to advance to the enemies territory, as the defender has right to try to choose the most profitable defensive lines that it can get. As what comes to Finlands war criminal status, most of it seems to have become from the Finlands political power struggle of Kekkonen, he seemed to drive the War Criminal cases as a Finn the most in Finland and some, if not most of those convicted were Kekkonen's worst opposition. Up till today, I only know of books as sources for these things, one called "Suomen Sotasyyllisyyden Asiakirjat" meaning "Finlands war criminality's documents" loosely translated. It consist of documents before and during the wars. Therefore, it was not only the Russians demanding those of responsible to be trialled, but also Kekkonen. This is, never the less, a disputed and ongoing investigation among the Finnish Historians but most, if not all Historians in Finland are almost, if not completely unanumous about the fact that Finland was not the aggressor in the continuation war. Also one or two Russian historians, at least, have publicly stated that the continuation war was Stalins fault. One of them was Viktor M. Holodkovsk, who stated in 1981 at Petroskoi, that winter war and continuation was Stalins fault alone. He was resigned from his office, but 1991 he repeated his statement. You can search some material from here, if not previously given; http://www.prokarelia.net/en/ (Sometimes it is hard to find source of their referrals but they are there, if you just have will and patience to find it. They are making their site better little by little though.)

I also want to point out, that Finland fought for its own goals alongside with the Nazis and it is true that Finlands president, Risto Ryti signed an alliance finally, as Nazis demanded an official alliance in order for the weapons and munition shipments to continue. At first, Finland rejected the official alliance as far as it could, right? So, in that light, Finland did what it had to, in order to stay Independent and not to be occupied by Germans, nor Soviet forces. That leads to, why Finland had to pay such a price after so tight situation that two superpowers had put Finland in; It was all political, as stated somewhere here too, not word by word, but hinting to that way.

Now an off topic statement; In the light of what purpose it served, that Finland had to recede its territories to Russia, served only to support peace, not because it Finland was the reason for the war. Even the PPT says, that "...Finland, when becoming Nazis ally, is held partly responsible from the war...", does not say that Finland did start the war. If it would have, it would have been stated so in the Treaty for sure. And about the legality of that, it was against the Atlantic Charter, that explains loosely translated, that;

1. Any signing parties wont claim territories or do any other kind of expansions 2. All signing parties hope that there isn't any territorial changes (=moving borders) without the free will of foreign nation(s)

Later on, Soviet Union signed this, as Atlantic Charter was base for League of Nations and UN. Both, SU and todays Russia have signed the treaty. It is also noticeable, that it is not a reason to let things be, because treaty binds us, as treaty binds us only as long as it is changed or re-evaluate. Therefore, returning Karelia to Finland with the blessing of UN is not so of a matter of binding treaties, as it is a matter of will to raise the question up. Even America has not accepted the molotov-ribbentrop borders, including many other countries that still to this day have not agreed or justified any of the borders made by that agreement. There is about 15 countries (or european countries) that have territories under Russian control, still to this day. Finland is one of those countries, so Finland should have the same right as others, to ask for what is rightfully she's; borders of pre WW2, as depicted in Treaty of Tartu.

- Yes the artical must state, that since the ceasefire the 4th September 1944, the border between Finland and Soviet/Russia is the only place in the world where the Molotov-Ribbentroop treaty is still in place--Posse72 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Gustav Hägglund's comment

Posse72. In the 1990s, in the period after the break-up of the USSR, there was talk to the effect that Finland should attempt to recover Karelia either through some form of purchase or lease. Be aware that Russia seemed economically and politically very weak at that time. In May 1999 I heard the head of the Finnish Army state (in Helsinki) that Finland should not take back Karelia "even if it is offered on a silver tray". What do you think about that?. regards. Bob BScar23625 14:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ps : I forget the guy's name

The guy you refer to is General Gustav Hägglund, the former Finnish Chief of Defence and the later Chairman of the European Union Military Committee. You are quite correct but the year was 1992 and he was the Chief of the Defence Staff at the moment. He did renounce any redicivist thoughts on the return of the ceded parts of Karelia. The basis for this renouncement was that the acquistion of those areas would cause a massive problem for the defence of Saint Petersburg which requires a buffer zone. In addition, Finland would get 300.000 ethnic Russians resident in the area which would present a security concern. Later, it has been shown that at the time, Russian diplomatic officials had made highly informal overtures about the possibility of Finland buying back the area. In my opinion, Hägglund's statement is likely to have been a part of the diplomatic game, coming seemingly without official sanction from an officer high in the defence hierarchy (the 2nd-in command of the Defence Forces), but still low enough that it might later be demented as private thought of a single officer. Two years later, Hägglund was promoted by president Mauno Koivisto to Chief of Defence, so his "private" opinion was in line with the government.

Naturally, the fringe groups (ProKarelia, Karjalan liitto), represented here by Posse72, still continue "discussion" about getting Karelia back, but there are no official undertakings to that direction. As the last Finnish individuals born there are now over 60, the case is likely to be settled permanently in a decade or two. --MPorciusCato 13:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

of TOPIC BUT IT WAS YOU WHO STARTED IT...Of curse, there is no finnish discusion of this, with the politcal establishment still suffers from being badlly beaten during the years of Finlandization and lying to them self. A more seriuos issue that anyone fails to see that this self lie and despite finnish and russian politicians say the relations is good, there is no real thrust beetwen the Russian-Finnish pepole. Russian all wharpt up in picture as a pepole without fault and with a godsent mission, and the finns who eventlly know that in the end you cant thrust the Russian that why we wilol join NATO. That why a proper picture of history is needed.

What my personal view about that rather complex problem does not belong here, my consern here is that history should be told so neutral and correct as possible, as this artical looks for the moment its a very simplistic oneside view of the history, the Soviet/Russian impire bulding and aggresion is totally left out, and the artical point out all the blame on the finnish side, and the "wisedom" of the Soviet side. --Posse72 15:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

--Posse72 15:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)== This artical has gone from bad to worse. ==

This artical is not longer about the Continuation War, but in many way a oneside POV who literally defend any action Soviet made, and paints a picture of Finland as a revchist aggresor. First of all there a lot missing in road to war and especially Soviet aggresion. And we have pepole runing there on POV mission makeing hens of small feathers. Like foreampel the long section of the brittish squadron in Murmansk, that didnot affected the war in anway, or even fought aginst the finns. It yous faumose Soviet propaganda picture, but withhelds important aspects. This is a bad POV artical.--Posse72 12:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it would be a good POV article, if it carried your POV. Seriously, however, I read the article and I must say that if it carries any POV, that POV is a Finnish one. For example, the chapters about the road to war show very well the Finnish viewpoint, while the Soviet opinion is much less prominent. The introductory chapter is obviously written by a Briton who wishes to tell why this minor conflict is interesting from the Anglo-Saxon point of view. (For us, of course, it is a major event in its own right.) I take that you disagree with the exposition listing the Finnish actions against the British and Commonwealth forces during the war. I think that the listing is perhaps a little bit too visible compared to the importance of those actions, but then again, this is the English Wikipedia, and the Anglo-Saxons are entitled to see the things that are interesting to them. ;-) After all, what does it mean if we fought against the British? It was a war, and the Finns fought for the most part with very clean arms, adhering to the law of war. (The most notable exceptions being the non-equal treatment of the peoples of Eastern Karelia and the logistical catastrophe of the POW camps in 1942.) There is nothing to be afraid of in a factually accurate, neutral exposition of events, as any reader will see the merits of the Finnish cause. In addition, this is Wikipedia. We write neutral, factually accurate articles whatever the results for our countries. --MPorciusCato 12:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Theres a lot missing in the road to war section.--Posse72 14:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

British role in the war

Posse72. At some points in the above discussion you refer to "Russian/Soviet imperialism" and at other points you refer to "Soviet imperialism". Do you consider that there is any difference between the two forms of imperialism?.

At some points above, you indicate that Finland fought the war against communism - and that it was supported in this by the British. Are you sure that is a full and correct representation of events?. BobBScar23625 13:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well was not Sovietunion a communistic state? or have i missed something?--Posse72 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. Perhaps you have missed something?. A current theme for discussion is that post-communist Russia acts in much the same way as the former Soviet Union in international terms. In the first of my questions I am trying to extract your views on this. In the second of my questions I am trying to extract your belief concerning whether or not Britain supported Finland in the war. (1) Do you distinguish between Russia and the Soviet Union?, and (2) Do you believe that Britain supported Finland in the war?. regards. Bob BScar23625 13:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your questions become more and more strange and out of place, this artical here is about the countinuation war, my statement is that its bad and full of POV. beetwen Soviet and Finland, where brittainns roll was very limited, yes on papper they fought a war, but in real they (Both Finland and UK hade thiere hand full up with more important stuff than figthing a psuedo war). This artical has about 1/5 of its text describing a RAF sqaudron in Murmansk, im quit sure there pressent was not known by most of the finns until long after the war. Its political impact on Finland i very much doubt. UK could not help Finland during the winterwar, and hade no means real means or will to project ist power on Finland during the whole war. The most reaviling facts about this is the brittish member of the allied controll commision, who hade no idee of what he was to do in Helsinki as Finland was all ready a palametarian democracy. And about Russian/Soviet imperialism, since dawn of time Russias power ambition have stretch over Finland with an uncouteble numbers of war and both Lenin and Stalin saw the Russian pepole as the bearer of the Revolution. Never have hardship of the finnish pepole been so hard as during the Soviet years. And finnish brother pepole like East karelians, Vespers and Ingerian was neally exctinged during the Soviet era, nothing the Russian Tsar was even close to do.--Posse72 13:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. You say "...Finnish brother people like East Karelians, Vespers and Ingerian were nearly made extinct ...". Do you believe that the war was primarily a genocidal Russian war on non-Russian ethnicities or a Soviet war on non-communists?.

You also say "... I have had chats with British war veterans. The motivation for Finnish soldiers and British soldiers where quite similar during the whole war.". How can that be true?. The British were fighting against the Nazis whereas the Finns were supporting the Nazis. Do you believe that the Finns enjoyed British support during the war?. Bob BScar23625 14:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I espcially remeber a very nice man who hade served with "Prince of walse own Lancier" he had fought with this regiment all over the world during the whole war, when i mentioned that my gradpaa was a finnish soldier, he become very entusiatic shouting to his wife "Posse72" grandpaa fought in the winterwar! We really admire the finns!.

If you dont see finnish parlametarian democracy Versus Soviet Stalinism (Like brittish parlamentarism against Nazi race policy) during the Continuation war as a main theme its maybe bacause you dont see a really issue here, says more about you than the conflict in it self.--Posse72 14:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. I doubt your British acquaintance was being serious. What he said to you sounds like an example of "the British sense of humour", see article. That article contains the statement "The British sense of humour received the lowest scores of any category and the Italians rated us the second least funny people in the world". The British sense of humour is based on irony - and foreigners do not understand it. Bob BScar23625 14:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Like in everything that dont fit your world cant be true! After he mentioned this he get serious and told me how upset he was during the winterwar, this british fealings is also well mentioned in Edwards book about the winterwar. Or ofcurse i misinterpreted it must be british humor how could the british have sympathy for anything else than the heroic Sovietunion?--Posse72 14:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. The Prince of Wales's Own Lancers was an Indian regiment - not British. Some Indian nationalists did support the Nazis. Bob BScar23625 15:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe not [6]Italic text

Well to me he said it was a Tank regiment, when i checked the places he said he fought, the where correct like forexampel Malaya (Where he with a upset vocie told me how the japanes choped dow treeas to halt the regiment) . I think your really hiting the bottom when you insnuates that a brittish war vet that you should be thankfull of, you implicit that he could be a facist. That must even be to low for you. ROCK Bottom LOW!--Posse72 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your argumentiation really reavele your true political view Bobby!--Posse72 15:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. What is my political view?. The point I am making is that the guy you quote was probably an Indian Army veteran - not British. See the article Indian National Army. Bob BScar23625 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Its more straith forward to revale your true idelogic view you so we can discus from that point! its a small guess, but i believe you are into communism, in one way or another?--Posse72 15:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. I have no real ideology, I just want to get our facts right. There was a British army unit with a name similar to the Prince of Wales's Own Lancers. But even the ref you give above does not suggest it fought in the Malaya campaign of 41/42. My guess is that your guy was Indian Army. As an aside, most of the Commonwealth forces in that camapign were taken prisoner by the Japs. Bob BScar23625 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You both, please understand that this is very unpleasent reading for everyone else. Can't you drop it? While it can be interesting to you, it does not contribute to the discussion whether this article is neutral or not. --Pudeo ⺮ 16:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

When did it begin??

in this article it says that OPeration Barborossa attacks had commenced by 21June when continuation war began, yet on OPeration Barborossa page it says that OPeration Barborrosssa began on 22 June. they can't both be correct? When did both actually begin - not when were they scheduclaed to begin?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.216.179.146 (talk • contribs)

No fighting took place before June 25 between Finland and Soviet Union. Finland had allowed German military access to her territory earlier but Germans did not attack. When Operation Barbarossa commenced, German bombers refueled in Finland, which made Soviet Union once again open hostilities with Finland by striking civilian targets and airfields on June 25. Finland declared that it was once again under a Soviet aggression. It wasn't until July when Finnish forces began reconquering territories. But read the article, all this is stated in there. Perhaps we should research from sources whether Finnish attack in July is regarded as a part of Operation Barbarossa. But it is a fact Hitler had regarded Finland as one attacking force in his Barbarossa directives. --Pudeo ⺮ 17:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

They are both correct. As the article explains, the Kriegsmarine started mining the Gulf of Finland before the midnight June 21, and the first air and land attacks were commenced few hours later, June 22.--Whiskey 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here; so where did it come to pass that Finland started the war? As in the wiki page it still sais that Finland was the aggressor and if people here have same view that Finland was not aggressor...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernicio (talk • contribs) 03:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The usual interpretation of the events of summer 1941 is that Finland refrained from starting hostilities, although it was not fully neutral. (German aircraft operated from Finnish airfields against Soviet Union.) However, had there been no casus belli, it is likely that Finland would have attacked anyway, due to German political pressure. After the hostilities started, Finland reconquered the areas it had ceded in previous year, and Eastern Karelia. The invasion was much greater than strict military necessity of stopping the Soviet air attacks would have required, although the official line was that Finland conquered Eastern Karelia due to military necessity, not with the idea of future annexation. (The reconquest of Finnish Karelia was a clearly irredentist action, which was not kept secret at all. After all, not even the Western allies questioned the Finnish moral right of taking back the ceded areas at the time. The British considered the conquest of Eastern Karelia to be the casus belli) This is why the war is called Finnish aggression. On the other hand, the Finnish aims of war were limited and the attack in Eastern Karelia was stopped before it endangered any of the important railway lines or the Northeastern route to Leningrad. --MPorciusCato 10:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats wrong, everything written about the British declaration of war aginst Finland suggest that this was done to saticfie the Russian who constantlly made demand to the british to start the war, Uk didnot only declaer war on Finland that day, but they also did declear war on the other axis minors. There nothing in Churchills later to Mannerheim who sudgest that eastkarelia is of any concenrn to the brittish.--Posse72 12:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Shrinkage in size of my contributions

My contributions headed "British role in the war" and "Gustav Hägglund's comment" appear to have shrunk in size - that is, in font size. Is this something to do with you, Posse73?. In any event, this article should give greater priority to the British contribution to the war. Bob BScar23625 12:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should it do that? There where no british role in the conflict and no contribution to talk about.--Posse72 19:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. Please answer my question. Have you are have you not shrunk the size of my contributions?. Bob BScar23625 10:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he missed the opening <small> tag there. Don't think it was intentional. Better focus on article issues. --Illythr 12:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Illythr. I suspect Posse74 did it intentionally. It is this state of denial that I have referred to before. Inconvenient truths are either deleted or shrunk to a size where you need a magnifying glass to read them. Bob BScar23625 12:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No I have not shrinken the size of your text! But I strongly recomend that the Story of the 151 squadron is lifted out to an own artical, as it has nothinfg to do with the continuation war.--Posse72 14:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC) By the way my username is Posse72, nothin else.

I have now looked trough sevral books, finnish and brittish, in not one book iv see anyone drawing the political conclusion that bobby does in the section of the 151 sqd. Actually iv found sevreal statment that twhart that claim.--83.250.217.75 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. 151 Wing was a British expeditionary force consisting of two reinforced RAF squadrons. The Brits provided the Soviets with support at four levels - direct military, equipment supply, intelligence and technology transfer. This support continued until as late as 1946. For example, the Mig15 fighter was developed using a British supplied Rolls-Royce Nene jet engine. This may be inconvenient, but it is the truth. Bob BScar23625 07:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you skip the crap talk and focus on the deatail for once? The squadron was briefly operating in the Murmansk area, with the mission of protecting the port of Murmansk and the Leandlese shippment. It was in no way directed towards Finland.--83.250.217.75 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bobby, You have allread proved that you run a communist political agenda in destroying this artical, making it your own POV instead of a neutral artical about the continuation war. the best evidence for this is your constant denail that Finland was a democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.217.75 (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Posse72. You believe that the Continuation War was an early Cold War conflict in which the Western Allies were either neutral or supportive of Finland. This is a spectacular misunderstanding but nothing more I can say will convince you. Call me a communist if you want - I have been called far worse names in the past. Bob BScar23625 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are very good in puting words in the other persons mounth. I have not called it a coldwar conflict. As always when the question is to hard for you, you over stretch your argumentation, like the exampel of Mig-9. Why cant you accept the fact that Findland was a democracy figthing for its survivel? Does it counters with your political view about the good Soviet? You are very igronant of this conflict, and worse still is that you pretend talking for the whole of a british POV, but I have just read Norman Davies "No simpel victory" so clearlly there are other british POV than your comunistic thought.--Posse72 15:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

One squadron [er, two squadrons, one wing Buckshot06 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)] is not much compared to the total numbers in this war. More interesting is the intelligence issue, maybe it can be connected to the Polish-British intelligence contibution to the whole European theatre. So let's research that issue and to determine what role the British effectively played, we should check aerial combat between them and any axis aircraft based in Finland. Murmansk was a vital connection and the British tried to protect it, making the whole war a possible threat to one of the Soviets main supply routes.Wandalstouring 09:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Lift out the section of the artical that covers the british figther squadron i Murmansk.

This has nothing to do with the continuation war and should only be mentioned in brief. During the conflict 50 000 finnish soldiers died, but not one of them by a british bulit. The subject is intresting and needs a own artical.--Posse72 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Its respectless to the 58000 fallen finnish solders that this puesdoevent has such big roam in the artical.--Posse72 09:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lift out major parts of the RAF section to a new article, as it now eracts the article about the continuation war. I havent seen one proof yet that the RAF wing hade anything to do with Finland, quit the opposit. The RAF wing belongso to one own artcle.

The squadron did not fight any Finn what soever.
During its station Finland and UK hade peace.
Much of its apperance in this article spurce from Bobbys on research without ANY sources.

The sorces provided for this section does NOT even mention Finland at all........Why do you think its so?--Posse72 (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, None of the sources regarding this event even mention Finland, as there are NO sources to prove that the RAF squadron hade anything to do with continuation war, ill will remove this to an own article. --Posse72 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Related arbitration committee decision

Dear friends,

The Arbitration committee has made a decision in a case related to this article. The decision includes a general restriction for engaging in any disruptive behaviour. In particular, we should make sure that we edit this talk page more civilly than we have done in the previous week. Otherwise, any of us may get an editing restriction and even a subsequent summary ban. --MPorciusCato 06:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys. Rebuke accepted. I have banned myself from editing this article and its talk page for the next 28 days. Bob BScar23625 07:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominion Participation

I've noticed one error in this post, and one line that seems to me highly misleading. But I thought I would mention this on the talk page before editing, since the misleading line has already been argued about in the archives. The error (as of 27 October 2007): In the introduction it says "Britain and its Dominions declared war on December 6th 1941". The United Kingdom did declare war on December 6th, but the Dominions declared war later: Canada and New Zealand on December 7th, Australia and South Africa December 8th. I will fix this soon unless someone has a problem with fixing the error.

The misleading bit: near the very start "The United Kingdom declared war on Finland on December 6, 1941 (thus making Britain and Finland the only "modern" democracies to declare war on each other),". I presume the claim that Finland declared war on the UK has been fact-checked, though I note that it is at variance with the "Declaration of War" wikipedia list. I strongly suspect that Finland did not declare war on the UK, or at least that this needs a reference to a credible resource. But the bit that makes it misleading is the brackets, that suggests that this is the only case of "modern democracies" declaring war on other democracies. The dominions were democracies. Perhaps worries about the franchise might put a question mark on the democratic status of South Africa, but I'd rather that Wikipedia did not imply that Canada, Australia and New Zealand were not democracies.

I suggest amending the misleading bit to "The United Kingdom declared war on Finland on December 6, 1941, followed by its Dominions: Canada and New Zealand on December 7, and Australia and South Africa on December 8. The continuation war is a rare case of democracies declaring war on other democracies." Alternatively, the minor role that Britain and the Dominions played could be left until later in the article. Ozfacts 09:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

OK Wandalstouring 10:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Uk decleration of war was also to Hungary, Rumania, and according to Waner times book series about wwii Churchill said to his cabinet upon declering war to Finland "We have to shave now when we are figthing gentlemens"--Posse72 17:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it the Finns who said that? --MoRsE (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This article lack of NPOV and its relation to Soviet propaganda myths

From English Wikipedia "Imperialism is the forceful extension of a nation's authority by territorial conquest establishing economic and political domination of other nations that are not its own colonies. Imperialism is often autocratic, e.g. in early 20th century Japan" I don’t find the word security buffet zone in this context.

In this very Finlandization mea culpa and Soviet propaganda crap article (nice cooperation!, several thing that shows of Soviet aggression is totally left out.

Important event that lead to the continuation war that is not mentioned in the article.

During the interim peace period Soviet made constant demand and left a number of notes to Finland that was a direct involvement of Finnish domestic policy, Both in Finland and Sweden the conclusion was that Soviet used the same salami-tactic as Nazigermany had used to destroy Czechoslovakia.

- Soviet forbid a Finnish-Swedish neutrality union.
- During the interim peace Soviet violated Finnish border at 194 recorded incidents’.
- Soviet demand and annexation of the important industrial town Enso who clearly was on the Finnish side in the peace treaty map.
- Soviet demand that Finnish war literature of the winter war was to be censored.
- The Downing of the Finnish passenger plane Kaleva. (A clear violation of the MPT artical 3)
- Soviet note of witch persons who the Soviet would not accept as President candidate during the 1940 president election. (Tanner, Kivimäki, Mannerhein and Svinhufvud)
- Soviet demands that Väinö Tanner had to resign as minister, he did.
- Soviet demands to take over the Petsamo mine.
- Soviet demands to have a military present at Ahvenanmaa
- Soviet hade demanded Hanko as a Naval base, but during the interim peace period the base was not so much used by the Soviet navy, instead a land forces build up was done in Hanko. (Lappalainen "War in the gulf of Finland)
- AS proffesor Arvi Korhonen write in his book "Finland and the Barbarrosa plan" -'Soviet got over 100% of its security need realized' and still the made constant demands.
- Soviet open support to the extreme left-wing group SNS"The friendship union Soviet-Finland"" that actively demanded Finland to join the Soviet union.
- The absurd big Soviet spy campaign that Soviet run during the interim period directed from the Soviet embassy.
- Soviet demands to use the domestic finnish railwaynet to transport Soviet troops and wapons to and from the Hanko base.
- The Russian press hostile attitude against (Finland Kohronen"Finland and the Barbarrosa plan")
- Hostile Soviet radio propaganda directed to Finland in Finnish.
- The worst breach of the MPT was Molotovs visit in Berlin in November 1940, where Molotov among the first questions to Hitler asked if Soviet could get free hands 'Solve the Finnish question'
  - This was the single most important even during the interim peace period and the road to war and its not even mentioned in the article?! Before this event Finland goal was appeasement with Soviet, after the event strengthen the relation with Germany was its goal.

All those events are missing in the article, witch really makes the article a POV of Finlandizations provoker and victims of Soviet/Russian nationalistic propaganda.

How about this statement?

Soviet policies up to the Continuation War were best explained as defensive measures by offensive means: the sharing of occupied Poland with Germany, the annexation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and the attempted invasion of Finland in the Winter War can all be seen as elements in the construction of a security zone or buffer region between the perceived threat from the capitalist powers of Western Europe and the Communist Soviet Union

Acording to Norman Davies "Soviet apologist justified the aggression by calling that USSR was merely 'strengthening the defense of Leningrad'

Simon Sebag Montefiore does not write one word of a "security buffet zone" in his big Stalin biography.

The Swedish writer Jan Linder draws the conclusion in the book "Finlands fyra krig" The four wars of Finland" that the single one motivation for Soviet was to reconquer the border of old tsar Russia.

Robert Edwards in his book "White Death" also points out that the Soviet prime reason was to "to its north-western borders by April 1938 was concerned with the recovery of Tsarist territory" page 28

William R. Trotter does mention the closeness to Leningrad, but say that "Russian consistently overestimated of both extreme of Finnish domestic politics" .

Most interesting is John Lukacs who in his book June 1941 Hitler-Stalin, does not mention anything close to match the description of "security buffert zone", he describe the Soviet goals as not to seek war with the other great powers, but to seek land expansion when ever possible. Lucas also say that the phrase of "sphere of interest" meant to Stalin that the Soviets got free hands to do what ever they wanted to that country. The reason to the winter war was according to Lukacs to force Finland in to the Soviet "Sphere of interest"

I want an independent mediation about this article and its lack of NPOV--Posse72 (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Source!

Ill want sources on that the (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)RAF wing in Murmansk was sean as an intervention. Since UK hade been in war with Germay since 1939.--Posse72