# Talk:Continuation War

In the " It began with a Finnish declaration of war and invasion on 25 June 1941 and ended on 19 September 1944 with the Moscow Armistice. " is too vague and does not take in consideration what caused the reaction on 25th June 1941. Documented finnish side saw that the 25th started with USSR 27 SB 2 bomber attack to small city of Heinola and 18 other locations in southern-Finland. 
On 22nd of June Germany had declared war against USSR and Göbbels declared in radio that Finland fought "Im Verein und im Bunde". This was translated in Ministry of foreign affairs as Im Verein "together" and im bunde "in union", however the latter was considered to mean "side by side". After Göbbels radio release, Finnish ministry of foreign affairs stated that Finland would stay outside of the war between Germany and USSR. There was no official documentation written for this co-operation, but Germany had stated later afterwards that the missing official documentation was replaced by previous letter sent by Adolf Hitler to Ryti in 21st of June 1941 which Ryti then replied 28th of June 1941 with his own letter. 
As the attack happened on 25th of June and basically the letter was sent back to Adolf Hitler that was considered official document on 28th, the disrepancy on using Finnish declaration of war in this type of context should be reconsidered. (Radio speech on 26th of June 1941 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risto_Ryti translated to english describing situation after bombing".) 87.94.108.199 (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

"On 22 June 1941, the Germans launched their massive invasion of the Soviet Union. Finland had already secretly mobilized its forces and declared war on 25 June..." (p. 442) [1]. Mellk (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/ebace8ed-51f2-4158-9bb8-105e69a000f1/content
Page 31 - 3.4.3 Did the Soviet Union Start Aggressive War on 25 July 2001:14BA:9C52:3300:89D1:5F9:304E:7D6E (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are arguing. From what I can see, the source mentions the Finnish position, then the analysis says: "Hitler’s declaration in itself could serve as a sufficient reason for the Soviet Union to take military measures against Finland... It is the inherent right of every State to defend itself against an attack endangering its existence. For Finland to avoid Soviet attack it would have been important to 1) contest Hitler’s declaration 2) declare neutrality according to its law, 3) emphasize to the Soviets that the German forces in Finland were meant only for Finland’s defensive purposes, and 4) assure that no military action would be taken across the border... I conclude that the Soviet Union had weighty reasons to argue that it had the right to use armed force in self-defence against Finland starting on 25 June. Finland was playing a double game." Mellk (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Then in the conclusion: "After Germany attacked against the Soviet Union, Finland reoccupied the territories lost in the Winter War. The Finnish forces did not stop at the old border but attacked to the Eastern (Soviet) Karelia and occupied it with a wish eventually to annex it. By that measure, Finland joined as Germany’s ally in its war of aggression against the Soviet Union..." Mellk (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
For future reference, I think the vast majority of historians believe that the Winter War was an aggressive war against Finland, while the Continuation War was an aggressive war against the USSR. This is almost as pointless as arguing that Finland were the aggressors in the Winter War for supposedly attacking the USSR, when it is known that the USSR had already planned for a war against Finland and to install a puppet communist government. Mellk (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Continuation War started on 25th June 1941. It started when the Soviet Union Bombed Finnish civilians. The Soviet Union began military operations against Finland without a declaration of war. Soviet Union had violated Moscow peace treaties. This was the real beginning of the Continuation War.
After that the Finland declared war against agressor. Finland recognized that war had begun and declared war on the Soviet Union. It was Finland's response to the hostile Soviet Union's military actions against Finnish citizens.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:618:2DA3:C796:9659:CE79:88BB (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC) 

I recall a nice film from the time of this war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cuckoo_(film) 109.81.84.25 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Finnish efforts in the Winter War were noble, but I'm tired of this implied framing that they won that war. Take the initial paragraph "which ended with the Soviet failure to conquer Finland and the Moscow Peace Treaty." The war ended with Finland losing not just the original territory, but partial access to the Barents Sea as well as other territory now part of I believe Murmansk and Karelia. Not leading with this is an obvious attempt to obscure that fact.  EmilePersaud (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to point out where exactly this supposed propaganda is. The sentence right after it mentions territorial losses, not to mention that there's a link to the Moscow Peace Treaty where this is discussed in detail. And the Soviets did indeed fail to conquer Finland. Leaving that out would be an attempt to obscure the outcome of the war, as you put it. Betelgeuse X (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Definitely a very biased (almost propaganda pamphlet) on how Finns destroyed divisions of Soviet Army and obce they got tired of destroying Soviets they negotiated peace under very unfavorable conditions. Nvocka (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Where in the article is this supposed propaganda? Betelgeuse X (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
just look at the referenced listed. Disproportionate Finnish sources but that fits the current narrative. Nvocka (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
There are both Finnish and Russian sources listed. And the majority of sources are in English anyway.
The facts clearly conflict with your personal opinions, so you refer to them as propaganda/biased/fake news. Betelgeuse X (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
You are using Finnish sources for soviet casualties and losses and Finnish sources for Finnish losses. That is called bias and borderline propaganda. Find me a Soviet source for losses on both sides and lets compare. English language doesn't matter. Nvocka (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah. And soviet sources are free from propaganda and show each and every single loss. Hardly believable. Soviets have a habit to inflate enemy losses while downplaying/hiding own losses. Was so in WW2, Afghanistan and is still so in their war in Ukraine.--Denniss (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Both sides do that, that is why you should reference both sides and not only one. When you do as it is done in this article you end up with nonsense that Soviets had 1400 planes and lost 1600. And asking "where do you see propaganda"? Soviet military losses are 10:1? Really? Nvocka (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't need to find anything for you. You're the one making accusations of propaganda, so it's your job to prove it. English sources are used in both the Finnish and Soviet casualty figures, and a Russian source is also present in the Soviet figures. No "propaganda" here. Betelgeuse X (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
You are right, no "propaganda" but PROPAGANDA here. I proved my case multiple times, it unbalanced and biased and I will dispute this article based on this. You literally have more planes in losses than Soviets had to begin with. You used partial (only for dead) soviet source but did not use any soviet source for finnish losses. Etc etc. Garbage article Nvocka (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Are there any sources for this mighty air defense that repelled 95% of bombing sorties? Country that had single digit number of tanks apparently spent all the money on air defense weapons that proved better than anything Germans had been using. Nvocka (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

That part already has a citation. However, a more recent source about the bombings would be Ville Jalovaara's book Helsinki 1944 - Taistelu pääkaupungista (2023). Jalovaara attributes the minor damage caused to Helsinki to two factors: the effectiveness of the defenses and the lack of skill among Soviet long-range bomber crews. According to him "Better-trained and more experienced pilots could have flown through the flak to hit their targets". Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
That is not a source. We need a source about count and strength of air defense around Helsinki in 1944. How many batteries or flak positions, what type, etc. Allies were bombing German cities in 1944 to the ground (Leipzig, Dresden etc) but Helsinki had superior air defense. I am not saying that Soviets didn't miss the targets due to Finnish tactics but claims of 1000s of downed planes must be supported with military records not some qualitative analysis. 2600:1702:3F10:1800:419F:849C:5A42:639A (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the WP article text mentions thousands of downed planes. Jalovaara's book draws both from previous analyses and primary sources, and as such seems like it would be a useful source. For the purposes of this article, a detailed analysis is not needed. For Bombing of Helsinki in World War II, that might be useful. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Soviet aircraft were more fragile and flew at much lower height than allied B-17/B-24 over germany. --Denniss (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Really? Fragile aircrafts and impenetrable air defense? I guess we'll have to take your word for source. Nvocka (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
it literally says 1600 downed airplanes in the article. Source is questionable. Nvocka (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
During the whole war, not during the bombing of Helsinki, which was the topic of this discussion. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, Soviets started with 1382 aircrafts but lost 1600 according to this wp article. That somehow sound familiar to news we see these days. This article should be reported and disputed. Nvocka (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)