Talk:Moscow Peace Treaty

message: Abolisj Finalands' democracy - this ia POV statement.In fact to conquer all Finland captures it.If you really want to put it, you may try, abolish Finland's socialist government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgarga (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But unfortunately that wouldn't be factual: Neither Kallio (agrarian), Cajander (moderate right) or Ryti (liberal) were socialist. It was up to the end of January Soviet intention to replace Finland's democratically elected government with Soviet installed puppet government (Terijoki government).--Whiskey 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You evidentally want to include the statement "abolish Finland's democracy" in the article, regarding Soviet intentions. I feel this is POV and I tried to replace it with a more factual statement of what the Soviets hoped to do. If you want to remove your version of this from the article, I won't insist on mine, but I do think it deserves a mention. Everyking 20:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what you are getting at. You are making this dispute something that it is not. I say "abolish Finland's democracy" should be replaced by the more NPOV "establish a Soviet-style socialist government." In order to defend your revert, you need to explain how your version of that is better than mine. Everyking 20:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Ruhrjung asked me to give an opinion on this dispute and although I am certainly not an expert in these matters, I think that it may be possible to find a compromise here. So let's have a look: the Red Army had fought to occupy all of Finland and abolish Finland's democracy looks factual, but perhaps slightly off the mark, as the thrust of the Soviet invasion was probably rather to abolish the Finnish government, with democracy as a secondary victim. However, I don't think that, historically, any Eastern European country has ever desired to have a Stalinist puppet regime installed, so the need of abolishing (or at least significantly posioning) democracy first seems evident. While and establish a Soviet-style socialist government is also factual, this may be an overly neutral way of expressing things, precisely because the opposition of the Finnish people merits mentioning. So why not describe the sequence of events from the Soviet perspective: first invade, then subdue authority of Finnish institutions, then try to establish a Soviet-style government. I guess that may be the most neutral way to describe the situation. One might argue that this means ascribing motives instead of decribing facts, but this argument would hold only if there were no sufficient documentary evidence about the Soviet intentions to consider them historic facts. Hope that helps,  Kosebamse 05:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: As someone who should care, as I happen to be a native Finn, let me say that this whole thing is much ado about nothing. All the formulations I have read, are A-Okay by me. I think we can trust our readers to put two and two together, and figure out that installing a Soviet-style government in Finland would have some obvious repercussions to the government in place previously. All I can say, is that let the wiser man yield. -- J-V Heiskanen 18:16, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk