Talk:Continuation War/Archive 6

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Mikko H. 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The morals and the NPOV 

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

text: 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)

text: Or maybe not 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)
thread_title: British role in the war

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  When did it begin?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: One squadron [er, two squadrons, one wing Buckshot06 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shrinkage in size of my contributions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lift out the section of the artical that covers the british figther squadron i Murmansk. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Related arbitration committee decision 

message: 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)
replies: text: OK Wandalstouring 10:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't it the Finns who said that? --MoRsE (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dominion Participation

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article lack of NPOV and its relation to Soviet propaganda myths 

message: Ill want sources on that the (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source!