Talk:Continuation War/Archive 3

message: No idea what that is supposed to be, but unless the total Soviet military machine consisted of no more than 1.2 million soldiers, it is wrong.  I have changed it, hopefully without changing the idea that should have come across.  According to Krivosheev (see tables posted here), Leningrad Front committed 188,800 and Karelian Front 202,300.  Together ca. 400,000.  That includes air forces etc. Andreas 15:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it was some uninformed soul who confuses Winter War and Continuation War. At the end of Winter War, about the third of Soviet forces were deployed to the Finnish front. (Some sources put this to 40%.) Unfortunately it hadn't been only confusion in this article, but also other similar stupidness had been found here and also in related articles. But this is Wikipedia, and we have to endure and correct those. --Whiskey 19:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1/3rd of Soviet military machine 

message: Soviet troops occupied Petrozavodsk on 28 June 1944. - Eh, shouldn't it be retaken? With Petrozavodsk being an initially Russian city. --Illythr 23:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd favor even liberated. Retaken indicates that it was captured earlier but lost after that. Petrozavodsk was initially Russian/Soviet city, and it was occupied by Finns, so the liberation from occupation works fine. --Whiskey 11:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that 'liberated' is apposite in this context. - Mikko H. 09:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I have done the deed. Still, the next sentence (about food delivery and all) makes the whole paragraph look a bit strange. Perhaps reclaimed would be a good neutral replacement? --Illythr 10:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So, is it Kin or Tribe Battalion? Probably a minor translation mixup. --Illythr 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a current discussion on the naming issue in . Currently they seem to be favoring Kinship.:-) --Whiskey 10:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact the consensus favours 'Kindred' :-) - Mikko H. 07:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like one of those Kindred? Whoah, scary! (Just kiddin'!) :-) --Illythr 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petrozavodsk 

message: The introductionary paragraph starts to contain too much information. I think it could be a good idea to move that to the text and keep the paragraph as simple as possible. Both starting and ending of the war are fuzzy, and they can be properly only addressed in the text. Any opinions? --Whiskey 11:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the ending dates are mentioned twice and this sentence is, IMO, out of place there: Material support from, and military cooperation with Nazi Germany was critical for Finland's struggle with its larger neighbour. --Illythr 10:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have trimmed the intro down a bit. Mind checking it out? --Illythr 10:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A little bit better. I have more radical edit in mind, because for the ending dates one could use armstice September 4, 1944 (for Finns), September 5, 1944 (for Soviets), interim peace treaty September 19, 1944, Final peace treaty at Paris February 10, 1947 and ratification of the Paris peace treaty April 18, 1947 (for Finns) and August 29, 1947 (for Soviets). There is a similar bunch of dates concerning the beginning of the war. --Whiskey 11:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, but you said that the paragraph contains too much information! I thought you wanted removing stuff, not adding it?--Illythr 11:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I want to remove stuff, heavily, and put all those details in the text, not in the introductionary paragraph. I'll try to put in what I have in mind (and revert it immediately back.) --Whiskey 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Naturally the removed text and references should be located into the relevant place in the article. --Whiskey 11:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductionary paragraph 

message: In Russian Empire East Karelia was a part of the Province of Olonets (). 
289,531 of its inhabitants were Russians, 62,695 people were finnic-speaking (but Orthodox) people of Karelians.  Russian population of Karelia also was very ancient (russian settlements on Onega and Ladoga are known since 9th century). 
p.s.  I shall open to you a small secret :), the Russian population of all northern and northeast Russia is result of mixture of east Slavs with Finnic-speaking people and such active element as Scandinavians-vikings
Ben-Velvel 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not trust the tsarist census. Karelians may well claim to be Russian, and still be fluent in Finnish/Karelian. -- Petri Krohn 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  About "awful tsarism". Finns-Suomi and Karelians prospered in the Empire, no violent russification existed (have you other data?). By the way, the Great Duchy of Finland possessed the big privileges, for example, its natives were not called up for military service. It had independent police and  bolsheviks easy lived in Finland while the imperial police strenuously searched for them... About Karelians. If you can translate from Russian, please read Brockhaus-Efron Encyclopedia. Karelians are one of peoples of the Finno-Ugrian language family, influenced by Russian culture already in the early Middle Ages.They are Orthodox. Please visit Petrozavodsk, if you do not trust me. It is necessary to distinguish actually Finns of Finland (Suomi) and numerous nationalities of Finno-Ugrian family living in Russia (Karelians, Mordva, Maris etc) Ben-Velvel 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  West and East Karelia were the territories of medieval Novgorod principality (  ). Staraya Ladoga of 9th century was the center of northern Russia and had mixed population of east Slavs, Scandinavians and finnic tribes (not Suomi). In the West and East Karelia there are such ancient Russian Novgorod settlements as Korela (Priosersk), Olonets, Oreshek, Kargopol, Serdobol, Pudozh etc. The West Karelia only in 1617 has passed under the control of Swedes. The Russian imperial government has left the West Karelia in structure of Great Duchy of Finland after conquests of 1710 and 1809.  The East Karelia always was part of Russia and had mixed Russo-Karelian population Brockhaus-Efron Encyclopedia. Ben-Velvel
Valaam monks claim the monastry was founded in the 9th century, not by Russian but by Greek monks. -- Petri Krohn 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  The Greek monks were in Kiev.  They did not come far on the north :)  Valaam monastery was founded by Russian monks Sergiy and German and has been  populated by Russian monks over 1000 years and has been  some times ruined by the Swedish forces.  Ben-Velvel 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic groups of East Karelia before 1917 

message: The picture is soviet propaganda picture, i.e a fake one... in my opinion shouldn't be used or at least should be stated that it is a fake. (anon)
Please provide proof (i.e. references) to back up your claim. Fisenko 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It almost for sure is propaganda but there isn't anything faked still. There were children (30-40%) at the camps as they weren't split up with their parents. First they were put to quarantine camps that lasted for 2 weeks. There was a hospital at the camp, they could work on forestry works and do confession-"school" in church. After the quarantine the people were split to working places what they had done before; most ingrians were put to farming. Especially workers were needed at farming, food was really on scarce. But not to concentrate just on this side of the war - Soviet union's Gulags. Do you know how many people were put to Siberia from the Baltics?  --Pudeo (Talk) 08:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Muutosten maailma 4: Suomen historian käännekohtia (2005, WSOY), page 138 (). Now stop whining. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you have a headache or something? :) I just told all the information I got from "Jatkosota Kronikka" , 1991. As this information isn't told in the article either. It has that image and says after the occupation. But use logic, the image is classed as taken in the USSR before 1973. Therefore, it is taken by Soviet photographers, be they propaganda or whatever, doesn't matter. I don't know whether they left the workers in the camps or not so I don't know if they put some children in the camp again just to make images for propaganda against "nazism". And indeed the work camps have to be mentioned; Why I brought gulags is that this article doesn't cover Soviet attrocities, partisans and transports, russification of the ingrians and others. But I won't complain. --Pudeo (Talk) 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the picture should be removed. It gives a misleading idea that Finnish practises during the war were comparable with those promoted by Hitler and Stalin, leaders who had no idea of human dignity.Spespatriae 16:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ei helvetti, mikä typerys! Mene levittämään kuvottavaa kiihkovenäläisyyttä muualle! --Jaakko Sivonen 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No one is arguing against the existence of the prison camps, only the reality of the photo in question. --Jaakko Sivonen 05:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it has the same photo and then the caption tells about prison camps and then it reads, I'll quote (in Finnish): "On myös muistettava, että kuva on venäläisten sodan jälkeen ottama ja lavastama." A translation: "It must also be remembered that the picture is taken after the war and staged by the Russians." --Jaakko Sivonen 06:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "staged". Rather "framed", as almost all of the war photos are. No problem with the picture, the camp and the sign are authentic. --Lalli 15:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing against adding the picture to the article. Also the most inhabitants of the camps were underage or elderly, as almost all working age population were evacuated before Finns came. As a compromise I suggest modifying the text of the picture with one word: instead of using "during", let's use "after", as it is the case the picture was taken after Soviets recaptured the town. (As most photos showing the suffering in German KZ camps were taken by Soviet, British and American soldiers, not Germans, which had mostly clinical, "beautified" versions in their photos.) --Whiskey 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the picture since it is Russian propaganda and it is spread by the Russian Fisenko for obvious non-NPOV reasons. --Jaakko Sivonen 16:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it. It is no more propaganda than the famous Auswitz pictures. They were all taken after the camp's liberation. Does not make them unusable or "false" or "Allied propaganda" in any way. --Irpen 16:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. Soviet Union is known for its propaganda and there is no reason to think that the prison camp was like that. It was taken after the Finns had left: the Russkies forced the children to go behind the fence and told them to look sad, probably at gunpoint if necessary, therefore it was a Russian prison camp at the time of the photo, not a Finnish one! --Jaakko Sivonen 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have evidence that "the Russkies forced the children to go behind the fence and told them to look sad, probably at gunpoint if necessary"???. If yes, spit it out as you were asked on Talk:Russophobia for ages now. If not, stop your rampage. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the evidence is that the Finns had already left the area when the photo was taken, so the people had already been released from there (if the children ever were there). So someone put them back there. --Jaakko Sivonen 23:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So do you insinuate that pics of German concentration camps, taken both by Anglo-American forces and Soviet forces, are fakes? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Jaakko, you are beating the dead horse. Currently, the text in picture states that it was taken after Finns had retreated from Petrozavodsk. (And it seems that nobody is any longer challenging that...) And it doesn't matter if the picture was staged or not, because it still presents one of the striking peculiarities of the Finnish camps in East Karelia: Due to the evacuation of working age males and females, almost 40% of people in camps were underage children. The picture has been used even in several Finnish history books, so please do not explain it cannot be used here also. --Whiskey 00:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  In fact, as I showed on Russophobia the sign still exists, in a museum.--Pan Gerwazy 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture in "Finnish occupation policy"

message: Could the "Finnish Offensive 1941"-section be divided somehow? At this moment it is very long and difficult to read. —MoRsΞ 14:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dividing a section 

message: Some clearly errant statement about recapture of Karelian isthmus as "second largest offensive after D-Day". Have you guys heard of Kursk, Bagration, Stalingrad, Berlin? Neither D-Day was the largest, nor that Soviet operation was larger then any of other offensives on eastern fronts.
"50 mm" guns look suspicious also, and 45-mms are dedicated AT guns. Say, 76.2 mm and up are used for artillery preparations.
:Nah! This article is still full of juvenile exaggeration and sureness of those who don't know.;-) I try to go this throught, although slowly, and weed out those idiocies.--Whiskey 00:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Omg that para is total rubbish indeed... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps slightly exaggerated, but still one of the major Soviet strategic offenses, see Fourth strategic offensive --MoRsE 11:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't pay too much attention to the text there, but the figures (I will need to rewrite the later article I see) MoRsE 11:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the author who wrote that meant after D-Day in the meaning that After June 6, D-Day attack. Not that D-Day was the largest, 4th Offensive second. In that way it is true, it was started June 9. But anyway yeah.. --Pudeo (Talk) 13:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish Propaganda? :) 

message: --Nielswik(talk) 15:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a campaign box, but I think the information needs to be checked, as I don't have my rference material with me right now (I am currently travelling abroad).MoRsE 11:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the campaignbox? 

message: In the Summer of 1944 Ribbentrop flew to Helsinki, to request an agreement of a certain kind.  For a continued German support, he wanted the Finns to continue fighting, and not to make an early peace with the Soviets.
As the Finnish House of Representatives (eduskunta) would not have ratified any Finnish-German co-operational treaty, tying Finland to Germany, President Ryti sent a personal letter to Hitler instead.  In the letter Ryti assured that Finland would not make peace with USSR while he was the President.
Prior to the delivery of the letter, it was red in the Finnish government's meeting, with legal advisors present.  It was confirmed that this personal promise would not tie Finland to anything after Ryti had resigned.  
Ryti resigned on August 1, 1944.  Afterwords, the war historians have determined, that it is highly unlikely that the German assistance for Finland would have ended, even though the letter in question would not have been delivered. 
For the actual Finnish defensive battles of the Summer 1944, the main bulk of the material help in question did not make it to Finland in time.  However, at the war's end the Finnish armed forces were better equipped than ever before in history.  This helped Finland in the ensuing peace negotiations.
Following the Finnish battle victories, some in Finland considered continuing the war efforts, some also recapturing back the narrow Soviet spearhead on the Karelian Isthmus, before the final peace would be sought for.  The remnants of the Soviet elite divisions had been moved away from Finland, to join the Soviet troops advancing towards Berlin.  Finland indeed had a couple of options at hand.  Possibly the Soviet spearhead could be traded to the Soviet areas which the Finns had in their position. 
For better or for worse, the motion to begin the negotiations won 108-45 in a secret session of the Finnish House of Representatives on September 2, 1944.  Prime Minister Antti Hackzell was the leader of Finland´s Peace Delegation, until he - rather suspiciously - got a stroke in Moscow on September 14 - the very same day when the Finnish delegation was supposed to meet the Soviet counterparts.
Josef Stalin is known to have spoken favorably about assassinations of his political woes, and - importantly - he is known to act accordingly, numerous times.  On Stalin's view, getting writ of the main man on the opposing side solved many problems, and had a tantalizing psychological effect.  
What could not be achieved on the battle fields, had to be resolved on the negotiations' table - or, sometimes, just before the negotiating was scheduled to begin - regardless of the methods used.  Poisoning was one of Stalin's favorite methods, just like it is today for FSB (KGB:s predecessor).
After his stroke, caused by a suspected food poisoning, Antti Hackzell fell permanently ill, dieing on January 14, 2006.
Anno Domino 04:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finland and Germany had different objectives.  No ally treaty signed

message: Those not familiar with the recent Finnish history:  Please, join the braking of totalitarian history writing, and the myths it has spread.  Let us together wipe out Finlandization from the face of the earth.  
:I would rather wipe the article out of Wikipedia. It is total crap. -- Petri Krohn 06:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really are concerned of the issue, there is only one remedy: facts! Facts! And facts! You should drop all pathos and politics and stick strictly to the facts. The propaganda works only so long when people don't know all facts. Against cold, sourced facts even the best propaganda becomes toothless. Otherwise, you will be doomed to the same category as propagandists and your actions become counterproductive. --Whiskey 19:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm, those should be black arrows. Red are for the Soviets. --Illythr 20:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World's no. 1 university (Professor Kennedy) distorts the truth:  Finland was "flattened"

message: As the talk page has become quite bloated, I propose to archive closed discussions (sections 2 through 7 and 9 through 18). --Illythr 17:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest archiving