Talk:Continuation War/Archive 2

message: If the article has any major weakness, be it then that it does not properly address the issue which is the most interesting and hardest to understand intuitively for an international reader, namely Finland's affinity to fascism. Wikipedia's NPOV policy ought to be a suitable framework.
/ML
It isn't that simple. Oswald Mosleys existence did not make Britain a fascist country.. I think it was put best by one leading statesman at the time that Finland was stuck between huliganism and vandalism. The Nazies here were the huligans referred to (at the time the concentration camps did not yet exist), and the vandals referred were the communist revolutionaries in Russia. There were fascists in Finland, but Finland was not a fascist country. For instance Lapuan liike failed in the end to effect extraparlamentary power. This may have been acheived through accomodating those of their demands which gave them broader support, but that is what happens in a democracy anyway. Their populist demands were co-opted, not fulfilled by the government of the day. This is a subtle but legitimate distinction.
-- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 22:33, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
It's hard to believe it would be too complicated to set the record straight in this article. Alluding and hinting, as I would say the article does now, don't contribute to clarity or understanding. Why not spell out, that there existed different perceptions before, during and after the war: In Russia, in Britain, in the US and of course also in Finland. On the other hand, when possible, the article must link to more appropriate articles for in-dept coverage. It's no good to make an article on the Continuation War into an article on The History of Finland in the Light of the Continuation War. :-)
May I remind about the wording I pointed out above:
:Finland's survival as an independent democratic and capitalist country was made possible chiefly through Nazi-Germany's support, while the aggressor was allied to the United Kingdom and, for most of the war, the United States.
This might seem self-evident for Finns, but for non-Finns I think it is one important key to understanding Finland's position between Russia and the Baltic. 
BTW, another thing I miss in the article, and in the wikipedia as a whole, is references to preventive war and pre-emptive strikes. (However, Just war is included.) In particular in the light of the last years' parallells in international politics, the picture of inter-war Finland as an aggressive expansionist country who's rulers killed thousands of workers in concentration camps and threatened millions of civilians in Leningrad is of some relevance.
/ML
:Do you have a source or attribution for the perception? Please provide references. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 00:26, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
::I would say ANY book on Europe's 1930s (including auto-biographies by French and British (Churchill) statesmen) I've ever read has reflected that Soviet propaganda had been successfully exploiting this alleged fear of the mothers in Leningrad's suburbs, and that a "sensitive" solution to the problem with Finland's border running too close to Leningrad was expected from Finland's government by both Germany and other friendly countries. A perception which clearly did not resonate in Helsinki.
::Also Finnish auto-biographies have been quite obvious. Fagerholm, Linkomies, Mannerheim and Paasikivi represented different perceptions, and assessed for instance the possibility to survive inside the Moscow Peace borders quite differently before the Continuation War.
::And you can't, reasonably, be ignorant of the subtext in English language books on World War II, and also in most English books on Finland, at least them written in the 1950s-1970s, favoring the interpretation of WWII as a war against Fascism - with Finland on the Fascist side.
::Mannerheim, Ryyti and Paasikivi (to mention only a few) are not depictured as democrats but as monarchists or opportunist pro-fascists with little regard for parliamentarism.
::To put it bluntly: In a EU with 25 members, little-known Finland is easy to associate with the former WP countries. Gaining independence in 1918, with failing democracies and authoritarian/semi-fascist traditions from the inter-war years, with native quislings supporting the Nazis and then the Communists. Ambiguous wordings are easy to interpret as courtesy intended not to hurt the national self-esteem of the Finns. 
::However, if you with your request intended to have me to do real research, then I feel to have been treated more like CIA was treated by Cheney and Rumsfeld. I'm not going to write a mid-term paper on the subject, neither to research contemporary news papers for my thesis. :-)
::/ML
My I suggest a new arctle Finland and the Axis, or something like that, so that Finland's relationship with the Nazi's can be fully explored?  Seems like a topic quite in-depth enough to merit its own page. Oberiko 23:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Britain did declare war, and to make matters worse, on Finland's most important national holiday, on the Independence day — in a war that according to the contemporary observers aswell as to later analysists was critical for the Finns' survival as a nation and for Finland's survival as an independent country. /Tuomas 18:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Just as a note, if one says that Finland was nazi because it fought on the same side as Nazi Germany, then UK, France and USA must've been communist as they fought on the same side as Soviet Russia. --HJV 22:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed it because it wasn't a peace treaty as claimed. It isn't also part of the Paris peace treaties which ended the state of war between Finland and Soviet Union/Commonwealth. There were some treaties considering nationalized/captured/destroyed properties of both sides (f.ex. Finnish ships in US and British harbours), I don't know if this belongs to these treaties. Anyway, if you could produce more information about these treaties it would be helpful. --Whiskey 10:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taking the bull by the horn: <br>Was Finland a Nazi country, a pro-Nazi country, a Nazi allied, or what?

message: Earlier I had included the fact that Finland paid millions of dollars to the United States after the war in compensation for attacks on Lend-Lease ships. The American magazines of the time (TIME and NEWSWEEK) raised an outcry over "our boys drowning in the frigid arctic waters" because of Finland. Consequently, there was an outcry over Finland's alliance with Germany, its taking of Soviet territory beyond the 1939 border. The United States' expulsion of the Finnish Ambassador and cessation of relations played a big role in the press. Hence, that the United States actually took the step of breaking off relations, although it did not yet declare war should be mentioned.
Finland's post-war treaty with the United States and the payment of compensation are important facts. However, they were apparently removed from the article. My citation:
TITLE: Making the peace treaties, 1941-1947; a history of the making of the peace beginning with the Atlantic charter, the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, and culminating in the drafting of peace treaties with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, and Finland.
AUTHOR: United States. Dept. of State.
YEAR: 1947
Another useful resource, and one which could be added to the list of citations:
"The origins of interventionism; the United States and the Russo-Finnish War." by Robert Sobel, 1961.
(Rakovsky 04:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it wasn't a peace treaty as claimed. It isn't also part of the Paris peace treaties which ended the state of war between Finland and Soviet Union/Commonwealth. There were some treaties considering nationalized/captured/destroyed properties of both sides (f.ex. Finnish ships in US and British harbours), I don't know if this belongs to these treaties. Anyway, if you could produce more information about these treaties it would be helpful. --Whiskey 10:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US-Finnish compensation treaties

message: I take the bold step and make a couple of edits to the first sections. My main intention, beside a general wish to improve the article, of course, is to make it slightly less Finnocentric. The Soviet Union and the United Kingdom were parts in the conflict too, but the article as it stands at this moment, is maybe too much written from a purely Finnish perspective. By changes in the direction I propose, I hope to avoid major edits of the type Graculus and 172 contributed with last August.
In addition, I changed from typically British to American spelling.
However, I realize fully, that my edits might seem too controversial, and if so, I would propose that discussion is taken up here on the talk-page. In such a case, I have absolutely nothing against a revertion to User:Itai's version while the issues are under discussion.
--Ruhrjung 09:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bunch of edits 

message: People PLEASE!!!
Will you please stop that ridiculous reverting back and forth between Germany and Nazi Germany in the article!
If you don't like how it is now, please explain here why it should be changed. I, personally, think that it should be Germany unless the ideology is important in the context like when comparing democratic Finland and Nazi Germany. Otherwise we should talk Communist Soviet Union and Republican United States all the way.;-)
--Whiskey 23:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany vs. Nazi Germany 

message: Helge Seppiala, "Finland as Occupier in 1941-1944," in the Journal "North," 1995, ISSN 0131-6222
Chapter "Concentration Camps".  The Author describes being a witness to the cruel ways prisoners were treated in concentration camps. The article also mentions torture, extreme beatings, and starvation. Extreme beatings were written into the Finnish concentration camps' codes. This author puts forth the number of 18,318 POWs who perished.
: Are you referring POWs or civilians here? The number you gave matches to the number of POWs who died in Finnish captivity. The number of civilians who died in Finnish camps were generally put to around 4000.
It's not quite clear to me. The article by Seppiala says literally,  "18318 Soviet people died in camps for war prisoners. I guess that means in total. Thanks for making me clear it up!
Elina Sana, "Those Who Were Handed Over"
"Finland, which officially deported only eight Jews to Nazi Germany during World War II, also sent thousands of Soviet prisoners of war to Hitler's concentration camps, a new Finnish book claims."
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bi/Qfinland-germany-nazi.Rb4Y_DN3.html
http://www.htcricket.com/news/181_672498,00110004.htm
I have edited the "Diplomacy" section to give these numbers. Seppiala's article also says that, as in the German POW camps, punishments for such things as insubordination and running away included flogging, stays in solitary confinement, etc. These were the official rules. But what went on beyond the official rules was of course much worse.
:Elina Sana gives in her book 2 829 which were given to Germans. Based on the namelist of the prisoners, she calculated that 74 of them were Jews. Finnish government started an investigation on the issue, and in a preliminary report, Prof. Heikki Ylikangas produced a memo (http://www.statsradetskansli.fi/tiedostot/pdf/fi/57413.pdf) where in his first opinion those 74 were given not because they were Jews but because they were officers or political officers in Soviet army. In total, 118 political officers, 74 Jews and 400-500 communists were given, but over 2000 of those given were given because they wanted to either join Vlasov's army, trained to be spies or joined army units of Soviet minorities in Wehrmacht to fight against Soviets.
: In exchange Finns received over 2000 Karelian, Ingrian and Estonian POWs from Germany.--Whiskey 11:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resarch on Finnish Concentration Camps

message: This article is in its current shape very much focused on the pre-history of the war. This is not at all uninteresting, and not really irrelevant, but would it maybe be better to split off much of the Background material to articles with less misleading titles, as for instance Finland before World War II and the Interim Peace? --Johan Magnus 10:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article of its own for the Interim Peace 

message: Please see Continuation War/temp for an idea how the last section under Background could be made easier to read on the screen. --Johan Magnus 00:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good! With wikipedia:boldness I move that to the article with a minor change (combining the two last sections). It can always be reverted if I've been too bold! /Tuomas 04:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: It looks definitely better now. Thanks! I wasn't fully satisfied with Finnish-German rappoachment before, as Finland wasn't so eager to work with Germans right after Winter War, but only when other options failed, that is why I modified it a little. Also, someone should write a little bit in the History of Finland the problem newly independent state faced when independence was gained and secured from Bolshevist Russia and Imperial Germany, both at odds with victors of the war, Great Britain and France. Especially as Whites in the Russian Civil war refused to recognize Finnish independence. -- Whiskey 08:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  need of headlines and structure 

message: Please do not revert an edit I have made and cited an academic source for without providing at least some kind of reference for your own information. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. If you believe the date quoted in my source is incorrect, then give a source for your own information or refrain from making an edit.
Similarly, the same book states that on May 26, when Heinrichs returned from Germany, the Finnish general headquarters began issuing mobilization orders. If you want to dispute this, please cite a source that says my information is incorrect. -Elrith, 14.8.05
: Sources, f.ex. Suomen Sota 1941-1945, Sotahistoriallisen tutkimuslaitoksen sotahistoriallisen toimiston julkaisuja IX, part 1/12 (1964) or Jatkosodan historia 1/6, Sotatieteen laitoksen sotahistorian toimisto (1988), which were both part of "official" analysis by Finnish Army to the war. It wasn't only soldiers who were writing articles to the books, but also civilians in their area of expertise, f.ex. professor (Ph.D) Ohto Manninen, who has participated actively to the historic discussion of the war. Also I have used professor Mauno Jokipii's Jatkosodan Synty (Birth of the Continuation War) (1987), also fulfilling academic standards.
: At May 26, Heinrichs was having negotiations with OKH at Zossen, near Berlin. After that he had separate negotiations with air force and armaments, and before flying back to Finland May 28, he had discussions with Maj. Bürckner who was issued as a liason officer for the duration of his visit.
: It is commonly cited, that Ryti made decision to the mobilization June 9, and the first orders were issued June 10. Naturally these orders were prepared beforehand, so it is quite doubtful that they would have been ready already at May 26, when you claimed Heinrichs came back. How could have they included all modifications to the existing orders when the details were still not decided until Helsinki negotiations at June 3-6? --Whiskey 12:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish-German staff talks, May 1941. 

message: Intelligence however indicated military control of all of Finland's territory as the immediate military goal in both the Winter War and the Continuation War. 
Soviet documents published after the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, revealed that the Kremlin had been firmly determined to put all of Finland under Soviet rule.
Before you allege something like that, better make sure you can point me right to the published Soviet documents you are referring to. For now -- removed as pure speculation.
This is congruent with a (postulated) Russian long-term strategic goal of securing ice-free harbours at the Atlantic and the North Sea. 
Another speculative (and irrelevant) statement removed. Why don't we add something like "conquering Saint Petersburg, the true, although secret, Finnish reason for entering the war, was perfectly in line with the long-term strategic goal of the Great Finland"? -- Guinness man 23:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  War aims 

message: "Top Secret. A long time before 22nd June, 1941, the
     German Government and the High Command of the German
     Armed Forces jointly carried out secret negotiations
     with the Finnish Government and the General Staff of
     the Finnish Army, and prepared the attack on the Soviet
     Union. I learned about the preparation for the attack
     on the Soviet Union by the German and Finnish Armies
     under the following circumstances. On my arrival at
     Helsinki in October, 1941, as acting German Military
     Attache, I had numerous conversations with Major von
     Albedill, the aide of the German Military Attache, who
     formerly served in the Military Attache's Department in
     the General Staff of the Army.
     
     Von Albedill acquainted me with the situation in
     Finland and its military and political background,
     since Major-General Rossing, the Military Attache, was
     seriously ill and receiving treatment at the health
     resort of Merano in the Tyrol. In the course of these
     conversations von Albedill told me that as early as
     September, 1940, Major-General Rossing, acting on an
     order of Hitler and of the German General Staff, had
     arranged the visit of Major-General Talwel, the
     Plenipotentiary of Marshal Mannerheim, to the Fuehrer's
     headquarters in Berlin. During this visit an agreement
     was reached between the German and Finnish General
     Staffs for joint preparations for a war of aggression,
     and its execution, against the Soviet Union. In this
     connection General Talwel told me, during a conference
     at his staff headquarters in Aunosa in November, 1941,
     that he, acting on Marshal Mannerheim's personal
     orders, had as far back as September, 1940 -- been one
     of the first to contact the German High Command with a
     view to joint preparation for a German and Finnish
     attack on the Soviet Union."
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/imt/tgmwc/ftp.py?imt/tgmwc//tgmwc-06/tgmwc-06-57.15
(Rakovsky 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is well known that Mannerheim had ordered Talvela to travel to Germany and try to buy as much military hardware as possible. That was made possible by troop transfer treaty between Germany and Finland, where Germany allowed Finland to purchase material from Germany in exchange of transfer rights. There is no documentary support to the presented claim, on the other hand, at December meeting Talvela was asked to arrange the visit of Gen. Heinrichs to "lecture about experiences of the Winter War". When Heinrichs visited at February, Halder asked his opinions about the "imaginary situation of war between Germany and Soviet Union". With Heinrichs May visit to Berlin these two dates are generally considered the dates when Finland become involved with the planning of operation Barbarossa. (See Interim Peace) --Whiskey 23:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TOP SECRET GERMAN MATERIAL REVEALED IN NUREMBURG TRIAL

message: There is some debate over at Talk:Vyborg about how the Finnish capture of the city in 1941 "contributed to the Siege of Leningrad, one of the deadliest in history". Some more oppinions would be appriciated. -- Jniemenmaa 07:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vyborg 

message: Hi, this is a really good article and I enjoyed learning about something about which I knew almost nothing.  I have one request, however, to help people like me.  Because this article is so long, it would be helpful to subdivide it into more manageable chunks by using more of the titles inside the article.  This would give more of an outline to get an overview of the scope.  Thanks. 09:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, do you have any specific suggestions of where to subdivide it and what subtitles to add ? StuRat 23:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: the article has a very pro-finland bias.  seems to go out of its way to obfuscate the fact that the "democratic" government was allied with nazi germany!  i'm surprised the jewish factions here have allowed this to stand for so long, considering that finland's support of germany in the seige of leningrad certainly caused a considerable delay of the russian counter-offensive into poland - thereby allowing many thousands more jews to be murdered.  but i guess maybe the zionists are too busy going after the palestinians to take note of this.  oh well.  and apparently that "democratic" nazi mannerheim has a monument still standing in helsinki.  aint this a crazy fucked-up world!
: Could you please specify your claims where npov is violated? (Because of offensive language and lack of specific issues and their sources I have strong feelings that this is a troll, but anyway...)--Whiskey 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a troll to me too. I don't get how someone blames Mannerheim for indirectly killing jews by not letting another country invade his country. Just don't get it. Finland was the only axis country, btw, with not only field churches but also field synagogues in its army. I'm for removing the NPOV tag since a user who doesn't sign his messages, uses swearwords and insults respected figures, presents his information with irrelevant and factually inaccurate facts, hasn't heard of capital letters, put the tag there, and hasn't even specified what parts of the article he's talking about.--HJV 22:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As no coherent reasons have been given for the tag, I'm removing it. -Mikko H. 06:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov 

message: "democratic" government was allied with nazi germany!"
Yes, Finland was a democracy, and Finland was never allied with Germany. 
"i'm surprised the jewish factions here have allowed this to stand for so long,"
Well, I am not.
"considering that finland's support of germany in the seige of leningrad certainly caused a considerable delay of the russian counter-offensive into poland"
Finnish did not take part in the siege.
 
"- thereby allowing many thousands more jews to be murdered." 
We did not murder jews.
"apparently that "democratic" nazi mannerheim has a monument still standing in helsinki."
Yes, he has. Nazi? Watch your words. Mannerheim is likely the most respected Finnish ever.
Just made som minor corrections, the previous version could be read in the way that the US declared war on Finland, which of course is not true.
And about British Swordfish carrier planes attacking Petsamo...the source is my late father, who was there :-)
:Firstly, what does this have to do with anything related to the article? United States was allied to the Soviet Union just as much as Finland was to Germany. The Soviet Union, in fact, killed more of its own citizens than Germany did. If one calls Mannerheim a nazi, he should look up the definition of nazism. Even George Bush would qualify better for a nazi. Please sign your comments, by the way, as the above is hard for anyone else to read... HJV 15:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last part (about the British) does have relevance. The rest is just feeding the troll. Don't. ;-) 
PS: Most of this stuff ought to be archived, methinks... --Illythr 17:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, well...