Talk:Co-belligerence

message: ===Modifications to the article===
Finland had no part in the siege of Leningrad. Removed it.
In fact Finland was involved in the Siege of Leningrad in 1941 - 1944, see this: Fact from Encyclopedia Britannica "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII. 
The chief of the Finnish Government Police (VALPO in Finnish) visited the Theresienstadt concentration camp in 1941. <-- removed for no source.
# Germany's supply of much needed nickel from Petsamo and iron from Sweden was critical to the Nazis' ability to prolong the war. <--- removed for having nothing to do with Finland. Seems like USSR propaganda to put it here. (it is true though).
This was after Soviet Union had attacked Finland? Or Finland attacked as partner of the Nazi Germany?
Example: Fact from Encyclopedia Britannica "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." 12.34.80.73 (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Finland, Continuation War and the [[Siege of Leningrad]] as an example

message: Finland had no part in the siege of Leningrad. Removed it.
In fact Finland was involved in the Siege of Leningrad in 1941 - 1944, see this: Fact from Encyclopedia Britannica "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII. 
The chief of the Finnish Government Police (VALPO in Finnish) visited the Theresienstadt concentration camp in 1941. <-- removed for no source.
# Germany's supply of much needed nickel from Petsamo and iron from Sweden was critical to the Nazis' ability to prolong the war. <--- removed for having nothing to do with Finland. Seems like USSR propaganda to put it here. (it is true though).
This was after Soviet Union had attacked Finland? Or Finland attacked as partner of the Nazi Germany?
Example: Fact from Encyclopedia Britannica "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." 12.34.80.73 (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Modifications to the article

message: [
Quotes 
1. Britannica:  "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." 
2. "The Siege of Leningrad" a chapter in the book "World War II"  By H.P. Willmott, Robin Cross, charles Messenger. Dorling Kindersley, 2004. ISBN:978-0-7566-2968-7
Page 152: "On Hitler's orders in September 1941 the German Army  Group North and its Finnish allies had stopped on the outskirts of Leningrad, rather than become involved in a costly city battle... The Axis forces had begun to besiege the city, subjecting it to constant air and artillery bombardment. By October the population of 3,5 million had only enough food to last 20 days. Savage food rationing left five hundred thousand people with no entitlement, and people were driven to eat their pets and birds. By January 1942 the daily death toll had risen to five thousand. There were incidents of cannibalism. There was one loophole in the blockade. The large freshwater Lake Ladogafroze in November, a road was created over the ice that provided the last link in a 240 mile (380 km) route from beyond the German lines in Tikhvin." The map on page 152 shows full encirclement of Leningrad with Finnish army holding the northern perimeter, and Germans - the southern perimeter.
3. The story of World War II.  By Donald L. Miller. Simon Schuster, 2006. ISBN: 10: 0-74322718-2. 
*  Page 67: Leeb's armies were sweeping north to Leningrad, and within two months these armies, together with Finnish forces under Marshal Carl Mannerheim, the Finnish commander-in-chief, all but completed the encirclement of the city.
*  Page 68: Witness account by William Mandel, an American reporter in Russia, who was in besieged Leningrad.
*  Page 69: Witness account by Peter S. Popkov, Chairman of the city council during the siege of Leningrad.
4. Scorched earth. Leningrad: Tragedy of a City. Lake Ladoga. Between Volkhov and Shlisselburg. (pages 205 - 247) By Paul Carell. Schiffer Military History, 1994. ISBN: 0-88740-598-3
* Anything that happened between the Polar Sea (Arctic Ocean) and Lake Ilmen after September 1941 concerned Leningrad. (p.205) (Because the Finnish forces in 1941 blocked the Murmansk - Leningrad railroad in Karelia and thus severed the supply route to Leningrad.)
     
* Hitler had accurate information about Leningrad. Finnish intelligence was particularly helpful in this respect. (p 208)
     
* Map 22. For nine hundred days Leningrad was besieged by German and Finnish troops. (p. 209)
     
* "In November 1941 another attempt was made to close the ring round the city by linking up with the Finns on the Svir." (pp. 209) 
     
* "Hitler pinned down the entire German Army on sentry duty to a single city., an important centre of war industry, and the naval base of the Baltic Fleet. He continued, as the Finnish leader Field-Marshal Mannerheim so well put it, to "drag this heavy rusksack along on his back right through the war." (quoted from Mannerheim's letter, pp. 209-210) 
     
*  Hitler's plan to strangle and starve the city into submission had failed (1943). Finnish confidence in their German allies was shaken. Their military plans collapsed. Finnish Marshal carl Gustav Baron Mannerheim had planned, as soon as the beleaguered city fell, to switch his corps, which were bogged down along the Karelian isthmus encirclement front, over to attack against the Murmansk railway, the route by which the huge American supplies were arriving. The loss of this American aid would have put Russia in a difficult economic situation, and deprive ... of its offensive momentum. (p. 240)
5.  The siege of Leningrad. By Alan Wykes. Ballantines Illustrated History of WWII, 3rd edition, 1972.
* chapter titled: The attackers. Photographs of Mannerheim, Leeb, Bock, and Runstedt. (pp. 9-21)
    
*22 June 1941. "German troops attacked.... Similar attacks have also been made from Finnish territory." (pp.29-31) 
    
* Map of the siege for Sept 25, 1941: Beloostrov and other northern suburbs of Leningrad are shown occupied by Finnish forces. Southern suburbs Peterhof and Pushkin - occupied by Germans. (p 52) (Beloostrov is 30km from Leningrad's center)
   
*Hitler had no intention of feeding 3 million citizens even if they could be persuaded to throw themselves abjectly upon his mercy by surrendering. They were to be massacred or given, complete with their city, to Finland as a 'pour boire' for Finnish help in the Eastern campaign." (pp.62-64 with photos) 
  
6. The World War II. Desk Reference. Eisenhower Center Director Douglas Brinkley. Editor Mickael E. Haskey. Grand Central Press, Stonesong Press, HarperCollins, 2004. ISBN0-06-052651-3. Page 210.
* German forces advancing into Russia reached the outskirts of Leningrad in August 1941 and, supported by Finnish troops attacking from the north, began attack to capture the city. The Russians managed to halt the Axis advance by late September, and ... a siege lasted for approximately 900 days. (p. 210) 
More facts are known to people who live in St. Petersburg, or been on locations of the siege: in St. Petersburg and suburbs, in museums, and destroyed palaces and mansions. Ilya Repin's home in Repino was vandalized at the time of Finnish presence, the art collection was looted, and the villa of artist Repin was burned to ashes. It is a popular museum now, but Repin's original art did not survive the siege. After the war, Finns donated some money for restoration of the main building, but the original art is still missing. 
The norhtern suburbs of St. Petersburg were villas of intellectuals, artists, like Repin, writers, like Gorky, Chukovsky, Anna Akhmatova, and all those villas were burned down during the Siege of Leningrad - northern suburbs were occupied by the Finnish army. They did not advance closer to the center of the city, because of resistance, but the Finns kept the perimeter blocking Leningrad from the north, that of course did not help the suffering survivors and victims who died there.
===Who invaded first?===
Finnish offesive started after Soviet Union invaded Finland. <-- added, then removed
(above statement is false, because Finnish ships mined Soviet waters before the Soviet air attacks on June 22. It would have been ok to have said the Finnish LAND INVASION started after the USSR launched air attacks. But in fact the mining operations were offensive actions. Soviet troops did not actually invade Finish territory until later.)
: If we want to nitpick, the above statement is true, because Finns mined Soviet (or in fact Estonian) water starting from around 8am when first Soviet air/artillery attacks started already a littla after 6am. :-) Anyway, what both parties did before June 25 was like two schoolboys kicking each other under the table, and finally one of them become open by starting flailing with his fists. Similarily Soviet air offensive was the first open, no return, serious act of war between the countries. --Whiskey 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that was 1944. We were talking 1941, when nazis were so confident that they could beat SU by themselves without any support from secondary humans like Finns. When the tide turned against them, the eagerness to tie other nations to them with treaties increased and eagerness of others decreased for obvious reasons.
"The Continuation War formally was seen as a separate war by both Moscow and Helsinki," in the sense that treaties were signed separate from, and earlier than the treaties with Germany and Italy.
But Moscow, in fact, and Russians today, sees the battle with Finnish and German divisions on the Finnish front as part of the greater "Great Patriotic War." However, it is ok to say that Helsinki saw it as a separate war.
So, please explain in what sense Moscow sees it "formally" as a separate war? As you might know, Russia also signed "separate" treaties with other Axis coutnries too, like Bulgaria, which declared war on germany too as the tides turned. (Rakovsky 01:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder that also. It is understandable that Finns consider it separate, and it is understandable that Russians consider it just a front in GPW. The Moscow Conference (1943) demanded unconditional surrender from axis nations and when both Romania and Bulgaria fronts collapsed and both countries were occupied by Soviet forces, unlike Finland, they could be seen signing surrender unconditionally. Also, both Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary were signatories of Tripartite Pact, unlike Finland, so there are some differencies, although I guess the official Soviet point for consider Continuation War separate stems from the necessity to sign less than unconditional peace with Finland at the time. --Whiskey 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish involvement in Hitler's plan [[Barbarossa]] and the [[Siege of Leningrad]] 

message: Finnish offesive started after Soviet Union invaded Finland. <-- added, then removed
(above statement is false, because Finnish ships mined Soviet waters before the Soviet air attacks on June 22. It would have been ok to have said the Finnish LAND INVASION started after the USSR launched air attacks. But in fact the mining operations were offensive actions. Soviet troops did not actually invade Finish territory until later.)
: If we want to nitpick, the above statement is true, because Finns mined Soviet (or in fact Estonian) water starting from around 8am when first Soviet air/artillery attacks started already a littla after 6am. :-) Anyway, what both parties did before June 25 was like two schoolboys kicking each other under the table, and finally one of them become open by starting flailing with his fists. Similarily Soviet air offensive was the first open, no return, serious act of war between the countries. --Whiskey 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who invaded first?

message: Removed: "The German government was confident of victory and saw no reason to bind its hands with official written treaties and alliances with the various other states which were counted on joining the campaign."
In fact, Hitler was eager to sign more resolutions between Finland and Germany, as shown by the Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement of 1944.
: But that was 1944. We were talking 1941, when nazis were so confident that they could beat SU by themselves without any support from secondary humans like Finns. When the tide turned against them, the eagerness to tie other nations to them with treaties increased and eagerness of others decreased for obvious reasons.
"The Continuation War formally was seen as a separate war by both Moscow and Helsinki," in the sense that treaties were signed separate from, and earlier than the treaties with Germany and Italy.
But Moscow, in fact, and Russians today, sees the battle with Finnish and German divisions on the Finnish front as part of the greater "Great Patriotic War." However, it is ok to say that Helsinki saw it as a separate war.
So, please explain in what sense Moscow sees it "formally" as a separate war? As you might know, Russia also signed "separate" treaties with other Axis coutnries too, like Bulgaria, which declared war on germany too as the tides turned. (Rakovsky 01:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder that also. It is understandable that Finns consider it separate, and it is understandable that Russians consider it just a front in GPW. The Moscow Conference (1943) demanded unconditional surrender from axis nations and when both Romania and Bulgaria fronts collapsed and both countries were occupied by Soviet forces, unlike Finland, they could be seen signing surrender unconditionally. Also, both Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary were signatories of Tripartite Pact, unlike Finland, so there are some differencies, although I guess the official Soviet point for consider Continuation War separate stems from the necessity to sign less than unconditional peace with Finland at the time. --Whiskey 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drive to alliance?

message: Could someone quote a definition of the word “co-belligerence” (if it exists at all) from an English dictionary? The one in the article does not make sense, at least, in regard to Finland. The article on the Continuation War states “…In this situation, Finland had no alternative but to turn to Germany. From May 1940, Finland pursued a campaign to re-establish the good relations with Germany....”, etc. German troops were deployed in and operated from Finland with the approval of the Finnish government. Doesn’t this mean that the cooperation with Germans was “actively and willfully sought”? This certainly was not a mere coincidence. I understand that Finns view their cooperation with Germany as a necessity, but, since most alliances in politics come from necessity, “co-belligerence” then would apply to virtually any alliance. Wouldn’t a better example for “co-belligerence”, as defined in his article, be the uncoordinated attacks of various barbarians against Rome? Or Turkey, Persia and Sweden fighting Russians at the same time? 
Also, could someone actually quote a Soviet source that designates Continuation War (by any name) as a separate conflict from the "Great Patriotic War"? 
 
Finally, please sign your posts. --EugeneK 03:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided a more assertive definition to the co-belligerence and removed lot of weasel words from the intro. Now it is more general and shouldn't be so tied to World War II. --Whiskey 08:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of the Co-belligerence

message: * A country fighting with another power against a common enemy - Merriam-Webster
* One, such as a nation, that assists another or others in waging war, usually without entering a formal alliance. -  The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition
* Ally in fight: a person or country that is an ally in a fight or war MSN Encarta Oberiko 17:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Co-belligerence definitions

message: Though is quite a bit of content here, it does not appear to be well-organized. The primary definition and discussion of general applications and usage should be organized and expanded, the WWII examples consolidated. LordAmeth (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST Assessment

message: Paragraph from the article:"According to the Treaty of Paris, Finland was unambiguously classified as a Hitlerite ally (“Finland, having become an ally of Hitlerite Germany and having participated on her side in the war against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and other United Nations, bears her share of responsibility for this war”). A multitude of countries, Finland including, consented to this determination by signing the Treaty of Paris in 1947."
This is not a good example, if you are at least a little informed about the situation in Paris and in Finland at that time. In Paris, Soviet Union dictated the text in the treaty, and US couldn't affect to the conditions as it wasn't at war with Finland. UK considered Finland lost to the Soviet block and was only interested pressing as strict limits to Finnish military as possible. After Soviets has prepared the text, it was once and only presented to Finnish delegation for comments. Unfortunately Soviet foreign minister Molotov and deputy secretary of foreign affairs Vyshinski announced, that any Finnish attempts to modify the treaty would be countered by Soviets.
The cold war has started to heating up and Finns were desperate to get final peace treaty. Why? Because of Allied Commission, which was placed in Finland as part of armstice treaty. The commission was controlled by Soviets, and it had wide powers to put it's nose everywhere in Finland. It co-operated closely with communists and with communist control of ValPo, state police, it had started arresting people in political basis, deporting anti-communist Finnish citizens to Soviet Union and so on. The only way to stop those activities were to get rid of Allied Commission, and the only way to do that was to get final peace treaty with Soviets. 
For Finns only the peace treaty mattered. And the time was running out as it became more and more evident that the consensus between Soviet Union and Western Allies were quickly evaporating. That kind of text as in the introduction paragraph couldn't matter less in that situation: When the man is pointing you with a gun and calling your mother a whore, and you have only a stick, you don't start arguing with him, but agree with him and try to get out from that situation. --Whiskey (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris peace treaty 

message: In the past few decades the term co-belligerence has been applied to religious and political contexts, particularly within the world of Evangelical theology. Scholars such as Francis Schaeffer have advocated co-belligerence in politics, while others have urged this approach when it comes to relations between Evangelicals and Catholics. Would this be information worth including in the article? Or since it is listed inside of the military history WikiProject should it be best to leave it as it is? DynaGuy00 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Co-belligerence