Talk:Winter War/Archive 1

message: As I recall from a military history class long ago, the manner in which Finland's troops fought was quite interesting. Some things are mentioned briefly in the article, such as ski troops and their experience with the weather. However, does anyone have more information that could be added? I remember things about their barracks, which were dug underground (and thus quite warm). Also, I believe there was more information about how they kept their fuel from freezing like the Russians' did. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful, but I thought some of the unique aspects of the Winter War fighting might have been left out. I know we saw a video, I will post the name if I can remember and find it. --BekiB 13:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manner of fighting 

message: How come there now is an announcement at the top of the article of it being disputed? Where does it come from? Why is it there? --Johan Magnus 08:25, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I'd like to add this here, as it could provide future material to article itself.
* December 24, Author Hella Wuolijoki writes a letter to Tanner where she offers to mediate peace negotiations.
* January 8, After negotiating with Ryti and Paasikivi and receiving information from Günther that Mme Kollontai would receive Wuolijoki, accept her offer.
* January 29, Günther delivers message from V. Molotov where he announces Soviet readiness to discuss with Finland.
* February 2, Finland proposes as a starting point the results from negotiations of previous autumn with additional concessions from Finland (through land exhange).
* February 5, Soviets reject proposal
* February 5, Allied high command decides to send troops to Finland
* February 11, Red army starts offensive at Summa
* February 12, SU presents territorial demands: Karelian Isthmus, Ladoga Karelia and Rybachi Peninsula.
* February 15, Mannerheim orders retreat to rear line.
* February 19, King of Sweden announces his rejection to officeal help to Finland.
* February 21, Tanner asks Günther to mediate with SU.
* February 23, SU respons with exact borderline for territorial demands.
* February 28, Finnish government decides that the only option is to make peace immediately.
* February 29, Mannerheim express very pessimistic view of military situation.
* March 3, Tanner informs Günther that Finland is ready for negotiations if Viipuri and Sortavala are left to Finns.
* March 5, Molotov rejects the demand.
* March 6, Finnish government selects peace negotiators.
* March 8, negotiations start, Salla is added to ceded territories.
* March 9, President Kallio and government gives authority to sign any kind of peace treaty to negotiators.
* March 12, Moscow Peace Treaty signed
* March 13, Ceasefire, the Winter War ends
--Whiskey 12:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of Peace Negotiations 

message: 1) comander od Finns: Mannerheim (C-i-C), no Wallenius
2) soviet forces in Finland: minimal 1,3 milion man, porbably more - cca 450,000 is state from start of war only.
3) my balance of loses of soviet union is from soviet modern war literature.
Cinik (cswikipedia). 62.209.237.4 12:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My correction 

message: What's this claim about Winter War being a "decisive Finnish victory"? Yes, we did well considering the circumstances, but didn't exactly march to Moscow! I suggest this is changed into "Soviet victory" because that's what it was.
-- Mikko H. 1 July 2005
:It was a Finnish victory: Soviet Union tried to conquer Finland and Finland tried to prevent it. And Finland succeeded. – Zeal 1 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)
:: Sorry, but what kind of a victory forces the 'victor' to cede territory? Not to speak of 'decisive' victory? I'm afraid 'victory' is being redefined in a way that is simply not viable. -- Mikko H.
:::Victory in war doesn't mean that the one to win wouldn't have suffered any loss. Soviet Union didn't reach its goal, but Finland did. I'm not denying that Finland didn't lose anything, but it didn't lose the war when it repulsed the enemy's attemp to conquer the whole of Finland. – Zeal 1 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)
::::Soviet Union certainly did reach at least some of its goals. The Soviet-Finnish border was pushed over 100 km from USSR's second largest city; Soviet Union established a military base at the mouth of Gulf of Finland; the terms of Moscow Peace Treaty were essentially dictated by Soviet Union. All that was achieved with lower Soviet casualties per capita than Finnish casualties ( even if we accept Finnish official casualty estimates of 27,000 and Soviet "unofficial" numbers of 200,000 - although we know that official casualty numbers are never accurate and always underestimated ).
::::So, whatever it was, it certainly wasn't a decisive Finnish victory. Two good examples of "decisive" victories are Soviet victory in World War II ( where Soviets took Berlin and Germans ended up paying reparations ), and North Vietnam's victory in Vietnam war ( where Americans had to withdraw ). Soviet victory in Winter War does not even qualify as pyrrhic ( by definition, a pyrrhic victory requires that the victor is worse off after the war than he was before it started ). Pyrric victory is, for example, what Americans have now in Iraq. --Itinerant1 1 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)
::::Actually it might be best called a pyrrhic victory for the Soveit Union. They gained territory but at a terrible cost and humiliation. Falphin 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
I have taken out the sentence that "The Finns were shocked by the harsh peace terms." They might have been very unhappy, but could not have been surprised, because they were in a very bad military position at that point, as even Mannerheim stated. Rakovsky 00:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Decisive Finnish Victory"??? 

message: I don't think it was a victory on either side. Finland wasn't conquered and proved itself as a valuable ally to Germany while the Soviet Union despite it masss gained very little territory and was humiliated. However the Soviet Union did gain territory. So the wording should be that the outcome was disputed. Falphin 7 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
: If considering only outcome on the map, it was Soviet victory. If taking into account the losses in material, manpower, political prestige and military clout, it fills the definition of Pyrrhic victory: Gained something with too high, almost unacceptable, cost. For Finns, even though keeping sovereignty, Finland still lost territory, so it cannot be said that Finns won outright. I think, adapting from the words of Finnish novelist Väinö Linna: Finland won the silver medal. :-) -Whiskey 8 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
::The word "Pyrrhic" is a POV. "Unacceptable cost": You are looking from the modern perspective, when Americans rise a tremendus fuss over 2-3 pesons lost in action. For Stalin the losses were more than tolerable. mikka (t) 15:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't only the loss of few soldiers which counted. The worst was the loss of political and military prestige, which undermined Soviet international standing tremendously. Although Stalin and STAVKA started corrective actions on military side immediately after the war, they were far from finished before Hitler launched Barbarossa. On political side the Winter War increased mistrust towards communists making their political work around the world much harder and stiffened the resistance of anti-communist forces.--Whiskey 23:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the phrases like "humiliated", "poor showing of Soviet Army", etc. show a very little understanding of what actually happened there. It was a winter war. It was not Californian of British winter. It was -40 Celsius. It was naturally impenetrable terrain. It was Mannerheim Line (broken). It was like climbing up the crystal mountain from fairy tales. And Soviets did climb it up. It is plain shortsightedness of a person sitting in an air-conditioned room to write "ability of the Red Army was put into question".  mikka (t) 15:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not correct to put whole Finnish-Soviet borderline under the same notation. During December at Karelian Isthmus it was between 0 and -10 Celsius. It was during January when there was this cold era (and even then it was Suomussalmi and Salla where those highest grades were reached. When it came to February the weather become -eh- warmer, over -15 Celsius when Soviet offensive began and rising to -10 soon afterwards. The snow depth at Karelian Isthmus in December was less than 10cm, becoming thicker only after the Christmas. Also Karelian Isthmus was very developed region with lot of roads and railroads dating to the age before Finnish independence, when there were active connections between the capital and Grand Duchy. Only north of Lake Ladoga become the terrain more difficult and roads more scarce. And the strength of the Mannerheim Line is highly exaggerated: One armed bunker with 1-3 machine guns every third kilometer, with no depth in most places. When taking into account that Finns had chronic lack of artillery ammunition, meaning they couldn't effectively protect the Mannerheim Line fortifications against Soviet artillery, it is a real wonder that Mannerheim Line held as long as it did. On the December conditions at the Isthmus with the numbers available by Soviets I bet British or German army would have breached the line in 3-4 days. It could be seen later when Soviets get their act together, they managed to breach the line quite fast, even though they decided to breach the strongest location of the line. Even later in the war, 1944, the half-ready but still much stronger and shorter VT line could hold them only two days. The questioning of the ability of the Red Army wasn't invented by me or any other historian after the WWII, but it was presented in contemporary reports and analyses of the war.--Whiskey 23:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet-Finish victory 

message: THE GOAL WAS TO MOVE BORDERS AND WE WAS MADE IT
The goal of the USSR was to conquer ALL of Finland. Not just a portion. The Finnish goal was to remain an independant nation. I don't see, by any criteria how you could consider this a Soviet victory. One of the largest and arguably the most powerful military in the world at that time was utterly crushed and repulsed by a Finnish force less than half it's size. Not only did the Russians suffer huge casulities, but they also were badly humiliated.
The Russians did not accomplish their goal. The Finns did. Finland not only won this war, but they achieved one of the greatest victories in the history of warfare.
The Finns did lose some land, this is true, but they accomplished their ultimate goal and totally humiliated the Russians.-An anonomous historian
"The goal of the USSR was to conquer ALL of Finland".....what?!?! Bogdan 16:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Russians did not win this war 

message: Most scholars focus on support from Britain, France, and Sweden for Finland in the Winter War. I am curious as to the level of weaponry and advisory support provided by Nazi Germany to Finland, as I found an article on the internet. Are this author's claims legitimate?
: Shortly: Yes and no. Many instances he describes do have grain of truth, but he falls to the same trap that happens in almost every book of Finland in WWII: Too little pages to tell properly on an issue which was a sideshow with very limited effects to any major player. It means that facts have to be selected, their timeordering forgotten and relative importance distorted. And it seems that there are some errors and traces of Soviet propaganda. 
Michael Sayers, "The Second World War"
The most intimate working relationship existed between the German and the Finnish High Commands. The Finnish military leader, Baron Karl Gustav von Mannerheim, was in close and constant communication with the German High Command. There were frequent joint staff talks, and German officers periodically supervised Finnish army maneuvers. The Finnish Chief of Staff, General Karl Oesch, had received his military training in Germany, as had his chief aide, General Hugo Ostermann, who served in the German Army during the First World War. In 1939, the Government of the Third Reich conferred upon General Oesch one of its highest military decorations...
: Personally, Carl Gustav Mannerheim (no von) despised Germans. Part of the reason for that was his experience in WWI, where his former life as Russian officer crumbled because of Germany. The working relationship, which hardly could be seen intimate happened during the Continuation War, after the Winter War. Imperial Germany had helped Finland to gain independence from Russia during the WWI by training an infantry battallion, Oesch, Österman and great number of higher officers of the army had their background in that unit. One should also remember, that also many former Finnish officers from Russian army were in the prominent positions in Finnish army (Mannerheim, Nenonen, Enckell...). Oesch was before the Winter War Chief of the General Staff, and in that status visited Germany and Britain 1938, and 1939 German Chief of the General Staff, Co. Gen. Frans Halder, made a return visit to Finland and gave this medal to Oesch. One should notice, that British Commander-in-Chief of Home Forces, Gen. Walter Kirke, had visited Finland (and Oesch) only few weeks before and exchanging military decorations between leaders of military were part of the normal "political courtecy" of the day.
  
Political relations between Finland and Nazi Germany were also close. The Socialist Premier Risto Ryti regarded Hitler as a "genius"; Per Svinhufrud, the wealthy Germanophile who had been awarded the German Iron Cross, was the most powerful behind-the-scenes figure in Finnish politics...
: Before the Winter War Finland was working in Scandinavian context, where she together with other Scandinavian countries refused non-agression pacts with Germany. It would be nice to have exact examples how political relations were close. Ryti wasn't socialist but liberal. That Pehr Evind Svinhufvud was the most powerful behind the scenes politician at the time could be true, as more powerful figures didn't were behind the scenes at the time: Mannerheim, Paasikivi, Kallio, Tanner...
With the aid of German officers and engineers, Finland had been converted into a powerful fortress to serve as a base for the invasion of the Soviet Union. Twenty-three military airports had been constructed on Finnish soil, capable of accommodating ten times as many airplanes as there were in the Finnish Air Force. Nazi technicians had supervised the construction of the Mannerheim Line, a series of intricate, splendidly equipped fortifications running several miles deep along the Soviet border and having heavy guns at one point only twenty-one miles from Leningrad. Unlike the Maginot Line, the Mannerheim Line had been designed not only for defensive purposes but also for garrisoning a major offensive force. As the Mannerheim Line neared completion in the summer of 1939, Hitler's Chief of Staff, General Halder, arrived from Germany and gave the massive fortifications a final inspection...
http://www.shunpiking.com/ol0207/0207-MSAK-GC-chap22.htm
(Rakovsky 04:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now to the propaganda part... :-) It is true that German Col. von Brandenstein proposed the location of the line, but he did it at 1918. After that it was French officers who helped to design the oldest bunkers 1919, but renovation of the bunkers at 30s was done by Finnish officers and engineers. Finland as powerful fortress, Hah!, with Model Cajander soldiers. The airports in question were not only in military use, but they served as civilian airports also, and one should notice that the time between the World Wars was a great boom in air traffic. German technicians didn't supervise the construction of the Mannerheim Line, and it is pure fantasy that with less concrete than what is needed in one modern opera house, one could have intricate, splendidly equipped, several miles deep, 135km long fortified line. The Finnish border was 34km (21 miles) from Leningrad at closest point, but closest point of Mannerheim Line was almost 90km from Leningrad. The line didn't have accommodation even for troops needed for defending the line, so it is ludicrious to claim it capable for garrisioning offensive force. At the summer and autumn of 1939 there was a great rush in building the line, but when the Winter War started, the line was far from ready. And like I said, British general Kirke "inspected" the line few weeks before Halder. --Whiskey 22:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and there was some military co-operation in naval issues: 1930 Germans built Submarine Vesikko and tested it in Finland. It was a prototype of later IIA-class U-boats. But also that was during Weimar republic before nazi era.--Whiskey 23:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish- German Relations in the Winter War 

message: Please quote the sources of 1.5 mln forces and 1 mln losses. "the Soviets died at a rate of 10,000 per day" looks a wild speculation to me. mikka (t) 15:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And to me also. Krivosheev gives 126 875 killed and 264 908 wounded (sicks not included), and it is perhaps the best available number. From Krutchev comes that 1 mln, but it is exaggerated. 1.5 mln forces seems a little bit high, as my sources at hand cite 1 mln at the end of the war. Have to check some more sources... --Whiskey 23:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet manpower and losses 

message: The article needs better pictures. The maps are Ok, but we need photograps as well. The Winter War was primarily a Soviet operation, so we need pictures of Soviets. The picture of Finnish solders standing is really trivial. The main picture could be of abandoned Soviet vehicles on the Raate Road (Raatteen tie) after the Battle of Suomussalmi.   
-- Petri Krohn 21:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better pictures needed 

message: The article relating to the Shelling of Mainila says documents show no Soviet troops were killing in the shelling. Is this true? Should the article be changed to reflect that? Richard Cane 06:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet casualties at Mainila before the war 

message: Please revise casualty numbers in the box. The way the article is written right now, it appears that Red Army lost more soldiers killed, MIA, and wounded, than it had soldiers in the first place. --Itinerant1 09:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty numbers 

message: I changed the amount of Finnish POWs in the War Box, 2,000 is about two times too much. As the sources at hand have conflicting information on the exact number, from c. 850 to c. 1,100, I chose the round number nicely at the middle: 1,000. -- Mikko H. 21:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Number of Finnish POWs 

message: Finnish had concentration/"relocation" camps where they tortured the civilian population in the continuation war. I am curious if they existed during 1939-1940 as well.
Since you say you can read Russian, have a look too, Kiowa.
Helga Seppiala, FINLAND AS OCCUPIER 1941-1944, in the journal "NORTH"
http://www.around.spb.ru/finnish/sepp/sepp2.php
The Finnish author has witnessed the starving POWs herself.
: No they didn't. They were created on the occupied territory to hold part of local population deemed to be security risk. (So not all Slavic inhabitants were put to the camps. The maximum amount of people was around 25 000.) In Finland, almost 1 000 communists or extreme left socialists were put to prison as security risks during 1939-44.
"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
: 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.
"said Ohto Manninen, a leading war historian and history professor at Finland's war college[:] "Finland, as the occupying power, ran a network of some 20 prison camps throughout the occupied territories, separating Russians from Karelians, males of combatant age from women and children and so on," Manninen said."
http://www.htcricket.com/news/181_672498,00110004.htm
: This belongs more to the Continuation War but anyway... At first there was blanket order to collect all Russians to the Concentration or Transit Camps. As the true demographics of East Karelia became known to Finns, this blanket order was quickly moved to concern only those with security risks: Police and NKVD officials, important industry managers, inhabitants close to important military targets or frontlines etc. It should be noted, that most of the military age males had already been conscripted or moved away before Finns arrived. I still try to find proper statistics of the population at the time, but from about 470 000 populace one third was Karelians and about one third was evacuated (both Karelians and Russians). --Whiskey 20:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =============================================

message: If it was a part of WWII, the article Red Army should be corrected.
Xx236 10:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII 

message: I fear that edit war will start soon...
::You have deleted so much information and added some without any sources how can you even think of deleteing this paragraph
::It was recently confirmed in a study by Finnish historian Lasse Laaksonen that the Finnish army was on the verge of total collapse when the armistice was signed.[1] It is speculated that since Stalin had practically wiped out his intelligence apparatus in Finland during the purges, he was not aware that continuing the war for only a week longer would have led to the inevitable and total defeat of the Finnish army. Despite the heroic resistance of the Finns, the Soviets would have inevitably won through attrition. http://www.hs.fi/english/article/1101978837065
::How can you delete such paragraph?????? (Deng 12:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: If you bother to read this page you will discover that it is not that simple.
I did read it here is the whole page and here it is
The end of the Winter War was in sight when the Mannerheim Line broke in Summa in mid-February, 1940. About three weeks earlier Finland had agreed to peace talks to avert the destruction of its army. If the army had been defeated, there would not have been much to negotiate about.
For decades there has been speculation over whether or not the fight could have been continued, instead of agreeing to the harsh terms of the peace. Dr. Lasse Laaksonen, who wrote his doctoral thesis on the final weeks and days of the war, says no: the defences of the Isthmus and the area near Vyborg were collapsing.
"The question was one of days, rather than weeks. The army could not have held all the way to the melting of the ground frost", he says.
In March the forces were dwindling fast, but the reality of the situation did not reach the central command. Laaksonen blames the splintered command structure, faulty communications, and conflicting information.
A Russian attack across Vyborg Bay also came as a surprise. Thanks to the exceptionally cold winter, the ice was thick enough to carry Soviet tanks.
When the peace was reached, the Russians had 100,000 soldiers in the area, while Finland had just 25,000. The Finns had neither well-equipped positions, nor anti-tank capability. Artillery shells were running, out, and only three battalions were in reserve that had any real fighting capability.
     
The grim assessment given by Marshall Mannerheim to the government on the situation at the front on March 9th led to a decision to seek peace. The government considered an official request for aid from the Western powers. However, the feeling was that the aid would be insufficient, and that it would come too late.
When he sought peace, Stalin was not concerned so much about Finnish resistance, as he was of the prospect of Britain or France coming to the aid of the Finns. The war might have escalated to a conflict between great powers.
When the guns fell silent, the Red Army had cut the highway between Vyborg and Hamina, and had taken parts of the city of Vyborg itself. A breakthrough on the bay would have opened the way to Helsinki.
The territorial concessions came as a shock. "It was a bitter disappointment, that after defending every ditch and hole, the Finns had to withdraw from positions that they had held all the way to the end", Laaksonen says.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 13.3.2005 
So stop removeing that super important paragraph (Deng 16:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, well... 

message: I'm glad of all corrections to grammar SuperDeng has introduced.
Then, the two most persistent stumbling blocks in the article:
Kekkonen: He is propagating his own (and Paasikivi's) foreign politic line. He doesn't say here, that Finland should have accepted Soviet proposal, but critisizes his predecessors in foreign policy for failing to create similar trusting relations with Soviet Union than he and Paasikivi had done. So, it is not relevant where it is now, where it is assosiated with negotiations of 1939, but it could be used when presenting the background situation before the negotiations at 30's.
Laaksonen: The situation of Finnish army at the end of the Winter War has been discussed among academics and military historians for decades, and the views of the endurance varies a lot: from days to couple of months. The general consensus is that without foreign help Finland couldn't last long alone. Laaksonen's study doesn't present the consensus among historians, but most historians prefer the few weeks in this what if-situation. So, the chapter as it is now, should be removed and replaced with another like: "After the war, the situation of the Finnish army at Karelian Isthmus at the end of the war had created a lot of discussion. The estimates how long the opponent could be held had varied from few days to couple of months, most circling around few weeks, too little for any foreign help to make a difference." --Whiskey 07:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving the dispute 

message: "continued a few more days Finland would have been destroyed."
Finnish troops in the southern Isthmus and western shore of the Bay of Viipuri were reaching the end of their encurance. Had the war lasted a week or so longer, it's very probable that the Red Army would have broken through, but this would have not magically destroyed Finnish Armed Forces or Finland.
It dosent say that And if you would have bothered to read what you are deleting you would see that this is what you are delteing
"It was recently confirmed in a study by Finnish historian Lasse Laaksonen that the Finnish army was on the verge of total collapse when the armistice was signed.[1] It is speculated that since Stalin had practically wiped out his intelligence apparatus in Finland during the purges, he was not aware that continuing the war for only a week longer would have led to the inevitable and total defeat of the Finnish army. Despite the heroic resistance of the Finns, the Soviets would have inevitably won through attrition."
Also you have removed many key paragraphs such as what the president said and many other key issues
(Deng 09:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, well 

message: In military conflict template, it is advised that the result-field should be stalemate or victory. And the victory can be clarified by an additional adjective. There is a separate field territory, which is used for explaining the territorial changes.
In this particular case, the most important result internationally was i)Hitler considered Soviet army weak and his planning underestimated Soviet will and skill to fight and ii)It was the wake-up call to Soviet leadership who had had an impression that Soviet army was the strongest of the world, promting string of the reforms in the army.
The Pyrrhic victory describes quite correctly the outcome of the war: Soviet Union could pay the price... this time. But if nothing changes, it wouldn't be so sure that Soviet Union would come out victorious in the war with major power opponent. --Whiskey 11:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call the victory Pyrrhic. Pyrrhic is that victory which is worse than defeat. Encyclopaedia is not supposed to push POV conclusions. Let's see what other editors think. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please check Pyrrhic victory. It is not worse than defeat, as an outcome defeat is always worse than any kind of victory, including Pyrrhic. The Pyrrhic victory is a victory where one had to pay too much compared to the gains victory produced. --Whiskey 11:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No we have to decide whether the substantial gains of territory and preservation of the Northern Capital during the WWII were worth the human toll. It is the heaviest POV imaginable to give answers to such questions in an encyclopedia. Please stop it: it was the Soviet victory, while passing judgments whether it was ""Pyrrhic" or no - is none of our business. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only positive side of the Witer War to Soviet Union was that it punched home in what a sorry state the Red Army really was. Several studies on the issue has questioned the value of the terrain gained in the war, as it together with Soviet foreign policy after the war guaranteed Finnish participation to the next round. The safety of Leningrad would have been better guarded if Finland had been neutral like Sweden. I don't dispute the Soviet victory, I just refer in a one word what several studies had pointed out: Heavy costs with little gains. --Whiskey 12:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I gave user "Ghirlandajo" strong arguments for pyrrhic: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_War&action=history but he decided to ignore them and reverted it. Is this vandalism?--80.186.100.180 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of the War 

message: The finns also increased their numbers during the war so if you are going to have Soviet increasements in the battle box then you must have finnish as well. (Deng 13:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I also added how the number of tanks and aircrafts changed during the war. I'm not sure how these numbers should be added, as Finns had in the beginning 32 Renault tanks and 32 Vickers without armament. Should those Vickers be added to total? During the war Finns armed 16 Vickers, but five(six?) of them were lost in Honkiniemi. 9-11 Renaults were buried/meant to be buried to the ground for additional strongpoint, and they were also lost when Soviets passed them. At Soviet side, there were 1,275 tanks broken due to mechanical failure at the end of war, should they be added to total? --Whiskey 21:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm 1 million is way to high the total Soviet army was 1.8 million when the campagin started. I doubt that they would have put 56% on one front so you better source your numbers because I doubt that it was 1 million and if they hade 400 thousand casulties then that would mean that only 400 thousand were left on other fronts. I find that very strange (Deng 01:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And sources the figures or they will get changed back to the original sourced figures (Deng 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It has almost been a month source the figures please. (Deng 01:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops! Sorry, I forgot. Well, at least Tomas Ries in the Cold Will cites that SU had 45-48 infantry divisions at the end against Finns. This is in accordance with original Finnish estimates and other literature written during the Cold War. But, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, some military archives were opened, and Ohto Manninen by using Stalin's history commission of 1940 collected data that in truth there were 60 infantry divisions against Finland at the end of the war (Research published in Sotilasaikakauslehti 3/1991). This amounts over 200,000 more troops than previous estimates. Some of those "new" divisions were only moving to the frontline at the time when peace was made, f.ex. 119.Mot.D and 144.D which were preparing for invasion of Sortavala over the ice, or 172.D and 131.D of which one had only partly arrived to Kem before the peace. Others had only small exposure to the battles like 87.D, which started using ammo March 12. And naturally, how many casualties Soviets really suffered during the war affects the numbers. --Whiskey 07:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you are going to have total figures in the battle box then you must add finish total nummbers 

message: Kokkokanta made this edit:
:In Russia Winter War is often referred to as border skirmish. Also, children are taught in schools that it was Finland who attacked Russia (in Mainila), or the question of aggressor is set aside. President Boris Yeltsin had a more objective view of the war and admitted that Russia started the war.
which is apparently contentious.  I added a  tag when it was deleted by an anonymous user, but Ghirlandajo has called Kokkokanta a troll (or perhaps Ghirlandajo was referring to me).  Is the Russian attitude to the Winter War off limits for inclusion here? -- JHunterJ 11:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The language and wording used by Kokkoranta is not the most polite one, so at least it should be corrected. For the contents, I'd like to ask Ghirlandajo, who lives in Russia, to visit library and check how Winter War is presented in different Russian histories. (Ghirla, please check the printing dates of the works?) Unfortunately I don't have access to Russian/Soviet material handy, but I could check one co-produced post-Soviet Russian-Finnish research on Winter War, if there is something on the issue.--Whiskey 12:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attitude to Winter War in Russia 

message: I feel that it is not that simple. I think that the result should be Moscow Peace Treaty in the battle box. Kurt.
: Agreed, also to Whiskey who reverted it because it should be "simple". In many articles this is not the case. For example: Dutch-Hanseatic War.
:"00:07, 21 July 2006 80.186.100.180 (Talk) (Reverted edits by "Mikkalai". Pyrrhic because: large losses, failure to achieve the original goal of conquering Finland, Finland also posed no threat to Leningrad in 1939, made soviet army look bad)"
:"06:39, 20 July 2006 Halibutt (Talk | contribs) (this perfectly fits the definition of a Pyrrhic victory: minor gains, yet tremendous losses, to a completely inferior enemy)"
--Pudeo 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what are the arguments against it being a phyrric victory? Stephen B Streater 06:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed a million times before on the talk page, some simple scrolling will show this
*Soviet Union certainly did reach at least some of its goals. The Soviet-Finnish border was pushed over 100 km from USSR's second largest city; Soviet Union established a military base at the mouth of Gulf of Finland; the terms of Moscow Peace Treaty were essentially dictated by Soviet Union. All that was achieved with lower Soviet casualties per capita than Finnish casualties ( even if we accept Finnish official casualty estimates of 27,000 and Soviet "unofficial" numbers of 200,000 - although we know that official casualty numbers are never accurate and always underestimated ).
*So, whatever it was, it certainly wasn't a decisive Finnish victory. Two good examples of "decisive" victories are Soviet victory in World War II ( where Soviets took Berlin and Germans ended up paying reparations ), and North Vietnam's victory in Vietnam war ( where Americans had to withdraw ). Soviet victory in Winter War does not even qualify as pyrrhic ( by definition, a pyrrhic victory requires that the victor is worse off after the war than he was before it started ). Pyrric victory is, for example, what Americans have now in Iraq. --Itinerant1 1 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)
*If considering only outcome on the map, it was Soviet victory. If taking into account the losses in material, manpower, political prestige and military clout, it fills the definition of Pyrrhic victory: Gained something with too high, almost unacceptable, cost. For Finns, even though keeping sovereignty, Finland still lost territory, so it cannot be said that Finns won outright. I think, adapting from the words of Finnish novelist Väinö Linna: Finland won the silver medal. :-) -Whiskey 8 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
*The word "Pyrrhic" is a POV. "Unacceptable cost": You are looking from the modern perspective, when Americans rise a tremendus fuss over 2-3 pesons lost in action. For Stalin the losses were more than tolerable. mikka (t) 15:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just some of the things on the talk page, I could copy more but I am to lazy FishHeadAbcd 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The argument you missed is that the difficulty the Russians had may have encouraged Hitler to attack Russia, though this is speculation. In fact, Finland was near collapse militarily, though Russia didn't know this. On balance, I'd say Russia was ahead after this war. So far I'd prefer it without Phyrric. Stephen B Streater 08:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Except that every military victory (or loss) has come at a cost.  It provides no value itself. -- JHunterJ 22:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, USSR lost atleast 127,000 men (or are Russian lives really that cheap? No.), thousands of horses, hundreds of tanks, hundreds of artillery pieces, thousands of weapons, a lot of ammunition, hundreds of trucks, medical equipment, armored cars etc. Red Army humiliated, divivisions destroyed compeletely, generals killed like in Kenraali-Motti, most and the decisive battles won by Finnish forces. That's very costy. Yes, there is a cost for every war but "at a great cost" would sound too much? And for the argument that it has to just victory or defeat, check Vietnam War, but that's probably because. On the other hand the battlebox's result is a bit unhandy, but Peace treaties are marked as results too. It is a "soviet victory". But can you call Winter War the same "great patriotic USSR victory" as Battle of Kursk. The both are marked as Soviet victory.  --Pudeo 10:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have any issue with putting in more detail in the results, a la Vietnam War.  My observation is that "at a cost" adds only words, not detail, since every military operation has a cost, regardless of outcome. -- JHunterJ 11:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at the current version. I had hard time thinking a suitable one, please say what you think about it. It is often referred as defence victory here, after all, Finland won all decisive battles and kept Soviet troops out of Mannerheim line until the very end. I thought that Military victory wouldn't be suitable atleast.--Pudeo 17:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this version is better, but I'll fire off the questions I have anyway: Where's "here"?  What does "defence victory" mean?  Holding territory "until the very end" is the same as losing territory, as far as "Result" is concerned, right?  If you win the battles and lose the war, the result is still a loss.  I think, if more detail than one winner is needed here, that rather than try to describe the degrees of victory, you should simply identify what each side ended up with as a result of the war.  Territory changes, other stipulations of the treaty, that kinds of thing.  Completely NPOV. -- JHunterJ 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not that simple 

message: There are no figures whatsoever in Khrushchev memoirs regarding Winter War casualties. The only sentence mentioning "millions" is the folowing:
"I would say here that Finland war cost us millions of dead. Why do I think so? [...] Hitler thought he would be able to overcome the USSR very easily. And he got influenced by the Finnish campaign. Because if we conducted this campaign properly, History would be different."
So, these "millions" are actually "indirect" deaths resulting from Soviet-German war, and not a literal estimation to be taken directly.
The only other sentence is "I don't know how many thousand soldiers died there, but I think, a lot. How does that translate into millions of casualties, I don't know. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikita Khrushchev's estimates on Winter War 

message: Please, show me another battle box which contains both the starting and ending figures. The ending figures are not nessecary. Kurt.
: With a short statistical survey of articles about wars, it seems that overwhelming majority of articles favor the numbers of combatants at the end or at their strongest in the battlebox (when they are given at all). So, it should give ending numbers if only one set of numbers is allowed. --Whiskey 21:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ending numbers 

message: Whilst reading this article, I noticed that it has very bad NPOV issues. The statements used biased words, such as "poorly" or "insufficiently", and such biased statements as, "Soviet arrogance and incompetence were important factors", and "the Soviets failed to take advantage of their numerical superiority at the start of the war". This article needs major repairs to fit NPOV standards. That makes me wonder why this isn't at the top of the page:
--Kschwerdt514 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV problems 

message: Ire these line truly nessecary? The details conserning the peace be viewed by simply clicking the link, so I do not find the line to be nessecary. Also, Continuation War was not the ending result of Winter War. --Kurt Leyman 13:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Finland ceded 10 % of it's land" and "and Continuation War in 1941" 

message: To avoid revert war again I want to put some facts up. This topic is quite controversial and should be told in article, why do you want to tell whether the result was a victory or it was nothing?  The result was a peace treaty, and then comes the controversial part.
Finland: Independence kept against much larger nation and army (Population of Finland, 3.7 million, USSR what 194 million?), Soviet advance halted on most battles, five times more Soviets killed etc. Immediatly said after war (from YLE radio records): "We survived from this war better than anyone could have imagined!"
USSR: Finnish border from Leningrad moved, 20% Industrial capacity taken from Finland, some Soviet army flaws discovered
Was the border move a victory for USSR?:
The move was very important for the moment but the price was high; atleast 127 000 Soviets killed, thousands of tanks destroyed captured, loads of equipment lost, "humiliation" for the red army. As a result Adolf Hitler admitted in Finland-visit that he underestimated USSR by Winter war; which of course resulted in Barborossa, Siege of Leningrad etc., millions of civilians dead. 
Then the border move; yes it was great for the USSR for the year but it was too harsh. Finns wanted the areas back which then resulted in Continuation War Siege of Leningrad. USSR rather got in to a deeper mess by making too harsh demands. 
Therefore the result should be the peace treaty (as in Vietnam War), and the interim peace as it is a undoubtable result. It should be discussed in the article presenting facts. Sorry for the quite confusive and mistakeous text, hurry--Pudeo (Talk) 15:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "On March 6 Finland sued for peace, and a week later the Soviet terms were accepted" (Britannica) -- if Finland sued for peace and accepted the Soviet terms, I believe that qualifies as a Soviet victory.  Yes, all victories come at a cost; that isn't in question.  Yes, Finland survived and kept its independence; that also doesn't mean it wasn't a Soviet victory. Yes, the terms of the Soviet Union were harsh enough to lead up to the Continuation War; other victors have had to fight subsequent wars too. -- JHunterJ 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The Soviet victory in WWII came at an incomparably greater cost. Still, it is a victory. Revisionism is not good for encyclopaedias. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You win or you you win, you lose or you lose. Finland Lost The Soviet Union won there is no other way. Who cares how many died if you have a greater reserve then you can lose more. Lokqs 19:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if things were so simple. I'd prefer simple "Soviet victory" or "Soviet Pyrrhic victory" here. If we look narrowly only the resulting peace treaty, it was a Soviet victory without a question. Costly, but a still a victory. But there were also other consequences of the war: The prestige of the Red Army was hit severely, so Hitler decided that Soviet Union was ready to fall with a small push, so he decided to attack already at 1941. The war also raised the Allied interests towards the Scandinavia, and as a countermeasure Germany attacked Denmark and Norway, thus endangering Arctic convoy routes later in the war. Also, together with Soviet foreign policy towards Finland it secured that Finland would be on the opposing camp when the new war started instead of being neutral. None of these factors cannot be seen as "victory" to the Soviet Union although all of them were direct results from the war. --Whiskey 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever way you look at it-and no matter how costly-it was a Soviet victory.  I do not think the poor performance of the Red Army either added too or detracted from Hitler's ultimate aim to make war on Russia.  What it did do was create a serious misconception in his mind about the Soviet capacity to resist such an invasion.  Painful as it was the Winter War provided a steep learning curve for the Red Army; and when it next came to fight a major winter campaign it did so with troops both better trained and equipped.  The allies were already interested in Scandanavia, in particular German iron ore supplies coming from Sweden via the port of Narvik through Norwegian costal waters.  It was merely a matter of time before one side or the other violated Norwegian neutrality.  The chief object of the Winter War was to increase the security of Leningrad and Russia's northern flank-an objective which was generally attained.  White Guard 01:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, this interesting document "Fire and Ice: The Winter War of Finland and Russia" by MastersWork Media, USA. There was quote from Khrushchev: "We all, including Stalin, knew it was a defeat. It showed we indeed were a giant on clay collumns." And the document ended to the words of some American historian: "Finland won. If it did not win, it would have ended just like Estonia which was occupied. Finland won, obviously". --Pudeo (Talk) 18:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again on result 

message: Josef Stalin had expected to conquer the whole country by the end of 1939, but Finnish resistance frustrated the Soviet forces, who outnumbered the Finns four to one. 
Excuse me, where the fuck is the evidence for this? In the original proposal USSR gave to Finland, USSR would only annex a small strip of territory along the border in exchange for territory twice as large. At no time was Finland as a whole to be annexed. "Finnish resistance" is particularly laughable and had nothing to do with the outcome.
:Written orders captured from destroyed Soviet divisions at Suomussalmi, interrogations of captured Soviet soldiers, interviews of Soviet veterans after 1989, from the timetable some peculiar things were to be ready, like Sostachovits music piece and preparations of Kuusinen government.--Whiskey 06:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Finnish resistance" is particularly laughable and had nothing to do with the outcome. Hmm... had nothing to do with the outcome? So what took three months for Russians to advance even some kilometers? The snow? You doesn't seem to respect Red army much?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.11.114 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What Soviet diplomats were trying to achieve before the war has nothing to do with what Soviet military were ordered to achieve after the November 30. (Eh... In fact the orders were given about the month before that, but you got the idea...) --Whiskey 00:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseless Claim 

message: Suggest replacing all instances of "SU" with "USSR". The term "Soviet Union" is commonly used in English, but this is the first time I've seen it written as "SU". --24.58.14.1 20:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SU / USSR 

message: The aforementioned map is not accurate. The Salla territory was in fact twice as large as depicted on the map. The map needs revising. Landau7 17:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winter War:Finland's Concessions