Talk:Finnish Democratic Republic

message: This article is in the scope of the WikiProject Former countries. Any historic political entity with its own article falls within scope of the project (or its sister project for subdivisions of former countries). This means  that historical states, but also colonies, protectorates, client states, puppet states, satellite states, unrecognized states, provisional governments, governments-in-exile, etc. falls under its provisions including the infobox. Thus the infobox is not a question of either sovereignty or personal impression. Please feel welcome to join the project or address questions there. -- Domino theory 10:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article concerns a puppet régime more than a puppet state. The so called state existed in area which at the moment, during the war, still belonged to Finland. Thus the Soviet Union had no legal right to declare it a state. It "controlled" quite a small territory which had practically zero inhabitans (the people living in the border region had been evacuated). The Soviet Union planned the Terijoki government to become the puppet régime of Finland, but this of course failed because the Soviets failed in occupying the country. Terijoki government would be a better name for the article because the relevant thing is the Soviet puppet régime. --88.114.252.193 13:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Wikipedia calls it an unregognised Soviet puppet state on an occupied territory, I don't think it's saying it's more "legal". In fact, there are many articles which describe puppet states on occupied territories: Axis occupation of Greece during World War II, Independent State of Croatia and so on. Why I want the template? Because this article is listed as a part of the Soviet occupations, see the template here . It would be good if we have an article describing the occupation of Finnish Karelia. And the only period USSR occupied Finnish territories per definition, was 1939-1940, because it wasn't an occupation anymore when Finland had signed the Moscow Peace Treaty. Soviet Union also occupied parts of Finland in 1944-1945 (Petsamo), but this is the only article we can discuss the occupation. Finnish Democratic Republic had an own "army", currency and newspaper still. I know what you're saying, but adding this template won't turn the occupation any more legimate, it just makes it more clear that an occupation zone existed in Finland, in my opinion. So, do you have any problems if I add the template again and modify the text a bit to clarify few things? --Pudeo⺮ 21:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puppet state 

message: The agreement was signed in Moscow, as ten days earlier draft. - can someone explain what this sentence refers to? The secret protocol? --illythr (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is an error in the text there, Käkisalmi should be Petrozavodsk. Some sources which i have read but do not have at hand (can't verify) right now state that draft document very similar to the agreement signed on 2 December in Moscow would have already been written ten days earlier - around 25 November - at Petrozavodsk. And also that it would have been signed by Andrei Zhdanov & Kuusinen. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just going to make the same inquiry but I see another user beat me to it.  I'm going to run with W602's explanation and try make sense of the article text. Paavo273 (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: 1939.2.12 – 1940.12.3 
Presumably this means 1939-12-02 -- 1940-03-12 i.e. December 12, 1939 -- March 12 1940, but the formatting makes it very easy to misinterpret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.110.157 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format