Talk:Continuation War/Archive 5

message: "Sweden's leading cabinet members had hoped to improve the relations with Nazi Germany through indirect support of Operation Barbarossa, mainly channelled through Finland."
Sweden's involvement with Finland was not simply to gain favor with Germany, but also due to the deep cultural connections that the two nations shared, much closer than Sweden had with Norway for example.  The common phrase was "Finlands sak är vår", ("Finland's cause is ours") and for many Swedes who helped in the Finnish effort it was for this feeling of brotherhood that they gave aid, although there were some ultra conservatives who would for other reasons.  Most of political Sweden was dismayed that Finland was fighting along with Germany, but wanted to give some support anyway.  Surely there was an element of appeasing Germany involved as well, as Sweden was forced to do this all along, but this was not the sole reason for helping Finland.Akseli 00:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I question the following statement

message: : What does this mean? Was he the leader of the unit or did he use his influence to create it? Or what? --Illythr 11:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''...forming an ambulance unit with direct personal influence by Marshal Mannerheim.''

message: I've been requested to unprotect this article . Could the editors here report on the status of the disputes that led to its protection? Are they over by now? There's no point in unprotecting an article if a new edit war will start immediately afterwards.--Húsönd 12:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected--Húsönd 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection to be lifted? 

message: Part of the process against sock puppets is removing their contributions from articles and talk pages. I have done it here. However, due to length of the edit war, the sock puppets managed to infest many useful contributions, so I apologize about the childs thrown away with the washing water. I try to bring sanitated versions of some of them back shortly. --Whiskey 08:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning the Talk page 

message: The break up of the Soviet Union appeared to have brought a significant change in the policies and attitudes acquired by the new Russian leadership in this respect, when in 1991 President Boris Yeltsin publicly admitted that the Soviet Union had started the Continuation War. When confronted with the question, President Vladimir Putin referred to President Yeltsin's earlier statements, saying that there was no reason for the Russian leaders to further apologize about the matter.	 
: The Yeltsin's quote on the Continuation war was in fact on the Winter war. Should some part of this passage stay in the article? 	 
The Continuation War is widely perceived as a continuation for the Finnish-Soviet Winter War (1939–1940), Stalin's attempt to occupy Finland, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed between Stalin and Hitler in 1939.  
: This sentence is redundant, as the info is given just two paragraphs below. --Illythr 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Also removed

message: I've protected this article again and it's unlikely that it shall be unprotected before the dispute is clearly over. I shall not directly involve myself in the dispute so please don't contact me to mediate or to fish for sockpuppets, just to report that the dispute is over. Meanwhile I once again recommend the following sections for resolving this once and for all: WP:RFC to attract input from other users; WP:RCU for checkuser against sockpuppetry; WP:RFI for investigating users' disruptive activities, can also be used to determine sockpuppets.--Húsönd 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think something might be learned from the article Military history of Finland during World War II and more spesificly from the "Assessment" section of the article, which deals with numerous controversial issues in a manner which has survived numerous edits and has not caused an edit war. IMHO in represents one side of the argument, the other side of the argument, the facts and nothing else. --Chino 10:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected again 

message: The article Continuation War was protected after an edit war on the inclusion of long section of OR by "Andropov Andrej", one of many usernames used by a multiuser contributing from IP address 213.216.199.6  The article was protected, and a long discussion continued on this talk page between some regular contributors and an army of sockpuppets. (Archived here) The sock army failed to gain any support for its possition. After the issue of sock puppetry was raised, the sock master responded by voicing accusations of sock puppetry against established users here and on talk pages of some administrators. After two weeks some administrator lost his patience and took the issue to requests for checkuser, it was confermed that the user accounts were sock puppets of the banned user Art Dominique, also known as the "Kven user".
The Kven user has a good command of the English language. His arguments and accusations can be convincing to the casual reader. The content of his comments is however 100% <personal attack deleted>. See: 
* User talk:Husond#Regarding the sock puppeteer Illythr (Roobit, Whiskey, 68.39.144.136, Jatrius, etc.)
:So this is where he had been busy. For parties interested in this user's earlier actions elsewhere, please refer to the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven. --Drieakko 14:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess I, or rather, Whiskey is one multi-faceted genius, then. ;-) Hey, you used the  template! Awww... :D PS: The Saint Peter article doesn't help you assert the Finnishness of your name. ;-) --Illythr 15:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Moved inline comments here. -- Petri Krohn 11:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Bullshit. What is a native Russian from Estonia? Someone like native American from Canada? I am certainly not a "native" Russian and am not from any friggin Estonia. Besides, who is that idiot who is attaching labels to people he doesn't know?  Roobit 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: denaturalization laws  - for one people who can be disenfranchised under denaturalization laws must have been naturalized in the first place. In case of so-called statelets of Estonia and Latvia those people were never naturalized (hence they could not have been denaturalized) as those states neithe existed as historic entities nor had any due naturalization process while being Soviet republics. Roobit 10:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry if I have have miscategorized you. The point here is just to point out, that the four editors listed have extermely different views and edits on just about anything. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone could mistake us for the same person based on our edits. I guess the best way to describe User:Roobit is that he can not be categorized in any of the traditional categories. It's impossible to mistake him for someone else! -- Petri Krohn 11:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Holmes! That was brilliant.  Don't say Elementary! as I figured this out on my own. That was quite impressive (I only mean your powers of deduction). No, the address belongs to one company I helped to start back in 1998;-)Roobit 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lies, sock accusations, and other BS by the [[User:Art Dominique|Kven user]] 

message: The Kven user has accused several established users of sock puppetry, (first stated here). The accusation states, that Illythr, Whiskey, Roobit and Petri Krohn are the same person. The accusation is totally absurd. The users accused of being the same person have expressed very different points-of-view on contested issues. They also have long edit histories. The only reason for the accusation can be to spread FUD and lies.
*  is a native Russian from Moldovia. He is a regular contributor to Transnistria. His first edit is from 28 January 2006. He also contributes to the Russian Wikipedia.
*  from Kauhava, Finland is a physics major from the University of Helsinki. His first edit is from 9 January 2004 One of his first contributions was starting the article Occupation of Baltic Republics (a title with an anti-Russian POV). His contributions to commons also include his real name in the copyright information.
*  Is a native Russian from Estonia. He has expressed some extremely anti-Estonian points-of view. He may be one of the 1 million citizens of Estonia and Latvia, that were deprived of their citizenship by denaturalization laws in 1992. His first edit is from 25 November 2006. His contributions to commons also include his real name in the copyright information.
*  - is me, using my real name. As far as I know, I am the only person in the world with this combination of a Finnish first name and a Low Saxon last name. My user page contains links to personal information, including my home address, telephone numbers and my entry on IMDB. I have almost 15000 edits on the English Wikipedia, my first edit is from 14 August 2005.
-- Petri Krohn 05:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess I, or rather, Whiskey is one multi-faceted genius, then. ;-) Hey, you used the  template! Awww... :D PS: The Saint Peter article doesn't help you assert the Finnishness of your name. ;-) --Illythr 15:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Moved inline comments here. -- Petri Krohn 11:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Bullshit. What is a native Russian from Estonia? Someone like native American from Canada? I am certainly not a "native" Russian and am not from any friggin Estonia. Besides, who is that idiot who is attaching labels to people he doesn't know?  Roobit 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: denaturalization laws  - for one people who can be disenfranchised under denaturalization laws must have been naturalized in the first place. In case of so-called statelets of Estonia and Latvia those people were never naturalized (hence they could not have been denaturalized) as those states neithe existed as historic entities nor had any due naturalization process while being Soviet republics. Roobit 10:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry if I have have miscategorized you. The point here is just to point out, that the four editors listed have extermely different views and edits on just about anything. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone could mistake us for the same person based on our edits. I guess the best way to describe User:Roobit is that he can not be categorized in any of the traditional categories. It's impossible to mistake him for someone else! -- Petri Krohn 11:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Holmes! That was brilliant.  Don't say Elementary! as I figured this out on my own. That was quite impressive (I only mean your powers of deduction). No, the address belongs to one company I helped to start back in 1998;-)Roobit 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal of the false and absurd accusation of sock puppetry 

message: Art Dominique can no longer use this as a weapon for trolling TheQuandry 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of Checkuser 

message: I am very much in favor of using original Finnish toponyms whenever appropriate, but is it ok to refer to a battle of this war as battle of Valkeasaari despite Valkeasaari being on the Soviet side of the old border named Beloostrov/Krasnoostrov officially? Maybe it is worth renaming to battle of Beloostrov? Colchicum 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipeadia should not rename battles, only articles:-) Can you find English Language sources using "Battle of Beloostrov"? -- Petri Krohn 21:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, neither battle of Valkeasaari nor battle of Beloostrov:-) Colchicum 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At Soviet sources it is referenced as Beloostrov, and it was located inside the original Soviet borders before the Winter War. On the other hand, the battles fought in the area Finns ceded after the Winter War, are generally referenced through the cyrillic translation of their Finnish names instead of their modern Russian names. (Siiranmäki = Сийранмяки, Kuuterselkä = Куутерселькя etc.) --Whiskey 09:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Valkeasaari

message: "The United Kingdom declared war on Finland on December 6, 1941, but did not participate actively in the Continuation War." I thought that the RAF attacked Finnish ports(?) Grant | Talk 03:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: German ships that were in Finland's port at the far north, Petsamo. There were no Finnish troops involved, but Germans returned AA-fire. Was there any other military involvment on Finland's / Russian territory? --Pudeo (Talk) 10:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, none. --MPorciusCato 10:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were some British espionage mostly directed against the Germans e.g. in Helsinki ("The British Book Club") and among the personnel at the mines in Petsamo. A number of spy circles were rounded up after the declaration of war.--MoRsE 11:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UK involvement

message: "Note that swastikas were used by the Finnish and Latvian defense forces since WWI, not symbolizing German Nazism." It's tragic that Hitler usurped one of the oldest and most positive of humanity's symbols. I see no reason why the prior note was deleted. I updated to indicate both Finland and Latvia had used the swastika. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About the Finnish StuG III Ausf. G assault guns

message: All of Finland was never occupied by the Soviet Union.  See winter war and this article.  (RookZERO 13:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On looking at my edit summary, I should have phrased it differently.  (RookZERO 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely. --Whiskey 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summary

message: I created the new article and moved all text from that section intact to it.  I also created the intro and placed section headings in the article.  Of course, the article still needs work.  (RookZERO 19:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We still need some text in those chapters, the main information about the reconquest briefly. See Continuation_War#Reconquest_of_Ladoga_Karelia, doesn't look very good. --Pudeo (Talk) 12:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: creation of new article [[Finnish reconquest of Ladoga Karelia (1941)]]

message: Point 1: However the people of the Baltic States or the world felt about it, the Soviet Union proclaimed an annexation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in 1940.
Point 2: The whole section below the "disputed" tag doesn't have a single reference anyway. If nobody can come up with one, the paragraph should be axed outright. --Stlemur 12:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation vs annexation/aims of the war 

message: RE '"It is argued that all Soviet policies up to the Continuation War are best explained as defensive measures by offensive means: the sharing of occupied Poland with Germany, the annexation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and the attempted invasion of Finland in the Winter War can all be seen as elements in the construction of a security zone or buffer region."
This section seems like apologetics for Soviet conquest. It is true that Soviet conquest of Finland, Poland, etc. CAN be explained as "defensive measures," but a far more likely and reasonable explanation is that the Soviet Union was simply seizing the opportunity to conquer more land and extend its power. Any nation can always justify conquering another nation by claiming self defense.
More specifically, up to the eve of the German invasion of Russia, Stalin believed that Germany would NOT attack (see the BBC documentary War of the Century -- a memo in Stalin's handwriting telling his own intelligence service that they were wrong to anticipate a German attack). It seems clear the Russian's made their conquests in anticipation of a happy future where they and their Nazi friends would carve up Europe together, not in anticipation of fighting Germany. 
76.172.236.68 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Soviet Union's motives for invasion 

message: I'd suggest that the introduction shouldn't focus so extensively on Britain and the US. That Britain eventually declared war on Finland but the US didn't just aren't the most salient introductory facts about the war. A short recap of the events along the structure of the article's Contents (war breaks out, Finnish offensive, war in trenches, Soviet offensive, war ends) would make for a better introduction, I think. --Jouten 22:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction's focus 

message: BOB,BScar23625 You use an rivisionist term the "Moral equivalency" in order to negelect the victems of the  Sovietaggrision in exact the same way as nazi-revisionist tries to remove the last dignity of holoucast victem saying this did not happend.
My feeling to you after you walkt around at Lapperanta war cemetery, saying they deserved it because other vise its a "Moral equivalency" is really the same as the feeling toward David Irving walking around in Belsen saying it was just a SPA camp.
Shame on you Mr BOB!
--Posse72 11:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisionist against Finland