Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:54, 18 October 2006

Continuation War was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 3, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Military history Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

• Talk:Continuation War/Archive 1
• Talk:Continuation War/Archive 2

Introduction Query

I'd like the author to give me the source of their contention that Finnish public opinion views the Continuation War as inevitable. I can find plenty of evidence for this view about the Winter War but none from Turku's Library of Political Sciences for this view about the Continuation War, even from contemporaneous sources.

I'm not the author, but have you checked Ryti's and Paasikivi's diaries, Paasikivi's biography (sorry, don't remember the writer right away), Mannerheim's memoirs and Jokipii's "Jatkosodan synty"? All points out, that right after the Winter War there was no such feel of inevitability, but during the summer when Soviet Union pressured additional concessions and prevented closer co-operation with Sweden, the feeling of being on the Baltic road increased (Paasikivi,Mannerheim,Jokipii). According to Jokipii, it was the Petsamo crisis which made Mannerheim's and Ryti's mind that the second round is inevitable.

By default, the Continuation War is considered a war of choise, if we consider the situation from the end of the Winter War. But if we roll forward to June 22, then the war was already inevitable. It is interesting to look what happened between those two dates, so see Interim Peace. (Ok, its not a perfect name, but hopefully we find something better...)

I do believe that the articles are slightly skewed to an unflinchingly Finnish Nationalist pov and I say that as a long-term foreign resident of the country, which I hope qualifies me to pronounce on such things without fear of being insensitively blind to cultural pressures to conform to the state's view of history.

You are free to balance it, and I appreciate it greatly.

Can whoever wrote the article's introduction please insert some definite articles (THEs to English speakers) but that is a minor point.

As regards Nazism, there is a synagogue in Turku, which was closed down in 1943. A friend Antti has told me of a similar event in Naantali, but I have no dates for that. Also, the article skates around the thousands of Finns who joined the Viking Division of the SS to fight under the colours of Nazi Germany.

Thousands of Finns? 1,400 (1200 before Barbarossa and 200 replacements 1942)? At Naantali there wasn't Jewish parish, unlike at Helsinki, Turku, Viipuri and Tampere. If you have more sources on the issue, please insert those to the article.

Jatrius 08:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've refrained from editing until there may be a deeper consensus arrived at on the issue of inevitability.

The introduction needs rewriting, I agree. --Whiskey 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1/3rd of Soviet military machine

No idea what that is supposed to be, but unless the total Soviet military machine consisted of no more than 1.2 million soldiers, it is wrong. I have changed it, hopefully without changing the idea that should have come across. According to Krivosheev (see tables posted here), Leningrad Front committed 188,800 and Karelian Front 202,300. Together ca. 400,000. That includes air forces etc. Andreas 15:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it was some uninformed soul who confuses Winter War and Continuation War. At the end of Winter War, about the third of Soviet forces were deployed to the Finnish front. (Some sources put this to 40%.) Unfortunately it hadn't been only confusion in this article, but also other similar stupidness had been found here and also in related articles. But this is Misplaced Pages, and we have to endure and correct those. --Whiskey 19:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Petrozavodsk

Soviet troops occupied Petrozavodsk on 28 June 1944. - Eh, shouldn't it be retaken? With Petrozavodsk being an initially Russian city. --Illythr 23:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd favor even liberated. Retaken indicates that it was captured earlier but lost after that. Petrozavodsk was initially Russian/Soviet city, and it was occupied by Finns, so the liberation from occupation works fine. --Whiskey 11:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 'liberated' is apposite in this context. - Mikko H. 09:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have done the deed. Still, the next sentence (about food delivery and all) makes the whole paragraph look a bit strange. Perhaps reclaimed would be a good neutral replacement? --Illythr 10:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another minor unrelated thing: These, as well as some volunteers from the occupied Eastern Karelia, formed the Kin Battalion (Finnish: "Heimopataljoona"). At the end of the war, the USSR required that the members of the Tribe Battalion were to be handed over to the Soviet Union.

So, is it Kin or Tribe Battalion? Probably a minor translation mixup. --Illythr 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a current discussion on the naming issue in . Currently they seem to be favoring Kinship.:-) --Whiskey 10:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact the consensus favours 'Kindred' :-) - Mikko H. 07:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Like one of those Kindred? Whoah, scary! (Just kiddin'!) :-) --Illythr 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Introductionary paragraph

The introductionary paragraph starts to contain too much information. I think it could be a good idea to move that to the text and keep the paragraph as simple as possible. Both starting and ending of the war are fuzzy, and they can be properly only addressed in the text. Any opinions? --Whiskey 11:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the ending dates are mentioned twice and this sentence is, IMO, out of place there: Material support from, and military cooperation with Nazi Germany was critical for Finland's struggle with its larger neighbour. --Illythr 10:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have trimmed the intro down a bit. Mind checking it out? --Illythr 10:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A little bit better. I have more radical edit in mind, because for the ending dates one could use armstice September 4, 1944 (for Finns), September 5, 1944 (for Soviets), interim peace treaty September 19, 1944, Final peace treaty at Paris February 10, 1947 and ratification of the Paris peace treaty April 18, 1947 (for Finns) and August 29, 1947 (for Soviets). There is a similar bunch of dates concerning the beginning of the war. --Whiskey 11:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, but you said that the paragraph contains too much information! I thought you wanted removing stuff, not adding it?--Illythr 11:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I want to remove stuff, heavily, and put all those details in the text, not in the introductionary paragraph. I'll try to put in what I have in mind (and revert it immediately back.) --Whiskey 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Naturally the removed text and references should be located into the relevant place in the article. --Whiskey 11:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting statements

a) When the Finnish Army occupied russian East Karelia 1941–1944 several concentration camps were set up for Russian civilians. The first camp was set up on 24 October 1941, in Petrozavodsk. Around 9,000 of the prisoners perished due to malnourishment, 90% of them during the spring and summer 1942. - by user:Ben-Velvel
b) Before they retreated, Finns delivered food to people for two weeks. This is a rare or even unequaled act in the war history. - by user:Kahkonen

So, uh, which one's true? Any references? --Illythr 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

These aren't necassarily contradictory statements. Malnourishment was a serious problem early on, but things got better as the war progressed. Of the two statements a) is correct (although I can't check the numbers now), don't know about b). - Mikko H. 07:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Like Ben-Velvel wrote, most of these deaths occurred during the first winter and summer of the war, and Finns were not experienced to handle these kind of camps. The amount of food was in principle enough, but during the first year the quality of the food lacked too much, and people didn't have their homegrown additions due to displacement. Also, it should be noted, that only 13% of populace was confined to the camps at their highest, and the time Soviet forces liberated the region that had dropped to 7%. I don't have sources right now available to support claim b). What I do know about the situation, the Finns had depot in Petrozavodsk, and they managed to evacuate most of the military material from there. It could be that they made good of a necessity and distributed the left-over food to civilians instead of destroying it or giving it to advancing enemy. Maybe someone with more knowledge could inform us better...

For a a) claim the number seems to be inflated. At Finnish literature it is generally given as 4,000-4,500 people perished on the camps. At Soviet literature the numbers around 9,000 but also up to 12,000 has been seen. At the Finnish side the study of Antti Laine: "Suur-Suomen kahdet kasvot" (The two faces of Greater Finland) is the best source. Dr. Laine states that in no way there could have been more than 5,000 deaths in the camps and supports the official Finnish numbers received from official camp documentation. --Whiskey 09:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Helge Seppälä (one of the Finnish military historians more critical of Finnish actions) in Suomi miehittäjänä says c. 4000 people perished in the camps in 1941-44, c. 3500 of them in the summer of 1942. - Mikko H. 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Minimalist Introduction paragraph

It seems that people want to have a lot of information on the introductory paragraph. I suggest that we put the minimalist version of it and add all other information to the relevant places into the text itself. If you have something to complain about that, please state your claims in this talk page before editing the article itself. (And this article seems to be quite neutral, as it draws flak from left and right.;-) --Whiskey 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I wonder if that anon knows about the existence of talk pages...

PS: Hey Whiskey, noticed any Marxist statements in there? ;-) --Illythr 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody seems to believe that if something is found in the textbooks published in Soviet Union, it has to be marxist. ;-) (BTW, this is the first time I have been said to be marxist. So far I have been mostly fascist, nazi, right-extremist, lahtari, white officer or even socialist.8-))

I'll start myself the reasoning:

Why June 25: Neither Finland or Soviet Union acknowledged that the state of war existed between the nations at that time. Soviet ambassador Orlov still worked in Helsinki between June 22 and June 25.

Why September 19: The date when interim peace treaty was signed in Moscow. Even though cease fire had been in effect two weeks, the state of war still existed between the countries. --Whiskey 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic groups of East Karelia before 1917

In Russian Empire East Karelia was a part of the Province of Olonets (). 289,531 of its inhabitants were Russians, 62,695 people were finnic-speaking (but Orthodox) people of Karelians. Russian population of Karelia also was very ancient (russian settlements on Onega and Ladoga are known since 9th century).

p.s. I shall open to you a small secret :), the Russian population of all northern and northeast Russia is result of mixture of east Slavs with Finnic-speaking people and such active element as Scandinavians-vikings

Ben-Velvel 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not trust the tsarist census. Karelians may well claim to be Russian, and still be fluent in Finnish/Karelian. -- Petri Krohn 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

About "awful tsarism". Finns-Suomi and Karelians prospered in the Empire, no violent russification existed (have you other data?). By the way, the Great Duchy of Finland possessed the big privileges, for example, its natives were not called up for military service. It had independent police and bolsheviks easy lived in Finland while the imperial police strenuously searched for them... About Karelians. If you can translate from Russian, please read Brockhaus-Efron Encyclopedia. Karelians are one of peoples of the Finno-Ugrian language family, influenced by Russian culture already in the early Middle Ages.They are Orthodox. Please visit Petrozavodsk, if you do not trust me. It is necessary to distinguish actually Finns of Finland (Suomi) and numerous nationalities of Finno-Ugrian family living in Russia (Karelians, Mordva, Maris etc) Ben-Velvel 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

russian settlements on Onega and Ladoga are known since 9th century... Are you refering to Staraya Ladoga? This is not in East Karelia (athough the original inhabitants may have been finnic.) Can you cite sources?

West and East Karelia were the territories of medieval Novgorod principality ( ). Staraya Ladoga of 9th century was the center of northern Russia and had mixed population of east Slavs, Scandinavians and finnic tribes (not Suomi). In the West and East Karelia there are such ancient Russian Novgorod settlements as Korela (Priosersk), Olonets, Oreshek, Kargopol, Serdobol, Pudozh etc. The West Karelia only in 1617 has passed under the control of Swedes. The Russian imperial government has left the West Karelia in structure of Great Duchy of Finland after conquests of 1710 and 1809. The East Karelia always was part of Russia and had mixed Russo-Karelian population Brockhaus-Efron Encyclopedia. Ben-Velvel

Valaam monks claim the monastry was founded in the 9th century, not by Russian but by Greek monks. -- Petri Krohn 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Greek monks were in Kiev. They did not come far on the north :) Valaam monastery was founded by Russian monks Sergiy and German and has been populated by Russian monks over 1000 years and has been some times ruined by the Swedish forces. Ben-Velvel 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC), St.Petersburg

I question the following statement

"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)

Picture in "Finnish occupation policy"

The picture is soviet propaganda picture, i.e a fake one... in my opinion shouldn't be used or at least should be stated that it is a fake. (anon)

Please provide proof (i.e. references) to back up your claim. Fisenko 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It almost for sure is propaganda but there isn't anything faked still. There were children (30-40%) at the camps as they weren't split up with their parents. First they were put to quarantine camps that lasted for 2 weeks. There was a hospital at the camp, they could work on forestry works and do confession-"school" in church. After the quarantine the people were split to working places what they had done before; most ingrians were put to farming. Especially workers were needed at farming, food was really on scarce. But not to concentrate just on this side of the war - Soviet union's Gulags. Do you know how many people were put to Siberia from the Baltics? --Pudeo (Talk) 08:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should we talk about Gulag in the article dedicated to Finnish occupation policy in Soviet Karelia ? There are plenty of articles dedicated to Gulag on Misplaced Pages. Statements with no proof such as "this is almost for sure is propaganda" or tales about how "pleasant" it was for the Russians in Finnish concentration camps have little credibility either. The fact is there were Finnish concentration camps for ethnic Russian civilians during the war and this fact should be mentioned in the article. Fisenko 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a headache or something? :) I just told all the information I got from "Jatkosota Kronikka" ISBN 951-20-3661-4, 1991. As this information isn't told in the article either. It has that image and says after the occupation. But use logic, the image is classed as taken in the USSR before 1973. Therefore, it is taken by Soviet photographers, be they propaganda or whatever, doesn't matter. I don't know whether they left the workers in the camps or not so I don't know if they put some children in the camp again just to make images for propaganda against "nazism". And indeed the work camps have to be mentioned; Why I brought gulags is that this article doesn't cover Soviet attrocities, partisans and transports, russification of the ingrians and others. But I won't complain. --Pudeo (Talk) 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture should be removed. It gives a misleading idea that Finnish practises during the war were comparable with those promoted by Hitler and Stalin, leaders who had no idea of human dignity.Spespatriae 16:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ei helvetti, mikä typerys! Mene levittämään kuvottavaa russofiliaa muualle! --Jaakko Sivonen 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The photo is indeed fake and taken for propaganda by the Soviets after the war. My source is Muutosten maailma 4: Suomen historian käännekohtia (2005, WSOY), page 138 (ISBN 951-0-27645-6). If it is returned it must state clearly that it's a Soviet forgery, but it's best for it not to appear in the article since it gives the wrong picture for someone browsing through the article. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dividing a section

Could the "Finnish Offensive 1941"-section be divided somehow? At this moment it is very long and difficult to read. —MoRsΞ 14:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

The authors of this article may not have noticed it, but someone nominated your article for GA. It is clear, however, that you haven't finished it yet as you have some empty subsections to work on under "Finnish Offensive 1941". I would suggest that you remove the GA nomination until the work is finished.

After taking a glance, I have some tips:

1. Be careful about the length of the article. Although length is not a criterion, at 82 KB, it is quite long and it is rather noticeable. You have a few choices on handling the problem. One is to reduce the details of a subsection if there is already another main article covering the topic. Another is to split certain subsections to separate articles of their own. Third is to try to use more of a summary style. The day-by-day operational-level detail, especially the notes of the movements of each division is great for military historians, but as this is an encyclopaedia article, some editing might be order.
2. Avoid the one-sentence paragraphs.
3. Fill out the lead section so that it is a summary of the article, perhaps adding one or two more paragraphs.

This topic is an important contribution to Misplaced Pages so I hope you get this worked out soon and bring the article back for GA nomination. RelHistBuff 12:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have put up the failed GA template. As I mentioned, I believe the main authors did not even know the article was nominated, but in any case the article has to be treated and taken off the list if the nomination is not self-removed. For purposes of the GA process, I list the main reasons of failure as

1. it is not complete and missing certain subsections (failing criterion 3) and
2. it dwells too much on battle details so that the prose is no longer compelling (failing criterion 1)

Keep working at it and renominate it again. RelHistBuff 07:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As a main contributor I agree. I recognize that article is going too deeply in the issue, but I still plan to make whole 1941 in the similar manner initially, add the maps, and then shorten it on the second round for the suitable length. 1942-3 are easy, as not much happened, but then the 1944 is going to be more lengthy. --Whiskey 08:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Start-Class military history articles