Talk:Battle of Tali–Ihantala/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Further citations for the YMB29

Lunde p. 306, with regards to defensive victory (and to Tali-Ihantala):

It ended in a Finnish defensive victory, which undoubtedly had its impact on later political developments.

Lunde p. 307

The Soviets successively captured the small islands in the Gulf of Viipuri, The two islands of Teikarinsaari and Melansaari were defended tenaciously by the 22nd Coastal Artillery Regiment between July 3 and 5 but Soviets' vast superiority eventually prevailed.

The defensive operations by the Finns and Germans in the Bay of Viipuri became a victory when Lieutenant General Korovnikov received orders canceling his attack.

Lunde p. 308-309, with regards to Battle of Vuosalmi:

Nevertheless, the defenders were eventually able to limit the dangerous penetration and prevent a breakthrough. Finnish artillery continued to dominate the river crossing sites and this prevented a large inflow of Soviet reinforcements and complicated their supply situation. The combat activity lessened and the front took on the aspects of trench warfare.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Moisala & Alanen p. 154 (translated):

Soviet historian Colonel Morozov comes up with following conclusions from the Leningrad Fronts battles in Karelian Isthmus after the capture of the Viipuri: In this manner from 21 June to mid July over three weeks of continued offensive the forced of the right flank of the Leningrad Front were unable to carry out the tasks with had been assigned for it by STAVKA on 21 June 1941. Forces of the front failed to advance to the border (1940) and failed to clean Karelian Isthmus of enemy forces. By moving enough troops Finnish military leadership prevented Soviet forces from penetrating deeply into Finland.

Neither of the fronts participating to the offensive were able to carry out their operational-strategic goals which in fact resulted in Soviet Union failing (in its offensive) from military strategic perspective.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Raunio & Kilin p.204 - 205 (written by Juri Kilin) (translated):

224th Division (Soviet) which had shrunk to one third strenght was ordered to defense .. 59th Army did not carry out the orders given to it and its formations suffered heavy losses.

Raunio & Kilin p.198 - 199 (written by Juri Kilin) (translated):

160th Infantry Regiment (Soviet) that fought in Teikarinsaari suffered extremely heavy losses. According to reported losses of the 1266 strong landing party 1136 took part to the landing of which only 82 returned. 1027 were declared as missing though some of them later returned. Totally destroyed 160th Infantry Regiment lost all its heavy equipment on Teikarinsaari, including 4 x 45 mm antitank guns, 4 x 76 mm cannons, 6 x 120 mm mortars. Those who returned (from failed landing) carried between them only 79 rifles and submachineguns.

Raunio & Kilin p. 212 - 213 (by Kilin & Raunio) (translated):

Map describing the situation on 9 July 1944. Soviet 10th, 92nd, 142nd Divisions arrayed against Finnish 2nd Division.

As this was deemed in sufficient, then Moisala & Alanen p.149-150 (translated, segments)

On 4 July at 0350 started heavy artillery concentration on Finnish bridgehead and moments later Soviet bombers and ground attack planes appeared. Under cover of the artillery preparation Major General Jakusov's 381st Division and colonel Isakov's 281st Division formed for attack and started their assault. .. Finnish counter attacks however however effectively tied Anisimov's (98th Army Corps) troops and crossing planned on the night between 6-7 July failed. In same afternoon the battle for the Äyräpää bridgehead was concluded. Svetsov threw from Kozatseks Army Corps' (115th) 92nd Division which after intense barrage captured the ferry crossing... .. During the night Siilasvuo was reported that he was to receive command of the core of the Armored division which was to arrive at Vuosalmi on the following day. Division was split into two combat groups who organizing and preparing for counter attack took time. On 11 July did the counter attack start...

Marking clearly that Finnish defenders (ie. 2nd Division) faced three Soviet divisions until Armored division arrived. Unit numbers vary since the 115th Army Corps replaced the 98th at the lines - either way it does not matter, Finnish 2nd Division faced three Soviet divisions alone before reinforced. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Raunio & Kilin p. 215(by Kilin & Raunio) (translated):

Also 115th Army Corps' commander Major General Kozatsek gave 10 July order to attack. All three divisions of the army corps were assigned for the attack. Only reserve for the commander was to be 203rd Infantry Regiment.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Moisala & Alanen p. 155-156 (translated - bold replaced italics from source):

It is therefore wrong, against historical facts, to claim for example that "in summer 1944 Soviet Union could have crushed Finland if it had wanted to". According to Soviet researchers the opposite is true; Soviet leadership wanted to crush Finland militarily and it meant to do exactly that according to the plans laid out. Soviet Union did not gather nearly half a million man for to initial strike of the summer 1944 only to return restore borders of the Moscow peace or "to take back what rightfully according 1940 agreement belonged to it" as is sometimes heard. Soviet Union did not move its goals further into Finland before VT-line and Viipuri had been captured. The plan was from the start a large whole with goals set deep in Finland. And this goal was not just for marshals and generals operative plans, but had been told for example to standard line infantry men before 9 June when the assault battalions manned the trenches at the starting point of the offensive. From this there exists from both June and July convergent reports from POWs. Prisoners (POWs) had belonged to different outfits but their story is the same: Govorov had in his speech to the troops before the offensive stated the goals as 'Viipuri, 1940 border and Helsinki'. While attacking on the Isthmus in 1944 Simonjak's guardsmen and Busarov's, Alferov's and other Soviet generals' troops knew they were headed to Helsinki, and not just to the 1940 border. Govorov, Gusev and Svetsov with their soldiers did all they could to fulfill the orders from Moscow.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Moisala & Alanen (translated)

p. 58-59

Kreml informed on 10 March 1944 that the given terms were minimum (level) requirements. .. After two days Finland was informed that it was allowed to sent 1-2 negotiators to listen to the the (Soviet) interpretation of the terms.

p. 66-67

With the message he sent (on 23 June 1944) Stalin had now applied in practice the method of applying force granted for him by the joint Allied agreement: Finland had to surrender unconditionally.

Lunde

p. 259-260

That peace offer was now made through the Soviet ambassador in Stockholm, Alexandra Kollontai. Finland did not dare to jeopardize its relationship with the US and dispatched the former prime minister Dr. Juho K. Paasikivi, to Stockholm to receive the Soviet terms. .. Finnish delegation returned from Moscow on April 1, 1944. The conditions given the Finns for a peace were no more lenient than those offered in Stockholm.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Baryshnikov

So far I've only found his opinion pieces published under the aegis of the ultra-fringe Johan Bäckman Institute. I've been looking to no avail. Quite frankly, I never thought I'd run across an outfit that makes Dyukov look mainstream. Националист-патриот ►TALK 00:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that was a constructive comment... Yes let's remove him just because you don't like what he writes... -YMB29 (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the point is that I can't find him represented as a reputable historian other than by Bäckman. There's nothing about liking or disliking, no one considers Bäckman or his circle as mainstream. Националист-патриот ►TALK 02:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that Bäckman Baryshnikovis not a historian and is known to biased on the issue the fact that only Bäckman agrees with him is not much of a praise. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is Backman? The source is Baryshnikov, not Backman.

If you think he is unreliable or is fringe, that is your problem. Your personal opinion does not matter here. -YMB29 (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read what User:Vecrumba wrote on the matter. His views are not supported by anyone. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Only Bäckman represents Baryshnikov as a reputable historian, and, clearly, because Baryshnikov's writings align to Bäckman's (fringe) politics and agenda. I spent quite a bit of time doing some more searches subsequent to my earlier comment here, and after removing "Bäckman" and "wikipedia" the only claim that Baryshnikov is a historian is from unacknowledged Wikipedia clones of content editors have inserted that Baryshnikov is a historian. (There is a professor Baryshnikov, but he is a professor of linguistics.)

With regard to not advancing to Helsinki, of course Soviet historiography is going to be the proverbial sour grapes (we weren't planning to take it anyway). Look at the case of the Courland Pocket, where Stalin poured in division after division to be slaughtered; yet Soviet historiography describes it as a pimple on the glorious advance to Berlin (Germans cut off, ignored, and just held in to prevent their escape). We can present Soviet accounts/accounts based on Soviet evidence, but only if they are specifically identified as such. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29, really, the paucity of editors unwilling to expend their energies to engage you in debate here over your championing of Soviet WWII historiography with regard to the Soviet-Finnish conflict (and my thanks to Wanderer602 for his editorial thick skin) does not reflect on the merit of my editorial position on Baryshnikov and his association with Bäckman. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29, and are you really unaware of who Bäckman is? Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your obsession with the Courland Pocket out of this article. Everyone knows your POV when it comes to Soviet/Russian history...

I don't know who Backman is and I don't care. Criticize the author not the publisher. -YMB29 (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that no one but the publisher (ie. the said Bäckman) is the main proponent of the Baryshnikovs views. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Says who? -YMB29 (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29, please provide background information on Baryshnikov that qualifies him as a historian. I can't find any other than ones which trace back to his association with Johan Bäckman. I'm sorry you didn't see the applicability of the Courland Pocket example here. BTW, it's not my POV, it's simply what's in sources, official Soviet being completely different from western or Baltic or Finnic. Националист-патриот ►TALK 18:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes "it is simply in the sources", in the sources that you like... The others you ignore. It is up to you to prove that Baryshnikov is unreliable. -YMB29 (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't ignore any sources. I do fact check and try to stick to those sources which the academic community have acclaimed for their scholarship. Really, your beating the drum that I discard what I don't approve of could apply to yourself, so I would suggest staying away from your personal opinions of myself and other editors.

Getting back to the topic, that Baryshnikov is in intellectual bed with Bäckman already makes him a fringe source. But baby steps first, surely at least Baryshnikov's personal if not academic background is available to give a hint at his qualifications. Националист-патриот ►TALK 20:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you research that first before reverting edits sourced to him? I don't have to provide you anything. If you think he is unreliable, prove it, and not with your personal opinion. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to revert information sourced to him. You need to stop edit warring. You can help make this article balanced, or will you continue your reverting? -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29, your "balance" appears to be that Baryshnikov gets the last word on everything. That is bias, not balance. See my comments to you below. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No the only reason it looks like "he got the last word in everything" is because the Finnish view is presented as indisputable fact, and I had to add "however..." -YMB29 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... In the preface of his book Baryshnikov writes that he presents a view which is not supported by almost all of Finnish and Russian historians. He writes it was one of the main reasons he wrote the book because he saw the view presented by majority of Finnish and Russian historians not being the correct one. I really welcome his book, because it had prompted even more thorough handling of the issue than before. Which is always good. --Whiskey (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So Baryshnikov himself states that his view is a fringe view (ie. an outlier) and differs from the mainstream. Thank you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Only if you trust what he writes... --Whiskey (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How you love to manipulate sources... Where does he say that?

What he writes is that Soviet/Russian historians have been quiet about Finland's involvement in the Siege of Leningrad because Finland was a friend during the Cold War. -YMB29 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Finland was a country whose domestic policies were severely impinged upon by the USSR, which also exacted massive reparations (despite the USSR having been the initial aggressor), and Pravda denounced Cajander as a buffoon when Finland rejected the original pact of mutual assistance. "Friend"? Please, there was no friendship. Russian/Soviet historians have been quiet because they haven't had any facts they could use to denounce Finland as having participated in the siege of Leningrad. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that you want to fight the evil Soviet POV and prove that the USSR wanted to take over the world in all articles, but we are discussing specific issues here... So making such wild accusations here that are off-topic is not helping. -YMB29 (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, simple historical verified facts (we're not even talking "truths" here) denounced as "wild accusations." The Soviet Union can count many true accomplishments. Its actions regarding Finland were not among those. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So why can't you mention your "historical verified facts" when the time and place are right? -YMB29 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As in the USSR as an aggressor? Finnish forces stopping short of participating in the siege of Leningrad? You denounce any facts Baryshnikov disputes as Finnish lies and promote Baryshnikov's fanciful constructs as true. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Look who is talking about "fanciful constructs"... Unlike you I don't denounce anything as lies.

Anyway, if you did not know, the topic here is not who was the aggressor or the Siege of Leningrad... -YMB29 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

OR regarding - "repeat the Finnish views"

However these non-Finnish historians mostly just repeat the Finnish views.

Are there any sources supporting this? Or is this original research? In other words is there proof that they just repeat the Finnish views or did they come up with the same conclusion on their own. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is just as good as your "not widely supported". -YMB29 (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. Since there are non-Finnish historians which state that either you must prove that they are using Finnish sources or otherwise that is your OR. There is considerable difference between the that and the statement you mentioned. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29, your personal opinion that western sources merely parrot the Finns does not constitute encyclopedic content. Националист-патриот ►TALK 19:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither does his opinion that what Baryshnikov writes is not widely supported... -YMB29 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Baryshnikov being not widely supported is rather easy to see, there are several authors who directly contradict his claims while there are very few (if any) authors who actually support his views. That however is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Fact is that the non-Finnish historians have the same conclusions as the Finns. What is your OR is that they would 'just repeat' the Finnish views - if they come to the same conclusion it is not 'just repeating'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No they just look at Finnish sources without looking at Soviet/Russian ones. I mean they were not there writing everything down... So the information they get can for the most part come either from Finnish or Soviet sources.

Baryshnikov clearly says that such claims come from Finnish historiography, and your claim that he is not widely supported is OR... -YMB29 (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And you have proof of what you said or is that more of your OR? Baryshnikov may be right about that the idea are represented in Finnish historiography however that does not mean that non-Finnish historian who uses primarily non-Finnish sources would automatically be 'follower of Finnish historiography' (that part is OR) - even when he would comes up with same conclusion as the Finns does not mean that. So far it has been trivial to prove that Baryshnikov's ideas are in minority since there are several opposing authors so i fail to see your point. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This again is your OR...

And stop pretending that you did not read the preface section of the Lunde book... -YMB29 (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I did read it, but unlikely you seem to have done I read it from start to the end and not just a single paragraph. So far you have provided nothing which would make your claims anything else than OR. Instead of arguing try to provide sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a source for what I say (about Finnish historiography), while you use your OR to try to disprove it. I have quoted the relevant parts from the preface but you just ignore them... -YMB29 (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually you have a source which states that such claims are of Finnish historiography and when you saw similar claims being represented from non-Finnish author you made conclusion (which on its own is already OR) that it was following Finnish historiography as well. What you need to do for such a claim to be valid is to prove that Lunde would have only used Finnish conclusions without coming up with the same conclusion on his own. Since Lunde's books preface clearly states that he had problems with both Finnish and Russian sources and that he therefore was forced to use primarily other sources than either Finnish or Russian and because the chapter reference list clearly marks his main sources on the chapter in question as being Erfurt and Ziemke your claim that he would be 'following Finnish historiography' are OR at best. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, your claims that he represents German or some other historiography (when he talks about victory) and that Baryshnikov is wrong is obvious OR. -YMB29 (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't claim anything such. There just is no evidence - other than your OR - that Lunde would represent Finnish historiography. Furthermore the claim you made (the quote on top) indicates or insinuates that Lunde would not have made any conclusions on his own. Do you have any evidence of that either or is that yet another of your OR? - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote means that he does not make his own conclusions without being influenced by Finnish sources. If you want to deny your claims and ignore evidence then that is your choice. -YMB29 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So far you have been unable - apart from OR and synthesis - from showing that he would have been influenced by Finnish sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You are the one making the claim that he is not, when there is evidence that suggests otherwise. -YMB29 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That 'evidence' is based on your original synthesis and is so your original research. Nothing more needs to be said. Regardless of what conclusion he ends up with you actually need to prove that did not make his own conclusion but instead used preexisting Finnish one for your claim to be valid and not OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My evidence cannot be considered OR since I don't try to insert it into the article, unlike you with your OR... -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But you are using it in the article which makes it original synthesis and therefore OR. Every time you make a claim that Lunde or other non-Finnish authors are using Finnish conclusions or using Finnish historiography you are inserting nothing but original synthesis ie. original research into the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not insert it into the article until you shamelessly inserted your OR; I only inserted it to directly counter your OR. -YMB29 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

So far you haven't stated what such OR would have been - one quoted in the 'POV' section actually already had had your OR regarding Baryshnikov and non-Finnish historians in it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No there was no OR until you added that Lunde proves Baryshnikov wrong just because he is not Finnish: however contrary to the Baryshnikov's claim several non Finnish historians also hold contradictory views to the one held by Baryshnikov. -YMB29 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And what in that would be OR? Baryshnikov states that such an expression is used by Finns. Lunde comes up with similar conclusion as the Finns. The conclusion Lunde represents contradicts what Baryshnikov concludes. Lunde is non Finnish - nor is he alone supporting the view. So far only OR with that regard is from you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You described your synthesis well there...

Baryshnikov does not say anything about such views being limited to Finns; this is your conclusion. -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

But he did describe them as being part of Finnish historiography? So far your claim that Lunde would be 'part' or 'follow' that or use their conclusions have been nothing but your OR. Just because Lunde reaches similar conclusions as 'Finish historiography' does not make his work part of it nor does it mean he would be influenced by it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So where is your source for that analysis? You are making the claim that he has nothing to do with Finnish historiography and that Baryshnikov is wrong. You can't say that a historian is wrong based on your own analysis. -YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So far you have not provided anything beyond your own original research or original synthesis that would mean that Lunde has anything to do with Finnish historiography. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Now you are just repeating the exact same thing because you have no real arguments... Get some sources for your OR regarding Baryshnikov and Lunde or else drop it. -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually i do not need any - since your claim is nothing but your own original research and original synthesis. It is easy to point out that Baryshnikov could not have referred to Lunde his Lunde's book was published several years after Baryshnikov's. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Here you claim that Lunde published something radically new and did not base it on Finnish sources, and therefore Baryshnikov is wrong. Pure baseless OR... -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Lunde does not need to have published something radically new. He came up with the conclusion presented in the article and so far you have nothing but your OR to prove that Lunde would have been following Finnish sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So what sources does he follow? Russian ones? I am not trying to prove anything; you are the one who tries to claim the opposite with your OR about Baryshnikov. -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not my place to state which sources he follows. As far as can be concluded he made his own conclusions. If you claim that he would be following Finnish historiography you actually need to prove it, and not with your original research or original synthesis. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as can be concluded he made his own conclusions. - Concluded by you? Where is your source? You are the one claiming that this somehow proves Baryshnikov wrong... So get a source and stop wasting everyone's time. -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What i meant there are nothing in support of the claim that he wouldn't have done his own conclusions. Neither is there any support for the claim that he would be using exclusively Finnish sources or using Finnish conclusions. All that was your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So again where do you see me saying that or inserting that into the article?

What you meant... It is not about what you meant or did not mean. You don't have a source and so you are just trying to get around this by blaming me. -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If you imply he would be following some historiography that is a claim and requires proof. So far you only proof of such has been your own OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So it is not you who makes claims in the article? So far your only response to requests to provide sources has been to accuse me of OR. That is the only thing you can do I guess... -YMB29 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying Lunde would be following any specific sources or historiography - you however have made such claims. So it falls to you to prove it - not to any one else - oh, and not with your OR evidence. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Denying what you wrote is not going to help you... -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

however contrary to Baryshnikov's claim the view of the Finnish victory exists also amongst non-Finnish historians You did not write this? -YMB29 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and what in that would be OR? Baryshnikov claims that the view of the Finnish victory is a Finnish view on the matter. Several non-Finnish historians however came to same conclusion as the Finns (ie. Finnish victory). Just because they reach same conclusion as the Finns do not make 'followers of Finnish historiography' nor does it make them Finnish. The comment only states that against Baryshnikov's claim the view of the Finnish victory exists also outside of Finland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Again where is your source for this analysis of Baryshnikov? You can't analyze yourself... Your interpretations are completely wrong too. Baryshnikov does not say that the view is limited to Finnish historians and you continue to falsely claim that a non-Finnish author cannot follow Finnish historiography. -YMB29 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That Baryshnikov would say that a view is limited to Finnish historians is strongly implied in the article. As before, just because a author reaches same conclusion as the Finns have done does not mean he would be following Finnish historiography. It is possible that a non-Finnish author would 'follow Finnish historiography' but you actually need to prove it before you can claim it. And as above just coming to the same conclusion is not proof of that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A biased source denouncing Western scholarship as parroting the Finnish account of the war (e.g., Baryshnikov) is an allegation at best, even sourced. As we've established there is Western scholarship which looks at both Finnish and Russian sources without bias (e.g., Lunde), that would appear to be the least biased in favoring one set of sources or the other.

@YMB29, if you insist in mixing (a) Soviet/nationalist Russian versions versus (b) Finnish versus (c) outside Western scholarship in a sea of endless mishmosh of "he said, she said, they said", it might be better to present those separately. With regard to Baryshnikov, any time a "scholar" denounces scholarship as opposed to examining it, that is a red flag (no pun intended). You would also do better to rely on scholars of the Soviet/nationalist Russian (and as you present it at least, anti-Finnish and anti-Western) viewpoint who are not associated with political extremists. Националист-патриот ►TALK 13:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Before you make assumptions about sources you should get familiar with them... No one is denouncing "Western scholarship" as parroting Finnish historiography. And no, Lunde does not "look at both Finnish and Russian sources without bias"...

Baryshnikov does not denounce anything, he examines and criticizes.

You have made a number of strong accusations that have no basis. I suggest you keep your personal bias against Soviet and Russian sources to yourself. -YMB29 (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is very interesting that YMB29 complains that western historians are parroting Finnish views. From my experience it is totally the other way around: Western historians generally ignore Finnish sources and parrot Soviet views. In my years in Wikipedia I have repeatedly met contributers who base their writings to the sources, whose writers have used solely Russian/Soviet and German sources for happenings in Finnish front, totally omitting any Finnish sources. When you add to this that Finnish front has not been high on priority in Russia, Germany, Great Britain or USA, those writing on it haven't been very careful to get facts correctly, it has been very embarrassing experience to read those sources; They couldn't get even geography right!

Anyway, during the last decade there has been some improvement. I don't know how much Wikipedia has helped, but at least we have brought to attention several available Finnish sources which could be used, and we have ridiculed older authors and their books enough that future writers want to avoid the public humiliation they would receive here if they do their work halfhearted.

YMB29, don't blame the messanger. Get to the message, as we Finns have done. Don't accuse the bias but point out sources, more low level the better, which contradict the views you want to fight. You have to get so deep in your sources that all political motivations and hindsights could be worked out. For an example: Somebody claimed that Finns severed Leningrad's rail connection around the Lake Ladoga by capturing Vyborg. I countered with the information that 1)there was another rail connection running well east of Vyborg round the Lake and 2)Finns had already severed the land connection round the Lake Ladoga six weeks before the capture of Vyborg north of the Lake at Loimola(rail) and Koirinoja(road). Work to that direction. --Whiskey (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Who am I blaming? I do use sources that contradict some Finnish views, but usually you just denounce them as incompetent or fringe.

You think that the Finnish views are not represented enough in Western literature? Well Lunde's book is not an example of this... -YMB29 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If the author doesn't get his facts right, and if it is easy to prove it from other sources, then he is incompetent (or he doesn't care...). If he is not supported by a majority of other historians, he is fringe. (Believe me, there exists a number of them in Finland also.) It is especially easy to counter presented political views, as commonly there are so many different views and opinions presented that it is as easy to pick suitable set for any presented view as it is to the opposing views. So, it is much better to forget absolute truth when dealing with political side, but constrain to presenting differing views with their supporting and opposing facts. On the other hand, when we are dealing with facts which cannot be interpreted, then these should be presented as such. When you are dealing with a person like Baryshnikov, who rises new points of view to the discussion, it is much better to handle him cautiously, presenting him as an opponent to the majority view instead of giving him equal weight. If the interpretation of the facts he presents fits better to the big picture than existing theories, then his view will eventually replace the existing theories. If not, then the existing theory prevails. Most likely outcome is that if the facts Baryshnikov presents are good enough they couldn't be passed, but not overwhelming, the existing theory will be modified to fit those facts.

What this has to do with this article? First, let's get down to the facts on the ground: Who was there? What they were ordered to do? What happened? What was the end situation? This should be quite straightforward. Second, let's move the political stuff to their own sections, give first the majority view (with reasoning) and then minority views with their reasonings, all sourced. Remember: There aren't absolute facts in politics and human mind. --Whiskey (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you decide what is the majority view? In this case there is the Finnish view and Baryshnikov's, who represents the Russian view, that directly challenges it. Then there are sources that indirectly challenge the Finnish view, such as those that disprove the claims of unconditional surrender and conquering Finland. So you cannot call the Finnish view (unconditional surrender demand, goal to conquer Finland, decisive defensive victories, separate favorable peace) the majority view. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, YMB29 maintains (my paraphrasing follows) that any source that agrees with (majority) Finnish accounts is just a mouthpiece for anti-Soviet and by implication Russophobic Finnish propaganda. Hence I have suggested the alternative for separation of accounts by predominant western scholarship, any Finnish scholarship out of the mainstream, and supporters of the anti-(western, Finnish, majority) position. YMB29's attempts seeming at every point to insert a source published by a fringe political organization as having the last word and as being the most reliable (Baryshnikov) is the problem here. Unfortunately, these sources don't even agree on basic facts, let alone interpretations thereof, so the ultimate solution may need to be complete separation. It's not my preference to give historical accounts advocated for by the political fringe (Bäckman, SAFKA) their own soapbox section in encyclopedic articles, but as long as YMB29 insists on the path they are taking, that may be the only alternative. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well at least you did not accuse me of being paid by Bäckman...

Your attempt to closely associate Baryshnikov with Bäckman is ridiculous...

Also, don't try to associate the Finnish view with the Western one, and claim that it is the majority.

As far as the separation of accounts, I already did that in the last version. -YMB29 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Soviet strength

Just started wondering this after seeing an interesting ref that Soviet strength would have been 44 000 to 60 000. Since Soviet forces deployed quite a bit of their forces to the battle...

Just infantry formations: Army Corps: 30th Guards, 6th, 97th, 108th, 109th, 110th which had together following (rifle) divisions: 45th Guards, 63rd Guards, 64th Guards, 13th, 46th, 72nd, 90th, 109th, 168th, 177th, 178th, 265th, 268th, 286th, 314th, 358th, 372nd, 382nd. Of together from 21st and 23rd Armies. That is not taking account the several armored regiments (or brigades) or artillery units that took part into the fighting. But regardless that gives 18 Soviet divisions with combined strength of 44 000 to 60 000 men. So was Soviet rifle divisions strength before the fighting started really from 2 500 to 3 500 men? That is assuming all the strength is divided merely with infantry formations leave none for armored or artillery units. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The Russian source says 12 divisions with 4,000-5,000 men in each. -YMB29 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian historian (Juri Kilin) mentions by name (from the 'Jatkosodan torjuntataisteluja 1942-44') 18 different rifle divisions (of which 3 guards) which according to Soviet archives took part to the fighting extending from Suomenvedenpohja to Vuoksi (ie. both 21st and 23rd armies). Furthermore that does not take account armored units or supporting artillery units. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the "Strength" and "Casualties and Losses" with non-partisan #'s. I'm not one for doing more than a simple <ref>...</ref>, however, I did start up a bibliography subsection under references. As sources are added we should follow that format as it makes it more straightforward to mention page numbers and/or include quotations for verification. On the above, "Finland at War" lists 14 divisions but that's only for the 21st as the main force. Националист-патриот ►TALK 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Baryshnikov quote

From Finland and the Siege of Leningrad, 1941-1944

Translation:

In the historical literature of Finland, the defensive battles that were fought by the Finnish Army after the Soviet troops took Vyborg are described in detail. Then the exceptional resilience of the Finnish soldiers showed, as they received help from the German air force, anti-tank weapons and an artillery assault brigade. Northeast of Vyborg, in battles at Tali and Ihantala, as well as in the defense of the Vuoksi water system in areas of Vuosalmi and Äyräpää, the advance of the 21st and 23rd Armies did not succeed in overcoming the resistance of the defenders after several attempts and in making any significant progress. As a result in some Finnish publications, the fighting was given this sort of definition: "The victory in the confrontation." This was given a special and profound meaning: "After a prediction of total disaster - as written in the multi-volume, 'A Nation at War' - victory was achieved (my emphasis - NB) in the confrontation."

In this definition, the meaning of the fighting on the Karelian Isthmus during the 23 days after the 21st Army took Vyborg, contains an obvious exaggeration. At the same time it served as the basis to present the situation as if the Soviet troops were prevented from occupying all of Finland. This is clearly evident, in particular, in the article of Professor Manninen, "Large-scale Offensive and Its Goals" from the Journal of Military History that was published in Finland for the 50th anniversary of the mentioned battles. This publication and other material in this journal are presented under the single title: "Victory In the Confrontation 1944."

It is noteworthy that in that article by the distinguished scholar and longtime colleague, Professor Manninen, the most important piece is missing - operational documents of the General Staff of the Red Army, based on the decisions of the Stavka. They could prove or disprove the existence of the "large-scale plans for Finland," during the final phase of the Battle for Leningrad, ie, when the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Strategic Offensive was conducted. In the mentioned publication, as well as in the previously published book by Master of Philosophy, Pentti Alanen - "How the Path of Invasion Was Shut Down," Manninen makes, unfortunately, references to sources that are not documents. P. Alanen writes, in part, that during the summer of 1944, the "senior military leadership of the Soviet Union wanted (my emphasis - NB) to crush Finland by military means," and that such plans it "brought to its troops." According to him, this was reported by prisoners of war and "Govorov, in his address to the troops before the offensive, confirmed the need to reach Vyborg, the border of 1940, and Helsinki." Saying that Govorov and the other generals "let all of their soldiers know the orders from Moscow", Alanen does not indicate what kind of "orders" he is specifically talking about.

-YMB29 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

From The Phenomenon of Lies: 'The Victory in the Confrontation'

Translation:

Let's get back to what was happening at the front during the fighting on the Karelian Isthmus and in Karelia in June-July of 1944. In the presence of even large-scale operational plans of warfare against the Finnish Army, the Soviet Stavka decided on very limited tasks for further combat, even before the capture of Vyborg. This is evidenced by the Chief of General Staff, Marshal A. M. Vasilevsky. He writes that on June 17 he and General Antonov discussed with Stalin prospects for the development of operations against Finland, and then it was decided that "after the capture of Vyborg we will need to continue the offensive, and when our troops reach the line of Elesenvaara - Imatra - Virojoki and, with the help of the Baltic Fleet, liberate Big Birch and other islands of the Bay of Vyborg, we will be firmly set on the Karelian Isthmus, and switching over to defense, we will focus the Leningrad Front on the battles for the liberation of Estonia."

Generally the idea was, according to General S. Shtemenko, "to create a threat of invasion by Soviet forces deep into Finland, to the main political and economic centers, including Helsinki." However, the focus on reaching the line described by Vasilevsky meant a real advance of only a little further than the state border with Finland.

The fighting to achieve the Soviet goal got fierce due to the increased resistance of the defenders from the Finnish side. An essential role in this was played by the transfer to the Karelian Isthmus the maximum possible number of additional troops from the reserve and other parts of the front. According to Finnish and Russian military historians the concentration of combat forces reached three-quarters of the Finnish Army. The grouping of the Finnish troops had more than doubled, to five divisions and three brigades. Besides this, there was considerable aid from Germany...

Although it did not result in six divisions being given to Finland, German assistance was very significant. Specifically, Finland quickly received 70 aircraft of the 5th German Air Force, a brigade of propelled guns, 10,500 anti-tank rifles, 5000 "Faust" rounds, and an infantry division was transferred from Army Group "North" to the front. The precision in fulfilling what was promised, says General W. Erfurt, the show of "commitment by the Germans, led to open joy and relief in the Finnish command."

Of course, these measures did achieve an effect. First of all, the Finnish command noted significant changes in the morale of the defenders, as they started to have confidence in their defense, began to show strength in battle, which was not observed before when they retreated in panic and abandoned heavily fortified positions. The claim of achieving a supposed "victory" that appeared in the propaganda then took on an official definition in Finnish historiography as a "victory in the confrontation." It contends that the Soviet troops were stopped and thus the threat of occupation of the country by them was liquidated.

-YMB29 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

About the surrender documents:

Thus in this case Stalin did not say unconditional surrender, but just surrender, which included bilateral negotiations concerning the determination of terms for the armistice agreement. For this a Finnish delegation was expected to come to Moscow. In other words, with this formulation surrender meant to follow the demand to lay down arms, that is to stop the hostilities so that peace talks could begin. Also during June-August of 1944, the Armistice Commission, that existed in the USSR since September of 1943 and headed by K. E. Voroshilov, was preparing protocols for the surrender terms for Finland, Romania and Hungary, replacing the existing draft documents of unconditional surrender of these three states. These new "conditions" were given to V. M. Molotov and later used as the basis for preparing the corresponding peace agreements.

-YMB29 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Intent

Finns were intent on whacking the USSR (take Leningrad, etc.), per anti-Finnish accounts.

Meanwhile, as I recall, Molotov confided to his then buddies in Berlin in 1940 that the USSR intended to totally subjugate Finland. It's only when that proved impossible that the Soviet public party line subsequently became that an independent Finland was in the best interests of the USSR. Националист-патриот ►TALK 15:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting little theory... It is off topic too... -YMB29 (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not off topic if we are painting Finns to be the Hitlerian aggressors and the Soviets their intended victims. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That Stalin's professing to Churchill and FDR that an independent Finland was in the interests of the USSR was a reflection of the Winter War not having gone the USSR's way given Molotov's original confiding in the Germans, not that Stalin did not intend to conquer Finland. Am I being that unclear? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I still don't see what the Winter War has to do with Stalin's decision or the issues in this article. -YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagreements about text

Intro

From the intro:

The battle was one of attrition — with the Finns suffering proportionally more casualties than the Soviet forces.^[15] Nevertheless Finnish forces managed to prevent the Soviet forces from advancing.^{[16][17][15][18][19]} Some historians believe this helped save Finland from unconditional surrender and occupation,^[15][20] however there is evidence against the assumption that Finland ever faced such threats.^{[21][22][18][19]}

So what is wrong with this? "I don't like it" is not an answer... -YMB29 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can't quote Baryshnikov twice—I'd prefer none, for reasons already clearly stated, having nothing to do with "I don't like it." As for your "some" versus "evidence" I'll need to do some review of sources. That there is a plethora of scholars who believe it unlikely Finland "ever faced such threats" sounds more than overstated (except if you're quoting Baryshnikov, who does not rate being a reliable or reputable source). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

He "does not rate being a reliable or reputable source" according to you. Like I said "I don't like it" is not an argument.

Are you doubting what the American ambassador reported or what Soviet generals have said? -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem is not what is included but what you removed from there.

The battle was one of attrition - with the Finns suffering proportionally more casualties than the Soviet forces. Nevertheless Finnish forces achieved a defensive victory preventing Soviet forces from advancing on to Helsinki. In the face of these circumstances, Stalin ultimately chose to pursue a separate armistice with Finland, having earlier professed at Tehran that an independent Finland was a Soviet goal. However, after Finnish unwillingness to accept the Soviet proposals in April 1944 owing to excessive reparation demands, Finland was to be offered only unconditional capitulation. Stalin even told American ambassador Harriman that US diplomats can try to clarify to the Finns that he had no intend to take over the country. Churchill had already been adamant in 1943 that as an Axis belligerent, Finland's surrender must be unconditional.

The real question is why you deleted most of the intro. Like you so quaintly pointed out "I don't like it" is not an answer. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The first bolded sentence makes it look like the Soviet intent to advance to Helsinki is a fact. The second presents the claim of unconditional surrender offer as fact. And I don't understand the need for the last bolded sentence; what does Churchill have to do with this? The intro should be simple and to the point, not a series of contradicting sentences. -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That was not really the point - problem was that you erased all references that even slightly contradicted your point of view on the issue. You did not strive for a compromise but instead you erased everything that you just did not like about. Demand for unconditional surrender was how it was interpreted so it does not really matter how Soviet leadership hoped it meant if they were incapable of expressing simple matters in dis-ambiguous manner. Battle has been marked in Western, Finnish, and even in some Russian texts as Finnish victory, that should be represented in the intro - you do not need to like about it but that is how it is. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You can put that the battle was a defensive victory, but you have to add to that: "from the Finnish point of view" (not saying "according to Finnish historiography only").

As for you saying that it does not matter what the Soviets really meant, it does matter since you are claiming that the Finns forced the Soviets to change their minds; if the Soviets had already decided some time ago about their goals in regard to Finland, then saying things like that is very misleading... You can't insert misleading statements or present disputable conclusions as undeniable facts. -YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

However Lunde is not Finnish nor are there anything beyond you original research or original synthesis to indicate that he would be using Finnish point of view so the is no need to express that it would be solely from Finnish point of view. Also it happens to be indisputable fact that Soviet 'terms' were understood to be demand for unconditional surrender. That is also a undeniable fact regardless of what Soviets claim to have actually meant with their demand. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I quoted the actual text of the demand so you can read it. Where do you see the word unconditional there? If the Finns misinterpreted it, that was their problem.

Like I said, I am not saying "according to Finnish historiography only". It was not a clear victory where the Soviet forces were routed or lost significant ground. It was a defensive victory from the Finnish point of view, as the Finns held their ground and did not retreat in panic like before (Baryshnikov explains this). -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter what Soviets claimed it proposal was. How Finnish read it however does - Soviets' inability to express even simple statements in writing however is obvious. Several sources state that it was Finnish victory, Baryshnikov may disagree but we are not writing the article according to his version of history. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And we are not writing the article only based on the Finnish point of view...

Well the text of the demand is simple enough... If for you it does not matter what the Soviets meant then don't claim that the Finns made them change their minds. -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It could not have been simple enough if it caused as much of a discussion as it has. You got me wrong, as the demand was as poorly phrased as it was, that is ambiguous enough to be understood to be demand for demand for unconditional surrender, it hardly matters what Soviet intent with the paper was - what matters is how it was interpreted. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok so then the following needs to be removed from the article: Nevertheless Finnish forces achieved a defensive victory preventing Soviet forces from advancing on to Helsinki. In the face of these circumstances, Stalin ultimately chose to pursue a separate armistice with Finland.

And it must be really hard to see something in the text that is not there... -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not, actually the sources you are using state explicitly that the result was Finnish (defensive) victory. Your source manipulation to represent them as stating something they are not does not really help. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you can put this into the article but then the other view has to be stated. I was hoping to compromise with a neutral statement.

And what source are you talking about? -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Lunde states that. From word to word. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I am not the one using Lunde. -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not my affairs to judge which sources to use but misrepresenting them is against wiki rules. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes tell yourself that... -YMB29 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So in your version of wiki there is nothing wrong in misrepresenting sources? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a question you should ask yourself. -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

So far you have not pointed out such sections while your edit regarding Lunde's statement clearly was misrepresenting the source. Could you be more specific? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You have failed to provide examples of me misrepresenting a source. How many times do I have to point to and quote your OR? See the dispute report again... -YMB29 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You already did that with Lunde, as seen from the diff already posted here. You made it appear as if he had stated that Finnish had not gained victory while in fact he wrote that they had. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? -YMB29 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Lunde explicitly stated that Tali-Ihantala was a Finnish victory. Yet you in your edits made it appear otherwise. [1] - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, what is missing is the only archival evidence from Soviet archives of possible Soviet peace conditions from June 1944, the famous draft of the Finnish unconditional surrender treaty. --Whiskey (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The speculation about that draft and arguments against it being evidence can be added into another section, or you want to flood the intro? -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, this whole stuff doesn't belong to the intro. Howabout replacing it with the note that it was the culmination point of the V-P offensive for the Leningrad Front? --Whiskey (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And what evidence is there that it was the culmination point for the offensive? The people planning and directing it say otherwise... -YMB29 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Tali-Ihantala marked point where Soviet failures began. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say that as the casualties of the battle were 1/6 of all Finnish Karelian Isthmus casualties of Soviet summer offensive and over 1/5 of all Leningrad Front casualties of the offensive, and as it was the high-water-mark of the main Soviet thrust, eventhough it was not meant to be a culmination point, in reality it was. --Whiskey (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are talking about this battle being the culmination point; I thought you meant something else... You can put that it was the culmination point of the combat on the isthmus, in terms of it being the fiercest fighting, if there is a source for this. Just don't say that it was the turning point in that it decided Finland's fate, since that is not true or at least very debatable. -YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Except there are several sources stating exactly that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And several sources proving them wrong... -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Finnish opinion on the matter is equally valid compared to Soviet claims. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if you say equally then don't try to censor information that proves the Soviet view.

And it is not my opinion. -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been going around deleting reliable sources like certain others. I have no problem with representing Soviet view if criticism to it is also included. Your edits however have shown that you allow no criticism against 'information that proves the Soviet view.' - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You are the one trying to discredit criticism of the Finnish view by your misuse of sources. If you want to criticize the criticism of the Finnish view, find reliable sources that actually do that and don't make criticisms up by misusing reliable sources and inserting pure OR. The problem for you is that Baryshnikov directly criticizes and analyzes the pro-Finnish views, but you don't have a source that criticizes Baryshnikov's arguments. -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Because you have the opinion that Baryshnikov is right does not give you right to delete reliable sources from the article. That is disruptive editing. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No you are very disruptive when you try to misuse sources to criticize Baryshnikov when they are not criticizing him but are actually being criticized by him. -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So according to you only what Baryshnikov claims is valid and not what he criticizes? - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? I don't understand... -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The books Baryshnikov criticizes are as valid in the same context as are Baryshnikov's criticism of them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, and so? -YMB29 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Impact

However, Russian historian Nikolai Baryshnikov argues that such views exaggerate the significance and misrepresent the outcome of the Finnish defensive battles of 1944, including the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Conquering Finland was not one of the known goals of the Soviet offensive^[30][41][18] and there is no solid documentary evidence, like military orders, that the Soviet high command intended to advance to Helsinki and occupy the country.^[19]According to Marshall Vasilevsky, already on June 17 it was decided that after taking Vyborg and the Vyborg Bay islands, the offensive would stop at the line Elisenvaara-Imatra-Virojoki, Soviet forces would switch to defense, and the main forces of the Leningrad Front would be concentrated on fighting the German forces in Estonia.^[24][18] It is also known that Stalin reminded Marshall Govorov that the goal was Berlin not Helsinki.^[19] According to General Shtemenko the goal was to create a threat to Helsinki and other major political and economic centers in Finland, not conquer the country.^[18] After transferring most of its available forces to the Karelian Isthmus and receiving significant aid from Germany, the Finns managed to slow down and stop the Soviet offensive on the Isthmus before it reached the Finnish border. This boosted the morale of the Finnish troops, who were previously constantly retreating. According to Baryshnikov, Finnish propaganda soon started talking about a victory, and after the war this claim of achieving a victory in stopping the Soviets from conquering Finland became an official theme in Finnish historiography.^[18]

What is bad about this paragraph? -YMB29 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Again same as before. You deleted several reliable sources as well as all the sourced comments which contradicted your personal point of view from the article without any discussion in the talk page of the matter. Furthermore you deleted several tags which were linked to ongoing discussion on the talk page. See [2]. You are representing the views of the Baryshnikov as prevailing ideas while in fact they are clearly nothing such and are repeatedly contradicted by reliable sources (all of which you deleted from the article). You can not represent that paragraph without noting what you deleted from it.

Just because you did not like it does not mean that side should not be represented. In addition there was no place called Vyborg in 1944. Town was renamed in 1948 and as per discussions regarding such place names it should be referred to as Viipuri until 1948. Offensive had clear instructions to prepare to advance to Kymijoki, not to hold on the line you represent in the paragraph (see the references you intentionally deleted). In addition the paragraph refers that it was 'just Finnish historians' who were of that opinion when there are non-Finnish historians who came with same conclusions as the Finns. Just for starters. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I did say: According to the views expressed in Finnish literature and some sources outside of Finland, so that includes non-Finnish authors.

The information about the order to reach the Kymi River can be added, but the way you used it is pure OR and synthesis.

The name Vyborg is a separate issue. I don't know where you got that it was renamed only in 1948, when the city was always known аs Vyborg (Выборг or Выборгъ) in Russian. See map from 1911: [3]

I don't understand why you put tags when the text is cited...

What I deleted was your OR and misuse of sources, which you use to make Baryshnikov look wrong or fringe. You can't use the POW interviews argument against Baryshnikov when he is actually the one criticizing this argument... Like I said before, the two views should be left in two different paragraphs to avoid constant repetition and manipulations. For example, you think the sentence - While several sources state that the offensive was planned to continue all the way to Helsinki however historian Nikolai Baryshnikov suggests that this does not conclusively represent the intentions of the Soviet command, while on the other hand there is evidence of Soviet intentions to invade deep into Finland, is well written and clear? -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So without any opposing sources you make the claim that the ones included constitute a minority as implied by the use of 'some'. That is yet again your OR unless you can provide sources to support such a claim. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So Lunde alone constitutes a majority? This was added as a compromise, since you don't like "according to Finnish historiography". -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Lunde does not constitute a majority. But trying to represent what Baryshnikov states as something more and having wider context than it was is not proper. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So when am I doing that? -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Representing Lunde as something in to which Baryshnikov refers to as this happens to be impossible. See the dates of publication for their works. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparing dates of publication and implying that Lunde somehow represents something radically new is your OR. -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No one said Lunde would represent something new - it does not matter if he did or not. However there is no evidence beyond your OR that Lunde would be using Finnish conclusions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No one said Lunde represents something new? So why are you talking about dates of publication? There is evidence of Lunde using Finnish sources, which is good enough for the talk page, but, unlike you, I don't try to insert OR into the article. -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Because there is no evidence - apart from your OR - that Lunde would not have come up with the conclusion on his own. Whatever Baryshnikov may claim the publication dates already clearly mark that he could not have knowledge of what Lunde concludes. Besides there is only your OR that Lunde would be using Finnish sources when he makes the conclusions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You claiming that he did not use Finnish sources and that he wrote something really new is pure OR. -YMB29 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming either - what i said is that there is no evidence that he would use Finnish sources when making his conclusions. You however have insisted and made the claim that he would have been 'following Finnish historiography'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you made the claim in the article that there is no evidence and so Baryshnikov is wrong, which is obvious OR. -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The comment in question was reworded. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Reworded to a new OR... -YMB29 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And how exactly would that be? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It is still completely your own interpretation of Baryshnikov and Lunde. -YMB29 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not proved that Lunde would be following Finnish historiography so what exactly in there would be OR? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That can be easily read from the STAVKA order as well as from the moisala&alanen book and from several other sources. Not OR or synthesis but instead a fact based on reliable sources. Sorry. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No sorry but the sentence was about what Vasilevsky writes. You can't speak for him by inserting that part into the middle of the sentence... -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not reason to delete the reliable sources like you did. To edit it to make clear which was Vasilevsky's and what is not, yes, to delete everything contradicting Vasilevsky's, no. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I did not delete it at first but you kept moving it into the middle of the sentence, making it look like that is what Vasilevsky said. -YMB29 (talk)

Baryshnikov would have much better argument with Vasilevsky's memoirs unless he managed to stamp memoirs inherently unreliable only few chapters before when handling Mannerheim's memoirs. --Whiskey (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well unlike with Mannerheim's memoirs, there is no reason to suspect that Vasilevsky's memoirs were written or heavily edited by someone else... -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And you have evidence that his memoirs were not heavily edited or is this yet again more of your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Vasilevsky's memoirs? Well if you have evidence let's see it... -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually you made the claim that Vasilevsky's memoirs would not be heavily edited - so again the burden of proving that falls down to you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Since when do I have to prove something for which there is no doubt and is not in the article? Do I have to ask you again to prove that Finland exists? -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you made claim that it would not be heavily modified. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And you have evidence that it was? -YMB29 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you made the claim that it would not be heavily modified, so it is your task to prove it, not mine. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Some faulty logic by you again... I said there is no reason to suspect that. Do you have a reason? So we have to assume that every book is heavily modified by someone other than the author, and prove that this is not true? Is Lunde's book heavily modified? -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually if you make a such a claim then you need stand up to it. Currently they are only memoirs, with any 'qualifiers' i have no problems accepting them. If you add there a statement that they would not be heavily modified (without evidence of it) then it would not be acceptable. If we do not know then we do not know but we can't go around making wild guesses. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The faulty logic continues... Memoirs and books are assumed to be written by their authors and not to have been heavily edited, until there is evidence to doubt this. So what I stated is a fact until it is challenged by serious evidence. And you did not answer my question about Lunde. -YMB29 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Its not faulty logic, as long as you do not make a claim of such there is no problem, when you start to make claims you actually need to be able to prove them (burden of proof). Until there is a claim on the matter we simply do not know, however such ignorance is not reason enough to claim that they would not have been modified. And burden of proof lies on the person who makes the claim. Also actually i did answer that, "we can't go around making wild guesses". - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok so to assume that Lunde's book was heavily edited is just as valid as to assume that it was not? I will keep that in mind then... -YMB29 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You can assume it is heavily edited or that it is not edited at all. Whatever you fancy the most if it makes you happy as long as you are not making claims or statements about it. What you believe and what you can prove are two totally different things. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As per discussions on Danzig talk page the name in Russian is irrelevant since at the time the town was in Finnish hands. Renaming can actually be found from Vyborg page. What it was called in Russian simply does not matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

During the war the city was Soviet, or you did not know that? -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was contested. Both sides claimed the land. Since the town was officially renamed in 1948 it hardly matters what Soviets called it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact between the Winter War and the Continuation War the town was part of Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialistic Republic and it's official name was Viipuri. It was only after the Continuation War than the town was transferred to Leningrad Oblast and the name was changed to Vyborg.--Whiskey (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get that information? It was always known as Vyborg in Russian. However we have to go by what it was known in English. Judging by the NY Times headlines during the war, it was known as Viborg, at least in the US.[4] -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Viipuri would be in line with previous such judgments in wikipedia. Swedish name Viborg would be certainly valid before 1809 and possibly all the way until 1917. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What judgements are you talking about? This is English Wikipedia and we have to use the name most commonly used in English, which is Vyborg. If we go by what it was commonly known in English during this war, then it looks like Viborg is the name. And once again the city was not Finnish after the Winter War. -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Area (the lands lost in the Winter War) were rejoined into Finland in 1941. Claim which is equally valid to the Soviet claim. And please see the discussions on the Talk:Gdansk/Vote Talk:Gdańsk and Viipuri talk pages. It is agreement that in cases like this the prevalent name of the time should be used. For the duration of the offensive that name would still be Viipuri. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So how does that vote prove that Viipuri has to be used? Where is your proof that this name was prevalent at the time. I have provide evidence which shows otherwise. And when the Finns captured the city in 1941 it was still formally Soviet, as the war was not over and no treaty that gave the city back to Finland was signed. -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Read the discussions and topic votes and you should understand. City was as formally Soviet as it was Finnish during 1941-44. Both countries claimed it. Also as stated in the article Vyborg that name was only officially given after the war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It was always known as Vyborg in Russia and the USSR. Finland claimed it in 1941, but that does not mean anything. I should understand what? You are claiming that the vote proves your point, so explain how? And you are ignoring the most important thing - how it was called in English during that time. -YMB29 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And it was knows as Viipuri in Finland. The Finnish claim to the town was equally valid to the Soviet claim of the town. The newspaper sources refer to also as Viipuri, just because you are unable to open the documents does not mean they are not valid - inability to enable access rights to a webpage is not reason enough to claim documents are unreachable. These: [5], [6], [7] are all English language newspapers written in 1940, and those refer to the town as Viipuri. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to provide links, it is your problem to make sure they are accessible to everyone...

From 1940 you say, before the city was officially given to the USSR by the treaty? Those are not good examples for you then...

Anyway, what are you going to do with the 300+ articles I found that say Viborg? -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

They are accessible to everyone. What you are stating is analogous to saying that online pdf files are not valid sources since some one might not be able to open them. Besides finding more sources which use 'Viipuri' is not that difficult, no need to even use archives: link (using Google 'news' search, limited between 1/1/1944-1/1/1945). Do about them? Why should i do anything about them? You claimed name Viipuri would not be used in English media of 1940s, know you can see that it was. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not about if the Finnish name was ever used in English language media and literature, but about what was the most commonly used name. So far you have not proven that it was Viipuri, to justify your changes. -YMB29 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Read the Danzig case again. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't just keep pointing me to it without actually explaining how it proves your point? -YMB29 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If you actually go through the vote procedures and the following resolution you can see that that name of the town is assigned according to the party predominantly controlling the town at the time. Regardless of how the town is actually known in English. Which turned into Viborg/Viipuri/Vyborg case would be mean that name would be Viipuri for at least 1918 - 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed before yet you removed all the references with 'dubious' tags while the discussion regarding those matters was still ongoing in the talk page clearly and obviously against set the rules regarding the use of the templates. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No you did not provide arguments why that information is dubious, other than that you don't like it... -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually those were references to the discussion regarding your use of Baryshnikov's statements to 'paint' (with your OR) Lunde as following Finnish historiography. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Those statements were removed, so why would the tags be needed then?? -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You did not remove those statements, you moved them around and deleted the related references. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What did I delete? Like I said I moved them to avoid repetition and your manipulations of the opposite view. -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You did not move them around, you just deleted them from the article. Which can be easily seen from the edit diffs. -

So what exactly did I delete? -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are unable to see those from the diffs then i can't help you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

All of your sourced information is still there... -YMB29 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Now they are, when the complaint was made they were not since you deleted them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you would look carefully at what was changed. -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You deleted several reliable sources regardless of your intentions leaving only the ones supporting you POV. Whole sentence might require rewriting but starting from your version after your deletions of reliable sources is not the way. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The information for the Finnish view is in the first paragraph. You don't need to repeat it in the paragraph that is for the opposite view, to misrepresent what the sources say. -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That is still not a reason enough to delete reliable sources just because you did not like where they were placed. And criticism to the text should be included where it is relevant not to separate text into multiple biased statements. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok so do you want me to put criticisms after every sentence that talks about the Finnish view? All of your sourced information was still in the section, but it needs to be in the right place. Keep the views separate to avoid confusion, repetition, and manipulations. -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Except when there is more information related to the specific claims. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope "related information" does not mean your OR... -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Related information was all sourced so your claims of OR are very hollow indeed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Look who is talking about hollow claims... -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Last i checked the claims i made were sources while the ones you did were not, or were based on your original research and original synthesis. There is considerably gap. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to be funny here?

You have failed to provide sources for any of your claims. -YMB29 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny, no. And please see the diff of the deletion you made, those claims were sourced. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No you cannot just put a citation next to an OR claim and say that it is sourced... -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What is there OR? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The stuff that you complained I deleted... Like your "as it was written" claim. -YMB29 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not OR though. Finns read the demand and though the explicit demand was not unconditional surrender the wording stated (as it was written part) Soviets demanded Finns to surrender without terms (which on the other hand does constitute unconditional surrender). Even though the demand stated that terms would be negotiated later on it still demanded Finns to first make an unconditional surrender before anything else would happen. As it states on the paper. As it was written. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What? You don't make sense... That is completely your misinterpretation. The Soviets just wanted an official statement that Finland is willing to surrender. So if they demanded surrender without terms, why offer Finland to send a delegation? -YMB29 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That part is exactly the 'poorly phrased' section referred in literature. It's not mine misinterpretation, that is how it was interpreted by the Finnish leadership. As stated in several sources Finns did not know what to make out of it since it demanded first surrender without terms and then sending delegation. So in the end Finns choose to read it as it had been written, and the demand first required surrendering without terms could be negotiated (which does constiture an unconditional surrender). Delegation could just as well be required just to listed to Soviet clauses instead of negotiating. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidence against the unconditional surrender demand

From Aspects of the Governing of the Finns [8]

...the American legation in Helsinki was reduced to one man, Edmund Gullion, by 29 June 1944. The US ambassador in Moscow, Averell Harriman, had discussed this move with Stalin on 27 June. Stalin then stated that the only thing the Americans might now try was to suggest informally that the Soviet Union had no designs to take over the country. This was remarkable and far from a demand for "unconditional surrender". But the badly-drafted Soviet note demanding "capitulation" had already been sent on 23 June...

Actual text of the Soviet demand, from Capitulation for the Sake of Pristege [9]

На следующий день Коллонтай сообщила Бухеману: "Мы уважаем Бухемана и верим в его миротворческую миссию. Тем не менее, так как мы были несколько раз обмануты финнами, мы хотели бы получить от финского правительства официальное заявление за подписью премьера или министра иностранных дел, что Финляндия капитулирует и просит мира у СССР. В случае получения нами от финского правительства такого документа, Москва будет согласна принять делегацию финского правительства". Ответа на свое заявление советское правительство не получило. Премьер-министр Финляндии Э.Линкомиес расценил это заявление как требование безоговорочной капитуляции.

Translation:

The next day, Kollontai reported to Boheman: "We respect Boheman and believe in his peacekeeping mission. However, since we have been deceived by the Finns several times, we would like to get from the Finnish government an official statement signed by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs that Finland capitulates and asks the Soviet Union for peace. In the event we receive such a document from the Finnish government, Moscow would be willing to receive a delegation from the Finnish government." The Soviet government did not receive a response to this statement. Finland's Prime Minister E. Linkomies interpreted this statement as a demand for unconditional surrender.

-YMB29 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

From Between East and West: Finland in International Politics, 1944-1947 [10]

At the summit conference of the Big Three at Teheran in November-December 1943, Marshal Stalin was at pains to stress that an independent Finland remained one of the Soviet Union's war aims. Churchill and Roosevelt expressed their approval of the peace terms proposed by the Soviet Union for Finland, though the British prime minister doubted the ability of Finland to pay the war reparations demanded. Having expected the Soviet Union to demand unconditional surrender, Churchill and Roosevelt were agreeably surprised by Stalin's readiness to negotiate with Finland. Through their press and radio, and diplomatic channels in the case of the United States, the Western powers sought to induce the Finns to start discussions.

...The Finnish government interpreted the Soviet reply to their offer of negotiations as a demand for unconditional surrender, which was not considered acceptable.

-YMB29 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

According to the transcripts of government meetings, it was not Linkomies who provided the vital output. (Although he was willing to present it in such a way.) Ryti and Tanner were willing to continue dialog with SU, but when Mannerheim was called, and when he stated that it meant unconditional surrender, the vote was switched to ending the negotiations. --Whiskey (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok but it does not really matter who made the final decision. -YMB29 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And a page later: [11]

...In the end it was all to be left to Stalin and his need, the need to transfer troops from Finland to get to Berlin before the West did. On 3 July, Pravda changed its tune and mid-July the remaining Soviet troops in Finland were in a defensive position. The plan for a Soviet occupation of Finland, drafted first perhaps in 1943, was never used, though the date 28.6.1944 was imposed on it.

Well that is why it was a draft... Draft documents are created for possible use, depending on the situation. If it had been written in June of 1944 then maybe that would have been interesting, but it was written in 1943... So if the draft reveals the real Soviet goal and it was decided in 1943 that Finland has to surrender unconditionally, why would the Soviet government discuss peace conditions with Finnish officials in the Spring of 1944 and even willing to do so (as the text above shows) after the capture of Vyborg?

As for Stalin wanting the Leningrad Front troops to be used to speed up the advance to Berlin, yes of course but what does this battle have to do with his decision? As stated above, on June 27 he wanted the Americans to clarify to the Finns that there will be no occupation and, as Vasilevsky says, the limited advance into Finland and the transfer of troops to the West was already decided upon on June 17. -YMB29 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Except troop transit orders were issued much, much later (see the STAVKA source, the orders are included there. well after the 20 June). Before that time even the troop transfer was nothing more than a draft and should not be referred to any bit more (or less) than the Soviet draft for Finnish capitulation. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that orders are drafted like political documents... That is some twisted logic by you again. It does not matter when the actual orders were issued, as the decision was made even when the offensive was steamrolling. -YMB29 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There can be many kinds of drafts in the existence just like explained with the capitulation draft. It does not in any way make them more valid for comparisons than what the capitulation draft is. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What? You don't make sense. Try to find better arguments... -YMB29 (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What i mean is that both the draft for capitulation and the 'draft' for Soviet plans regarding troop movements on 17 June are equally valid. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There were no drafts for the orders or plans, only a decision. -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Written orders appeared well after that. Just as easily some one could claim that there was only a decision to demand unconditional surrender with the presented draft. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

So who claimed that he/she witnessed such a decision being made?

Yes written orders soon appeared but there still was no mention of advancing to Helsinki. -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither was there mention that the indicated line where the advance was to lead would have been 'final' line. Claiming that it would is OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It was the last line the Leningrad Front was ordered to advance to, or do you have information about some secret order? Anyway, the word final did not appear in my last edit, or you did not notice that while senselessly reverting? -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It did not include any type of order of fortifying or actually stopping on the indicated line. It merely marked it as the next goal for the offensive without indicating that it would be final goal of the offensive. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So unless you have proof that there would have been more goals, you should not be implying that the offensive would have continued... -YMB29 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That is besides the point. The order states nothing related to such, as stated writing 'offensive was ordered to stop' is not in accordance with the STAVKA order while 'offensive was ordered to continue to' is. Since Leningrad Front failed miserably to break through the Finnish lines there never came orders which would make it clear if the offensive were to stop there or not. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well again that is your speculation and OR. No one is saying that it would stop and end after reaching that line, but you are implying that it would continue which is OR. -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

'Continue to' does not imply that the offensive would keep on going or not from that point. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The way you put it there does, and it is not only about "continue to". -YMB29 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And how is that? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Previously you wrote that from there the attack would be further continued to the Kymi River, which implies that it would continue after that too. -YMB29 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No it does not, it only states that attack would have been continued to Kymi river, exactly like it stated. Not that it would stop or continue beyond that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If we could find contemporary documents describing Soviet real intentions it would settle the issue, but so far we have only seen memoirs written afterwards and propagandistic newspaper articles. From hard evidence, which every respected historian has to take into account, someway or other, we have STAVKA orders and what they say and this foreign ministry draft document, which is the only existing contemporary documentation available for researchers today on the issue.

Of course there were ongoing discussion in STAVKA how long Govorov would need those breakthrough elements in his use. They were used to breach Finnish defences at Main Line and at VT-Line. If Govorov were fulfilling STAVKA orders, he would be mopping up fleeing Finnish units, so it wouldn't be so far fetched that he could breach VKT-Line, which existed only in map only, on move and when reaching the state border he could breach the remaining Salpa-Line immediately, as Finns wouldn't have enough troops to organize proper defence. So, after reaching the border and breaching the final Salpa-Line, he would not need those breakthrough elements anymore.

Well, where did this picture then failed? It failed because Govorov wasn't fighting Germans but Finns. Instead of holding their surrounded positions or trying to hold fast every location, like Germans had done, Finns retreated in front of him and instead of mopping up the Finns, as STAVKA had ordered, Govorov just pushed them backwards until they found a position they could try to hold.

Anyway, IF the offensive had gone as planned, Govorov wouldn't have needed those STAVKA's offensive elements anymore to continue his advancement to Finland after he had reached the border. At June 17 it seemed to go as planned, two fortified lines were breached, Finns were unable to produce holding defence, only prepared fortifications were just before Vyborg and even they were less than half ready. Vasilevsky told the truth, but not the whole truth in his memoirs. --Whiskey (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What does Vasilevsky not say? He makes it clear that the point of the offensive was to make the Finns ask for peace, not take Helsinki and occupy Finland. If the offensive went as planned till the end, Finland would just have surrendered sooner.

Also you really put too much weight into that draft. Such unconditional surrender drafts existed for every country the USSR was at war with, and they were replaced by conditional surrender drafts in the summer of 1944. -YMB29 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Except this paper was dated 28 June 1944. And not some myriad state on 1943. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

So what, if the draft was written in 1943? -YMB29 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And you know this because the draft is explicitly dated to June 1944? - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well according to the source above, the date was June 28, 1944, although it does not say where this date appears in the document and what it means.

Baryshnikov explicitly says that such unconditional surrender drafts for Germany's smaller allies were created in 1943. The above source even confirms that. -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How does Baryshnikov explain that the document he claims to have been written in 1943 actually is dated to June 1944? If he talks of papers written in 1943 he is explicitly not referring to that paper since it is dated to June 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because there is some date on it does not mean anything unless it is explained where that date is and what it means. Baryshnikov says that all such drafts were created in 1943. There is no reason to assume that this draft is different, which is supported by the source above. -YMB29 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So because Baryshnikov states that drafts were written in 1943 that means a draft dated with 28 June 1944 would also be written in 1943? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Who says that 28 June 1944 was the creation date? That date is actually late for your claim that the offensive (that started on June 10th) intended to conquer Finland... And like I said it is not only Baryshnikov who says that it was written in 1943. -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Does Baryshnikov state that documents like that were - in general - written in 1943 or does he explicitly discuss the the document in question? Besides 28 June would be ideal if it was intended to be communicated to Finns after demand of 23 June. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a day after Stalin told the American ambassador to tell the Finns that he did not mean to take over the country? No, that does not make sense... They would have had the document written before they even started the offensive.

See Baryshnikov's quote above. -YMB29 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And the relevance is? The paper is question was dated to 28 June 1944 - several days after Soviets made their surrender demand in 22/23 June so it even as a draft it is still most relevant to that issue. The paper is still dated to June 1944 instead of 1943. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So where exactly does that date stand on the document? If the draft was written in 1943 then it has little to do with the offensive. If it was written in late June like you say, then that is too late, as such documents are prepared ahead of time. -YMB29 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That is something i need to check, if possible. If it had been written 1943 then it might not have much relevance but instead of it was written in 1944 if nothing else it would be contemporary view of Soviet opinions regarding Finland at the time. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Russian historiographer Barysnikov the only source you got YMB29? (The same Baryshinkov who stops counting Russian losses after the 20th of June 1944. What does the Russian historiographer Mark Solonin say about the battle in his book "June 25: Foolishness or Aggression"? ""June 1944, Red Army’s advancement is stopped near the South Finland. “The fate of the war will be decided in Berlin and not in Helsinki” – Stalin is forced to stop the military actions at the Finnish front."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.141.50.189 (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes he told that to Govorov who said that he could be in Helsinki in two weeks. This is evidence that Helsinki was not a goal for the Soviet high command. What does amateur historian Solonin have to do with this? And I think you mixed up Baryshnikov and Krivosheev... -YMB29 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually its not evidence that Helsinki would not be a goal, only that Berlin was more important than Helsinki. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well no, if there was any evidence that Helsinki was a goal and the Soviets gave up on it, then what you said would have been true. -YMB29 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There are some evidence (like POW interviews and so on) that the goal would have been Helsinki. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

For those new to this page, the disputes here have entered mediation at the Mediation Cabal. The mediation page can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala. For the involved parties, Wanderer602 and YMB29, I think it would be best if all discussion on this talk page stops until the mediation starts properly. You have both agreed to the ground rules, one of which was this: "Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature." Note that this does extend to the talk page as well - it wouldn't make any sense to refactor incivility on the mediation page but to ignore it on the talk page, for example. I can see that there has been some animosity between both of you, and this really has to stop if we are going to make progress in resolving this dispute. For now, the best way to do that is to stop discussion here and wait for the mediation to start properly. To this end, I will archive the discussion on this page to remove the temptation to reply to previous threads. Please bear with me while I review the dispute and decide the mediation agenda. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Input from concerned Wiki reader

I've never contributed CONTENT material to this article. In my opinion it was originally well-written, coherent, and fun-to-read but is NOW CONVOLUTED and "unencyclopedic" in the extreme. As an educated native-speaker and teacher of English, I had edited this article a little from time to time for English mechanics only. It's now painful to read and its English mechanics a MESS. In my opinion the real, LOGICAL STAKEHOLDERS in this dispute are mainly WIKIPEDIA and its readers. I believe this is primarily an IDEOLOGICAL DISPUTE over diametrically opposed views of European history AS A WHOLE, the Soviet one embraced by Prime Minister Putin versus the Western view. In Finnish history only a few years before this battle, the Soviets attempted to "liberate" Finland through the Soviet Terajoki government at Vyborg. Ultimately, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the myriad Soviet "republics" and Warsaw "Pact" countries alike, which weren't so fortunate as Finland, forthwith totally and completely REJECTED the Soviets' 45-year "liberation." If anyone actually doubts this, just pick ANY current map of Europe printed in the West prior to 1989 and any other such map printed after 1991. Approval of the Soviet version of this battle may well OPEN THE FLOODGATES to Wikipedia ENGLISH becoming, wholesale, an organ of Soviet propaganda. This is ONE article about a battle in ONE small country out of literally THOUSANDS of battles in scores of countries attacked by the Soviet Union over its approximately 72 year existence. Will Wikipedia allow this article to be hijacked by ONE persistent contributor citing mainly ONE dubious authority from the failed Soviet state on the basis that that contributor follows Wikipedia's rules of form, sourcing, and citation? It seems like a great travesty. Is Stradivarius a mediator appointed by Wikipedia OR agreed on by the parties and is his decision final? OR will the disputed content still be subject to editing by Wiki users? Doesn't this version of history belong instead in RUSSIAN Wikipedia? (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Paavo273, and thanks for your comment. I can tell that you must feel very strongly about this issue, and I'm sorry to hear that you think the article has gone downhill. My role in the mediation is not to "decide" anything, but to help the parties involved come to a consensus about the issues involved. (I recommend reading our pages on consensus and edit warring for an insight about why editing has largely stopped, and why this page has come to mediation.) About editing the article - anyone is free to edit it now, and anyone will be able to edit it in the future, too. And about the article content, it would really help if you could give some specific examples of what you are talking about. Could you point to the version of last year which you approve of, for example? That might be a good starting point. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Further input/suggestions from concerned Wiki reader

Hi Mr. Stradivarius and thanks for the reply, your information, AND the links, which I've been studying. I have since been reading your mediation cabal page for this article and found your defined issues and the discussion. On looking back at the history of this article, I believe now it HAS evolved in some positive ways CONTENT-wise (e.g., factually correct BUT NOW OVERSTATED emphasis on German participation) and gone DOWNHILL in other ways, mainly the at-first creeping and eventually strangling Soviet bias. Form-wise, the prose has become convoluted, apparently from strongly disagreeing authors trying to write a single article, e.g., in several places, you've got factual info, but then Baryshnikov says something contradictory. Or vise verse. I'd like to make two points if I may relating to the current mediation: 1. I hope when it comes time to resolve issue 6, if Wiki rules allow it, that you will CONSIDER the contemporary-to-that-period Soviet history all-around Finland AND TOWARDS FINLAND just a few years before (the puppet Kuusinen government at Viborg). There is a huge effort by certain groups in Russia today to rehabilitate Stalin and his era, led in large part by Prime Minister Putin. I think it would come as a big surprise to readers of this article in the West that the Soviets did NOT intend to take over Finland. I learned of it the first time myself form YMB. Puppet governments WERE THE MECHANICS, largely, of the Warsaw Pact. I guess the credibility of Baryshnikov is on your list of issues to resolve, at least sorta'. IF you find him a CREDIBLE source, does he have some compelling explanation as to why Finland was different from EVERY OTHER OF THE 24 or so other countries that the Soviets swallowed up (or "liberated," I guess, based on one's point of view) as Soviet "republics" or sister states in the Warsaw Pact? The other thing, concerning issue 1, I would only like to mention that "Vyborg" is a POOR transliteration of the Russian Выборг (in case the decision will be to identify the city by its PRESENT-DAY name as is being discussed). It should be Viborg or Veeborg (Actually with a miniature w right after the V. As a language teacher yourself, you'd you'd no doubt be an authority on this subject. I can't think offhand of any consistent examples of English y making an i (ee) sound in the first syllable. (Unlike English, Finnish is totally phonetic (which I realize is irrelevant to this point) and Russian is a lot closer to Finnish in that way than to English. the closest we've got in English to Ы is i or ee, wouldn't you agree? Thanks for your consideration. Paavo273 (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

User request to participate in the dispute

Can I post directly on the mediation site without having been named a party to it? If not, I'd like to be added. Is that possible? Paavo273 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would first wait for mediator's opinion on this matter. However regardless of his decision it might be helpful for you to read the rules of the mediation. If you do not find them acceptable then there is little reason for you to even apply to the mediation. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@Paavo273 - You would need to agree to the ground rules, yes. But also, seeing as you were not initially involved in the dispute, and we have also been in mediation for some time now, I think we should get the agreement of the other three participants first. We have to strike a balance between inclusion and exclusion of editors. On the one hand, including editors will help make the final decision more well-thought-out and longer-lasting, but on the other hand, including editors who are less involved may slow the mediation process down and may not make much difference if they do not have a strong interest in the final outcome. If the other three parties are ok with your participation after considering it further, then I think you can join in. Please be aware, however, that we won't go over ground that we have already covered, and you will definitely have to stop using bold in your posts. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it borderline vandalism or bad faith editing to state opinion as fact, especially by editor who was party to prior edit-warring and mediation?

Given the history of edit-warring, mediations, and whatnot for this and related articles, I think adding in new material stated intra-text as fact, when actually it's just another historian's opinion, *borders* on vandalism and at least smacks of bad faith. There's the separate issue of whether the authors/editors of that source material actually say what this editor claims. But mainly I think any editor, especially one who has been a party to warring and mediation, should take special care not to just put stuff in as fact. In my edit, I just prefaced that it was these authors' opinion. If it actually is not or there is some other problem, it "might should" be deleted altogether. But to just add it in as fact is for sure wrong. I hope another editor concerned about the content can check the factual accuracy of the citation. Paavo273 (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I would check the citation, but there is no link from the Wikipedia story, and I don't know where to find the source material. Paavo273 (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Rel what the Russian name is and was for Viipuri AND any authority cited by British sources is suspect

English was never widely used in the Soviet Union in the Soviet years. Because it was a closed off society, Russian English teachers in the Soviet Union didn't have a great grasp on practical English. The use of English wasn't encouraged by the authorities, because it might lead to Soviet citizens learning from foreigners what the outside world was like. About Vyborg, that was not the Russian name. Выборг was. Someone obviously just BUNGLED it when they tried to translate it into Roman characters. It's not like Munich vs. Muenchen. Vyborg is obviously an attempt at transliteration/transcription--just a really bad one.

Finally, any British literature cited as authority for Vyborg should be disregarded or at least asterisked, since Britain had declared war on Finland and had a vested interest in a pro-Soviet outcome. Paavo273 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What English was in Soviet Union during Soviet years is not relevant to the mediation. What is relevant to the first issue in the mediation is the name used in the English language sources of the event, since this is an English language wikipedia. You can go through the naming guidelines to see what exactly has been discussed regarding the first issue of the mediation - Wikipedia:NCGN (same as Wikipedia:PLACE). Also Vyborg is the generally accepted transliteration of the Cyrillic version of the town name in Russian which in turn comes either from Swedish Viborg or from German Wiborg - however while some of this might be relevant as to how the town is referred to in articles discussing the town in certain historical context it is not relevant to the name of the town in the time period defined in the article or the mediation - unless of course you can prove it via the guidelines given at Wikipedia:PLACE. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - I couldn't have put it better myself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as was subsequently much discussed in the rfc, what is Russian and not Russian is quite relevant to Latin/Roman-alphabet Vyborg's national or linguistic origin as a name. I don't think any evidence was ever offered by Wanderer602 or anyone else that "Vyborg is the generally accepted transliteration of the Cyrillic version of the town name in Russian..." Other contributors and I provided evidence to the contrary in the rfc, though. In fact the still unproven idea that Vyborg is a Russian name seems to be the main underpinning of Wanderer602's argument with YMB29 in their exchange on issue 1 on 8-9 November. Unless we are all to just accept this unsupported (and I think unsupportable) assertion, it seems to me Wanderer602's argument about the "modern local historical name" falls apart. Paavo273 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)