Talk:Winter War

Soviet intentions

@Betelgeuse X can you please edit your additions to this section? The section should contain only the analysis of Soviet intentions, not a listing of facts that may point one way or the other. The regime change is already alluded to in a lower paragraph there, so you can edit that, without adding an entire new paragraph discussing the same thing. And what music the military orchestra was planning on playing while marching in Helsinki definitely doesn't belong in that section. Please, try to keep it tidy. It should be a succinct overview of the arguments and academic positions. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The section is a discussion of Soviet intentions. Listing the commissioning of a musical piece intended to be performed as the Red Army marched in Helsinki makes it quite clear what said intentions were. The same applies to the puppet government. Not sure why you think that removing evidence of the Soviets' intentions makes sense in a section titled "Soviet intentions". Betelgeuse X (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

At least format it better and shorter. It looks incompetent and isn't FA material. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I've spotted multiple grammatical mistakes in your edits, so don't bother trying to point out what is and isn't FA material. Posting factually incorrect information like you've done on this article is also not FA material. Betelgeuse X (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying that Trotter isn't a legitimate historian is laughable, considering that he's one of the American historians against annexation that you've mentioned, yet all of a sudden he now isn't a legitimate historian. Yeah, okay. His citations are found throughout the article. Betelgeuse X (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If you see any errors, feel free to fix them. You seem to care of the quality of the article a lot. But I think you can do better style-wise on the Soviet intentions part. I believe in you :)

Mannerheim is a good source on Finnish military. On Soviet intentions he is as neutral as Molotov on Finland. And I was referring to Trotter's academic citations.

If Trotter is againts full annexation, then why are you citing him on Soviets reducing their strategic objectives? Or is that sentence speaking of reducing military activity from all of the Finnish border, to instead focus on the Karelian Isthmus? MrThe1And0nly (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Trotter says clearly that the USSR did not intend to take all of Finland, that they would have been satisfied with specific strategic areas to help them control the Baltic. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You used Mannerheim as a source in the same paragraph, from the same memoirs. Picking and choosing when the same book can and can't be used as a source is silly, much less in the same paragraph. As is implying that Trotter isn't a legitimate source, when his book is cited throughout this article. You also had no problem using Trotter in your list of American authors against annexation, yet now you suddenly say he isn't a legitimate source.

Your comments regarding Trotter:

"William R. Trotter is not an acknowledged historian - he does not exist on google scholar, has 0 articles, 0 citations and does not even hold a postgraduate degree."

Both Trotter and Mannerheim are used as a source for the Soviets informing the Finnish government of their willingness to negotiate. Mannerheim states that in doing so, the Soviets gave up on their initial objectives. Betelgeuse X (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, Mannerheim is a Finnish general. He is a source for Finnish military. But on Soviet intentions he is as good as eg Timoshenko on Finland. You wouldn't find it neutral if someone was quoting Timoshenko on Finnish intentions. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Mannerheim was Commander in Chief of the Finnish military. Molotov, who according to your logic would have an equivalent bias, is cited multiple times in the Winter War article. You've also used Molotov as a source in the discussion on this page.

It's funny how you'll suddenly decide that a source is no longer legitimate - typically when they don't support a similar view as yours, e.g. Trotter and now Mannerheim. Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I was clear enough. Please find an adequate and neutral source for statements about Soviet intention. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Why are you reverting without responding to the issue?

Everyone whose edits comprise this article so far has managed citing neutral sources for contentious statements. You are held to the same standard. So far you've been very vocal on the Talk page, and yet it appears you have not one neutral source? If you want a tip, just go here, pick a source, open book, cite page, and voila. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. If Mannerheim isn't a neutral enough source for Soviet intentions, then I'll remove the comment on Soviet objectives and leave Trotter's stance on the puppet government: "The Soviets put an end to the puppet Finnish communist government in late January 1940 and informed the Finnish government that they were willing to negotiate peace". Betelgeuse X (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds reasonable. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I've protected the article to prevent further edit warring while this discussion continues. If you need a third+ opinion, I'd advise asking over at WT:MILHIST. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17 We've settled the disagreement. Betelgeuse X (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Great, I've unprotected the article. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17 Could you restore the previous protection level semi-protected? IP disruption has continued now that the protection was removed entirely. Thanks. TylerBurden (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: I've restored the previous protection. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, stupid question: if Stalin intended to conquer all Finland, why did he not do so in March 1940? Why did the USSR sign a treaty at all? It's not like because some men in suits show up at your office, you are thereby forced to sign any paper granting their demands, is it? Or, less rhetorically, how could Finnish negotiators have wrung a peace accord out of Stalin if he hadn't wanted it? T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This is explained in the article. The Soviets had taken significant losses in an invasion that was supposed to be a quick and easy takeover of Finland. In March 1940 the Red Army occupied only a small fraction of Finnish territory. While the Red Army had made progress on the Karelian Isthmus, the Finns had halted Soviet progress on all other fronts. And there was a possibility of the UK and France entering the war on Finland's side. Betelgeuse X (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thx. Is Rentola the only source for this? T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Which part? Betelgeuse X (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the explanation in the article of what Stalin wanted. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Edit: Sry, found the H8 tag with all the source refs. I rest your case =o) T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Awkward sentence?

Hi, either that, or a clueless non-native EN speaker ... but in the sentence (Soviet intentions, final para, Kotkin) "... unlike the pacts of mutual assistance, /.../ Finland was demanded limited territorial concessions and even offered land in return..." the wording "... Finland was demanded ..." reads wronglishly to me. How about "... the territorial concessions demanded were limited, and Finland was even offered land in return ...", or "..., the Soviet Union demanded limited territorial concessions and even offered Finland land in return ..."? Or the sentence is fine, then forget it. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I've reworded that sentence. Betelgeuse X (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2024

Please change "Hostilities ceased in March 1940 with the signing of the Moscow Peace Treaty in which Finland ceded 9% of its territory to the Soviet Union." to "Hostilities ceased in March 1940 with the signing of the Moscow Peace Treaty in which Finland ceded 11% of its territory to the Soviet Union." Arlecchinoswife (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The official yearly statistics reports published by the Finnish state from 1939 and 1940 list land areas of 382,801 square kilometers and 347,717 square kilometers, respectively. A difference of nine percent.

https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/69246/stv_1939.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/69230/stv_1940.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

This article also states that Finland ceded nine percent of its territory:

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-03-24-putin-march-of-devastation-in-ukraine-echoes-stalins-1939-finland-winter-war-invasion/

Betelgeuse X (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Debate over whether the Winter War was a Soviet victory or not

In my opinion, the Winter War was a Soviet Pyrrhic victory. Now, I know that a good chunk of you reading this will probably write a few paragraphs on why the Soviet Union didn't win, so I want to say that i'll listen to any of your arguments.

It was a Soviet victory (sort of), and they got what they wanted (or, what they claimed they wanted). They manage to force the Finns to surrender (sort of) by signing the Moscow Peace Treaty. They got half of the Karelian Isthmus, they got their naval base, and they got more influence in the region. On the other hand, they didn't get what a majority of the historical community accepts what they actually wanted: the complete annexation of Finland. They suffered a horrific amount of casualties in terms of manpower and armor. Their international reputation was ruined. The poor performance of the Red Army in the Karelian Isthmus convinced Hitler that the Soviet Union was weak, and therefore resulted in the Invasion of the Soviet Union. A good chunk people on here point to the establishment of the Finnish Democratic Republic as proof that the Soviets wanted to annex Finland as a socialist republic. But, it's likely that the Soviets wanted a buffer/puppet state (like the nations of the Warsaw Pact after the war). Even if the Soviets theoretically manage to annex all of Finland, would the Finnish population accept rule under a government with a system that they disagreed with and under the influence of a nation that they despised? Annexation of Finland would've resulted in an insurgency that the Soviets had to deal with, taking manpower and resources that would be needed if the Germans attacked (which they did). Then the Germans would've (probably) won in the East with the help of Finnish partisans drawing troops away from the Eastern Front that the Soviets needed. If the Soviets DID manage to annex Finland, it would've been undone in 10 years anyway, so I think that the theory that the Soviets wanted to annex all of Finland is ridiculous. It would've been a waste of manpower and time for a pointless cause; resources that they needed for the fight against the Germans. Ulysses S. Grant III (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Your post is full of speculation and "original research".

It's clear that the Soviets wanted to annex Finland. You already brought up the Terijoki puppet government. Announcing their intention to install the puppet government into Helsinki and dropping leaflets over Helsinki saying that the Soviets were coming "not as conquerors but as liberators" makes it even more obvious that annexation was the reason for invading. So does their invasion all along the full length of the border, hundreds of kilometers away from the land on the Karelian Isthmus that they claimed to only be interested in. Red Army troops were warned not cross into Sweden. And of course, there's the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, where the land falling under the Soviet sphere just so happened to form the western border of the Russian Empire, and this includes Finland. In other words, the invasion intended to return Finland to Russian control. Betelgeuse X (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The part about the whole border being attacked, I didn’t mention. It’s just my idea about how the Soviets won the war and how it didn’t. Also, that “speculation” is alternate history.

Also, I mentioned the Finnish populace. They would never accept being apart of the Soviet Union. They would’ve launched a rebellion immediately. Ulysses S. Grant III (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss alternate history. The idea that the "Finns would launch a rebellion" makes zero sense as an argument against annexation being the Soviet objective. Not to mention that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, eastern Poland, and Bessarabia were all successfully annexed by the USSR in 1939 and 1940. Betelgeuse X (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, even if their original intention WAS to annex Finland, their plan was ruined by the stubborn Finnish defence, and they settled on annexing a good chunk of Finland instead of just annexing the whole country.

In the case of Eastern Poland, they used the Belarusian and Ukrainian populations of the East as an excuse to attack Poland. For the Baltic states, they claimed that they wanted to protect the Baltic states from German invasion (which is obviously not true). For Bessarabia, they just strait up did whatever they want because they could (with Germany's support). And for all of them, rebuilding the old Russian Empire to it's former borders was obviously Stalin's intentions. But when it came to Finland, those plans were obviously ruined. Ulysses S. Grant III (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's being debated now. It seems like you agree that Stalin was trying to annex Finland after all. Betelgeuse X (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)