Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk offensive/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Result

Should not the results be reversed? It was a strategic victory since Finland eventually agreed on terms to exit the war (the offensive might not have been the only reason but it was the most important). The offensive also removed the threat to Leningrad and allowed the Soviets to move to the West. Of course I have sources for this. However, the offensive stalled before entering pre-war Finnish territory, so it can be said to be a tactical stalemate. -YMB29 (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling the offensive as the most important reason is OR by defintion - unless you have sources which verify this. Besides Finns main issues with the peace terms of Spring 1944 were dealt in the negoations of September 1944 - both cutting the war reparations in half and removing (or extending) the time limit for German expulsions were mandatory since Finns had no chance of complying with those terms which would have resulted in defaulting (renegating) the agreement. Finns had been willing to discuss of the cease fire since 1943 but Soviet decisions not to discuss but to dictate terms (spring 1944) or to demand unconditional surrender (June 1944) made 'negotiating' rather difficult. Also the only threat Finns formed to Leningrad existed only in the minds of Soviet leaders - there had been no shelling or bombing of the city during the siege from the Finnish side. As earlier discussed in length the offensive against Finns is likely to have been rather pointless effort - that is to say there is some reason to suspect that Soviet Union with its advance along the Baltic coast could have gained the same result without any offensive directed against the Finns due Finnish dependence on German food and arms support. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is again your OR...

So you are denying that the offensive was a major reason? Yes I have sources for this, that the offensive was a strategic success. -YMB29 (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling offensive as something which 'forced the Finns back' to negotiating table is something which is refuted in literature since there are several sources which indicate that Finns had been willing to negotiate since 1943 and repeatedly attempted to reach negotiated settlement during 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes but then they rejected Soviet demands in April and left. Then in August they said that they are willing to negotiate again and come to Moscow. -YMB29 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And in case you are going to deny that:

The crucial decision regarding Finland was made on the evening of 24 August 1944. It was reached at a meeting on board the train of the commander in chief and new president of the republic, Marshal Gustaf Mannerheim.

...those present at the meeting were unanimously of the opinion that Finland could no longer drag its feet. On 17 August, Marshal Mannerheim had bluntly informed Field Marshal Keitel that Finland intended to seek its own salvation and that the promise made by his predecessor President Risto Ryti, binding Finland to an undertaking not to seek a separate peace, was no longer valid.

After a formal cabinet meeting on the following day, 25 August, Gripenberg flew back to Stockholm with a letter signed by Foreign Minister Carl Enckell and addressed to Aleksandra Kollontay , Soviet minister to Sweden and a longtime friend of Finland. The letter proposed that negotiations be started in Moscow. [1]

-YMB29 (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No but as i see it that section of the text referring to the Ryti's decision to resign. Ryti had been bound by his promise not to engage in peace process. Other than that it was just repeat of the process which had been tried last time at June 22 1944 (with Soviets demanding unconditional surrender) and several times before that during 1944. By same logic you could say that Soviet offensive drove Finns from the negotiating table since it was the Soviet offensive which forced Ryti to make the pledge to Ribbentrop in the first place - only after the offensive had ended did Finns return to the table. For example in April Finns had been willing to discuss the terms but Molotov was only interesting in dictating them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Some twisted logic you are using... Why did Ryti resign? Why "Finland could no longer drag its feet"? Because Ryti resigned? Can you stop denying the obvious? -YMB29 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Soviet historiography set the scope of this offensive. We know perfectly well, that the official researchers set the scopes of the campaigns only after them, and that they adjusted the scopes in order to unbalance these towards the Soviet favour. See the essay by David Glantz on it. Hence it is impossible to find an official Soviet offensive from 1944, with a scope set in the way that the Soviets did not win it. It is a different story with the "forgotten battles", which this offensive is rather not. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Every country's historiography is biased. I see no reason why Soviet historiography is worse than Finnish or Western ones. So you are saying that we don't know the real strategic objectives of this offensive? -YMB29 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is what Dr. Glantz suggests for Soviet 1944 offensives. The Soviet military archives are still open for research for only historians selected by the Russian government. Or, as Dr. Glantz puts it: "While many Soviet studies of the war and wartime battles and operations are detailed, scholarly, and accurate as far as they go, they cover only what State officials permit them to cover and either skirt or ignore those facts and events considered embarrassing by the State. Unfortunately the most general works and those most accessible to Western audiences tend to be the most biased, the most highly politicized, and the least accurate. Until quite recently, official State organs routinely vetted even the most scholarly of these books for political and ideological reasons. Even now, 10 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, political pressure and limited archival access, prevents Russian historians from researching or revealing many events subject to censorship in the past." Until the scholars can access the archives, we cannot rely only on the official Soviet and Russian sources but we have to combine these with other ones. Getting back to this specific offensive, what I believe we have for certain is the general outcome of the Continuation War, which was a Soviet victory. This offensive was the only Soviet strategic operation against Finland. Hence, anything else but "Soviet strategic victory" contradicts the outcome of the Continuation War as we currently have it. As for "tactical victory", correct me if I am wrong, but this means more or less the victory in smaller battles. We have articles for the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Nietjärvi, and Battle of Ilomantsi, which are correctly marked as tactical Finnish victories. However, I cannot see why they should reflect in the outcome of this strategic offensive. Hence, I support to change the outcome of this offensive to simply "Soviet victory". --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know what Glantz's opinion on Russian sources has to do much with what we are talking about. He wrote that like ten years ago and there are plenty of non-Russian sources about this offensive.

Yes winning battles within an offensive is achieving tactical victories. Finland had some tactical victories, but keep in mind that those battles you mentioned are Finnish victories according to Finnish historiography only. The Soviet failures to achieve some tactical goals in this offensive should not be exaggerated and count against the overall strategic victory. I am glad you understand this now. -YMB29 (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

To make it clear. I was not opposing here that Continuation War wouldnt have been Soviet success. Just that given how the end result was achieved (via negotiations - which were stalled for the duration of the offensive and continued only after it had been blunted) and that Soviet offensive failed to reach its intended goals the Soviet offensive did fail. However that Soviet offensive failed (to reach its goals) does not mean in any way that Continuation War would not have ended favorably for the Soviets. You seem to be considering the result of the offensive as the same as the result of the war.

If we are fair to the goals of the offensive it only managed to reach its 'phase I' target of capturing Viborg by LF. KF failed to push to Finnish 'core' and LF push towards Lappeenranta, destruction of Finnish Army and advance further to Kymi river all failed abysmally. In 'scorecard' if we just check the objectives of the offensive and not those of the Continuation War the Soviets reached only one of their several stated goals. Which by all normal accounting amounts to a failure or at very best a very marginal success.

It is always easy to assign a winner in a duel, in a battle the job gets several orders of magnitude harder, in a military campaign (like the Soviet offensive) it gets even more difficult. However results of wars or military campaigns should not be mixed in my opinion - they are still separate events. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying the Soviets won the war not in the battle but at the negotiations table? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. Threat of renewed Soviet offensive after hopes for German success had started waning was certainly a factor pushing for negotiations however situation on that matter had not really changed after German failure became apparent (to the political/military leadership) in 1943. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again, cite your sources for your interpretation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As i had this book ready... Kun hyökkääjän tie suljettiin By Moisala, U.E. & Alanen, Pertti

p.154-156 Stalin's great offensive against Finns failed (ei saanut täyttymystään) to be succesful. (difficult to translate, sorry) Therefore Finnish Defence Forces (ie. Army) stopped the offensive, prevented the Red Army from reaching its goals. Though Finns failed to stop the Red Army where it was intended to be stopped at VT- and PSS-lines when taking account the Soviet (kokonaistavoitteet) final/strategic/full goals of the offensive then Finnish (torjuntavoitto) defensive victory from military point of view is obvious.

p.256 Discusses the possibility that peace terms on spring 1944 would have been intentionally written by Soviets to be impossible for the Finns to accept so that arms could be used to resolve the war.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is merely a speculation as it does not even attempt to rely on first-hand Soviet sources - orders, official diaries or memoirs. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

So if i cite a book which is based also on Soviet accounts it counts automatically as speculation? Soviet war time archives are still out of bounds for most researchers. In any case i provided the requested evidence - the burden of proof is now yours to find opposing evidence. I cited the book, have shown the STAVKA order several times before, and represented the timeline of the events. I have seen nothing which would contradict that from the opposing point of view. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well you are in denial as always. The source above is unclear and only reflects a fringe Finnish POV (defensive victory).

Finland was forced to negotiate and exit the war by the offensive (or at the very least the offensive played a major role in this) and this is according to the sources I quoted at the talk page of the Continuation War article. Let's continue the discussion there. -YMB29 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Finland was not forced to negotiate by the offensive. If anything then due to the offensive Ryti was forced to sign Ryti-Ribbentrop Agreement which specifically made Finland unable to negotiate for the duration of the Soviet offensive. Please do notice that Ryti did not resign (and enable Finland again to take part to negotiations) before Soviet offensive had already been stopped (apart from Ilomantsi but by that time offensive was hardly strategic in nature as mere 2 Soviet divisions took part in it). Finnish negotiations for exit from the war had started since 1943. Summer 1944 did not magically manifest these ideas for the Finns who had had those plans already for roughly a year. Given that Finns were at (or tried to get to) the negotiation table both before the offensive and during the offensive i fail to see how Finland was forced to negotiate by the offensive. If anything the stopping of the offensive made Soviets to soften the deal so that it was no longer impossible for the Finns to fulfill it - as it had been in spring 1944 and June 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes you "fail to see" and this is the problem. You just repeat the same things without taking note of sources that don't go with your view. It is not even about what you think since that is OR. Please continue discussing this on the other talk page, so we don't say the same things in two places. -YMB29 (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Document about unconditional surrender

Here are some quotes that contradict the unconditional surrender claim:

...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". [2]

So Stalin told the US this a day before the draft document was supposedly dated.

This is all I could find about the document in Russian:

Открытым остается вопрос о том, какие цели в отношении Финляндии преследовало сталинское руководство на заключительном этапе Великой Отечественной войны. Если в отечественной исторической литературе данная у проблема специально не рассматривалась , то в ряде работ зарубежных историков ей уделяется повышенное внимание. По их мнению, летом 1944 г. советское руководство рассчитывало оккупировать Финляндию. Данный вывод, по словам этих историков, подтверждается наличием проекта плана о безоговорочной капитуляции финской армии ("Документ о безоговорочной капитуляции финской армии"), разработанного в июне 1944 г., то есть в период советского наступления на Карельском перешейке. Этот документ в 1993 г. был найден финским историком М.Туртола в архиве МИД РФ и опубликован затем в финском журнале "Общество". Документ не подписан, неизвестно также его авторство, поэтому утверждение финской стороны выглядит малодоказательным. [3]

Translation:

It remains an open question as to what goals the Stalinist government pursued in relation to Finland in the final stages of the Great Patriotic War. If in domestic historical literature this problem has not specifically been addressed, a number of works of foreign historians have given it special attention. In their view, in the summer of 1944 the Soviet leadership hoped to occupy Finland. This conclusion, according to these historians, is confirmed by a draft of a plan for unconditional surrender of the Finnish army ("Document on the Unconditional Surrender of the Finnish Army"), created in June 1944, during the Soviet offensive on the Karelian Isthmus. This document was found in 1993 by a Finnish historian, M. Turtola, in the archive of the Foreign Ministry, and then published in the Finnish magazine "Society". The document is not signed, its author is unknown, so the assertion of the Finnish side is unconvincing.

-YMB29 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what does Stalin's statement to the U.S. representative prove? At the same while, he promised the U.S. free elections held in the Baltic states after the war. So what? His real intentions are relevant here, nothing else. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your view on Stalin is your OR. General political promises and specific ones that have to do with military action are different things. The allies depended on each other during the war so lying like that was not an option. -YMB29 (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Stalin's word to the U.S. as definite evidence appears as your OR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In turn, Dr. Bakulin's dismissal of the document remains unconvincing to me. Drafts don't need signatures in order to be, well, drafts, and to serve as evidence in unofficial intentions (i.e. not formally presented to the opposing party).

The latest monography dedicated to the 1944 Karelian offensive, "Karjalan kannaksen suurtaistelut kesällä 1944" (The Karelian Isthmus offensive in summer 1944) compiled by Dr. Tapio Tiihonen, after 14 years of research with all available Finnish and Soviet archive material. He strongly appeals at the draft, apparently dated to 28 July. His conclusion reads: "Kysymyksessä ei ollut Leningradin turvallisuus vaan Suomen poliittinen ja sotilaallinen miehittäminen." "The safety of Leningrad was not in question, but the political and military occupation of Finland." --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsigned draft documents like that don't prove unofficial final intentions but only that some people in government were considering multiple scenarios.

This is a controversial topic and Finnish historians can speculate about the draft, but it by itself does not prove the intentions of the offensive, when there is other evidence about them.

If the draft is that important, why after almost 20 years there has not been much mention of this outside Finland?

As far as this article goes, we have to go by what is known for certain from reliable sources. The speculations about the draft can be mentioned but not in the introduction. -YMB29 (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There, you've said it: "some people in the government were considering". And to specify, they considered only two scenarios. Even the fact that the scenario was detailed out on the table is significant enough. Naturally the draft itself proves nothing but Dr. Turtola and Dr. Tiihonen put in the context of other documents and events (including Mrs. Kollontay's communication on 23 June, which the Eduskunta interpreted as unconditional surrender) and conclude something. This is nothing to dismiss as speculation.

Since its discovery, I can name just one comprehensive analysis of recent first-hand sources on the 1944 Karelian offensive, Dr. Tiihonen, 1999. The rest appear to rely on previously released second-hand reports. I challenge you to prove me wrong. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This is just your assumption. You can't claim that one source has it right while others should be ignored...

Government officials consider a lot of things, but the final decision is what counts.

What do you mean about the June 23rd communication? There is plenty of evidence that the Soviets did not mean unconditional surrender, including what I posted above. -YMB29 (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What is sorely missing is any archived documents concerning Soviet intentions at June 1944. In fact the only document concerning Soviet peace conditions which has surfaced so far from the Soviet archives is the above-mentioned document about unconditional surrender. Although it is a draft and never used in real life, it's existence and the lack of other documents raises it's importance.--Whiskey (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but that does not make it the only thing that counts... -YMB29 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Failed objectives

However, they had a number of objectives, including the destruction of the Finnish army,[4][5] and reaching the Kymi river connecting Kotka and Kouvola[6][7] which they did not achieve.

This is original research. Where in those sources does it say that they failed to achieve those objectives? Why are those objectives important enough to be mentioned in the intro? Stavka orders are not a good source since they are a primary source. Read WP rules about primary sources.

I do not understand. Do you consider this a primary source? Well it is not and that is where we get the objectives. You cannot just cherrypick some that suit your agenda and leave others out. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You cannot pick random tactical objectives and say that the Soviets failed to accomplish them in the intro of an article about a strategic offensive, especially when the sources you provide don't say anything about not accomplishing them. -YMB29 (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not picking anything. I am just trying not to leave out any. Opposite to you. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So why did you remove the strategic objective that was accomplished? You constantly insert your OR, and give secondary tactical objectives importance over the main strategic ones. -YMB29 (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What? When did I do that? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I answered below. -YMB29 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

По замыслу Ставки войска Ленинградского и Карельского фронтов при содействии Краснознаменного Балтийского флота, Ладожской и Онежской военных флотилий мощными ударами должны были разгромить противостоящего противника, овладеть Выборгом, Петрозаводском и выйти на рубеж Тикшеозеро, Сортавала, Котка. Операцию начинали войска Ленинградского фронта, затем в наступление переходил Карельский фронт.

This says nothing about destroying the Finnish army. It talks about defeating the opposing enemy forces. -YMB29 (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you know Russian better than I. This dictionary translates разгромить to "(врага, сопротивление) to crush , (город, страну) to destroy, (политику, статью, соперника) to savage". This dictionary translates it to "smash". I cannot find a dictionary that gives "to defeat" or its synonym as the first meaning. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So you not only make your own interpretations about Soviet objectives, but you also base them on translations you try to make from a language you don't fully understand... -YMB29 (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Then enlighten us, oh great wiseman. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's see... you translate sources by looking up each word in a dictionary... You see nothing wrong with this? I will say it one more time for you. Nowhere does it say that the objective was to destroy the Finnish army (especially the whole army as you are implying). -YMB29 (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Cut the wisetalk. Give your interpretation of the quote and the explanation why you choose to use the tertiary meaning of the term here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not a tertiary meaning. To destroy would be уничтожить, not разгромить. And I already told you my interpretation. -YMB29 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not avoid the question. What does разгромить mean? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I told you in this context it means defeat. You can use google translate if you don't believe me. You are making too much out of that word; to accomplish any military objective the opposing forces have to be defeated... -YMB29 (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Soviet offensive never reached Virojoki, Lappeenranta, Kymi river, or Kotka. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

№ 120

ДИРЕКТИВА СТАВКИ ВГК № 220119 КОМАНДУЮЩЕМУ ВОЙСКАМИ ЛЕНИНГРАДСКОГО ФРОНТА О ПРОДОЛЖЕНИИ НАСТУПЛЕНИЯ НА КАРЕЛЬСКОМ ПЕРЕШЕЙКЕ

21 июня 1944 г. 02 ч 15 мин

Ставка Верховного Главнокомандования приказывает: 1. Войскам Ленинградского фронта, действующим на Карельском перешей­ке, продолжать наступление с задачей 26—28.06 главными силами овладеть рубежом Иматра, Лаппенранта, Виройоки. Частью сил наступать на Кексгольм, Элисенвара с целью очищения от противника Карельского перешейка северо-восточнее реки и озера Вуоксы.

2. В дальнейшем главными силами развивать наступление с задачей овла­деть рубежом Коувола, Котка и закрепиться на восточном берегу р. Кюмин-Йоки. Обеспечивать свою главную группировку с севера.

3. Установить с 24.00 21.06.1944 г. следующую разграничительную линию между Карельским и Ленинградским фронтами: до Коровкино — прежняя и далее южный и западный берег Ладожского озера, Тервус, Элисенвара, Тайпионкоски, Лаппенранта, Лахти (все пункты для Ленинградского фронта вклю­чительно) .

4. Об отданных распоряжениях донести.

Ставка Верховного Главнокомандования

И. СТАЛИН А. АНТОНОВ

- Wanderer602 (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of this, other than to show that you can copy and paste? -YMB29 (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just pointing out what some of the Soviet objectives were. And since they never reached those areas i certainly would say they failed in their objectives. Besides Moisala&Alanen's book explicitly states that one of the goals was the crushing of the Finnish Karelian Army followed by crushing of the remaining Finnish troops at shore of Ladoga. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do not understand YMB's bitterness. This is the daily order and you are living in denial of the objectives it lists. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It is like trying to explain what is 1+1 to you... I specifically pointed out the WP policy about primary sources, and then he comes and posts the orders I have seen him post like 10 times... -YMB29 (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement source to two references. One of them is a primary one, the other is secondary. What is your problem? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

See what I wrote below. -YMB29 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Non primary source needed

YMB29 keeps tagging the statement: "The Stavka also ordered to reach the Kymi River between Kouvola and Kotka.[8] and [9]" as "non-primary source needed". He apparently regards this a primary source. Could anyone help me to verify the latter as a secondary source. Thank you.

No I don't mean that source; I am talking about the first one. Look where the tag was. You should be careful using primary sources like that. -YMB29 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement you are trying to tag is sourced to two references. One of them is a primary one, the other one is secondary. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I just clarify my understanding of the disagreement? (My Russian is poor, so apologies in advance, and please correct me). There are two sources, A and B. A is a collection of Russian military orders; B is an analysis of the Soviet offensive on the Karelian Isthmus and South Karelia. The statement we're trying to support is what the Stavka were ordered to do?

• If so, does everyone agree that A is a primary source, but B is a secondary source? (My own reading of A is that it is a primary source, but note my linguistic weaknesses!)
• Does the statement about the order appear in both A and B? I was having trouble finding it in B, but my language skills aren't great. If it is both A and B, then presumably we're fine. If its only in A, then we've presumably got a primary source issue.Hchc2009 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote in the latter says: По замыслу Ставки войска Ленинградского и Карельского фронтов при содействии Краснознаменного Балтийского флота, Ладожской и Онежской военных флотилий мощными ударами должны были разгромить противостоящего противника, овладеть Выборгом, Петрозаводском и выйти на рубеж Тикшеозеро, Сортавала, Котка.

Stated Wikipedia policy concerning usage of primary sources is: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

Stavka order 120 states:"Ставка Верховного Главнокомандования приказывает: 1. Войскам Ленинградского фронта, действующим на Карельском перешей­ке, продолжать наступление с задачей 26—28.06 главными силами овладеть рубежом Иматра, Лаппенранта, Виройоки. Частью сил наступать на Кексгольм, Элисенвара с целью очищения от противника Карельского перешейка северо-восточнее реки и озера Вуоксы." Translation:"STAVKA orders: 1. Those forces of the Leningrad Front which operate on the Karelian Isthmus continue offensive with the task that by 26-28.06 the main parts of the forces reach the level Imatra-Lappeenranta-Virojoki. Part of the forces attack to Käkisalmi and Elisenvaara for the purpose of clearing the enemy from the Karelian Isthmus northeast of the river and The Vuoksi lakes."

By using the STAVKA order as a source for the claim: "Leningrad front forces were ordered to advance to Lappeenranta-Virojoki level." The wikipedia policy concerning the primary sources is fulfilled. Or should it be even more word by word? --Whiskey (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. For what its worth, having (slowly, given my Russian!) gone through both passages, my opinion would be that yes, A) is a primary source, and B) is a secondary source. B doesn't seem to contain the bit about the advancing to the Lappeenranta-Virojoki level. I personally think, though, that the gisting of the sentence is close enough to the primary source not to constitute interpretation, and the "non-primary source" flag shouldn't be necessary. I'd caveat that by noting my assumption that the primary source is not contested (i.e. historians generally regard the Stavka order set as uncontentious and accurate as a record of the orders given to the military units). Hope that helps. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If the primary source is used to just state some objectives, that is fine. However, before it, along with the secondary source, was used not only for the objectives but also to state that they were not achieved. Now other sources have been added, but still if you have secondary sources why do you need the primary? Also the part about defeating the Finnish army was a clear attempt at interpreting the primary source, and the secondary one also.

Currently the problem that remains is the interpretation of the significance of the objective (reaching the Kymi River). Is that objective important enough to be mentioned in the intro along with the main strategic objectives. -YMB29 (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

POV and OR tags

The lead includes every Soviet objective you are demanding to include. What else do you need? The deletion of the objectives the Soviets failed to accomplish? Do you think that is neutral? ---Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Last time what I added was deleted.

The tactical objectives the Soviets failed to achieve should also be included, but not in the intro like that. They should not be given higher importance just because they were not achieved, and be included just to somehow balance the strategic objectives that were achieved. A sentence in the intro saying that the Soviet advance was eventually stopped would be enough. Include the details further in the article. -YMB29 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly do you source your interpretation that the Kotka-Kouvola-Lappeenranta line was not a strategic goal? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get that it was? I thought you understood before what is a strategic goal.[10] -YMB29 (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Back then I assumed good faith and a reliable interpretation of sources. Right now, having looked at the Stavka order and its published interpretations, I see they only list objectives without a hint on a division into strategic or tactical. Perhaps you can point it out to me. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Stavka did not give strategic objectives to field commanders. It set specific military objectives to be accomplished on the battlefield, and such objectives are tactical.[11] -YMB29 (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually - according the source you used - such objectives are 'Operational' or 'Theater-Strategic' but not tactical. Regardless if you claim the that the goal of the offensive was to force Finland out of the war then there are number of sources (Platonov, Moisala/Alanen, Mannerheim) which disagree with your conclusions. All which state that the offensive alone failed to force Finland from the war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Result again

Why should it be tactical victory and strategic stalemate? Let's hear your explanation, with sources. -YMB29 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets see, two quotes from Whiskey referring to two separate works handling specifically the war around Leningrad region -

Yes, it disagrees. Also David Glantz writes in The Battle for Leningrad p.444: "...Althogh the capture of Vyborg and the Red Army advance to the Vuoksi River line essentially ended the Vyborg operation, it did not satisfy the STAVKA's strategic aims." and p.457: "By 14 July it was clear to Soviet and Finn alike that Govorov's offensive into Southern Finland had failed."

So, now I have two books, specifically written of the operations on the area, which support my interpretation. You still have paragraphs from the books/articles written about something else. --Whiskey (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what Platonov writes in Bitva za Leningrad about the reaching the YMB29 defined (as sourced by one paragraph presentations of the issue) strategic goal p.485: "...Regardless of the defeat of it's Army Finland continued the war. Soviet army had to reach new victories in South Karelia, Bealorussia, Baltic and other directions of the German-Soviet front to force Finnish reactionary government to accept conditions of the Soviet government and separate from the war from the side of the Hitler's Germany."

So, Soviet Union failed to reach the strategic goal of forcing Finland out of war with V-P offensive. --Whiskey (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Then one from myself according to Moisala & Alanen's "Kun hyökkääjän tie pysäytettiin".

"Stalinin suuri Suomen-offensiivi ei saanut täyttymystään: Suomea ei murskattu sotilaallisesti. Itse asiassa Neuvostoliitto epäonnistui sotilasstrategisesti, mikä johtui siitä, ettei kumpikaan offensiiviin osallistunut rintama kyennyt täyttämään omia operaiivis-strategisia tehtäviään. Karjalan kannaksella Leningradin rintaman oikean siiven joukkojen hyökkäys kulminoitui kesä-heinäkuun vaihteessa, ja Itä-Karjalan Karjalan rintaman vasemman siiven hyökkäys heinäkuun puolivälin paikkeilla."

Which quite blunty states that "Stalin's great offensive against Finns failed to reach its conclusion: Finland was not defeated militarily. In fact from military strategic view point the offensive was Soviet Union's failure, which was caused by the fact that neither of the fronts participating to the offensive managed to accomplish their respective operational/strategic missions..." - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope Whiskey won't mind me copying his quotes. And i'm confident that should need arise he can provide the actual pages and references as well. According to those sources V-P offensive failed to reach its strategic goal of forcing Finland out from the war - however it certainly contributed to it but it failed to do it on its own. Offensive failed to reach its strategic goal, it also failed to reach its operational/theater-strategic (which ever you prefer) goals (ie. the Kymi river line and destruction of Finnish Army). - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It is peculiar to notice, that when YMB29 in reverting contradictions from intro, he removes the sourced statements from two books specially written about the battles around Leningrad, each one using tens of pages handling the Offensive, and leaves statements from the essays/books concentrating totally different issues and using only passing remarks on the issue at hand, ranging from single paragraph to less than a page. Could You please in turn explain how these sources with only minimal touch on the issue describe the Offensive better than books specifically concentrating on this and other offensives around Leningrad? (And I don't mind.;-)) --Whiskey (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rushing to insert your OR, you did not proofread, hence the funny contradiction...

All you have is some Finnish source claiming that Finland was not defeated and such... This is contradicted by many other sources. For example, Glantz writes that the offensive forced Finland from the war and that this was the main strategic goal. And once again Platonov's book says nothing about the offensive being a strategic failure.

I am still waiting for a source that says that it was a strategic stalemate and tactical victory... -YMB29 (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Platonov states the offensive alone failed to force Finns to ceasefire. Glantz states that offensive failed meet STAVKA strategic goals. If that is not stating that offensive failed then what is? - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Glantz specifically says that the offensive forced Finland from the war, so stop being dishonest. Just because other factors contributed does not make the offensive a strategic failure. Platonov does not make such a conclusion. -YMB29 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Glantz: "...it did not satisfy the STAVKA's strategic aims." & "offensive into Southern Finland had failed.". Platonov: "Soviet army had to reach new victories...". Both clearly stating that offensive alone failed to force Finns to ceasefire (which almost to the word what Platonov wrote). - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop misusing sources. You are doing the same thing Boris Novikov was doing... Do I have to report you?

Glantz says the Vyborg operation alone, the advance up to June 20 and the capture of Vyborg, did not satisfy the Stavka's aims, not the whole offensive. Also the offensive into Finland had failed but that was not the main goal.

Glantz may be critical of the offensive not being able to advance into Finland and not achieving all of the tactical goals, but he clearly says that it forced Finland from the war in all of his books:

During the summer campaign, the Leningrad and Karelian Fronts completed liberation of the Leningrad region by defeating Finnish forces on the Karelian 1sthmus and in southern Karelia, and forcing Finland to leave the war.

The Siege of Leningrad, 1941-1944: 900 Days of Terror

During the summer campaign, the Leningrad and Karelian Fronts completed liberating the Leningrad region by mounting yet another major offensive, this time to liberate the northern Leningrad region on the Karelian Isthmus and in southern Karelia. While the Red Army was able to overcome the vaunted Mannerheim Line, capture Vyborg, and, ultimately, force Finland to leave the war, this offensive too fell far short of Stavka expectations.

The Battle for Leningrad, 1941-1944

And let's complete this quote: After exploiting its numerical superiority and the element of surprise to secure its initial objectives, the Red Army's offensive bogged down short of achieving the Stavka's ultimate objectives.--Whiskey (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The combined Soviet operations north and south of Lake Ladoga ultimately forced the Finns to sue for peace in September, and although token German assistance finally did arrive, the die was already cast for the Finns.

When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler

And who told you that a strategic offensive has to achieve its main goals immediately and completely by itself for it to be not considered a failure? -YMB29 (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources you provided do contain something, like mistakes, for example there was no Mannerheim line in 1944. Also (see Karelia) it seems rather doubtful that Finnish forces in southern Karelia would have been defeated since Soviets never reached that area.

Yet he also clearly stated that offensive fell short of its planned goal - it appears the writer is himself contradictory in his statements. Also it is true as Glantz states that Red Army forced Finland to leave the war but it is also true what as he states that offensive fell far short of Stavka expectations - in other words it required Red Army more than just the offensive. Just like Platonov stated and explicitly mentioned that offensive failed to force Finns to do anything. In other words Soviet Union 'won' (ultimately forced Finns to ceasefire) the Continuation War despite 'not succeeding' (failed strategically/operationally) in the its offensive against the Finns. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny how you keep on twisting the words of authors without shame...

Once again it fell short of achieving all of the tactical goals, but that does not make it a failure.

Glantz proves you completely wrong and you still use him for your claim... How ridiculous...

Can you stop edit warring? -YMB29 (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Book which talks of 'Mannerheim line' with regards to 1944 summer battles does not exactly raise confidence. Since there were no such defence line anymore in 1944. I only used what the authors had written - i did not start extrapolating on what might have ment with it. According to source you yourself cited the goals of the offensive (river lines etc etc) can not be counted as tactical instead they were one or two 'levels' above that (operational/theater-strategic - yes i actually read what the book said). Glantz himself repeatedly mentions that offensive failed to reach its targets. I certainly can stop reverting your edits provided you actually use the talk page to reach consensus regarding the new content before you make edits - especially if your edits involve erasing cited information only because it contradicts your POV. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You don't make sense... How can you claim that an author supports you when he actually proves you wrong?? You are the only one making POVed edits, making up what authors say. Also there was consensus until you and Whiskey started inserting that contradictory sentence.

You are edit warring in here and in the other article to push your POV. How many times can I ask you to stop? -YMB29 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to apologize, the insertion of contradictional statement was intentional.

Why did I put it there? The reason was to show you and all the rest that if we take books where the V-P offensive is handled thoroughly, using tens of pages, conducting deep analysis about what happened and when, sourcing the claims properly and following them through in a scientific manner, then the final conclusion about the successfulness of this offensive differ totally from those one paragraph wonders you have been promoting!

I am not promoting any Finnish books or even English translations of Finnish writers, although I could provide a dozen of them covering the V-P offensive in detail, but I'm referring THE Russian book and THE most thorough US book about the battle for Leningrad. Not some a books, but ones which have been used by scores and scores of other historians in their researchs, books and articles about the issues handling the siege.

That's why I repeat my question again: Could You please in turn explain how these sources with only minimal touch on the issue describe the Offensive better than books specifically concentrating on this and other offensives around Leningrad? --Whiskey (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So if Glantz or some other author writes about the offensive but does not devote his whole book to the Finnish front, he does not know what he is talking about?

What Russian or US books that concentrate on this theater of war support your claim? The ones you mentioned don't, unless you do selective readings of them and make your own interpretations. -YMB29 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources (for 3rd opinion)

User:Wanderer602 keeps inserting text which says that the offensive failed to force Finland out of the war:

However some sources state that the offensive forced Finland from the war and to accept Soviet peace terms while others state that though the offensive succeeded in clearing the area north of Leningrad it failed in its goals of destroying Finnish Army or driving Finland out of the war.[refs: Glantz (2002), p. 458; Platonov (1964), p.486; Moisala (1988)]

However, one of the sources he uses says the complete opposite:

During the summer campaign, the Leningrad and Karelian Fronts completed liberating the Leningrad region by mounting yet another major offensive, this time to liberate the northern Leningrad region on the Karelian Isthmus and in southern Karelia. While the Red Army was able to overcome the vaunted Mannerheim Line, capture Vyborg, and, ultimately, force Finland to leave the war, this offensive too fell far short of Stavka expectations.

The Battle for Leningrad, 1941-1944, by Glantz (p. 461)

The other source he uses says:

Regardless of the defeat of its army Finland continued the war. The Soviet army had to reach new victories in South Karelia, Belorussia, the Baltics and other directions of the German-Soviet front to force the Finnish reactionary government to accept conditions of the Soviet government and separate from the war, from the side of Hitler's Germany.

Battle for Leningrad, by Platonov (p. 486)

Based on this he makes the interpretation that the offensive failed; he claims that the offensive failed in its goal to drive Finland from the war because it did not do it all by itself... All or nothing logic... This is obviously his interpretation and is, therefore, original research.

Can someone explain to him that using these sources for that statement (failed to drive Finland out of the war) is illogical and does not make sense; it is a clear example of misusing sources. -YMB29 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the cited sources say the offensive defeated the Finnish army. However, Glantz says the offensive forced Finland out of the war while Platonov said it did not. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that you also see that Glantz contradicts him. As for Platonov's book, it does not say that the offensive failed to drive Finland from the war, just that other events helped to finish the job. I mean it does not say that the offensive did not play an important part in forcing Finland out, which is what the statement in the article implies. Also note that the victory in South Karelia listed in the quote was a result of this offensive (its second phase), which probably means that the quote refers to only the Vyborg part of the offensive (the first phase) and not the whole offensive (I don't have the book so I can't check). -YMB29 (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet you are still totally ignoring the third source which explicitly states that Soviet offensive failed. Also your conjectures on what Platonov is saying and stating that it actually would support the view that the offensive was the primary cause is OR just as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please pay attention to what is going on. The problem we are discussing here is not that there is a Finnish source that supports you. The issue here is you misusing the two non-Finnish sources. I did not misuse Platonov's book for anything in the article, unlike you. -YMB29 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hardly misusing Platonov when he is explictly stating that the Red Army needed more than the offensive against the Finns to get Finns to negotiating table. Besides the matter is resolved in article already. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No it is not resolved as you still wrongly cite Platonov. So what if they needed more? That does not mean it failed...

Secondly, the quote is not even talking about the whole offensive. I found an expanded quote in Russian:

В середине июля линия фронта на всех направлениях Карельского перешейка стабилизировалась, и дальнейшие наступательные действия советских войск были прекращены. Активных боевых действий здесь до конца войны больше не проводилось. Финляндия, несмотря на поражение ее армии, еще продолжала войну. Потребовались еще новые победы Советских Вооруженных Сил в Южной Карелии, Белоруссии, Прибалтике и на других участках советско-германского фронта летом 1944 г. чтобы заставить реакционное правительство Финляндии принять условия Советского правительства и выйти из войны на стороне гитлеровской Германии.

translation:

In mid-July the front line along the entire Karelian Isthmus stabilized, and further offensive operations by Soviet forces were not attempted. Active combat no longer took place here for the rest of the war. Despite the defeat of its army, Finland continued the war. The Soviet army had to reach new victories in South Karelia, Belorussia, the Baltics and other directions of the German-Soviet front to force the reactionary Finnish government to accept the conditions of the Soviet government and exit the war from the side of Hitler's Germany.

So clearly it is talking about the operations on the Karelian Isthmus only. I guess Whiskey conveniently left the first two sentences out when he provided the quote. -YMB29 (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This time it appears you are mixing issues. Platonov makes a big list of other 'required' victories which go far above and beyond the scope of the VP-offensive. In short stating that the offensive in Karelian Isthmus (and also in 'South Karelia' - though that area Soviets never reached) was not enough on its own to bring Finland to ceasefire. Which pretty much makes the offensive a failure on the 'strategic scale' - offensive contributed to the ceasefire but it did not achieve it on its own. - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Again this is completely your OR and does not belong in the article.

And "victory in South Karelia" refers to the Svir-Petrozavodsk part of the offensive. -YMB29 (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Also... "During the summer campaign, the Leningrad and Karelian Fronts completed liberating the Leningrad region by mounting yet another major offensive, this time to liberate the northern Leningrad region on the Karelian Isthmus and in southern Karelia. While the Red Army was able to overcome the vaunted Mannerheim Line, capture Vyborg, and, ultimately, force Finland to leave the war, this offensive too fell far short of Stavka expectations." - Ultimately (eventually, in the end, in the long run) is pretty much saying that the offensive contributed to the Finnish decision however it did not manage to force it immediately or on its own. Also unless i have misunderstood something it was Soviet expectations that the offensive would force Finns into ceasefire (including the surrender demands of June 1944), however Glantz explictly states that offensive failed to fell far short of Stavka expectations. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fell short but accomplished the main goals. No matter how you twist and turn there is no getting away from the fact that Glantz proves you wrong. Who says that the offensive had to do it "immediately or on its own"? This article is not here for you to make your own analysis and reinterpret sources the way you want to. -YMB29 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it does not say that it would accomplished the main goals at all. Reading the quote it is stating (that) offensive failed to reach Stavka expectations (goals?) - no mentions of any 'main goals' being accomplished - all it is stating is that offensive achieved something (even though there was no such thing as the vaunted Mannerheim Line at the time) however it does not imply in any manner that any of the listed achivements would have been goals, let alone main goals, in any way. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Like you don't know that forcing Finland out was a main goal... I don't have full access to that book by Glantz (The Battle for Leningrad) so I can't check what he says were the main goals in that book, but in his other book (When Titans Clashed...) Glantz clearly says that forcing Finland out was one of the main goals; there is a citation to this in this article and I provided the quote on the other talk page, so don't tell me that you did not know about it. -YMB29 (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess this goes to the original research category, but anyway: I asked this issue from Mr. Glantz and he responded that SU failed to force Finland out of war in this offensive. Sue me. --Whiskey (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok so what is next, you are going to add your supposed email as a source? -YMB29 (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. To me it was only a clarification how his work should be interpreted, so it seems Wanderer602 is more right with his interpretation than you. Anyway, I strongly recommend you to read WP:GOODFAITH. I strongly propose that you drop your hostility towards Finnish sources. They are as good as any English and Russian ones, and when concerning Finnish actions, often much better than available English or Russian ones, thus fulfilling the WP:NOENG. --Whiskey (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that your supposed email is a Finnish source? It cannot be used for any interpretation in the article, especially for a statement that leaves no room for interpretation. -YMB29 (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Private communique are quite valid sources - very often used especially with history books - assuming those can be proven - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. Statement leaves room for interpretation because of the word "ultimately". I was just referring to your belittling and dissing of Finnish sources in general. Not a constructive way to act.--Whiskey (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not "belittling and dissing" Finnish sources, but just saying that they can't be the only sources that are used here.

And I don't know what you can interpret from the word "ultimately"... It certainly can't negate his statement... -YMB29 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And more sources:

As a result of its offensive against Finland, the Soviet Union removed the threat to Leningrad and expelled the occupier from Soviet Karelia. However, the massive Soviet offensive against Germans in Byelorussia had begun on 22 June, and it could not afford to send reinforcements needed to break Finnish resistance to a peripheral theatre of war in the north.

Finland in the Second World War by Olli Vehviläinen, p. 143 --Whiskey (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So what does this prove? Again please pay attention to what is being discussed. -YMB29 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Platonov is a poor source to support the claim that the offensive failed to drive Finland out of the war. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? For example, the Jassy–Kishinev Operation drove Romania out of the war. In that case, Romania surrendered during the operation. In V-P operation, Finland signed the armistice a month after the operation had ended.--Whiskey (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The offensive did its damage and the position Finland was in changed dramatically. Again why do you think the result had to be immediate? However, we are not talking about that here. He is talking about Platonov not backing up your claim. Please stick to the topic. -YMB29 (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless the result is immediate it is highly likely that there would have been (several) other factors contributing to the decisions (exactly like Platonov states). Also presumably had the offensive forced Finns to ceasefire there would have been negotiations going on during the offensive, while in reality after Soviet surrender demand which Finns refused on June 22 all negotiations were held until the offensive had ended. - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You are just repeating your OR. Other factors helping don't make it a failure. That is a ridiculous claim. -YMB29 (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That depends on how its result is represented. Exactly what i was after earlier with a post. If you state that offensive forced the ceasefire you are stating that the offensive (alone) was the reason for ceasefire - which is disputed. If you state that offensive contributed to the ceasefire you are stating that the offensive did not alone cause of the ceasefire - which is not disputed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am not using the quote from Platonov's book for that statement ("forced Finland from the war"), but you are using it for yours ("failed to force Finland from the war"). That is the issue here. -YMB29 (talk) 05:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually i'm using pretty much the same argument as Platonov - offensive on its own failed to force Finland from the war. However i do not deny that the offensive would not have been an important factor in the negotiations that followed, see the change i made to the lead section. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well before you just said that it failed... -YMB29 (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Assuming your claim that it was supposed to drive Finland from the war is true then it did fail. It did not drive Finland from the war on its own. It however indeed contributed to the ceasefire as said before several times. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you have your own theory that an offensive can only be successful if it achieves its goals immediately and completely by itself. -YMB29 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

YMB's ignorance of every interpretation that does not fit his one is kind of annoying. Very often a statement can be understood ambivalently and Glantz's conclusions seem to be among them. Even courts of law use stenograms and other commentaries from parliament members to interpret the law, why on earth not we. I would just like to see Glantz's original answer though, to be sure. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

So now I am ignorant? We can't make wide interpretations here. You yourself agreed with me so I don't know what you are talking about now... -YMB29 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My quetion:"3) While reading Yours and Platonov's books, I have got an impression that STAVKA had three strategic objectives with V-P offensive: 1.Removing threat from the north side of Leningrad, 2.Destruction of Finnish army and 3.Pushing Finland out of war. I consider Red Army succeeding in the First but failing in the Second and the Third. How far I am from the target?"

And David Glantz's answer:"3) As far as Soviet intentions were concerned, I believe the Stavka wanted to remove the threat to Leningrad from the north, destroy the Finnish Army as a threat, drive Finland from the war, and, if possible, even threaten or possibly occupy Helsinki. They tried to accomplish the last three aims in the continuation struggle during July. However, clear and somewhat embarrassing defeats ensued which prevented the Russians from achieving their last three aims. In no case, however, did the Russian want to repeat their performance of 1939. Therefore, they ended their offensive before achieving their ultimate goals." --Whiskey (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I have misinterpreted Glantz before. I guess we should go by his interpretation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You sure you were talking to Glantz? Anyway, what matters here is what he writes in his books, not private emails... -YMB29 (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If the book discusses the events in ambiguous manner then the issues can be clarified from the author. Which is the case in point here. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's right, what matters here is what he writes in his books. And it's our job to interpret what he writes. And the author's comments are a pretty good help. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Only published comments can be used here, or else everyone will start claiming to have emails from authors... -YMB29 (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

We are indeed interpreting a published comment, and as we have different interpretations, we need comments from the author himself. As for 'everyone will start claiming', the burden of proof lies on the presenter of the evidence and you are welcome to apply scrutiny to this piece of evidence. We will not just dismiss it as irrelevant. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Emailing, not talking. And yes.--Whiskey (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, If we sit down, calm a little and think about the issue thoroughly, it is self evident how this should be written to the article: "Some consider it blaa-blaa, while some others consider it blaa-blaa-blaa." (And I think there are too many of us discussing it now to ask 3rd opinion...) Also, I'd like to hear your opinions, should it really be in the lead section at all. --Whiskey (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if you put that the offensive failed to reach the Kymi River there then this has to go there too...

I don't have a problem with mentioning both views but just don't use Platonov for your statement ("failed to force Finland out"). Some of the Finnish sources you added, like the one above, also don't support that statement. -YMB29 (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think both sides have locked themselves to quarreling about sentences in a book. I think we should look at the bigger picture of war and finnish front at the time. I think some things should be corrected in the article. For example, in my opinion battle was clear strategical victory for soviet union. They pushed the lines back for 100km (oughta be enough to be considered strategical gain) and even though they didn't gain all the objectives they were set to gain, 100km gain in WW2 is still strategical victory. So i propose that we change the outcome to show soviet victory and then explain in the article itself the things that finns did gain by defending ferociously and blunting the attack when they did. About the objectives of the campaign i'd agree that this offensive wasn't THE reason why finland pulled out of the war, though it contributed in it. Generally from what i have read and is mentioned in literature, the finnish generals were dubious about the result of war already in 1943 and Mannerheim and other finnish war leadership continuously informed germans about the importance of estonia front to finland. While the offensive soviets mounted was able to push finnish army 100km back and created lots of casualties, finnish army wasn't in critical shape after the offensive. More importantly, germans were pushed out from estonia and soviets would have gained easy access to amphibious attacks to southern finland. I didn't make any edits and i hope my opinions gives something to your discussion about this article and we can make it better. Muhvi 20:28, 08 september 2011 (UTC+2)

Viipuri/Vyborg naming RfC

For editors who are interested, there is an RfC over at Talk:Continuation War about which name we should use for the town of Vyborg/Viipuri during World War II. This will affect this article, as well as quite a others on the Finnish/Soviet conflict. Some of the other articles affected include Winter War Continuation War, Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), and Baltic Sea campaigns (1939–1945). If you could comment, it would be very much appreciated. The RfC thread can be found here. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Result of the offensive

This is for the result in the infobox.

Result: Soviet victory or Soviet strategic victory

Explanation: The main strategic goal of the offensive was to force Finland from the war and this was accomplished. That is what reliable sources say.[12] The offensive did not advance into Finland as planned, but that was not its main purpose; this was only a means to help accomplish the strategic goal. Should not a strategic offensive be judged by the strategic goals it achieved, and not by whether it accomplished all of its tactical-operational objectives?
Some Finnish sources say that the offensive failed, but they incorrectly assume that the main strategic goal was to conquer Finland.
I don't understand why there is even an argument about this. If historians such as Glantz and Erickson define the main strategic goal of the offensive and then say that the offensive accomplished it, how could the result not be a Soviet victory? -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is a complex case that requires a link to the aftermath section instead of a result, since the sources above almost directly say that it was a Soviet victory, at least strategically. Other articles related to this one all have a result and are not any less complex. -YMB29 (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: blank or link to Aftermath section (as per suggestions made by others)

Explanation: Soviet stated goals (as per several reliable sources) of reaching Virojoki-Lappeenranta line and further Kymijoki river let alone the destruction of Finnish Army, all which were stated goals of the offensive failed. Whole offensive in the Karelian Isthmus after 20 June achieved very little even though it continued until mid July - though Soviet literature generally downplays this fact (see Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Battle of Vuosalmi). I left the actual phrasing of the result open since i'm not sure what it should be however blanket statement regarding 'Soviet victory' is not consistent with what took place in the Karelian Isthmus and in Ladoga Karelia in summer 1944 when Soviet goals of the operations are known. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to the rather complicated case of the result and after reading comments by others i'll go with what template documentation suggests, and go with either blank result or then result entry which directs to more detailed explanation in the article ('see aftermath'). - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others

Result: Soviet victory
As this is currently a choice between a result and a non-result, it is easy. Although a number of recent Finnish and Russian works conclude the campaign was a Finnish defensive victory, mainstream sources such as Glantz and Erickson seem to state this as a Soviet victory. Let me also point out that this is currently marked as the only succesful Soviet operation in the Continuation War, so anything below a Soviet victory here would raise the question where did the Soviets win this war? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a difficult battle to summarize in a few words. While the Soviets clearly came out ahead, they also didn't do as well as they'd expected to. However, it's hard to see how this was anything other than a Soviet victory; it sure wasn't a Finnish success except perhaps in purely tactical terms (in that they were not over-run, as could have happened given the Red Army's significant superiority in firepower). It's important to note that this war ended in a negotiated peace (with terms which were very much in the USSR's favour) as the Finns knew that this battle was a 'near miss' and they couldn't hold the Red Army off for much longer, and the Soviets wanted to focus on defeating Germany rather than waste resources slugging it out with the Finns in a secondary theatre. As such, I'd suggest either going with 'Soviet victory' or, perhaps better still, leaving this field of the infobox blank, and explaining the results of the battle in more detail in the lead. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, even the infobox template documentation suggest the 'See the Aftermath section." as an alternative in complicated cases. I am even inclined to this now. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A war to end with a victory isn't necessarily achieved by a military victory, though the Soviets did have success in this operation. As why none of the battles have a result of Soviet victories, that isn't exactly the case (the German-Finnish operations in the Artic area all ended in failure). The initial Soviet advance of this Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive was succesful, but I guess no articles exist on those battles is because the Finns were on such retreat that there weren't any bigger skirmishes. When the Finns formed on defense, the Soviet advance was stopped (which was pretty extraordinary in 1944). But that's all the Soviets needed, to flex some muscles. So perhaps to sum it in a humorous way: the Soviets got to throw the hanging rope on Finland's neck, but Finland managed to throw a punch to the Soviet Union's nose at the same time. --Pudeo' 05:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Goals and the soviet peace terms of june.

Well I have read your discussions about the goals of the offensive and if the russians achieved them. Now I think we are clear that the russians demanded a capitualtion from the finns in 21 of June 1944 and that the russian "final-offensive" that was supposed to end finnish resistance, was commenced shortly after the finnish denial. Now it is disputed how much this meant an unconditional surrender, but it is clear that after the nine finnish victories between june and august the soviets had to present revised peace terms. Now if the goal with the offensive was to force Finland out of the war at the peace terms of 21 of June (capitulation, often interpreted as unconditional surrender)and Finland was forced out of the war on revised terms, it should be clear that the USSR failed with their goals. Thus it also means that the finns succeded in getting milder peace terms. And as it is clear that it actully was this kind of peace the finns had desired to reach since April 1944 ( an acceptable peace, a peace where the finns could be sure of retaining their indepedence.)

Now when it comes to if the peace terms of 21 of June is to be considered an unconditional-surrender. Capitualtion before continued negotions, would have meant that the USSR would have been able to demand anything from the Finns without having them (the Finns) being able to decline and to continue hostilities. This is clearly a unconditional-surrender.

I also want to say that I belive it is better and more accurate look at more official sources and statements concerning this offensive. In terms of credibility as (from a western point of view) obscure russian historians with their works written in cyrillic is hard to scrutinize. Or as statements from different persons of varied importance or dusty documents from old archives may have been taken out of their context etc.

To conclude I want to say that I think that the article is too concetrated at the belief that the offensive was about karelia. I can with certainty and sources say that the finns did not consider this to be a battle of karelia at all. They considered it a battle of Finland, and they had also given up important karelian territory including the city of Viborg to the russians, in order to aquire favourable defensive positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.183.94 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about goals

It would be appreciated if you would remove the bias from the question because in its current form it is not NPOV which unfortunately means it has really no value. First you state the perceived goal of the operation while leaving out the actual stated operative goals of the offensive. Second you use hindsight in evaluating offensives success. Furthermore term 'strategic' is not always attached to the name of the offensive so it should be left out. Such terms are not included in English nomenclature to the name of the offensive in any case. Make the question neutral and then leave it there. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It is a strategic offensive... The main goal is not perceived by me; it is what reliable sources say. I stated my view and you stated yours about operational-tactical goals, so what do you want? -YMB29 (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Also before I ask for a third opinion, I suggest you write a real result, like "Decisive Finnish victory" or whatever. Otherwise, others might think that you have no position of your own and are simply denying what is being pointed out to you. -YMB29 (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because the name in one language includes term 'strategic' does not mean it should be only considered as such. I don't have a good statement for the result since you have repeatedly refused to take part in actually discussing what it could be. How can there be collaborative effort with this regard with such a denial? Given the extent of Soviet failures in capturing or accomplishing stated and set goals of the offensive using a blanket statement such as 'Soviet victory' is just not in any way neutral - neither is the one you appear to be trying to insert as my statement (ie. 'Finnish victory'). - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I suggested "Soviet strategic victory", but you don't want that too. You accuse me of what you yourself do. I am the one discussing the result, presenting sources and proving my point, while all you do is deny what I suggest and what reliable sources say.

So are you going to suggest a result or not? -YMB29 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually you are again wrong so please do not try to say what i stated. I already made a suggestion regarding the result for you to evaluate earlier but you seemingly refused to acknowledge that it even existed quite clearly showing that you had no interest in collaborative effort - 'Operational Soviet failure, Strategic Soviet success' as per sources, if you want to avoid edit wars (not by me but knowing the history of the topic) i would suggest on not insisting on term 'victory' - it will bring only grief since i doubt very much it would be accepted as NPOV. Reliable sources speak of the result of the offensive on two separate levels so you can not just choose one and ignore the other according to your preferences. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: 'Operational Soviet failure, Strategic Soviet success' - stating a negative result would be anti-Soviet POV and also confusing - if that means Finnish operational victory or stalemate then why cover it with a negative statement?. Also, the English Wikipedia logic would be to state the strategic outcome first. And, the standard vocabulary here is 'victory' rather than 'success'. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wanderer602 does not want to accept that this was a victory of any kind for the Soviets. -YMB29 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Earlier comment is still valid: I left the actual phrasing of the result open. So strategic could go first, nothing there to prevent it. It was never a Finnish operation nor was it a Finnish campaign so determining it to be Finnish victory is impossible since there were nothing for Finns to achieve as far as goals for the operation are concerned (separate engagements within the campaign are a different case) - well other than stop the Soviet offensive, but that is a perceived greater (ie. strategic) goal instead of stated goal AFAIK, in which Finns succeeded. From Finnish point of view the fighting in the summer of 1944 is considered to be part of the 'Soviet grand (great/huge/massive) offensive (attack/assault)'. Victory might be closer to the standard vocabulary but it is not a strictly enforced rule, furthermore i find no reason to cause undue griefing with the article by intentionally choosing a phrasing that is likely to be contested. I would rather try to find a lasting resolution instead of creating potential battlefield.

@YMB29: Again it is rather insulting for you to state something regarding my opinions that is blatantly false. Either stay quiet or behave like any respectful editor should. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I just stated what I observed. -YMB29 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The strategic level is most important; you know this and don't want to admit it.

You are threatening me that Finnish users will edit war if it says Soviet victory because in Finland they are taught something else?

I told you that operational failure is dubious because you only look at the operational goals not accomplished. -YMB29 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have never threatened you in any way. I only noted given the page history that insisting on weighted statements in the results will end up in edit warring. That much is obvious from the past page history. Unless your goal is to intentionally aggravate other editors and cause battlefield situation then it would be preferable to use less weighted statement for the result to be used. Statements regarding the operative goals are quite clear, including to the land targets goal was to destroy Finnish army (see Solonin, who quoted Chief of LF Staff). - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by they are clear?

If other users cannot accept the result that is based on reliable sources, then too bad. We just have to deal with the edit warring. Similar thing happened with Soviet victory in the Continuation War article. I told you that "less weighted" would be "Soviet strategic victory", but you don't want to consider that too. -YMB29 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Meaning that they are known in several sources. Repeatedly using the statement 'reliable sources' is rather dubious behavior for you since my statements are also supported by reliable sources. I gave you an option which would use both views but so far you have refused to even discuss its merits. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I told you that I think your "option" (operational failure...) is dubious.

Your statements are mostly based not on sources, but on misinterpretations of sources (Platonov, Glantz, Ziemke...). -YMB29 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not any more interpretations that what you have with your sources. All those sources state that offensive failed to achieve its (operational) goals. What else do you need? - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't manipulate sources like you.

Failure to achieve some operational goals does not mean the whole operation is not a victory. You may think that operational goals are more important or on the same level as strategic goals, but that is just your opinion... -YMB29 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Show me a single instance where sources would have been manipulated. So you are saying that failure is not a failure? By same logic you are using there Finland won the war, after all it remained independent. You are only one who has been 'rating' different levels but so far there has been nothing to support such an act. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If you by now don't understand the difference between strategic, operational and tactical goals and the importance of each, you are lost... Or most likely you are denying the obvious again because you don't want to admit that you are wrong.

The goal for Finland when it started the war was not remaining independent, and you know this.

I have explained how you manipulate sources many times now on this page. Using an outdated quote from Ziemke, which he corrected, and then claiming that it is the same thing is not a manipulation? You have always done this, see the old section above [13]. -YMB29 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I do perceive the difference between them but i try not to discriminate according to that. You can not decide to ignore operations stated operative goals because you consider its strategic effect more important - that already is NPOV, it involves you opinion on what is important with regards to the article. You can not consider Finland and Continuation War without taking into account what preceded it. Finland intended to stay out of the coming war but was forced into it by the Soviet Union when it invaded Finland in the Winter War. Ziemke's 'corrected' quote, like you state it, does not change what he is saying. Last i checked the third opinion argument ended with you disagreeing when the opinion was inquired from the author when the authors comment disagreed with your interpretation on the matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What author?

Ziemke's corrected quote totally changes what he is saying. Your continued denial of this only proves my point, that you manipulate sources.

It is not about my opinion; military science considers strategic goals to be more important (see below). It is amusing how you keep denying this...

And don't give me excuses for Finland starting the war. -YMB29 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Glantz, as discussed in the sections you linked into. Ziemke's quote does not really change. For Ziemke, first one states "its offensive had failed", which is obvious, and other one "its offensive fell short of the success it ought to have had" which clearly states that the offensive failed to reached its (planned) goals. Actually that is the Soviet perspective to the matter which is hardly valid for all comparisons let alone this. Yet even if it was you can not ignore operational goals and the failures to accomplish them just because you dislike them. Again, we are discussing this offensive itself, not the war as a whole in this article. Winter War is acknowledged as the reason why Finns ended up into the WWII in the first place, reasons for taking part to the Continuation War nonwithstanding. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So the goal for Finland was to take back the lost land and add more, not independence...

We are discussing a strategic offensive, which is judged by whether or not it accomplished its strategic goals (or aims).

Again, this is a Soviet offensive, so we have to look at it from a Soviet perspective, and it is not like the view on strategic operations is much different for other countries.

Ziemke means that some goals were not reached. The first quote said failed, which would mean that almost no goals were achieved.

So you still want Glantz's supposed email to be used as a source here? What he writes in his books is what matters, not what he supposedly wrote in an email... -YMB29 (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is only your deduction that only strategic goals need to be considered. You actually need to provide some reasons (ie. sources) why only strategic goals would need to be included for consideration. Not reaching the goals is failing in accomplishing the goals, i see conflict there. As discussed in length in the referred section what Glantz states in this books is ambiguous. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you make it sound ambiguous.

As for the goals, see below again. -YMB29 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Since others editors could not agree upon it it was nothing but ambiguous. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about Glantz. In the quote you found he talks only about a phase of the offensive, while the other quotes talk about the whole offensive. -YMB29 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet every one else saw it ambiguous for use as a source for either way for the offensive - as discussed in length back then. Hence the need to ask for clarification directly from the author, which you refused immediately since it contradicted your POV. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh again with that supposed email...

You want to see it only as ambiguous, because otherwise you have to admit that you are wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not the only one who perceived it as ambiguous, on the contrary you were the sole person in the debate who did not consider it ambiguous. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You and Whiskey were against me, so I guess I was wrong... You still insist that it is ambiguous after it has been explained to you again and again... -YMB29 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Whiskey and me were not the only ones who thought the statements were ambiguous. Actually you were the sole person who thought that they were not. As was discussed in length. And when verification for the statement was requested you refused to acknowledge it at any level. Furthermore you arguments are still the same and the same rebuttal is still valid. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you still think that an email that someone claims to have received from an author is a valid source for Wikipedia, then you should not be editing here...

Only published sources can be valid. Furthermore, posting private correspondence without permission from the writer is not allowed. -YMB29 (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It was used as a last resort in effort to resolve the issue with ambiguous statements. Also i can only assume Whiskey did ask for that since he did the inquiry. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sure he did...

You see ambiguous statements every time you read something you don't like... -YMB29 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, all other participants in the discussion agreed that the statements from Glantz were ambiguous but since you alone opposed that view according to you it means that the statement from Glantz was ambiguous was solely my personal view? Could you please clarify what exactly do you mean with your vague statements? And could you finally keep you insinuations away from the discussions, they are still doing nothing else but degrading you as well as your position. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And so you think that you are not degrading yourself?

You and Whiskey have been known to deny everything that does not go well with the Finnish POV, so I don't see how there was any real consensus against me. -YMB29 (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As you well know Whiskey and I were not alone thinking that it was ambiguous. So again what exactly is your point? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Who else, Jaan? He only started having doubts when Whiskey posted the email. He actually took it seriously... -YMB29 (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is probably quite telling on the complexity of the matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No, an email should not be taken seriously as a source here. -YMB29 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Strategic outcome goes first. Should we, however, want to state an alternative operational result such as 'Finnish operational victory' or 'operational stalemate' we would need sources that actually state that. The Soviet failure to achieve some or even most of its operational goals is not sufficient to label it a Finnish victory or a stalemate as Finland failed to defend some major targets as well. The result is not obvious enough to decide it upon our own analysis without OR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

See several of the quotes above, also Moisala & Alanen (translated)

Stalin's great offensive against Finns failed to reach its conclusion: Finland was not defeated militarily. In fact from military strategic view point the offensive was Soviet Union's failure, which was caused by the fact that neither of the fronts participating to the offensive managed to accomplish their respective operational/strategic missions..

Military strategic here does not refer to overall strategic situation but instead to what Soviet/Russian parlance would call operational goals. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if we focus specifically on this source, what positive result would you make out of this? 'Finland not defeated' and 'Soviet Union's failure' are negative and therefore ill-suited for our purpose. I can see the authors do not support 'Soviet victory' as the result but where do they suggest the Continuation War was lost then, at the negotiation table? Anyways, the post-Soviet Finnish research unfortunately does not qualify as mainstream. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, you only have one Finnish source supporting you, with regard to the offensive being a strategic failure.

Looking at the translation, it is not even clear what the author refers to.

What was the main goal of the Soviet offensive according to the source? Conquest of Finland? -YMB29 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You are perfectly aware that it is not the sole source that states that the offensive failed so please do not try to insinuate that it would have been. Goals according to the source were the same as the goals for the phases of the offensive. Also authors include destruction of Finnish army on the north shore of Ladoga by pincer movement by both LF and KF as one (verified by the quote from LF chief of staff) and leave open exactly how far offensive would have reached in the west stating that likely end line would actually have been Helsinki-Lahti line.

@Jaan: If you consider the time when Finnish leadership started making moves toward ending hostilities then you can look for Stalingrad and Kursk (and events between) as a reason for it. Because that is the time Finnish leaders perceived the ultimate German defeat in the war. By 1944 it was even acknowledged that 1939 borders would not be acceptable for the Soviet Union. In other words it was the overall strategic situation in the WWII. Offensive did not change much in that regard, before the offensive parties were in negotiations and after the offensive parties were at negotiations (but this time with reduced Soviet demands). Only time they were not negotiating was during the offensive when Finns rejected the Soviet note perceived as demand for unconditional surrender. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Finns were unwilling to accept Soviet terms, but after the offensive they changed their minds. Any reduction in demands was due to international pressure, especially British.[14]

Historians say that the offensive forced the Finns to exit the war on the Axis side, so we don't need your analysis.

I am talking about strategic goals and evaluating the offensive strategically; you have only one Finnish source that does that... -YMB29 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Again the source you placed, just like the others, only mention that British (ie. foreign powers) influenced it. Not that they would have caused it like you stated. Sources is quite clear about this 'helped in persuading' only means that they contributed to the decision not that they would have forced it or even having been primary force behind the decision. Except those are not all what the offensive was about. You can not go ignoring certain aspects of the offensive just because you dislike them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anything; a strategic offensive is about accomplishing strategic goals.

So where is your source that the Soviet decision was influenced by something other than international pressure? -YMB29 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring several sources which state that offensive failed, just because you do not like them does not grant you a free pass to ignore them regardless how you consider them. Offensive had also other goals than strategic ones as discussed in quite a length before, again just because you refuse to accept them does not mean they would not have been there. Such a source is actually the one you provided. It explicitly mentions that Britain 'helped in persuading' not that 'Britain persuaded'. First one (used by source) is an acknowledgment of contribution while the other one is statement of accomplishing the whole action. Using it a source for a statement that 'any reduction in demands was due to international pressure' is actually (blatant) source manipulation of which you just accused me of. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there are no other reasons given by any other source, so it can be assumed that it was due to international pressure only. Plus "Britain helped" in that context means that Britain was not the only country that helped, not that there were other reasons.

Once again, a strategic offensive is meant to accomplish strategic goals. All other type of goals only serve those strategic goals and by themselves mean nothing. If you don't want to understand this, it is your problem.

Two Finnish sources you found say that it failed; one says strategically and the other does not clarify. Considering that patriotic Finnish historiography often assumes that the main strategic goal was to conquer Finland, this is not surprising. However, this cannot be taken seriously when the real main goal is well known. -YMB29 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because other reason(s) is (are) not stated does not mean you can interpret the statement in the way prefer it to be interpreted, again you are inserting your own bias into interpreting the articles which is source manipulation. You can not assume something that the source is not saying. Nor can you argue that lack of something is proof of its absence when the existence of the other reasons is clearly noted in the text. And again, source does not state if it was another country or other reason that contributed to the issue only that British diplomatic effort contributed to it, it does not in any way disclose what the other reasons were or even their relative importance to the matter of any of the factors. Yet again you arbitrarily decide to ignore all other aspects - yet the fact remains that the offensive had operative goals which Soviet forces failed to accomplish. Article discusses the whole of the offensive, not just strategic aspect of it. There are several more sources (non-Finnish) than just the Finnish ones as you are perfectly aware of so please try to stick with the facts. Just because you do not like them does not mean they would not exist. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So where are the other sources that say that the whole offensive failed?

The result in the infobox has to reflect the outcome of the offensive. The failed operational objectives cannot make the offensive a failure when the main goal was achieved. You still did not write what result you are after...

Read the source again. It says that the Soviets were persuaded, not forced. Britain helped persuade them means that there were others who were persuading them, not forcing them as you imply. Again, where are your sources for the other reasons? You have none, so you just keep on speculating and denying... -YMB29 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the quoted sources again in that case. Failed operational objectives means that on operational level the offensive failed which is still valid statement for the infobox. For operational failure it does not really matter what the strategic outcome was. And as for the source, it does not say that Soviets were persuaded by the British, it does not even state that Britain helped persuade, it states merely that Britain helped in persuading. Which only states that Britain contributed as one of the possibly several factors that affected the Soviet decision, not that they would have caused or that it would have been the sole cause of it like your earlier statement said. Which was source manipulation from your part, either use what the source states or don't use it at all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The source does not suggest that there were other reasons. You are trying to manipulate it to make it sound like it does.

As for operational "failure", see below. -YMB29 (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is saying that there were other reasons. It is in the phrasing. It is merely noting that British diplomatic influence contributed to the matter, not that they would have caused it. Difference between doing something and taking part in doing something. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes they took part in persuading the Soviets. Others took part in persuading them too. There is no indication that there were other reasons, besides persuasion (diplomatic pressure), for the decision. -YMB29 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

But the source is not stating so, all it is saying is that British diplomacy contributed to the decision. Not that it would have caused the decision. Source does not state in any way what the other reasons were. Nor does it even hint in any way that solely diplomacy would have contributed to the result. By stating so you are already misrepresenting the source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It talks about diplomatic pressure only and there is no hint of any other reasons, so it is not a misinterpretation.

Your denial and misinterpretation of what quotes from sources say is getting old... -YMB29 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it discusses solely the diplomatic pressure, but it leaves it totally open in its wording that the mentioned diplomatic pressure was not the sole cause why Soviets were persuaded to do something. It does not even disclose if other pressure for the Soviets would have been in form of diplomacy or not. It can solely be used as a source for stating that British diplomacy contributed to the Soviet decision (anything beyond that and you are already misrepresenting the source). Not to state that it was the sole cause or even that diplomacy was the sole cause. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That is again your misinterpretation and speculation.

You are still unable to provide a source that gives another reason... -YMB29 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It is that from your part when you are extrapolating on what source is actually stating. You can not go over and deduct something that is not there. The source you used already states that British influence alone did not persuade the Soviets. What else do you need as you have the source right there? - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, maybe the British did not do it alone; the Americans might have helped too...

In spite of their relative severity, the terms were tolerable. As an example, Eden pointed to the halving of the reparations bill to $300 million, thanks to the British, and the extension of the period of payment. Taken as a whole, the treaty did not, in Sir Anthony's view, imply in any way the end of Finland as an independent nation.

Between East and West: Finland in International Politics, 1944-1947, by Tuomo Polvinen (p. 36)

Just admit that you are wrong and stop embarrassing yourself. -YMB29 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So you find a source in which a person named 'Eden' (British foreign secretary) said that in his personal opinion proven by the quotation used (and not even as that of the author's) it was due to the 'thanks to the British'... For one that does not change what the earlier source stated in any manner. Also it is still not in any way disclosing that other other factors could have influenced the Soviet decision - all you have is a British politician thanking Britain. As seen from the following quote:

...and the terms of the peace could well have been harsher. The reason was probably not any sense of magnanimity on the part of the Soviet Union. Credit must be given to the fighting quality of the Finnish soldiers and the Soviets may well have concluded that it was not worth another costly offensive to impose harder terms. Credit must also be given to the fact that the Finns still enjoyed considerable sympathy in the western democracies, especially in the US. This may have served as a brake on Soviet policy. Lunde (2011), p. 377-378

Case that it would have been solely British or solely diplomatic result proven false, nothing else to see here. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nothing to see here, nothing new, as you keep denying the obvious as always...

Lunde is not talking about the halving of the reparations, but about harsher terms in general, like the unconditional surrender demand that Finns often claim they received. Another manipulation of a source by you.

I guess Eden was a nobody and was not in a position to know about the diplomatic talks of that time... We should go by your speculation instead... -YMB29 (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lunde is discussing the terms as a whole, which does include the halving of the reparations. There is no basis for the claim that he would have been discussing something else as Lunde writes "the terms of the peace". Unless you can prove that the reduced reparations were not part of the terms of the peace then it includes the reduced reparations. And Eden was not nobody, however what is stated above is only the personal opinion of a British politician regarding British activities which is not even necessarily shared by the historian writing it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So what historians do not agree with Eden?

You are the one who has to prove that Lunde is talking about the halving, not me. -YMB29 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you actually read what i stated, i'll repost the relevant part here for convenience: is not even necessarily shared by the historian writing it. Since the author specifically includes that statement as quote from Eden it is solely Eden's personal opinion on the matter and nothing else, it is not historian agreeing with it.

Actually no, i don't. Lunde is explicitly talking about the terms as a whole which does include the reparations. Unless of course you have source stating that the reparations were not part of the terms for the peace. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

He does not talk specifically about the reparations being halved. Harsher terms could mean occupation or more land concessions. So it is your problem to find a source if you want to counter my sources.

I guess the author is quoting Eden just for fun and does not believe what he is saying... Like I said, stop embarrassing yourself. Did not you just tell me to stop degrading myself? Well follow your own advice... -YMB29 (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

He is discussing of the terms as a whole, which includes reparations unless you can prove that reparations were not part of the terms for the peace. He is quoting Eden, with that he is showing Eden's personal opinion on the matter, nothing more, nothing less. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So why would he refer to Eden on this if he did not agree?

As a whole could mean anything, but we are talking about a specific term. -YMB29 (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Representing personal opinions in his text does not require the author to agree with it. It does not even require author to disagree with it.

Again nice twisting of the statement but it explicitly is talking about all the terms of the peace. So unless, again, you have a source which proves that reduced reparations were not part of the peace terms this whole discussion is pointless since the one-sided (ie. solely British influence) does not hold up. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it is up to you to prove that he is talking about the reparations or find another source that does talk about them. General speculation from an author is hardly valid for this.

So why did the author refer to Eden? Just to fill lines in his book? -YMB29 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I don't, Lunde explicitly refers to the terms of the peace. Which with current understanding includes the reparations, unless you can prove that it does not. Trying to shift the proof of burden won't help you here. Expressing personal opinions of notable personalities is nothing strange in history writing. It is there to represent the view of Eden. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would he present a view he does not agree with and not criticize it?

With current understanding... That is your understanding, your interpretation of the text. So you have to prove it. Don't try to get away from that... -YMB29 (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

He is presenting a personal opinion of Eden. That is all he does, nothing more, nothing less.

With current understanding i meant that it is currently understood that reparations were part of the terms for peace. Unless you have source which proves that they were not then Lunde is referring also to the reparations when he is talking about the terms for peace. It is not interpretation, it is just what he says. Trying to shift the burden of proof won't help you here, unless you can prove that reparations were not part of the terms for peace then Lunde is talking also about them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he is just presenting a personal opinion... Keep telling yourself that. You find an excuse for everything.

It is amusing how you turn things completely the other way when you have no real arguments. You make it seem like your interpretation of Lunde is a fact and ask me to prove otherwise. By harsher terms Lunde does not mean that only the actual terms accepted would have been harsher. We are talking about the reasons why the reparations were halved and you have provided no sources that prove your claim that it was due to Finnish "defensive victories." Lunde does not say anything about that. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Representing personal opinions is what history books also do. They are not required to agree with the personal opinions however.

Now you are interpreting what Lunde is stating. Read what he wrote. He explicitly states that credit for terms as they were in the treaty belonged also to "the fighting quality of the Finnish soldiers". As we are discussing the terms as they were that already says that credit goes also for the Finnish soldiers, not solely to the British (or Western) diplomacy like you implied in the original text. Feel free to formulate that as you like as long as the message is clear - also you can not even imply in the text that either side would have been dominant or more important, none of the sources say anything about that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Three sources say that the reduction in reparations was due to international pressure. You still found no sources that say that it was due to anything else. Your interpretation of Lunde means nothing here. Find sources that explicitly (no personal interpretations) attribute the reduction to Finnish victories or drop your argument.

So why would an author present an opinion if he does not agree or disagree with it? You make no sense. -YMB29 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No, sources do not say that. They state that international pressure contributed to the reduction in terms in overall, or in reparations in particular. By stating what you did you already intentionally misrepresented the sources. You can not make the sources state something they are not saying and you certainly can not extrapolate on their meanings. Lunde's writing on the other hand is not really open to interpretation, it is just what he wrote, nothing less, nothing more. Just because you don't like that reparations were part of the peace terms you can not choose to ignore that they were. What Lunde is stating is relevant until you can provide a source which proves that reparations were not part of the terms for the peace. Again, trying to shift the burden of proof will not get you anywhere.

The particular paragraph of the text in the book you mentioned discussed British opinions on Finland as well as their actions. In such a context representing a personal opinion on Eden is not in way surprising - it gives in insight into his actions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes insight into British actions that helped Finland.

The sources are clear in what they say. You can continue to make your own personal interpretations about what they or Lunde say, but you are just further prolonging your embarrassment. Just admit that you are wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not into British actions, it gives insight into what Eden stated - and possibly even meant - and nothing else.

So far i haven't done interpretations i have merely read what the sources are saying. You on the other hand have extrapolated on what the sources are saying (= misrepresented). The sources you posted have not stated that British influence would have been the sole reason for the reparations to be reduced, they have stated that it contributed to that effect. Lunde on the other hand discusses the same issue, and with similar results in his writing. And once again, cut the inane insinuations. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing inane about what I am saying. Your behavior here is disruptive.

The sources don't state that it was due to British influence only and nothing else, but they do not suggest that there were other reasons as you claim they do. So the only sourced reason is British or international influence, nothing else... The rest is interpretation and speculation. -YMB29 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In which particular way it is disruptive? Because i disagree with you? Because that is not what being disruptive means.

None of the sources disclose that British efforts were the sole reason for it - and actually only make clear that they only contributed to it, not caused it - and then i provided a source which states that effects to the terms of peace were also due to the Finnish military efforts. True again, no need to speculate, Finnish military had an effect into the reduction of the severity of the terms for the peace - in addition to the diplomacy. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So after this you still ask why you are considered disruptive. You interpret the sources the way you want to, to fit your personal view, even if this means changing entirely what they are saying. This derails the discussion, wastes everyone's time, and prevents constructive edits to the articles.

You also don't listen to what is being explained to you. Reread carefully what I previously wrote. Also, we are not talking about if the terms could have been harsher or not in general, but about a specific term being reduced, so your constant referencing to Lunde is useless for this. -YMB29 (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not what being disruptive means. The sources were not stating what you claimed they were which gives legitimate cause to argue about the issue - that is not being disruptive. Just because i disagree with your opinion does not make it disruptive either.

Again, Lunde is discussing the terms for the peace as a whole, which does include the reparations unless you have sources which state that reparations were not part of the terms for the peace. If you do not have such sources then it is clear that Lunde is also referring to the reparations, is relevant to the issue at hand, and can not just be ignored. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well here you once again have proven my point about your disruptiveness.

The sources support what I have said - the reduction in reparations was due to international pressure.

I am not going to keep explaining it to you over and over. -YMB29 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually the sources only support that it international pressure contributed to it, not that it was solely due to it like you had previously phrased. There is a large difference between the expressions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources only give a sole reason, and only one of them (out of three) could be said to state that the international pressure simply contributed. -YMB29 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No they don't - they only discuss it as having contributed to the result. Only one of the sources you presented said anything in such manner - and even in solely as a personal opinion of Eden, nothing more. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not just a personal opinion as discussed. Anyway, you see what you want to see. If this dispute arises when editing the article, the opinions of others can be asked for. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As per what was discussed only source which states that it would have been only because of international pressure was a personal opinion of Eden, nothing else. While on the other hand i provided source which explicitly stated that the reduced terms for peace (which does include reparations unless you have sources which prove otherwise) was also due to the Finnish military efforts. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that is based on twisted logic; nothing was explicitly mentioned about the reparations. Personal opinion is your personal excuse... -YMB29 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Except like explained to you several times, until you can prove that the reparations were not part of the terms for the peace what Lunde states also concerns reparations. Personal opinion is not any excuse, personal opinion just is what it is, nothing more. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it is just a personal opinion according to you, nothing more.

Until you find a source that explicitly is talking about the reparations being halved, it will remain your speculation. -YMB29 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is also that according to the author, still nothing else. And i do not need to find that, i already showed a source which states that reduced terms were also due to the Finnish military efforts. Unless you can prove that reparations were not part of the terms for the peace then it holds true. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Repeating the same erroneous things over and over again won't help you... -YMB29 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Except those 'same erroneous things' are not erroneous, in fact they are even sourced. You have so far been unable to show that either of them would be erroneous. Until you do that i see little point to continue this discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have explained to you why they are erroneous many times. If you can't understand or pretend to not understand then I can't do anything about that. -YMB29 (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you have explained your opinion, nothing else while you have shown nothing to support it. Which is why you need sources for there to even be an argument. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell yourself that. You have to find sources that support your view and not make dubious interpretations to fit your POV.

So I guess anything that shows you to be wrong is just a personal opinion... -YMB29 (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I found sources and i provided them already - as discussed previously. So far you have not been able to refute them. Also it is not my personal opinion but supported by authors, unlike your stance which is so far clearly supported only by a personal opinion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So you have nothing else to say but to accuse me of what you are guilty of... Very disruptive behavior. -YMB29 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i have nothing else but sources, while you do not. How is that disruptive? You have so far even refused to part constructively into the discussion instead you have only demanded that your view should be predominant. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring what others explain to you, constantly repeating the same things, manipulating sources, accusing others of what you are guilty of is hardly constructive but is instead highly disruptive. -YMB29 (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also I suggest you stop edit warring. Reverting everything you don't like, including well sourced and undisputed information, is also not constructive and highly disruptive. -YMB29 (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was still ongoing. As neither ending remarks had been made nor had there been consensus of the result then the discussion with regards to that topic was (rather is) clearly not over yet. Instead you edited a section that was still being discussed in the talk page - that is disruptive behavior by definition. Other participants have stated that using separate section to address the result would be the best course of action as suggested by the infobox military conflict guidelines. So far you have not taken constructively part to the discussion and instead you set your ideal phrase at the beginning and have only repeated it since while in total disregard to the opposing view which has been presented with sources - in other words the statement you entered was not NPOV. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And let's see what i actually reverted, first i reverted edit to the Losses section, which has been thoroughly discussed previously when it was found that Krivosheyev's values were not corresponding with the dates of the offensive or even with Soviet formations taking part to it for that matter. Given the amount of discussion done previously on that topic the revert back to Krivosheyev's values by IP user was nothing but vandalism. Then i reverted your edit to the result which is actually the topic that is still being discussed with several participants having presented views opposing one presented by you - again editing something that still being discussed is nothing but disruptive. If - or rather when - there is consensus then editing the results entry is perfectly fine but until that it is not. Lack of discussion - or rather lack of answer to a pointless by question presented by you - is not the same as 'reaching the consensus'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well once again you accuse me of what you are guilty of...

The sources say that it was a strategic victory. Your failure to discuss below and your refusal to answer questions does not indicate that the discussion was still going on.

"several participants having presented views opposing one presented by you" - this is just a lie. They also said that it should be a Soviet victory.

A link to the aftermath section is only required when there is no certain result, which is not the case here. Others suggested it because a general "Soviet victory" was disputed by you, however strategic victory is not disputed and is directly supported by sources.

Also, the casualties are still disputed. You did not need to remove my note. This just shows that all you want to do is revert. -YMB29 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As discussed in length that is what the sources may say but it is not what the results entry should say. You are free to write into the aftermath section about the perceived Soviet strategic victory as suggested in the guidelines. Lack of willingness to answer biased question does not indicate that there would have been a consensus that would support your point of view.

No, as said in the comments, if you read them is that there should be no result just a link to aftermath section. Trying to force something else into the results entry is nothing but enforcing NPOV stance of the result.

Actually your note implied in NPOV method that the values would have been Finnish sources, instead they were directly from Soviet archives. Had your note stated that they were from Soviet archives, like they in reality were, then i would have had no trouble with them.

A lie you say, lets see...

Yes indeed, even the infobox template documentation suggest the 'See the Aftermath section." as an alternative in complicated cases. I am even inclined to this now. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC). So Jaan support the separate aftermath section without any result entry. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As such, I'd suggest either going with 'Soviet victory' or, perhaps better still, leaving this field of the infobox blank, and explaining the results of the battle in more detail in the lead. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC). So Nick-D also supports separate aftermath section, and again leaving the results entry blank.

So where exactly did i lie? Those both support what i have been saying all along. Actually they only prove that you lied in your statement above. They do not support entering victory as a result at any level. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You refused to answer because you don't want to admit the obvious.

Maninen's casualties are not directly from Soviet archives; they are estimates based on the archives.

You lied when you stated that others said the opposite of what I was saying. They also agreed that it was a Soviet victory... They just also added that to avoid arguments the aftermath section could be used instead of a general "Soviet victory." However, I did not put "Soviet victory," which you were against; I added "Strategic Soviet victory," which is backed up by sources and was not even disputed by you. -YMB29 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I already stated that it was conditional answer, my stance to the question has been given. Manninen's values are from Soviet archives, he actually only notes that the number of KIA in his values could actually be lower than it really was at the expense of the MIA values (ie. wounded men dying in rear area care). Others actually stated very clearly that they preferred to have no result at all, not even Soviet strategic victory. That is simply a fact, nothing else, you can read their comments yourself. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And where did i lie? This is rather serious question since you are questioning my integrity. As have been seen other editors explicitly stated that they preferred to have no result entry at all. This is diametrically opposed to your stance (to have a result) and actually is the same as mine. So where did i lie? Show me. If you can not you are nothing but slandering your fellow editors. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I quoted that part already: "several participants having presented views opposing one presented by you"

They supported my view, but made another suggestion to stop the argument. This was even before I suggested strategic victory, so no one opposed it. Also, you did not really have a stance before others made suggestions...

About casualties see below. -YMB29 (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the other editors preferred leaving the results empty which is diametrically opposed to your stance of writing there something, so yes, they did present views opposing you. No lies of any kind there, just plain and even accurate statement on what other editors stated. Given that their final statements oppose your view (of having a result) it is logical fallacy to state that they would support you.

Yes, because i did not have any idea what proper and neutral result in an article such as this should be. When some one suggested leaving it blank as an option given and recommended by the infobox guidelines i found it to be exactly what i was after. Before when i did not remember there to have been such an option i did not choose it. Same happened with other editors (Jaan being the case).

You just wanted to avoid a Soviet victory in the infobox, as you still do.

They said that they agree with Soviet victory, so how could they oppose me? This is a logical fallacy...

They suggested no result as a compromise, but that was before I suggested strategic victory. -YMB29 (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Then you should have read more carefully, i initially advocated for a comprise however instead of term victory i would have suggested the use of success. Now they stated that had required to choose either they would have picked Soviet victory but when they were represented another option which allowed leaving the result entry empty they chose that. And no one agreed with your statement of strategic victory being alone in the results box. Several agreed that it could be there as part of the result (including me as well). But since you refused to comprise that avenue was exhausted. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If strategic victory is in the result by itself, it is only your fault since you did not find a source for another result.

Other users did not agree on strategic victory, but they did not disagreed also.

They were asked if it was a Soviet victory and they agreed, but suggested a blank result or the link to the aftermath section just to be safe. You then changed your preferred result, so don't tell me that they followed what you suggested... -YMB29 (talk)

I did found and i did provide which was exactly the reason why the expression was no something that was acceptable. Last thing other users stated was that they preferred to have no result entry at all. Yet you entered one. How is that following the consensus? You can read the entries of that time, i had no real options for the result entry. I even stated so. When the option of not having result entry at all was reminded to me that was exactly what i had been after, to discuss the result in the article itself in greater detail. And i did not say they followed with what i suggested i said it was the same what i supported. So far nothing has changed, including in the entry a note of the Soviet strategic victory is still nothing but your personal view which goes again what others had stated in the talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So show me where someone objects against strategic victory? It is a strategic victory according to the sources, but it is still somehow my opinion... Like I said, anything you don't like is just a personal opinion to you...

You would support any result as long as there is no Soviet victory of any kind in there.

If I changed the result to just victory, you could have accused me of going against consensus, but I did not... So what is your point? -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

They preferred not to have results entry at all. Which as it happens also is against the statement of 'strategic victory'. Which as seen from 3rd opinions was not my personal opinion. My point is that you still went against the consensus. Majority of the participant favored leaving the result entry empty. By providing something to it you already went against the consensus. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually even if I would have put just victory, I would not have went against consensus, as the users giving the third opinions agreed with me. Once again, no result was suggested as slightly more preferable just as a compromise, since you were disputing it. This suggestion did not go against strategic victory suggested by me later; you are again using twisted logic for your claims. -YMB29 (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Persons giving third opinions preferred not to have result at all. You can read it up, it is said in plain. They did not agree with you. Since they preferred not to have result at all giving any result is already going against their opinion.

Yes indeed, even the infobox template documentation suggest the 'See the Aftermath section." as an alternative in complicated cases. I am even inclined to this now. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

As such, I'd suggest either going with 'Soviet victory' or, perhaps better still, leaving this field of the infobox blank, and explaining the results of the battle in more detail in the lead. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Both are stating that they prefer not to have result entry at all. By very nature you suggesting something into the box is already against it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that was before I suggested strategic victory, so you are wrong. You are misusing third opinions like you do sources... And they did not disagree with me since they also agreed with Soviet victory. -YMB29 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How am I misusing them? Both explicitly stated that they preferred more to see no result entry. That is already opposing you since you want to have a result. Addition of a conditional term by your part does not radically change anything. - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Says who? -YMB29 (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the editors giving third opinions changed their stance after you altered your preferred result. According to their last statements both preferred to see 'no result'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

They were not against Soviet victory either. It is not that they did not change their stance... They just did not come back to comment (this was not required of them), so you can't say that they were against what I suggested. -YMB29 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Both explicitly commented that they preferred not to see anything on the result line more than alternatives. That happens to be what they stated, feel free to see the log or history. Trying to suggest any result is already going against what they clearly preferred. So they were against what you suggested. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That is according to your logic... -YMB29 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

According to what they stated. Not according to my logic or my point of view. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So where did they state anything against strategic victory? -YMB29 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are still missing the point - they stated that they preferred to have no result, instead either blank field or link to separate section in the article. Your statement of having any result (regardless of conditionals used) is already opposing the one suggested and preferred by the editors who gave third opinions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No you are missing the point... It is your interpretation to say that their statements apply to all other suggestions made after. -YMB29 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was not made after. At the time i suggested the use of 'Soviet strategic success' for the offensive (as part of the result statement) which you opposed. This was done on 7 July. One of the editors offering third opinions even took part into the discussion. Yet both editors on 9 July instead of other results choose to prefer setting 'no result'. So it is not my interpretation that their statement would not apply to what you are suggesting since they already rejected it (or one analogous to it). - Wanderer602 (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No, at that time the choice was between just victory and no victory. You suggested strategic success and operational failure as an alternative to victory, but you were told that it is confusing and that success is not used. -YMB29 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you are missing the point. The split option with strategic success/victory and separate operational result was not preferred. This option was suggested on 7 July and on 9 July same person giving the 3rd opinion stated that he preferred to have no result at all. In other words the editors giving the third opinion were perfectly aware of this possibility contrary to your earlier statements (the suggestion was made before the editors have their opinions) and still it was not the preferred option. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion was rejected, not mine.

Can you stop trying to manipulate what has been said? -YMB29 (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion at the time included the phrase regarding strategic Soviet success/victory. Which is exactly what you are proposing now. And that proposal was not preferred, instead both editors giving third opinions preferred to have no result at all. What exactly is in your opinion being manipulated in it? - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion does not equal mine, no matter how you try to make it sound. -YMB29 (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So how exactly was my proposition to have split result different from yours especially when the whole concept of split result was not the preferred solution? First the statements are similar, second the editors giving third opinions rejected it already and favored 'no result' instead. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The split result was a compromise. If you don't like it, I can just set it to strategic victory...

Your suggested result was rejected for specific reasons and it is in no way similar to the current result. You always see something that is not there... -YMB29 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would be a compromise but as per third opinions the result should be left empty altogether. Why do you even bother to ask for third opinion if you deliberately ignore them regardless in favor of your own personal opinion? - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not ignore them. If I would have put just victory, you could have said that. -YMB29 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it would still be going against the opinions of the editors who gave the third opinions. The editors giving third opinions said quite clearly that they preferred no result at all so how is it that when you after that still insist on setting a result you can claim that you would not be ignoring them? - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Because this is only according to your logic... -YMB29 (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is it just my logic if i only repeat what the editors who gave the third opinion said? Because by definition that already means that it is not only according to my logic. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you are not just repeating what they have said. -YMB29 (talk)

Both stated explicitly that they preferred to have no result at all. How is that against 'my logic'? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

They did not say that they preferred it over strategic victory. -YMB29 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

They were represented such an option at the time yet chose to have no result at all. So they did prefer 'no result' option over the one you are currently presenting. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that is your manipulation of facts again. -YMB29 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is that so? Before the editors giving the third opinions stated that they preferred to have no result at all an option with partial result of 'strategic success/victory' was represented to them. It was not the preferred option. Just because you do not like it does not mean it did not happen. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand what is going on or you are pretending to not understand... Either way you are being disruptive again. -YMB29 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I quite perfectly understand your statement as well as your evasion. Both editors giving their third opinions were presented with an option that had an partial result of 'Soviet strategic success' (which one of the editors corrected to 'Soviet strategic victory'). Yet they found that they preferred the solution of having no result at all above that. So what exactly is there that i supposedly do not understand? Editors were presented with the option you are campaigning for and they rejected it, and instead preferred to have no result. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you are just continuing with your manipulation of facts.

There is no evasion... Everything was explained to you many times. If you don't get it or refuse to get it by now, there is no sense wasting time. -YMB29 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly in above was manipulation of facts. Editors giving third opinions were represented with an option with similar premise as the one you are supporting. It was not the preferred choice. Instead editors preferred to have no result at all. Why you refuse to accept the third opinions which you personally requested is beyond me unless you only brought it to push forward you personal POV. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are just repeating the same thing...

I accept the third opinions, but not your personal interpretations of them. -YMB29 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to interpret about the third opinions, they explicitly stated that they preferred to have no result at all - your refusal to accept it is however different matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no point in trying to explain this to you anymore. -YMB29 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What is there to explain? The third opinions favored leaving the result entry blank. You oppose this. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Third party editors gave their opinion which differed from any of the suggested options. They expressly stated that the result entry should be left empty or alternatively left as a link to a section in the text where the result would then be discussed. You requested this WP:3. Why do you refuse to accept what they suggested? Just because you have an opinion does not mean it would be sole possible option for the entry. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I did listen to the third opinions and did not put "Soviet victory". Strategic victory is directly sourced and cannot be disputed, unless you find multiple sources that do that. If you don't accept this you can go to dispute resolution (why do I always have to ask for the help of others) instead of edit warring. -YMB29 (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:3 explicitly stated that they preferred to see no result at all. That is simply what they stated after you had requested them to review the issue. You refused to accept their recommendations. Why would i believe you would follow anything from WP:DR either since you already rejected what the WP:3 had suggested? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not reject anything; stop with your accusations. -YMB29 (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Read what WP:3 stated. They said they preferred to see no result at all. Your stance of having a result is already opposite to that and since you are knowingly doing it after the WP:3 had their say you have clearly rejected their recommendations. It is not an accusation, it is a fact. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is your claim that it is a fact...

Anyway, I see that you are not interested in DR, as you just want to repeat the same accusation over and over... -YMB29 (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, you rejected their recommendation and then knowingly went against it, that is nothing but rejecting their ruling.

And no, i fail to see the need for DR since we already have WP:3 which determined that there should not be any result at all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How many times can you repeat the same false accusation?

I think you don't want to go to DR because it will prove you wrong again... -YMB29 (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not an accusation since you have been knowingly doing it after the WP:3 had had their say. I already agreed with WP:3's recommendation. You have not. No, simply no need to go to DR since the matter has already been reviewed by WP:3 who recommended leaving the result entry empty. Only reason i can see for you to strive for that is a desire from your part to somehow game the system since WP:3 already disagrees with the result you insist on inserting to the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Only according to your personal interpretation...

Just admit that you are afraid of DR. -YMB29 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually not according to my interpretation, it was according to the WP:3 interpretation. Which you requested and, when the result was not the one you had hoped for, rejected. I fail to see any reason to admit something that is blatantly false. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation is false.

So I see that you want to add disputed things without talk... -YMB29 (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Except it never was my interpretation, it was the interpretation of the WP:3 which you personally had requested. I only appended the sections you had already placed to the text. I'm perfectly willing to discuss about them however. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't just insert false things into the article and then claim to be ready to discuss them.

Anyone reading the opinions section would see that you are making interpretations favorable to you. -YMB29 (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? What 'false things'? Just state what you mean, cryptic remarks do not help any one. Recommendation to leave the infobox without any result entry came from the WP:3 that you had personally requested so what exactly are you talking about? Just because you do not like something does not make it false. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, tell yourself that.

That recommendation only applied to general victory.

All of your edits to the result are false and you know it. -YMB29 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:3 was represented with an option that was not general victory. They did not prefer it. Instead WP:3 preferred to have no result entry at all. Which of my edits of the results have been false? Show and prove it. Actually your own edit regarding 'partial' operational failure is directly contradicted in the sources however which (Moisala & Alanen) explicitly state that the Soviet operation was a failure. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been fully willing compromise all the time but compromise is not the same as accepting your personal POV and sources and ignoring all the rest like you have done so far with the result entry. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Unlike you I follow what sources say. One Finnish source does not negate all the others...

All of your recent edits are false; you don't have any sources to back them up and rely on OR instead.

Well maybe DR will help you understand. -YMB29 (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Show me just one quote which explicitly states that the offensive was strategic Soviet victory. And so far i have backed the edits with citations so by definition they are not false. Or try even showing where OR is used - so far you have failed to prove any of your allegations. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have proved and explained everything to you many times now, yet you still ask me... -YMB29 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Then show me a quote which explicitly states that the offensive (not war) was a strategic Soviet victory. Neither have you shown anything from OR apart from your own nonspecific claims of it. Since you appear to be unwilling to provide either it might be better to wait for DRN. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You admitted that the sources do say that it was a Soviet strategic victory, but now you pretend that they don't and ask me to prove it again... -YMB29 (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I only requested that you provided a source which explicitly states that it was - it is not in any way different from several of the request you have personally made earlier. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So what is the point if you already agreed with it?

You were making claims based on very loose interpretations of sources, so I asked for quotes that explicitly say what you claimed.

In this case it is clear that the sources talk about a strategic victory even if they don't explicitly say that. -YMB29 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Then it is equally clear that offensive was operational failure since sources even explicitly state so. So you are saying that even though none of the sources actually state that it was a soviet strategic victory it is not an interpretation to state so? Also keep in mind that article is not about the war, only about the offensive. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources talk about the offensive; I don't know where you got the idea that they talk about the war only...

They do state that it was a strategic victory, just not directly, and I confirmed this with others. You even admitted it, so don't pretend now that you did not.

What sources explicitly say that the whole offensive was an operational failure? I have asked many times, but you failed to provide them. -YMB29 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

They discuss both of the war and the offensive but they never make it clear if the result they refer is that of the offensive or that of the war. And like you said, none of them explicitly states that it would have been the result of the offensive. Why i earlier agreed to the split result is that i agreed to compromise in order to reach an agreement (a compromise), but then you kept on adding more qualifiers for the result - which is the reason why i moved to support the 'no result' option since that seems to be the best course of action as recommended by WP:3 - and seemingly also by the DRN as the agreement which you refused to accept was essentially this. Those sources have been provided several times already, feel free to look up the earlier discussion - starting (but not being limited to) Moisala & Alanen who specifically discuss the offensive, not the war, in their book. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, that Finnish book (the authors falsely assume that the main Soviet goal was to conquer Finland) is not enough to challenge what many sources say.

Don't claim that third opinions supported you.

You admitted that I am right about what the sources say. Stop making excuses. -YMB29 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually they are using Soviet operational goals when they are making their assessment. WP:3 stated that they preferred to have no result at all - which is contradictory with your statement. All it shows is that I am willing to agree to compromise, are you? - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, so wait for the mediation to proceed instead of repeating the same things here. -YMB29 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

As it appears, the offensive was neither utter success, nor utter failure. I see two possible text templates that would be consistent with the sources given: Though Soviet army failed to fulfill the goal of reaching of reaching Virojoki-Lappeenranta line, it enjoyed the strategic benefit of forcing Finland from the war. The historians divide on evaluation of the results... + all major viewpoints with references. The first option seems by far better to me, as it demonstrates that the operation was neither flawless victory or utter defeat. The second option is a fallback solution, as it is less clear, though easier to agree upon in general (thus pushing argument down to each viewpoint and its weight in terms of general acceptance). As far as we are not entitled to cherry-pick sources according to over opinions, I see no third option. —Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the first option is similar to what the text in the article says, but we can't use that for the result in the infobox. The result there is usually very brief, a few words (some kind of a victory for one side or a stalemate). -YMB29 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I would consider reading the template documentation then. In this case it states (emphasis added):

A military conflict infobox (sometimes referred to as a warbox) may be used to summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars) in a standard manner.

[...]

• result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Obviously, the choices of |result= value are "Inconclusive" or "". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for that as there are sources that can be used to get the result. I already asked a general question related to that on the military history page.[15] -YMB29 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

See below. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also note, that several sources talking about success of the operation seem to evaluate the effect the operation had on the war, not the fulfillment of goals. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the effect on the war is the strategic result of the offensive - if the strategic goals were accomplished or not.

The other goals are tactical-operational and are meant to help achieve the strategic goals. -YMB29 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Military operations (especially this one since it is a strategic offensive) are meant to have an effect on the war; there is no point of just achieving goals.

So my point is that we have to evaluate the offensive by its effect on the war, whether the strategic goals were accomplished or not. -YMB29 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if we assume the primary strategic goal to be generally driving Finland out of the war, the fulfillment of other, supposedly secondary, goals really doesn't allow us to claim Soviet victory. This looks more like "Inconclusive" from the aforementioned documentation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So you mean that a victory is achieved not only by accomplishing the main goal, but also by how well the goal was accomplished? That is like saying that the Allies cannot claim victory in WWII because they lost many battles and many of their operations failed. I mean that those "secondary" goals in this offensive were only meant to serve the fulfillment of the main goal, just like battles or operations in a war.

Also there is no assumption being made; the sources above define the primary strategic goal. -YMB29 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Your assumption that the overall effect on the war is supposed to be noted in infobox is simply false, as it directly contradicts the template's documentation. See Battle of Heraclea for example. The Infobox should contain the result of the particular conflict, not the influence of the whole war. In this case, the offensive was successful in accomplishing on of the strategic goals in the war, but the goals of the offensive were not fulfilled neither by Soviets, nor by Fins. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So you tell me what is the point in achieving goals if they have no effect on the war?

The article you pointed to is about a battle that resulted in a tactical victory for one side, but no strategic result. -YMB29 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The direct consequence of Battle of Heraclea was the fact that Greece became incapable of military defence and fell to Romans. It secured the Roman victory in war, though the battle was won by Greece. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So it was a strategic defeat, which is implied by Pyrrhic victory. -YMB29 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but notice no "Roman victory" in infobox: the outcome of the described event prevails over parent war. That's why the fact that this offensive was a strategic victory regarding Soviet performance in WWII, the infobox should be based on events of offensive, which are not decisive. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, pyrrhic victory has a bit different meaning as discussed in the article you linked. It does not necessarily refer to strategic effect at all, only to the cost of the victory - which may or may not have had any strategic effect. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well in this case it did.

We have to let the sources decide if the offensive was decisive or not, and there are more than enough that say that it was.

That article is only about one battle, so there is no reason to talk about a Roman victory. This offensive is a series of battles; you can't say that it was like a big battle... -YMB29 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That was the point. I specifically linked that article to illustrate that the infobox entry should only report the result of the battle, decoupling it from the strategic impact on the war. The result of the battle was Greek victory, the strategic impact resulted in the Roman victory, and the |result= in the infobox reports in Greek victory.

The result of this offensive was inconclusive, so the |result= in the infobox should be "Inconclusive", regardless the strategic impact on the war, which indeed was largely beneficial for Soviets. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If it had a strategic impact then how could the result be inconclusive?

The strategic defeat for the Greeks was not from just the mentioned battle, but from a series of such battles, so there was no point in adding Roman strategic victory to the result of the battle.

You can't compare an ancient battle with a 20th century offensive, which included many battles. -YMB29 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually sources agree that Finns stopped the offensive so it clearly was not decisive. You can not use the strategic effect of the offensive as the sole yardstick for the determining its outcome. By doing so you are knowingly inserting bias as to how the result of the offensive is interpreted. Which is not NPOV at any level. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The outcomes of wars or major military operations are decided by strategy, how well the strategic goals are set and if they are accomplished. See below.

Decisive means it had a direct impact on the fighting, which it did according to the sources above. -YMB29 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible success on strategic level does not diminish the failure on the operational level which is also highly relevant to the article as it concerns the operation, not the war. Also which one of the sources states it was decisive? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See the quotes above. If it forced Finland from the war, it can be said to be decisive.

For this strategic offensive, the operational failures were not important because the main goal was still accomplished without them. The strategic level concerns the operation also. The operational level is only a link between the tactical and strategic levels.

So what result do you want the infobox to have now? "Soviet strategic victory; operational failure"? Again, failure is not accurate since many operational goals were accomplished. -YMB29 (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Which of them explicitly states it would have been decisive? If there are none then it is only deduction and not valid. Again, we are discussing the whole of the offensive, not just some aspects of it. And neither are we discussing the war. So you can not ignore others aspects of the offensive because you do not like them. Actually I'm going to edit what i suggest in the result screen after reading 3rd opinions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing it after third opinions were given does not seem right... Just as I noted, you had no position and just wanted to deny what I was explaining...

If this was one battle or a limited offensive then you can argue that operational goals matter, but this was a large scale strategic offensive that was meant to achieve a strategic aim, which, as Glantz writes, is above everything else. Operational goals don't matter unless they affect strategic ones. Strategic goals don't only apply to a war in general, but also to separate military operations. Glantz mentions this below (overall vs. particular strategic aims).

I told you why it can be said to be decisive. I could also ask you where does it explicitly say that it was not decisive, like was originally claimed. -YMB29 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As for the result you want now, I guess it is one solution, but it has to be consistent then and apply for other articles for which such disputes arise, like battles of Vyborg Bay, Vuosalmi and Tali-Ihantala. -YMB29 (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I never thought that single entry for the result would have been valid for it - like was obvious from the start of this discussion - and only provided one because of your insistence on the matter. After having been reminded that there were an option to leave it blank and discuss it in the article I found that it was a better solution.

As has been said repeatedly, you can not ignore the operational aspect just because you dislike it. As we are discussing the operation not the war we can not afford it ignore operation goals. Claim that it would have been decisive does need to actually come source; also you are the one making the claim so burden of proof is yours, do not try to place it on any other.

We are discussing the offensive in this article and in this discussion, not anything else. Similar result may apply to other articles as well but whether it does or does not is not within the scope of this discussion. Nor can it be used as a reasoning for setting results in other articles, they are separate matters and need to be handled separately. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not the one who first mentioned decisive. I responded when it was claimed that the offensive was not decisive. However, again, if it knocked Finland out of the war, it can be said to be so.

Operational goals may be very important for a single battle, but this is a strategic offensive.

The articles are all related, so we can set a standard of how to deal with such disputes about the result. -YMB29 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Tactical goals are important for a single battles, operational goals are important for operations or offensives. Sure strategic goals are as well but you can not go ignoring operational goals just because you dislike them.

Relation is irrelevant, we are discussing this specific article, not anything else. You can not draw conclusions or make precedences that affect other articles from it. Method for handling each of the other articles needs to be considered one at a time. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If third options will be asked for the other articles, similar suggestions will be made or those who already commented here will point us to how this dispute was resolved...

You just cannot or refuse to understand the types of goals and how they relate to each other. -YMB29 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It may or it may not. I do not know that for certain for I'm not prescient. Regardless those articles are each and every one separate cases and should be considered as such all the time. What it stated in this articles result has no relevance on the results of those articles since the topics of the articles are not the same. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The topic is the same... The mentioned battles are all part of this offensive. If this whole offensive is not a Soviet victory even though the main goal was accomplished, why are battles like Tali-Ihantala considered Finnish victories?

For Wikipedia it is common to apply a decision made for an article to related articles or cases, instead of wasting time with each. So if you want that solution, it makes sense to apply it for all the related articles. -YMB29 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the topics are clearly defined. Those battles are separate articles handling the battles and this article concerns solely the offensive. Straying further out of the topic is just waste of time - it has no relevance to this discussion. Just like you can not extrapolate on what sources are saying neither can you extrapolate with this kind of matter. What might be done with those article must be discussed single article at a time. Simply because a solution is made for the article discussing the offensive does not mean that articles referring to the battles in the offensive would need to be automatically handled in the same way. As said this discussion has no relevance to those articles. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That is what you like to think. You don't want the same logic to be applied to the related articles. -YMB29 (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So it should be a Soviet victory (at least strategic) or a link to the aftermath section which will apply to all the other articles as well. -YMB29 (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

But there you are wrong once again, same logic can applied to the other articles if there is actually reason for it. So far you have shown nothing of such, only your personal opinion of the matter. The same method used here can not apply the result of the campaign directly into the results of the battles. Their actual results are not connected - there are several cases where battles within operations have different results than the overall operation (or war).

As to the regards to your edit to the initial result explanation, do you have any sources or proof that 'other articles related to this one' would not be any less complex? Regardless the result of the offensive does not apply as the result of the battles unlike what you stated, they are separate articles and need to be considered separately. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The main goal was achieved, but the result becomes too complex for the infobox because some secondary goals were not accomplished... Why then should this principal not apply to related articles? The Finns could not hold the Vyborg Bay islands, retreated from Tali, and gave up the beachhead at Vuosalmi... They failed to accomplish many of their goals; they lost important positions and did not win any new ones. So what makes the results in those articles less complex than this one? -YMB29 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That is only because you intentionally choose to ignore the operative goals and failures to accomplish them and instead solely concentrate on the claimed strategic goal. Actual result is as per your statement above, too complex to state in the result entry. Finnish goal in those engagements was to prevent Soviets from breaching the Finnish line, which was accomplished, line may have bent but it was not broken. Soviet goals on the other hand was not accomplished in any of the engagements you listed. They are separate articles so they need to be considered separately. Provide sources for the related articles in their respective talk pages. If there is a legitimate case for using the aftermath section then it can and should be used, however so far i have seen none of that apart from un-sourced claims. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So you need sources about the Finns losing the Vyborg Bay islands, Tali, and the Vuosalmi beachhead?

Many Soviet goals were accomplished in those engagements.

The main Finnish goal was to prevent a breakthrough, just like the main Soviet goal of the offensive was to knock Finland out of the war.

You cannot just solely concentrate on the claimed operational goal of the battles and intentionally choose to ignore the Finnish failure to accomplish tactical ones...

As you see the same arguments you are using can be used for the articles of the battles.

Anyway, I see no reason that strategic victory should not be part of the result, as the sources directly support it. -YMB29 (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen sources stating that Soviet goals would have been fulfilled in the engagements. Besides this discussion is already out of the scope of the article at hand, if you have specific claims to make, please make them at appropriate article talk page. Sources which you prefer support it but those are not all the sources like you well know - cherry picking sources according to the preferred result shouldn't be done. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources can be given on the talk pages if you are denying that the Soviets accomplished anything in those engagements.

Cherry picking would be quoting someone like Solonin, not Glantz or Erickson...

So what sources dispute that it was a strategic victory? One Finnish source does not make it disputable. -YMB29 (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So give sources, so far you have given none. No, cherry picking would be for me to use the sources you stated and claim the result as full Finnish victory. Just because they oppose your statements does not make them 'cherry picked sources'. Point of the discussion was not that statement but actually the phrasing that ends up into the result entry since you, again, can not go ignoring other aspects of the operation just because you dislike them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I found sources that give an overall assessment of the offensive, while you found ones that only talk about a part of the offensive. My sources talk about the main strategic goals and their successful completion, while yours are about the failure to accomplish some secondary operational goals. This is not cherry picking? The result should reflect the overall outcome of the fighting.

You may dispute that full "Soviet victory" in the result is unfair, but "Soviet strategic victory" is not disputable at this point and should be the result. -YMB29 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Those sources also discuss the result in overall terms, and you know this just as well. They are just not discussing it from the point of view you prefer. If you chose to ignore them when you are representing the sources then you were cherry picking - and it was what you did was it not? It certainly was not NPOV.

If the article was considering the offensive solely from strategic point of view you would be correct with your assessment. However it does not consider the offensive solely from the strategic point of view - instead it is about the offensive as a whole, including but not limited to strategic aspects - so expressing the result only according to the strategic view does not work in this case. Also since it has been shown that expressing the result is near impossible within the limits of the results box it is advisable to use separate section in the article handle it. As per guidelines given for the infobox military conflict. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So which of your sources "discuss the result in overall terms"?

The strategic point of view is the overall view of the whole offensive, and the strategic result is the overall result:

A strategic victory is a victory that brings long-term advantage to the victor and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage a war. When a historian speaks of a victory in general, it is usually referring to a strategic victory.[16]

Your failure to understand fundamental aspects of war is disturbing...

Like I said, "Soviet strategic victory" is not disputable, and should be in the result. It shows the overall result, but does not discount that the Finns had some success on the battlefield. -YMB29 (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Article discusses the whole of the offensive, not just single aspect of it - hence you can not limit the result to such either. You can not go ignoring certain aspects just because you do not like about them. Also even in the article you linked the given reference article avoids using solely the strategic result in the result box, instead it uses split result as was suggested initially, however since it appear that it is not possible to reach an agreement on what it should read it would be best to use - as suggested by infobox guidelines - to use separate article section to discuss the result. Also once again, keep your perceptions and insinuations to yourself, they have no place in wiki. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So I see that you have nothing else to say other than to repeat the same things. You are making it seem like it is impossible to find a result that fits. Sources say that it was a strategic victory and it does not matter that you don't like it. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Some source say so while others say that it did failed to achieve its objectives. Hence the problem in forming the result. And that is why the aftermath section is the preferred route, at least it is for every one else involved in the original discussion with the exception of you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Others said that Soviet victory is also fine.

What sources say that it failed to achieve its strategic objectives? Once again, one Finnish source does not make a strategic Soviet victory debatable. -YMB29 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated before the strategic level in not what editors should be solely concerned about. You can not ignore other aspects of the offensive just because you dislike them. That is not NPOV. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Stated where? The source below suggests otherwise...

Do you at least admit that it was a strategic victory? -YMB29 (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I said that in the initial postings. My position towards the 'strategic' level result is not reason enough (at any level) to ignore the other aspects of the offensive. And that is why the suggested method of using separate section in the text to discuss the more complex results is preferred, and not just by me. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. Do you admit that it was a Soviet strategic victory or not? -YMB29 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I did answer it, feel free to re-read the discussion. It is there. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So I take it that you don't want to answer the question?

From the discussion, I see that you more or less agree that it was a strategic victory, but you just won't accept that this means that it was a victory generally. -YMB29 (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I answered to it several times actually, i fail to see the point to copy-paste my responses here.

Almost, but not quite. I do not think that strategic level is the sole measurement that should be used in such an occasion, which is shown also generally accepted view judging from other articles from wiki. Hence the need for more complex result and since it has not been something that has been agreed upon, a need for a separate aftermath section for discussing the result in detail. As instructed in the guidelines for the infobox military history. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You are once again avoiding answering the question and just repeating the same thing...

If you think that you have answered it before, what prevents you from giving a straight answer now? -YMB29 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the answer was - and still is - conditional as described above. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What? I asked if you admit that it was a strategic victory for the Soviets? Yes or no? -YMB29 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And i gave you an answer already. You are not in position to make ultimatums.- Wanderer602 (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not an ultimatum; you are just avoiding answering the question. You have done nothing but reverts here lately. I ask you to restore the sourced result. -YMB29 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

To a biased question? I already said that i had provide conditional answer to it previously which i had done. Feel free to look it up, it is in this discussion. Just because you were the last in the discussion does not make your stance in any way better than the opposing view. It is not the same as reaching consensus. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If you refuse to answer, that is ending the discussion...

You still did not answer the question... -YMB29 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if the discussion would be over leaving your question unanswered (or rather having provided answer previously) does not prove you right. As has been seen other editors prefer to have no result entry at all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If its answer you want here goes. As the article does not consider the offensive just from the strategic point of view neither can the result do so either. Your sources with regards to the Soviet strategic victory are well and fine (and undisputed actually), however they do not represent the whole of the offensive and therefore are not valid due NPOV reasons into the results entry. Hence the need for a separate aftermath sections (possibly even separate from the current aftermath section). I also previously encouraged you to write there of the Soviet strategic victory but so far you have refused to take constructively part into improving that section of the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There were no objections to strategic victory. You did not dispute it, so why should not it have gone into the article?

As for what you are saying now, the aftermath section already states about the strategic goal. Yes it can be improved. If strategic victory can go into there, why can't it go into the result?

Your claim that a strategic offensive cannot be represented by the strategic result requires sources. If strategic victory is supported by the majority of sources, it should go into the result. If you find sources that talk about the overall result (not partial) on the other levels (operational and tactical), you can bring them up. -YMB29 (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it does not cover the subject that the articles handles. It only covers portion of it. Hence it is not valid as a overall statement for the result. It would be valid to be a partial statement of the result so that the other levels where the offensive is handled could be properly represented as well. It should not go to the results box because this article does not handle the operation just from the strategic point of view. Note that it is considered a Soviet strategic victory is valuable to the article however it is not the sole statement how the offensive turned out nor is it representative of the offensive at all levels. As for the rest, we have been through that before. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So again find sources for the overall results at the other levels just like I did for strategic. Just because you don't have those sources, does not mean that you can keep the strategic result out. As explained before, the strategic level is most important, especially for a strategic offensive. -YMB29 (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Those sources were provided already earlier and you know this since you demanded them. Strategic level is just one single aspect of the offensive, it can not be used to represent the whole of it. As was discussed previously. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This is your opinion. Read again what it says below.

The sources you found cannot be used to get an overall operational or tactical result for the offensive, since they only talk about a part of it. -YMB29 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

They discuss the other aspects of the offensive and clearly note it as having been Soviet failure when considered from the operational level. Strategic level is not the sole matter of consideration since the article is not only about that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well again find sources for the other levels. Failure to achieve some tactical or operational goals does not make the whole offensive a failure on those levels. That is why stalemate is more accurate, but it has to be sourced. -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Failure to reach operational goals is operational failure so i fail to see your point. Again sources have already been provided. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you ignore all the other operational goals achieved... -YMB29 (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So because the operation failed to achieve its goals - as stated per sources - you are saying it was not operational failure? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not for the whole offensive... -YMB29 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Similar statement can be made of just about anything. Fact remains that offensive failed to operationally (and yes, sources exist). - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the sources only talk about the failures after the capture of Vyborg. This article is about the whole offensive, not some part of it... -YMB29 (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources also talk of offensive having been stopped far short of reaching its stated goals. Which is operational failure. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Operational failure in achieving those goals, not failure for the whole offensive.

You can't get away with making your own interpretations for this. Go find sources like I did. -YMB29 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it that difficult for you to say that offensive failed to reach its goals? Since that is what sources state. Also sources were already provided earlier. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

They don't talk about the whole offensive. Failure to achieve some goals is not the same as overall failure. How many times must I explain this to you? -YMB29 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources also discuess the whole of the offensive. Offensive had clearly and explicitly stated goals that it failed to achieve. How is that not a failure? - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it achieved many other goals... -YMB29 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Source state that it failed to reach its stated goals. So it was a failure on that level. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So if some goals were not reached then the whole thing was a failure? Well that is your interpretation... -YMB29 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You do note that using the logic you apply above it could be said that Finns won the Continuation War (as well as the offensive). After all some of the goals of the Finns were attained. In the end it remains that Soviets failed to reach the goals set for the offensive. See for example Operation Market Garden in which Western Allies did take quite of the set goals for the operation but failed to actually fulfill the set operational goals - result, Allied operational failure. - Wanderer602 (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If the main goal was not accomplished then it is a failure.

For Market Garden most of the tactical goals were achieved, but that was not enough to accomplish the operational goal. So it cannot be compared to this offensive. -YMB29 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It can be exactly compared to the offensive on operational level. Just in that offensive as in this one the operational goals were not accomplished. Some of the goals were accomplished but the stated goals of the offensive were not. Keep in mind that we are not discussing of strategic level at all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Market Garden was not a strategic offensive. It had one operational goal that was not accomplished, because an important tactical goal for it was not achieved. This offensive had many operational goals and only some were not accomplished. You are just not understanding this... -YMB29 (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That does not really matter since we are explicitly not observing the strategic scale. In exact similar manner V-P offensive failed to reach its stated goals. As is stated in various sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You are confused...

It is not about failing to accomplish goals. You have to take into account what goals were not accomplished, how important they were, and if the main result was achieved or not. You cannot compare a strategic offensive with multiple operations to just one operation. -YMB29 (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It is about not accomplishing goals. Especially when sources say so. Operation had explicit operational goals which it failed to attain - as per sources. Main result as stated before was not accomplished when we observe the operational aspect of the offensive which we should be doing. Mixing the strategic matter into it which is already discussed separately is not exactly a valid premise. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if we completely ignore the strategic result, the offensive is not a failure at the operational level.

You should not be making your own confused interpretations. -YMB29 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have source for that? They are not interpretations, as shown previously they are sourced statements. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Interpretations of sourced statements... -YMB29 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not interpretations, actual statements from the sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Statements about a part of the offensive that you choose to apply for the whole offensive. -YMB29 (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As argued previously there are several sources which discuss the operational goals for the offensive. Which it failed to reach. There is nothing ambiguous about those statements and they don't refer just to 'a part of the offensive'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes they do talk only about a part of it. You can't ignore the objectives that were accomplished. -YMB29 (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In exact similar manner as in operation Market Garden the Western allies seized several of the key bridges but failed to accomplish all the goals of the offensive - hence the offensive itself from operational level was a failure. Also sources also do discuss the whole of the offensive. They were clearly describe the goals for the offensive, which the Soviets were unable to accomplish. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that none of the operational goals were accomplished?

Once again, Market Garden had only one operational goal, so of course it was a failure on the operational level if the goal was not accomplished; you cannot compare this offensive to it. -YMB29 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet in both offensives the overall objectives were clearly stated and both offensives failed to accomplish the goals set for them. As is stated in sources the offensive therefore failed (in operational sense). - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What overall objectives were not accomplished for this offensive?

Again, you are just shamelessly ignoring all the accomplished objectives of this offensive. -YMB29 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Several sources describe the goals for the offensive. Advance to 1939 border failed, advance to Kymijoki river line failed, destruction of bulk of the Finnish army failed - all which were stated goals for the offensive. Yet the offensive failed to accomplish its set goals. In exact similar manner to Operation Market Garden - which did capture most of its stated partial objectives - which also failed to accomplish the goals set for the offensive. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't try to compare things you don't understand...

So I guess the Finnish defensive lines were not breached, Vyborg and Petrozavodsk were not captured... -YMB29 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to discredit the opponent does not benefit you in any way so please could you stop doing that again? Lets look at the Operation Market Garden, which managed even to capture most of the stated targets (bridges) within the alloted timeframe. Yet because it failed to accomplish its stated goal the operation was a failure. In contrast V-P operation did not manage to reach all but its final goals, it stalled far short of that. And exact parallel to Operation Market Garden it failed to accomplish its stated goal. So what other was it than operational failure as supported by sources? - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is only supported by your interpretations.

There are no parallels with Market Garden. I explained why many times. Go ask others if you refuse to listen to what I say. -YMB29 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also directly by sources, not by my interpretations. Feel free to read them again. Both offensives had clearly defined goals, both offensives failed to accomplished their set goals while both were able to accomplish some of the partial goals. How come can you determine that there are no parallels between the two when the cases are nearly identical? Trying to explain it away as some of the operational goals were accomplish does not really hold since the offensive had several other operational goals that it failed to accomplish and these failed goals have been clearly documented. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Failure to accomplish some goals does not mean overall failure...

Sorry, but your attempts at comparisons and analysis don't make sense. You just don't have enough understanding of the issues. -YMB29 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What understanding is there required to be? Offensive had clear list of goals. It failed to accomplish the set goals. What else is it on operational level than a failure? Just because you don't like it does not mean it would not have been a failure at operational level. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Find sources that say that the entire offensive was a failure on the operational level and then we can talk. -YMB29 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Those sources have been provided already earlier. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The strategic aim (strategicheskaia tsel') of any conflict dictates the nature, scope and form of military operations. Established by the political leadership of a nation, strategic aims represent the desired end of strategic-scale military actions. Achievement of strategic aims generally leads to significant, and sometimes fundamental, changes in military-political and strategic conditions, which, in turn, can contribute to the victorious conclusion of a war. The Soviets subdivided strategic aims into overall (obshchie) strategic aims which represent the "fundamental results of the war" and particular (chastnye) strategic aims, which result from successful campaigns or strategic operations. The strategic war aims determine the size and nature of strategic groupings of forces within a theater of military operations or on a strategic direction and determine the form of military actions undertaken. These aims transcend all other considerations.

Soviet Military Operational Art: In Pursuit of Deep Battle, by Glantz (p. 39)