Talk:Continuation War

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Soviet Union (1936–1955).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Motives for Finland Joining the Invasion of the USSR

The introduction states confidently that Mannerheim wanting East Karelia and the president wanting a Greater Finland were among the possible explanatory factors for Finnish entry to the war. No source is provided.

I tried verifying this in both English and Swedish, and found no credible source corraborating this. I did manage to make a couple of relevant observations, one of which I have a source for.

1) It is unclear and a matter of debate whether Mannerheim wanted East Karelia as stated in the introduction, or just to regain its pre-Winter War borders. Source in Swedish, link goes directly to a PDF, I promise it's safe!

2) I am simply unable to find a reputable well-cited source on wether the President wanted a Greater Finland. There might well be a source out there using that term, but it is very misleading to, withouth any qualifiers, link to the Wikipedia site on Greater Finland. This could for a reasonable reader imply that the president wanted to annex both St. Petersburg and Estonia. This is clearly not the case. It is therefore important to establish what precisely the Finnish president wanted to gain from the Soviet Union. It might be that he only wanted its lost territory back, as is possible for Mannerheim.

The introduction currently gives the reader an impression that the Finns were not only irredentist but also revisionist and expansionist. The Finns were, as far as I am aware, very serious about their war being a very limited one (not joining the Siege of Leninggrad as the common example) This is problematic if this turns out to be untrue; it would also mischaracterize two key Finnish leaders.

I would suggest removing these claims from the introduction until better source-material is found. This should include the unsourced implication and inference that Finnish participance in the war was partly due to the Soviet bombing raid on Finnish cities. A simple observation stating that the USSR bombed Finland before hostilities broke out can probably stand, but needs a "source-needed".

Also - if anyone finds a decent source providing some better answers, please share it as it is relevant for a project I am working on. I just created a Wikipedia-account, so I hope I will be forgiven for making some suggestions without actually editing the text in the main article. I want to make sure I learn a little more about Wiki before I start doing that. Skuggigkul (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Skuggigkul - No source will be provided in the introductory section of the article, which is only intended to summarise what is said in the body-text of the article in which citations are provided. I see numerous citations provided for that assertion lower down - is it your assertion that these are not correct? FOARP (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Calling a halt

This line in the lead, "...but the Finnish Army halted the offensive in August 1944" raises more questions than it answers for me. At Vyborg–Petrozavodsk offensive, it's apparent that Soviet logistics problems as well as Finnish resistance and preparedness were a factor. Also, when "...the Finnish Army...halted only around 30–32 km (19–20 mi) from the centre of Leningrad", why doesn't the lead say who halted them? In the current style, the Finns do all the halting, both of themselves and of others. Stara Marusya (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The Finns won the final battles of the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offensive, whereby the Soviet advance westward stopped. Hence, the Finns halted the offensive.

The Finns themselves decided to stop their offensive on the Karelian Isthmus in 1941. The Soviets were not involved with this. The Germans actually pressed the Finns to continue with the offensive into Leningrad. Betelgeuse X (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hitler's Title

There is a line in Relations between Finland, Germany and Soviet Union that raises some debate as to its word choice in referring to Hitler. "On 31 July 1940, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler gave the order to plan an assault on the Soviet Union...". Referring to Hitler as 'Chancellor' seems outdated especially at this point in time he had already seized absolute power within Germany, invaded Poland, and conquered France. Using 'chancellor', although it was a political title he held from 1933-1945, inadvertently masks his true position as dictator. A more fitting title should be used; perhaps 'Führer und Reichskanzler' should be used instead since he proclaimed himself as that later in 1934. Maybe just 'Führer' should be used since by that time the 'und Reichskanzler' had largely been dropped. JumbledPasta (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to simply not have a title there. Either the reader knows who Hitler was, and "Hitler gave the order..." is completely understandable, or they don't and neither "Chancellor", "Führer und Reichskanzler" or "Führer" is likely to make the sentence easier to understand. Ljleppan (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be the most reasonable way to proceed. The link would dispel any confusion if a reader had any. JumbledPasta (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)