Talk:Winter War

Obvious Soviet Victory

Why is this even controversial and getting undone? Timmtell (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you explain to us how it is an "obvious" Soviet victory? TylerBurden (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The red army broke through the Mannerheim line and the finnish government accepted the soviet demands, they achieved all their pre-war goals, even the lease of the Hanko peninsular. Timmtell (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Their goal was to annex Finland, which they failed to do, quite miserably. That is not a victory. TylerBurden (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if was somehow secretely, all their stated political goals were achieved, while none of the finnish ones were. Timmtell (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

So Finland didn't remain independent? Give me a break. TylerBurden (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The finnish government's goal was mainly to retain Karelia and not to lease the Hanko peninsular, they obviously failed as those demands were accepted after their defeat. Timmtell (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think it remained independent? There was no chance resisting USSR once the Karelian Isthmus was lost. Mannerheim knew already beforehand it would end like this, and hence urged for a compromise. If the Soviets had wanted, there was nothing in their way of taking all of Finland. Indeed, Molotov said exactly that during the final negotiations. Would any of that have flied in any other circumstance, other than a total Soviet victory? (Poor performance in first months of war notwithstanding - those are separate questions and you seem to be conflating the two.)

I am very far from some sort of Soviet allegiance, but this here is a plainly politicized interpretation. Nobody in the Finnish government would've denied their defeat. How could they? Victors don't capitulate.

At the most one may argue that the Soviets were wary about some sort of international reaction over a full annexation, which would perhaps have created some sort of international coalition against them (don't forget, USSR was under immense siege mentality/panic). But that's hardly saying Finns "won" or that Soviet victory is contentious. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Using Molotov as a source is laughably absurd. Equally absurd is your claim that the the Soviets could have taken all of Finland if they had wanted to: the Soviets had been defeated on every front except for one. Attacks in Pelkosenniemi, Kuhmo, Ilomantsi, Suomussalmi all failed. The Red Army was nowhere near taking all of Finland. A quick look on a map and an understanding of what territory the Soviets actually controlled can tell you that. This should answer your question about "why Finland remained independent".

Your claim about the Soviets being wary over international reaction over full annexation is silly. Clearly they had no qualms over annexation, as they had a puppet government destined for Helsinki. Betelgeuse X (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

But I didn't use Molotov as a source. I used Kotkin citing the capitulation negotiations as a source (and he relied on Paasikivi's own account, Tanner, and Khristovorov). Would such posturing have made sense in any other context than defeat? Why would Molotov say that to the Finns, if Finns were supposedly capable of fighting and might have taken him up on his word? And most importantly, why did Molotov's saying that force Finns to acquiesce to his demands? (They also complained that "Peter the Great paid Finland compensation after expanding its frontier," to which Molotov replied "well you can write to Peter the Great then, and if he orders, we will pay compensation." source: ibid.) This is the dialogue that took place on Finnish capitulation, which forced Finns to accept Molotov's demands.

I am neither Russian nor Finnish and I have no bias for either side, but the treatment is clearly onesided here. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You used Molotov saying that the Soviets could have taken all of Finland if they wanted to as proof that the Soviets didn't want to annex Finland. Again, this is absurd. The Soviets' Terijoki puppet government, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and invasion along the full length of the border make it obvious that the Soviets did indeed intend to conquer Finland, Soviet rationalization notwithstanding.

It's baffling how people can ignore clear evidence and continue to push the narrative that the USSR wasn't trying to conquer Finland. And then to top that off by saying that this article is one-sided is downright comical. Betelgeuse X (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It was Molotov's response to the Finns, after which they stopped protesting and agreed to Molotov's demands. The important part here is the context. It's not some lone statement of Molotov, some boasting between fellow comrades in the Kremlin.

And Stephen Kotkin is not Soviet. He isn't even Russian; he's an American historian. So I'm not sure what Soviet rationalization you're talking about. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Since it still doesn't seem to be making sense for you, I'll post your comment here:

"If the Soviets had wanted, there was nothing in their way of taking all of Finland. Indeed, Molotov said exactly that during the final negotiations."

You said that the Soviets could have taken all of Finland if they wanted to, using Molotov's similar assertion as proof. In reality, the Soviets were nowhere near occupying all of Finland. A basic understanding of the war would tell you this. They hadn't even occupied Viipuri/Vyborg when the peace treaty was signed, and their attacks in the rest of country had failed.

The Soviet rationalization refers to Molotov claiming that they could have conquered Finland had they wanted to, when it reality they had tried to just that, and had failed. Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying that the USSR achieved it pre-war goals is incorrect. The USSR intended to annex Finland into the Soviet Union. This failed. Labeling the Winter War a Soviet victory would imply that they achieved the goals they set out for at the beginning of the war, which isn't the case.

The page for Strategic victory states that "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 historians speak of a victory in general, they usually refer to a strategic victory.". The USSR failed to annex Finland, and also failed to "disturb" Finland's ability to wage war, considering that Finland invaded the Soviet Union a year after the Winter War ended. Finland's involvement in the Siege of Leningrad would imply that the Soviets' official reason for invading Finland, securing Leningrad, also failed. An argument in favor of labeling the Winter War a Finnish victory would almost make more sense than arguing for a Soviet victory. Betelgeuse X (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Strategic/tactical victory labels are for battles and their context within wars, not about the total results of war, so your definition doesn't matter at all.

They achieved all their offical goals and more, they demanded only a small part of Karelia but took it all after the war. Timmtell (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that those labels are limited to battles and not wars. And you clearly choose to ignore the reasons for the Soviets invading Finland and instead focus on only what they demanded before the war. Betelgeuse X (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

And you also keep ignoring Molotov's statement about Leningrad and its subsequent siege. Securing Leningrad was the official Soviet reason for invading Finland. Betelgeuse X (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't ignore them, it's you who ignores all goals besides Finland's minimum- and the USSR's maximum goal.

Hindsight is not an argument. Timmtell (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This is already being discussed below so I won't respond here. Betelgeuse X (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say, not argumentation based on editor opinion. (Hohum ^@) 20:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

"Most sources conclude that the Soviet Union had intended to conquer all of Finland, and use the establishment of the puppet Finnish Communist government and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact's secret protocols as evidence of this" TylerBurden (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they have achieved their secret maximum goals or not, they achieved all the demands made to the finnish government pre-war, besides you make a stupidly high bar were the result of war is only a victory if the goals of the most ambitious members of a government are achieved. Timmtell (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed on this article many times, I suggest you look at prior discussions to see why the result is what it is. Just because you want it to be a Soviet victory, doesn't mean that it was or that is what the reliable sources say. TylerBurden (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It's you who is doing mental gymnastics to not label it a soviet victory. You would have an argument if the Mannerheim defences stood and the finnish government didn't cede the terretories they refused to cede in the negotiations before the war, but we both know that the result wasn't "status quo ante bellum" but a vast improvement for tor the soviet postition. Timmtell (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

What are your sources? Title, author, page number. They need to be high quality, reliable sources. This isn't a forum for giving unsupported opinion. Concrete sources are required for changes. Continuing to argue without reliable sources will get you nowhere. Also, read the talk archives, this has come up before. (Hohum ^@) 20:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't get it, all information how it was a soviet victory are already in the article itself and Aftermath of the Winter War and how not even Finland considered it a victory for them, also in far more important articles like Eastern Front (World War II) don't need to have a specific source spell it out to label it a victory. Timmtell (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Vyacheslav Molotov stated that the reason for invading Finland was to "secure Leningrad". And we know that the USSR intended to annex Finland into the Soviet Union. Both of these goals were not met: the Soviets failed to annex the country, and also failed to secure Leningrad.

Please explain how the Winter War resulted in a "vast improvement for the Soviet position". Finnish involvement in the Siege of Leningrad was a direct result of the USSR's failure to annex Finland.

I recommend educating yourself on the Winter War instead of silly accusations of "mental gymnastics". Betelgeuse X (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

What is even your argument? I don't get it, there is no logic to it, it doesn't matter if their maximum goal wasn't met, their position did improve as they have taken Karelia. That it didn't actually secure Leningrad in the context of WW2 is pure hindsight and doesn't matter. Timmtell (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Vyacheslav Molotov stated after the war that the reason for invading Finland was to secure Leningrad. Finland was then involved with the siege of that city as a direct result. You keep saying that the Soviet position improved as a result of the Winter War, yet list no evidence supporting this claim. The Siege of Leningrad implies the exact opposite. And their point of invading Finland was to annex the country into the USSR, which obviously didn't happen. Finland's "maximal goal" was to remain a sovereign nation, which it did achieve.

The definition of Strategic victory: "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 historians speak of a victory in general, they usually refer to a strategic victory." The failure to annex Finland and the subsequent Finnish attack on the USSR in 1941 implies a clear strategic defeat for the USSR. A good argument could be made for the Winter War being a Finnish strategic victory. But in any case, listing the result of this conflict as a Soviet victory is silly. Betelgeuse X (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

"Finland's "maximal goal" was to remain a sovereign nation, which it did achieve."

How can the barest minimum be the maximum goal?

The rest is redundant, you already posted it. Timmtell (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that comment makes any sense to you. Remaining an independent country is the most important goal. You're telling me that a country would value keeping border territories more than its own existence? Betelgeuse X (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Minimum goals are usually the most important, so I don't get what you don't understand. Timmtell (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I meant most important. I'll state it differently to make it clearer: Finland achieved its most important goal, remaining a sovereign country. The USSR did not achieve its goals of annexing Finland or securing Leningrad. Betelgeuse X (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

"The USSR did not achieve its goals of annexing Finland or securing Leningrad."

First is true, but is also the maximum goal, the second was achieved as the destruction of the Mannerheim line and annexation of Karelia did improve their situation, that it wasn't enough in the context of WW2 is hindsight and doesn't matter. In the context of the war the soviets massively improved their position and took all natural defenses of southern Finland. It was not a total victory, I agree, but it was a victory. Timmtell (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You repeatedly claim that the Soviets improved their situation, then say that what happened afterwards is irrelevant. This is nonsensical. What do you then mean by "improving their situation"? Betelgeuse X (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

How did taking Karelia not improve their position?

What happened after doesn't matter because we discuss the result of the winter war and not WW2.

Your argument is nonsense because it's based on hindsight, like claiming every roman victory against Parthia wasn't actually a victory because they would lead to the much stronger Sassanid Empire's rise. Timmtell (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Again with the nonsensical comments. Evaluating if the Soviets "improved their position" requires looking at what happened after the war, and the result of the Winter War led to the Siege of Leningrad. The Soviets position was decidedly degraded, not improved. And the main argument against Soviet victory is their failure to annex Finland. The Finnish involvement in Leningrad's siege only adds to the magnitude of the overall Soviet failure in the conflict.

Your comparison to the Roman-Parthian wars is absurd. The Sassanid Empire didn't even exist during those wars. Show me a document that states that Rome's goal in fighting Parthia was to prevent the rise of the non-existent Sassanid Empire. I doubt that the Romans time-traveled into the future to determine their war objectives.

This whole thread has consisted of you making illogical claims with no evidence behind them. Continually claiming that the Soviets somehow improved their position as a result of territory gained, but then ignoring the repercussions of that land acquisition. And you already acknowledged that the Soviets failed in their objective to conquer Finland. It should be clear at this point that "Soviet victory" is not an apt description of the result of this war.

The conflict was not a decisive victory for either side. It's already been debated in previous discussions whether longer descriptions such as "tactical victory" and "strategic victory" should be listed in the result box, and the conclusion was to avoid this. Hence why the result is simply the Moscow Peace Treaty. Betelgeuse X (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that matters here is what reliable, independent sources say. The sources I've read frame it as a complex outcome, where both parties achieved some of their war goals, but neither came out shining. For example Edwards states Winter War had been, for the Soviet Union, a dismal and embarrassing failure, going on to analyze the outcome for dozens of pages without stating a clear, unambiguous, victory for either side. In cases such as this, the broad consensus regarding the use of infoboxes is to not engage in speculation, or use complex terminology (even modifiers like "tactical" are prohibited), but rather reference a suitable article or section that contains a longer discussion. This is what happens both here, and in e.g. Battle of Jutland. Continuing to fight over your WP:OR and WP:SYNTH analyses is meaningless here, and instead you should be focused on surveying what reliable sources state and do not state. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Then the infobox must state explicitly that the victor is contentious, and not simply ambiguously refer to the Moscow Peace Treaty. The purpose of the infobox is to immediately communicate the most incisive information on the topic, and no impicit ambiguity should be acceptable. If the reader is forced to scroll down to try to triangulate the end result, then the infobox has patently failed its purpose. OTOH, if they find "victor is contentious" (worded better), they immediately have the full picture and the infobox serves its purpose. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"Moscow Peace Treaty" is as incisive as it can get. Betelgeuse X (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

May as well have all the other fields linking to separate articles, then. In fact, may just replace the whole infobox with a link to the "Winter war" article. Or... the infobox could contain relevant info, digestible at a glance, not requiring one to parse the article. Why else have an infobox if not for that purpose? MrThe1And0nly (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The Moscow Peace Treaty is as objective of a result as can possibly be listed. "Inconclusive" is not a valid result per Wikipedia standards. Betelgeuse X (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not argue for removing the peace treaty, the peace treaty may remain. But I think adding "victor inconclusive" or the like would greatly increase the value of the infobox. As someone who frequently uses wikipedia and relies on the infobox, I can tell that simple links to articles alone aren't the most effective for giving a quick overview. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of other terms like "strategic defeat" or "tactical victory", but "inconclusive" actually is a valid outcome in the infobox. There was a long discussion about this a couple of years ago that can be found in the talk page archives, but the conclusion was that "Moscow Peace Treaty" made the most sense as it is objective, and the literal result of the war. Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Soviet Victory According to Definition and Multiple Sources

"A war is traditionally won by a signature on a piece of paper." - The United States Army Association. Finland surrendered and accepted the terms stipulated in the Moscow Peace Treaty: ceding a significant portion of south-eastern Finland (including the second largest city Viipuri) and leasing Hank to the Soviet Union. As a result, it is clear that the end of the war was Soviet victory, and any argument to the contrary is simply going against the definition of victory in a war. Also all the following sources label the Winter War conflict as Soviet victory:

Bidlack, R. (n.d.). Soviet-Finnish War | Encyclopedia.com. [online] www.encyclopedia.com. Available at: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/soviet-finnish-war [Accessed 18 Sep. 2022].

Reiter, D. (2010). Chapter Seven. The Logic Of War: Finland And The USSR, 1939–44. How Wars End, pp.121–139. doi:10.1515/9781400831036-009.

Simkin, J. (2020). Soviet Invasion of Finland in 1940. [online] Spartacus Educational. Available at: https://spartacus-educational.com/RUSfinland.htm.

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica (2018). Russo-Finnish War | Summary, Combatants, & Facts. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/Russo-Finnish-War.

U.S. Library of Congress (2019). Finland - The Winter War. [online] Countrystudies.us. Available at: http://countrystudies.us/finland/19.htm. Warshadee (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"In a traditional sense, a war is won by a signature on a piece of paper. For some wars, victory means deposing the other side’s political system and replacing it with one of the victor’s choosing." - The United States Army Association

The USSR failed to replace the Finnish government with their puppet Finnish Democratic Republic.

"the Winter War had been, for the Soviet Union, a dismal and embarrassing failure" - Robert Edwards

"It was a dangerous defeat because it encouraged our enemies' conviction that the Soviet Union was a colossus with feet of clay." - Nikita Khrushchev

And what is this definition of victory in war that you speak of? The source that you yourself posted mentions "deposing the other side's political system". This was the goal of the Soviets, and it failed. Betelgeuse X (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of the literature is that both sides achieved some but not all of their war aims, which is precisely the reason this question is constantly rehashed here. For example, we have Edwards (2006) saying Winter War had been, for the Soviet Union, a dismal and embarrassing failure and then discussing the outcome for pages and pages. See also e.g. Lessons of the Winter War: A Study in the Military Effectiveness of the Red Army, 1939–1940 by Reese (2008): The Soviet war against Finland (1939–40) is generally seen as a fiasco because the U.S.S.R. failed to conquer and absorb Finland, as Joseph Stalin had planned... These indicate that boiling the result down to a simple "victor" and "loser" is non-trivial. The broad consensus regarding the use of infoboxes on Wikipedia is to not engage in speculation or use complex terminology (even modifiers like "tactical" are prohibited), but rather to reference a suitable article or section that contains a longer discussion. This is what happens both here and in Battle of Jutland, which says both sides claim victory.

For sure, the outcome parameter can be changed if we can establish that there's a broad consensus among historians that the result is best summarized as an unreserved victory for one side. But the links you have provided above do not, in my view at the least, suffice to demonstrate the required broad consensus. I don't have full access to Reiter, but the first page at least states More pointedly, why did the Soviet Union not pursue an absolute victory... (emph. added). Based on a skim-reading, neither do Simkin nor Encyclopedia Britannica explicitly state this was an (unambiguous) soviet victory. Same for Countrystudies. In fact, they appear to be rather handily summarized as Ended with the Moscow peace treaty. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that @Warshadee has been engaging in trolling on Wikipedia in recent months, which makes it a bit difficult to take anything they say seriously, the matter is far too contested to change it to a victory for either side. Like BX said, the Soviets failed at their goals, miserably. TylerBurden (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Soviet "failed" and yet all their prewar demand was accepted by Finns plus Viipuuri which was at time 2nd most populated city in Finland. 109.60.11.222 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The Soviets' reason for invading Finland was to install their Terijoki puppet government into Helsinki for the eventual annexation of Finland. Their goals for the war clearly extended beyond their official demands to Finland in October and November 1939.

"The Soviet war against Finland (1939–40) is generally seen as a fiasco because the U.S.S.R. failed to conquer and absorb Finland, as Joseph Stalin had planned" - Roger Reese

"The Winter War had been, for the Soviet Union, a dismal and embarrassing failure" - Robert Edwards

"It was a dangerous defeat because it encouraged our enemies' conviction that the Soviet Union was a colossus with feet of clay" - Nikita Khrushchev

I'm not sure what your point is in stating that Viipuri was the 2nd largest city in Finland. We can also point out that the Siege of Leningrad, which occurred as a result of the USSR's Winter War failure, led to the deaths of a million citizens of that city - further highlighting the failure that the Winter War was for the USSR. Molotov stated after the war that "securing Leningrad" was the reason for the invasion. Obviously this didn't happen.

But the bottom line is that the USSR didn't achieve its objective of annexing Finland. I've provided quotes from historians - as well as Khrushchev himself - indicating that the war was a Soviet failure. Betelgeuse X (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

All i see from you argument was that Khruschov said that USSR wanted to secure Leningrad which they did by annexing Viipuri. ( no ...Winter war was not reson for siege of Leningrad but Barbarossa )

...and bunch of personal opininon of some "reliable historians" propoble same one who put that silly and histricaly unaccurate remark under Simo Hayhna picture. 109.60.11.222 (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Finnish participation in the Siege of Leningrad indicates that Leningrad was most definitely not secured. Without Finnish participation, the siege would not have occured. The Finnish Army completed the encirclement of the city to its northwest. Access to the city would have been possible otherwise.

Finland wouldn't have attacked the USSR in 1941 had the USSR been successful in conquering Finland, ergo the very thing that the Soviets said they wanted to accomplish with their attempt to conquer Finland - preventing an attack on Leningrad via Finland - happened because of their failed attempt to conquer Finland. But we know that "securing Leningrad" was only the Soviets' propaganda reason for invading Finland, as the actual reason was to annex the country into the USSR, which of course also failed. Hence why the war is not listed as a Soviet victory.

"...and bunch of personal opininon of some "reliable historians" propoble same one who put that silly and histricaly unaccurate remark under Simo Hayhna picture."

Huh?? No idea what your comment about Simo Häyhä means.

Clearly you'd rather disregard the findings of historians since they conflict with your idealized point of view. Betelgeuse X (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

My comment about Simo Hayha mean that Soviet troop's never called him "White death" as its remarked under that picture. That nickname was inveted probobly by same "reliable historians" during 80'. And this info you can find on his personal wiki page. 109.60.11.222 (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the Siege of Leningrad is not the reason for the result box not listing the war as a Soviet victory. I brought it up in response to those who claim that the USSR had "secured Leningrad" as a result of the Winter War. Betelgeuse X (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Then don't mention it. With that type of argument you can argue anything. I could say that eg. Britain lost WWII becouse "We know" thei goal was to keep Empire ...and they failed with lost of India few year later. We could also say that Soviet lost it too...as "we know" Stalin wanted to occupie most of europe but he clearly occupie only east part of it and they lost that too 40 year later. 109.60.11.222 (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes they failed, and sources back it up. You're offering nothing but the same rantings of people who wish to present a Soviet victory on this article have been doing for years, no policy involved, just your opinion. TylerBurden (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You brought up Viipuri being Finland's second largest city, and I responded with an equally relevant comment. Though I will say that the examples you list are laughable. Securing Leningrad was the literal reason the Soviets gave for invading Finland. Feel free to point out when the British leadership stated that "keeping its empire" was the reason that the UK fought in World War II (as if this even makes any sense), or when the Soviets stated that their war against Germany was to "occupy most of Europe".

The typical approach I see from you and others who maintain that the war should be listed as a Soviet victory goes something like this:

1. State that the USSR won because it gained land from Finland.

2. Ignore the rebuttal pointing out that the Soviets intended on conquering all of Finland, or insinuate that this was simply a secondary goal and shouldn't be considered in the analysis.

3. Ignore the conclusions of multiple historians stating that the war was a Soviet failure, or imply that they're simply "personal opinions" and "unreliable".

4. Accuse anyone against listing the war as a Soviet victory as peddling propaganda or their own personal opinions.

5. Make false comparisons to other wars.

6. Repeat the above steps in an increasingly angry manner involving swearing, wishing ill upon posters' families, etc. (as is the case with the recently-banned IP address). Betelgeuse X (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is beautiful, valuable and benevolent. I support taking this direction and being rigorous about it. Thank you, @Ljleppan. 91.154.160.208 (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

IT'S NOT FULL VICTORY FOR USSR: Pyrrhic victory at best: The bottom line is because of this war, Finland never became part of USSR slavery and USSR really wanted this war to end asap: The Soviets had lost more than five times as many soldiers as the Finns! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.66.143.73 (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Victory? Fail? Soviets achieved all their goals while Fins none. That's your answer to the question. Please update any info if it's not. But these 2 or 3 guys will continue trying to troll Wikipedia... 139.47.80.70 (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

- Soviets achieved all their goals while Fins none

The Soviets' goal was to fail to insert their puppet government into Helsinki and fail to annex Finland?

- But these 2 or 3 guys will continue trying to troll Wikipedia

Funny how those accusing others of trolling are themselves ignoring published sources, making unbacked claims, etc. AKA trolling. Betelgeuse X (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Why was my comment removed without explanation? I was simply pointing out the logic of refusing to state that the Winter's War did not end with Soviet victory. Have I embarrassed somebody? It seems very weak not to give an explanation. 89.175.204.6 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not the venue to discuss general questions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The Soviet's goal was to secure Leningrad, and they met that goal. Real Robert J. Oppenheimer (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The Soviets' goal was to install their Terijoki puppet government into Helsinki and annex Finland into the USSR, which failed. Betelgeuse X (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you think stopped the Soviets from annexing all of Finland after Karelian Isthmus fell? Why do you think Finland suddenly capitulated? Mannerheim knew already beforehand it would end like this, and hence urged for a compromise. If the Soviets had wanted, there was nothing in their way of taking all of Finland. Indeed, Molotov said exactly that during the final negotiations. Would any of that have flied in any other circumstance, other than a total Soviet victory? (Poor performance in first months of war notwithstanding - those are separate questions and many seem to be conflating the two.)

I am very far from some sort of Soviet allegiance, but this here is a plainly politicized interpretation. Nobody in the Finnish government would've denied their defeat. How could they? Victors don't capitulate.

At the most one may argue that the Soviets were wary about some sort of international reaction over a full annexation, which would perhaps have created some sort of international coalition against them (don't forget, USSR was under immense siege mentality/panic). But that's hardly saying Finns "won" or that Soviet victory is contentious.

(part of this answer is a repost from another I made just now way up the thread) MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I already responded to you above, but I'll repeat it here: the Soviets had been defeated on every front except for one. Attacks in Pelkosenniemi, Kuhmo, Ilomantsi, Suomussalmi all failed. The Red Army was nowhere near taking all of Finland. A quick look on a map and an understanding of what territory the Soviets actually controlled can tell you that. This should answer your question about "why Finland remained independent".

Your claim about the Soviets being wary over international reaction over full annexation is silly. Clearly they had no qualms over annexation, as they had a puppet government destined for Helsinki. Betelgeuse X (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you unaware of the change in Soviet war planning under Timoshenko, the whole point of which was to pull men from godforsaken tundra from the north, in order to focus efforts on blasting the only relevant part of the frontline under Karelia? That was Shaposhnikov's plan from the beginning, had it been adopted by Stalin. Why do you think Gustaf Mannerheim capitulated right after that happened? Why do you think Gustaf Mannerheim already predicted defeat before the war? Sorry, but ignoring Mannerheim's capitulation is just patently onesided. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here. The change in war tactics was due to the total failure of the Soviets' initial full-scale attacks. Hence why the Soviets abandoned their Terijoki puppet government on January 29th and informed the Finnish government that they were willing to negotiate peace, after which discussions began. You seem to be completely unaware of this, implying that Finland suddenly sued for peace in March. This is all covered in the article, I suggest reading it.

Please elaborate on what "Mannerheim capitulated right after that" means. It was the Soviets that capitulated on their puppet government, changing their war goals after their attempt to overthrow the Finnish government had failed.

"Patently one-sided" is an apt description for someone who somehow manages to ignore the Terijoki puppet government, ignore the fact that the Soviets invaded along the full length of the border, intending to occupy cities like Oulu (which is nowhere near the territory that the Soviets were supposedly after), and ignore the fact that all of Finland was listed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (all the territory falling under the Soviet "sphere of influence" was eventually annexed by the USSR, with the exception of Finland). Betelgeuse X (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The Finns were not fighting the Terijoki government, which is why the war did not end on January 29th, after its "capitulation." You also forgot to mention the repeated attempts by Finnish government to contact USSR pre-January 29th. I guess that would ruin the vibe.

Timoshenko took command on the explicit condition that he be allowed to adopt Shaposhnikov's pre-war plan of a focused narrow-front attack through the Mannerheim line, opening up Helsinki. The plan had previously been rebuked in favor of a full frontal assault, proposed by Meretskov. After the war, Stalin had personally admitted to Shaposhnikov that he had been right from the start.

The MRP spheres of influence were not a guarantee of invasion. Finnish inclusion in the Soviet sphere was an attempt to prevent German-Finnish collusion. How do you explain the different diplomatic approach USSR took to Finland as opposed to the Baltics, if not by having different end goal in mind? With the Baltics, there was no threat of international intervention.

As for who was losing, lets consult some easily accessible third parties:

"Despite courageous resistance and a number of successful defense actions, the defense of the Karelian Isthmus broke down, and Finland had to initiate peace negotiations."

"In February 1940, however, the Soviets used massive artillery bombardments to breach the Mannerheim Line (the Finns’ southern defensive barrier stretching across the Karelian Isthmus), after which they streamed northward across the isthmus to the Finnish city of Viipuri (Vyborg). Unable to secure help from Britain and France, the exhausted Finns made peace (the Treaty of Moscow) on Soviet terms on March 12, 1940,"

Rest is from the Finnish wikipedia article on the Moscow treaty:

"Rauha astui voimaan 13. maaliskuuta, kun Suomen joukot olivat murtumassa ja Neuvostoliiton joukot jo lähentelivät Viipuria."

"Rauhasta ei varsinaisesti neuvoteltu, vaan Neuvostoliitto saneli ehdot."

"Avuntarjouksen torjumiseen johti marsalkka Mannerheimin arvio, jonka mukaan rintama ei kestäisi enää kauan, lännen apu tulisi liian myöhään ja olisi liian vähäistä."

I could go on, from this article and others. But I'll end with citing the words of a clear winner:

"Let the hand wither that signs this monstrous treaty!"

It's patently evident the Finns were in the worse position. The only saving grace was the threat of international intervention, which probably didn't look promising enough to proceed with the war. Finland was exhausted, its defensive position lost, and Mannerheim said the defense cannot continue. And so they accepted an unpleasant treaty, after having protested the conditions.

I have no doubt you will now attempt to edit the cited article. Fortunately you cannot edit Mannerheim's statements or the archives.

In conclusion, however, I'll say it's not unreasonable to leave the victor undecided, since we cannot fully discount the possibility of USSR having attempted to annex all of Finland. It seems to me the evidence is mostly contrary to full annexation, or at most it became a goal after Finns refused the initial demands, but we can leave that open.

I will however protest your undoing of my sentence "leaving the rest of Finland vulnerable," since this is plainly written in the quotes I offered. Maybe we can find a consensus here that we can both agree upon?

I will start a separate topic for that. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

"The Finns were not fighting the Terijoki government, which is why the war did not end on January 29th, after its "capitulation." You also forgot to mention the repeated attempts by Finnish government to contact USSR pre-January 29th. I guess that would ruin the vibe."

Obviously the Finns weren't fighting the Terijoki government. They were fighting the country that wanted to install the Terijoki government into Helsinki. Not sure what your point is regarding the the "vibe". Obviously Finland attempted to contact the Soviets before January 29th. It was only when the Soviets abandoned their attempt to overthrow the Finnish government with their puppet government that they began discussions.

"How do you explain the different diplomatic approach USSR took to Finland as opposed to the Baltics, if not by having different end goal in mind? With the Baltics, there was no threat of international intervention."

Huh?? Are you not aware that the Baltics were never at war with the USSR in 1939 or 1940? On the other hand, the demands the Soviets sent to the Baltics and Finland were all similar: the establishment of military bases on their respective territories.

"I have no doubt you will now attempt to edit the cited article. Fortunately you cannot edit Mannerheim's statements or the archives."

Another bizarre comment.

"It seems to me the evidence is mostly contrary to full annexation."

How anyone can come to this conclusion is beyond me. Do explain then why the Soviets established their Terijoki puppet government, with the following statement by TASS:

"The People's Government in its present composition regards itself as a provisional government. Immediately upon arrival in Helsinki, capital of the country, it will be reorganised and its composition enlarged by the inclusion of representatives of the various parties and groups participating in the people's front of toilers."

"I will however protest your undoing of my sentence "leaving the rest of Finland vulnerable," since this is plainly written in the quotes I offered. Maybe we can find a consensus here that we can both agree upon?"

Of the ~150,000 square miles of Finnish territory, the Red Army occupied a couple thousand square miles. So how do you arrive at the conclusion that the rest of this territory was vulnerable, when the Red Army had advanced only on the southern coast, at great cost at that. The statement simply doesn't make sense.

"I could go on, from this article and others. But I'll end with citing the words of a clear winner:

"Let the hand wither that signs this monstrous treaty!""

Just as the Soviets failing to install their Terijoki puppet government and annexing Finland into the USSR is the mark of a clear Soviet victory. Betelgeuse X (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh so we're going by TASS statements now, I see? Shall I edit the article to include the breadbaskets Soviets were dropping on starving Finnish peasants in Helsinki as well?

There are many reasons for why having a Terijoki government would be beneficial for the USSR, such as exerting political pressure on Finland, or attempting to muddy the waters and seem less aggressive for outside observers. To conclude it must only have meant they were actually attempting to replace the Finnish government, based on a TASS statement, is nonsensical. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The breadbaskets are already referenced in the article.

"attempting to muddy the waters and seem less aggressive for outside observers"

How this even begins to make any sense to you is beyond me. It was perfectly clear what the Soviets' intent was when they launched an invasion along the entire border. That would qualify as aggressive. Contrary to your laughable assertion, the Soviets announcing their intention to install the Terijoki government into Helsinki only further confirms Soviet war aims. Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, curiously the Soviet statement on breadbaskets isn't taken seriously.

If you can't see the way a puppet regime can be leveraged either against your opponent or onlookers, that's on you. In any case this conversation is pointless, because I am content with leaving the victor status as is. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Do provide an example of when a puppet government was created solely for "leverage against your opponent or onlookers". Betelgeuse X (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Numerous governments-in-exile, exiled monarchs or throne pretenders from history. But for a modern take, just look at current Russian puppets: South-Ossetia, Abkhazia, probaly Artsakh and Transnistria too. They're just geopolitical chips to toss around on the bargaining table. Look at proxy wars between Arabia and Iran in Yemen, both supporting each own puppet. Iran's intent isn't to conquer Yemen, but to screw Arabia. Hell, maybe even look at Taiwan - it's a major thorn up China's side and under US protection. But nobody in their right mind works towards Taiwan ruling mainland China, or recognizes Taiwan's authority over it. Again, just a chip. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

So the USSR failing to install their puppet government into Finland is somehow equivalent to your list of countries that supposedly already have puppet governments installed? Interesting logic there. And listing Taiwan is hilarious. Any more propaganda you'd like to add? Betelgeuse X (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

All of them are rump states that exist solely due to foreign support, and none of them have overall formal recognition. Calling this propaganda doesn't add to your credibility. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Implying that a puppet government exists in Taiwan is propaganda-level absurdity. It also shows that your understanding of what constitutes a puppet government is severely lacking. And the other part of your comment tries to imply that a failed attempt to install a puppet government is somehow equivalent to countries that (supposedly) have puppet governments installed. Equally silly on multiple levels. Betelgeuse X (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan is recognized only by: Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Tuvalu.

I won't be continuing this discussion, for reasons stated above. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

So who installed this puppet government into Taiwan? Care to elaborate? Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

References

"Most sources conclude that the Soviet Union had intended to conquer all of Finland"

What is this "most" based on? A simple tally? Of all academics who've spoken on the issue? Looking at the sources, it seems pretty even (at a glance: European historians favoring the "full annexation" side, and American historians the "limited demands").

I think this sentence should simply read along these lines: "Whether or not the Soviet Union intended to conquer all of Finland, it remains academically contended" (and citing the respective academic groups). MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Dan Reiter is American. Roger Reese is American. Betelgeuse X (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well if you look at the very sentence in the article, the beginning of which is the title of the topic, you will see that I arrived at my conclusion by taking a look at the sources cited under F 7 and F 8, and simply googling the authors. Reese isn't cited in the article. You can add him to the "Soviet end goal" section, if he has relevant arguments. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You implied that American historians were split on the result, which isn't the case. Du Bois and Zeiler are yet two more American historians who agree that the USSR intended to conquer Finland Betelgeuse X (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Three americans for full annexation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#cite_note-40

Three americans against: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#cite_note-45 MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Reese is the fourth for full annexation. And who are the three against annexation? Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I repeat, Reese isn't cited in the article. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Then he can be added, and it'll be four. Compared to two against annexation. And as you said, European historians favor full annexation as well. Hence, "Most sources conclude that the Soviet Union had intended to conquer all of Finland" is indeed a valid statement. Betelgeuse X (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There's three Americans against annexation.

I think a tally like that is unproductive, because hypothetically nothing stops people from digging for historians to then cite in the article for one or another position. It would be great if there was some aggregator like an encyclopedia we could reference, instead of individual historians. Britannica seems to be ambiguous about it:

"Following the invasion, defeat, and partitioning of Poland by Germany and the Soviets in 1939, the Soviet Union sought to push its border with Finland on the Karelian Isthmus westward in an attempt to buttress the security of Leningrad (St. Petersburg) from potential German attack. To that end, the Soviets also endeavoured to gain possession of several Finnish islands in the Gulf of Finland and to secure a 30-year lease for a naval base at Hanko (Hangö). The Soviet proposals for those acquisitions included an offer to exchange Soviet land. When Finland refused, the Soviet Union launched an attack on November 30, 1939, beginning the Russo-Finnish War." MrThe1And0nly (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Losing the Karelian Isthmus left Finland in a worse position

This should be made explicit in the introduction. It was what made Mannerheim state on the inability of continued war, and to push the Finnish government towards accepting Soviet demands.

I was thinking of adding to the end of this sentence the part in square brackets: "After the Soviet military reorganized and adopted different tactics, they renewed their offensive in February 1940 and overcame the Finnish defences on the Karelian Isthmus[, leaving rest of Finland vulnerable.]"

Maybe someone prefers some other wording? "more open to attack?" "reduced capability of defense?" Other ideas? MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Of ~150,000 square miles of Finnish territory, the Red Army occupied a couple thousand square miles. So how do you arrive at the conclusion that the rest of this territory was "vulnerable", when the Red Army had slowly advanced only on the southern coast, and at great cost at that. The statement simply doesn't make sense. Betelgeuse X (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not how wars work. By that logic, WW1 wasn't lost by Germany, since no entente soldier set foot on German soil.

Why did Mannerheim urge Finns to accept Soviet demands, and why did Finland agree to give more land than what the Soviets had already occupied, if they weren't in a bad position as you argue? MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

How do you manage to go on a tangent regarding who won or lost? That's not what we're discussing. Saying that the rest of Finland was "more vulnerable" doesn't make sense, for the reasons I keep giving over and over.

Peace discussions started in January after the USSR gave up on a conquest of Finland. Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I will cite Mannerheim, on March 12:

"Should we be able to hold the enemy until the thaw gave us a few weeks' respite? On the long front in the wilderness [North of Ladoga] this appeared possible, but in the main theatre of war [South-East], where our troops had almost reached breaking point, a retreat seemed inevitable." MrThe1And0nly (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, I'll refer back to the fact that the Red Army had already tried to occupy all of Finland, and had failed to do so, meaning that "leaving the rest of Finland vulnerable" is nonsensical. Betelgeuse X (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I have taken your point into account, and have edited the introduction according to Mannerheim's words instead. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Why is "Shelling of Mainila" and "Soviet intentions" one section?

The first is a historical event, the second is a historical analysis of geopolitics and motivations. It makes zero sense to combine the two, and in fact intentions should come before actions.

If there is no protest, I will separate them into two sections. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually I think it makes sense to retain Soviet intentions under the section of Shelling of Mainila, after re-reading it. So I've merely made "Soviet intentions" into a subsection of "Shelling of Mainila and Soviet intentions." If someone has ideas how to fix the repetition of the titles, have at it. But please retain the "Soviet intentions" subsection. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"which would not have made sense if a full annexation was intended"

The full comment: "He points out the different treatment Finland was given, compared to the Baltics: unlike the Baltic states, Finland was demanded limited concessions, which would not have made sense if a full annexation was intended. No such demands nor negotiations took place with the Baltic states."

This makes no sense. The Soviet demands to Finland and the Baltics in the Autumn of 1939 included the establishment of Soviet military bases in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. And there were no peace negotiations between the Baltics and the USSR as they were never at war in 1939 or 1940. Betelgeuse X (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Stephen Kotkin's role as a reliable source needs to be seriously questioned. His claim that "no such demands" were given to the Baltic states is objectively false. I'm going to delete this paragraph unless someone can provide a good reason not to do so. Betelgeuse X (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

As a wikipedia editor your role is not to question or delete a world-famous academic because you think you know better. Your role is to either question my interpretation of Kotkin, or to add academic statements that critique Kotkin's position. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely is the role of Wikipedians to remove factually incorrect information. It's also the role of Wikipedians to not post factually incorrect information.

It's amusing how you keep referring to Kotkin as a "world-famous" historian, as if to brush away the now-obvious questionable role he plays as a credible source. I've never heard of him, and I doubt many here have heard of him. And more importantly, his lack of understanding of basic events such as the demands given to the Baltics by the Soviets implies that he is not a credible source. Because yes, those demands did take place. This is a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_(1940)

"The Soviets pressured Finland and the Baltic states to conclude mutual assistance treaties. The Soviets questioned the neutrality of Estonia following the escape of a Polish submarine from Tallinn on 18 September. Six days later, on 24 September 1939, the Estonian foreign minister was given an ultimatum in Moscow. The Soviets demanded the conclusion of a treaty of mutual assistance to establish military bases in Estonia.[5][6] The Estonians had no choice but to allow the establishment of Soviet naval, air and army bases on two Estonian islands and at the port of Paldiski.[5]" Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You are not the arbiter of factual correctness, and you have cited an unsourced sentence. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Good God, this is just silly. So do you think that the Soviet bases in the Baltics just spontaneously came into existence?? The topic is covered in this article as well as others, like the one I linked. Betelgeuse X (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears there has been a misunderstanding, maybe due to how I worded it in the article. Nobody's claiming the Baltics weren't pressured into mutual assistance pacts, which resulted in their de facto annexation. The claim is that Finland was not pressured into a similar pact. I have now clarified this in the text. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Soviet intentions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comments regarding Trotter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you reverting without responding to the issue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awkward sentence?

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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