Talk:Battle of Tali–Ihantala

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 Tienhaara, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, 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 ^♫ 15:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Attributing comments

Two places where it was used it will get problematic since (especially the first one) is very widely spread (ie. in almost all) Finnish based books on the topic. Using author list will only lead on convoluted page without any gains. Some better method than author list should be applied instead if at all possible. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this viewpoint a general consensus among all scholars, Finnish, Russian, and otherwise? If so, then we can include it without attribution. If there is any significant disagreement on this from other scholars, then we have to attribute it to someone. Is anyone aware of sources with differing views? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That is part of the issue in a way (related to mediation), Soviet/Russian historiography generally states that the whole offensive (for Leningrad Front) ended already on June 20 (while in reality it continued at least to July 12) and downplays every and all of the events which followed that date - which include this particular battle. Even against existing evidence like orders from STAVKA or Soviet archival data. So i doubt very much that Russian scholars, with possible exception of some of the latests scholars agree with that. It is however prevalent view amongst Finnish scholars (with same view reflected in just about everywhere) - however if you start listing the authors who consider it as being key event then you better prepare a very, very long list. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok so let's see the list with quotes...

Consensus in Finland does not mean consensus around the world.

In the mediation it was decided that all the sources used in the article should be considered reliable. As you said yourself, it is only your opinion that the Russian source is fringe.

So provide evidence that the Soviet/Russian view is fringe, otherwise it remains your opinion. -YMB29 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets go with google books:

• 500 Days: The War in Eastern Europe, 1944-1945 - By Sean M. Mcateer, p. 184 This Battle of Tali-Ihantala probably convinced Stalin that conquering Finland was not worth the cost.
• Finland at War 1939-45 - By Philip Jowett, Philip S. Jowett, Brent Snodgrass, p. 13-15 Had the Soviet 21st Army been victorious it could have continued north to take Helsinki, and whole of the Finland would have been occupied. The Finnish victory here... (under entry Battle of Tali-Ihantala)

Just couple of examples for starters, and no one has even started adding Finnish books to the list. If this (attribution) is insisted it should be realized that it will not improve the article in any manner, only convolute it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

So that proves that the Russian view is fringe?

Battle of Tali-Ihantala probably convinced Stalin... Probably is not certainly as you state in the article.

If there is a lot of Finnish authors then you can just say "according to Finnish historians...". -YMB29 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Grasping at such straws is hardly beneficial in any kind of discussion - so war we have plenty of non-Finnish sources and whole lot of Finnish sources which state that the battle was key event in 'convincing' Stalin. So stating 'according to Finnish historians' is not even near the truth nor is it accurate expression. So far the 'Russian view' has actually been just Baryshnikov alone. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-Finnish historians don't care to write much about the Soviet-Finnish front and there are of course many Finnish authors who do, but that is not a reason to take the Finnish view as fact.

Again, your opinion about Baryshnikov is irrelevant here.

The claims made in your paragraph should be backed up by exactly what the sources say and not your interpretation of what they say, so the "probably" makes a difference. -YMB29 (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This unyielding attitude of yours is exactly the reason why there were edit wars and problems leading to outside mediation. Keep in mind that all criticism you apply against Finnish source also works directly against Baryshnikov. What is clear is that neither 'Finnish authors' (since it is not true) or list of authors (since it would very long) works in this case, so I ask, what would be your suggestion to resolve the issue? - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if you don't like how the statements were attributed, that is not a reason for you to make a revert and have the views be presented as facts again.

I think that attributing the statements to the sources cited for them is good enough. It does not mean that only those sources support the statements, as you seem to think. -YMB29 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I brought it up in order to have a constructive discussion on the matter instead of having either side resorting into similar actions as seen prior to mediation. So far you have been offering the just one and the same option (with two different flavors) without any attempt to achieve a compromise even though it has been pointed out that the specific solution you offered is not particularly suitable under the circumstances. How exactly do you believe such an 'example' of constructive work will help apart from yet again polarizing the discussion and editing? - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You did not just bring up a discussion, you reverted when you knew this is going against WP:ASF. This is what is not helpful. Come up with a better formulation if the one I made does not suit you. -YMB29 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely trying to keep editing and discussion civil. Already in WP:ASF there is a note against deliberate misuse of the 'opinion concept' which it seems to me is the case in the first of the two places your edit altered. I do not have clear solution to the issue - if i had i would have already done something about it - but that does change the fact that inserting there the whole list of those who support that opinion is not practical nor beneficial to the article. Outside - and out of the box - opinions on the matter are welcome of course. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no misuse; you can only say that if you prove that Baryshnikov is fringe.

Once again, if you list two authors that does not mean that the two are the only ones who support the view. -YMB29 (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

...And of course we have Platonov's Bitva za Leningrad which bluntly says that Red Army failed to fulfill tasks given by STAVKA in the battles north of Viipuri. --Whiskey (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with what we are talking about? Nowhere in that book does it say that the battle was a great Finnish victory that saved them from occupation... -YMB29 (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As said initially the whole problem derives from Soviet habit of hiding some their operations, often the unsuccessful ones, from history books (if you are interested on the topic, see David M. Glantz essay The Soviet-German War, 1941-1945: Myths and Realities). Which makes balanced observation of the operation very difficult. Just as an example of how difficult the matter is to handle, the Soviet/Russian books still maintain that Leningrad Front's offensive lasted until 20 June, while in reality active operations did not end until mid July (at Vuosalmi). - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That is the Vyborg offensive. Anyway, this has little to do with what we are talking about. -YMB29 (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really, even the quotes you referred to state that capturing Viipuri was the final goal of the operation (which it wasn't) and keep mentions how 'successful' offensive was (even though it never reached its stated goals). So the 'myths and realities' of the Eastern Front are important when handling issues such as this. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The main objective was Vyborg and the greater strategic goal was Finland's surrender, so that is why the offensive is described as successful. This is not a myth and can't be used by you to discredit Soviet/Russian sources. -YMB29 (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that is contradicted both by the official order from STAVKA as well as by modern research. Viipuri was the merely goal for the 1st part of the offensive (not main goal), in an offensive which was intended to progress a lot further. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not being contradicted. Vyborg was a strategically important goal (as one of the sources says). The offensive intended to progress further, but the main strategic goal was still achieved without that. -YMB29 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So in other words the offensive was a success because it failed to reach its goals? - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Finland surrendered... -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Did it? Does any of the documents state so? Only thing that took place was mutually agreed ceasefire & armistice. That is how the agreement was termed (Moscow Armistice), and when checking definition of 'armistice' we find that "the key aspect in an armistice is the fact that 'all fighting ends with no one surrendering'". - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been explained to you before many times; I am not going to repeat it again and again. -YMB29 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So are you going to deny that what took place was an armistice? Because that is what all the documents state. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Armistice does not mean that no side surrenders conditionally and makes concessions. Anyway, what is the point of this? Finland made peace with the USSR and started fighting the Germans, so it does not matter if it is called surrender or just armistice. -YMB29 (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the minor detail that term armistice contradicts that of surrender - mind you, making concessions does not require a surrender. I'm only interested in why exactly do you insist in calling the treaty which ended the war as something else that it wasn't? Also Finns did not make peace with USSR, first peace was only agreed in Paris several years later and it was not just between Finns & USSR. All I'm asking is factual accuracy instead (ie. calling armistice or перемирии for what it really was). - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, armistice does not mean no surrender. There are plenty of sources that call it surrender, which I have listed before. -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly the same kind of support as i have for the claim i made below. You claim that armistice does not exclude surrender (i have not seen evidence of that) so you deliberately insert biased text into the article while knowingly disallowing text of precisely similar value from being added to the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What am I inserting? You are claiming that armistice excludes surrender, so you prove it if you want. What this has to do with the issue being discussed I don't know... -YMB29 (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, so it looks like Baryshnikov has a different opinion to the other scholars mentioned here. If Baryshnikov is the only source that has a different view, then we could do something like this: "The majority of scholars say X and Y. An alternative view is provided by Baryshnikov, who says Z." What we can't do is simply state "everyone thinks X and Y" when Baryshnikov has a different opinion. Wanderer, I'm afraid you are going to have to get used to this, as it is going to happen several times in this subject area. @YMB - are there other sources that share Baryshnikov's opinion, or that differ from the opinion of the other scholars mentioned? If there are, it might affect how we should word the passage. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as Baryshnikov's general view about this issue - that the goal of the Soviet offensive was Finland's exit from the war and not occupation, it is supported by many Russian and English language sources (I listed some of them before: [1]). So it can't be said that his view is in the minority. Baryshnikov is important because he is very detailed; he mentions this battle and analyzes the arguments of the Finnish side. -YMB29 (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The comments you quoted become extraordinarily hilarious when you keep in mind that both Leningrad Front and Karelian Front offensives had been stopped dead (with exception of Ilomantsi) around mid-July and that as per STAVKA orders the offensive was not intended to stall after reaching Vyborg - again interestingly STAVKA orders were utilized by non-Russian sources to reveal the actual Soviet intent. Also for that matter, to equal the nitpicking which was utilized earlier, none of the quotes listed deny the attempt to conquer Finland, and actually one of them even agrees that Soviet intent was to occupy (conquer) Finland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if you fail to see what has been marked in bold for you, I can't help you... The quotes clearly state the Soviet strategic goals, and contradict the views you consider to be facts. You continue to cling to secondary tactical goals that were not achieved. We have been through this countless times... -YMB29 (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have read those more closely, as they do not deny that conquering Finland would have been in the agenda. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So you think that was not important enough to be mentioned when talking about the goals of the offensive? Obviously if the authors thought that occupation was the goal and the Soviets failed in this, they would have pointed it out, instead of just writing that the Soviets intended to knock Finland out of the war... -YMB29 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, by the time you reached the word 'obviously' you were already doing original research. What you are describing as your opinion just ain't what the sources are stating. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well "obviously" is not in the article...

If you have sources that say that conquering Finland was the main goal, while other sources don't mention this and give other goals, it is not OR to point out the contradiction.

So getting back to the article, find proof that the views expressed by your sources are supported by the overwhelming majority of historians or agree to follow WP:ASF. -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I already pointed out several such articles yet you did not actually provide any which would explicitly deny it without performing OR. And yes, am I actually using the very same arguments you have used when you insisted on sources to be provided. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that they explicitly deny it. I just point out the clear contradiction (which does not require original research to see) and that they support Baryshnikov (who does explicitly deny it) on the goals of the offensive.

And no, you have not provided any proof so far... -YMB29 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That they support Baryshnikov is your OR - you can not make assumptions on what they have not said. Actually the two articles i linked plus the one from your sources already do that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Two books prove a majority??

I am not making any assumptions; both Baryshnikov and the other sources say the same thing about the goals of the offensive. I guess you are also making an assumption when you say that those two books support Lunde... -YMB29 (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look closely you can see that sources you listed make no mention of the matter. In other words they are not saying anything with regards of that issue - so they are not contradicting the sources i included. You can not assume that they would mean something that they are not discussion about. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Both set of sources talk about the same thing differently, so it is not OR to say that they disagree. Why don't you just admit that you are wrong and can't provide evidence that the view you don't like is fringe? Do we need another RfC just to confirm that you are wrong again? -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As per what you stated regarding (amongst others) the armistice matter, it clearly is not like you describe it - not even in matters you support. However I'm willing to admit I'm wrong and attribute the comments per statement but are you? - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

About what? What do you mean? -YMB29 (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are all Finnish source of this battle removed? They had been thoroughly studied by Finnish scholars ;nothing like on the Russian side so bring back those Finnish scholar fast! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.95.162 (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nikolai Baryshnikov?

This man Nikolai Baryshnikov seems to be carrying out some sort of "crusade" on this mather http://www.ruslania.com/language-8/entity-1/context-577/author-8453.html It is good that different view points are presented but maybe it should stand something about how how this may cause to be a little biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.183.94 (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Baryshnikov represents a new phase of Russian propaganda against Finland - nothing else.Nor1980 (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  lol, i guess its back to the good old days for russia, lying about everything per usual.  sad.
  maybe "ymb" is a sockpuppet for mr. baryshnikov.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.36.97.64 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 

Last sentence of the Impact section

"These authors further contend that substantial German aid is not mentioned or is only hinted at.[37]"

I wonder where they got this from. Because it was one of the main points in our schoolbooks that were written back in 90's and I have seen it stressed in as very important point in every documentary (which makes me assume source materials also state that) I have watched about the battle. 195.148.29.104 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviving the vexed question of Nikolai Baryshnikov.

In reading through this article, I came several times across an historian named Nikolai Baryshnikov. The article never explains who he is, what credentials he has, or why we should put stock in his opinion on this battle, but he clearly has an anti-Finnish axe to grind. I see his inclusion in this article has been debated on here before, but I feel compelled to raise questions about his reputability. Specifically, if one looks at the two books of his that are cited in the bibliography, one of them is published by the "Johan Beckman Institute". If one wikis Johan Beckman, one is redirected to an article on "Johan Bäckman", a Finn who's something of a celebrity in Russia for his pro-Russian views. Among his positions, he is pro-Putin, he insists that Estonia doesn't exist as a nation, he denies that the Soviet occupation of Estonia constituted an occupation (and claims that such an assertion is racist), he supports the Russian annexation of the Crimea, and he claims that Anna Politkovskaya was likely either murdered by anti-Putin figures trying to make Putin look bad or that she put out a hit on herself (!), etc, etc.

My point in holding forth on Johan Bäckman like this is that the Johan Beckman [sic] Institute which he established in St. Petersburg in 2000 is hardly a reputable scholarly publisher. If this is where Baryshnikov has to go to publish his books, are his books really reliable sources? I seriously doubt it.

Now, I'm aware that Finland in WWII is a controversial subject and it's inevitable and necessary that different opinions will be aired on the subject and incorporated into the article. That said, the sources drawn upon should still be reputable, scholarly sources and I think you would be hard pressed to claim that something published by Johan Bäckman's press was reputable and scholarly. So I propose a reexamination of the inclusion of Baryshnikov's material in this article, with the ultimate goal (on my part, anyway) of excising it if we can reach that consensus. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would support scrapping the paragraph altogether.65.209.62.115 (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the fringe views of a single obscure historian with a stated bias should not be given such weight.87.115.207.105 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove that propaganda crap. If Baryshkin ever existed, he is only another Putin sockpuppet. --2003:E2:3725:3665:11F5:7CB2:EA71:8C6D (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If you look furhter up on the page you will see that the user that introduced this baryshnikov YMB29 is suspended for his misuse of sources.78.73.47.79 (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)