Talk:Battle of Tali-Ihantala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Initiation of the war by the Germans and the Finns

Whiskey, I am sorry, you are right: we must not get carried away, regardless of how appallingly biased some passages are.

I agree. And on all points. This article is a mess. Somebody with little knowledge on the issue has added unsourced claims and added facts from totally different battles. Unfortunately I don't have time to seriously rewrite this article before the Continuation War is ready. And it seems to take time. :-(

Here we go:

  • Erkki Nordberg, Arvio ja ennuste Venäjän sotilaspolitiikasta Suomen suunnalla, Helsinki, 2003, ISBN 951-884-362-7

"The Continuation War began with landing operations, aerial reconaissance and minelaying operations several days BEFORE (emph. mine) Germany attacked the USSR. Beginning on June 17 the Germans conducted aerial reconaissance over the territory of the USSR from the airfields at Rovaniemi and Kemijarvi. On the morning of June 22, Finnish submarines mined the waters in the area of Gogland (Estonia)" (citing from [1], see there for more fun fun facts)

  • Just as good a source as any Finnish one: Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Finland, Moscow, 1974, ISBN 0028800109

"By June 17 Finland began the total mobilization. Finland joined the war against the USSR on the German side on June 22, although officially it declared war on June 26." (citing from the Russian text)

"When Germany attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, therefore, German troops were already on Finnish territory, and Finland was ready for war; its submarines, in fact, were operating in Soviet waters."

Nordberg is a little too gratious here, as Finns had started sending patrols over the border quite soon after the Winter War ended. On the other issues, have you checked the Interim Peace article, which was separated from Continuation War? I have tried to present all the facts there, but please point out if I have missed some. Unfortunately I don't have Nordberg on my table, I have to visit library to check what he writes on the issue.
The mining of Soviet (or Estonian) waters was done about 8-10 AM June 22. Two hours earlier Soviet garrison of Hanko started firing artillery to the Finnish side of the border and Soviet planes bombed Finnish ships near Ahvenanmaa. On the starting date, as German reconnaissance operations started already a week before Barbarossa, why not put it there in the article?
The history of Soviet Air Force cites Finnish actions as provocations for which SAF responded with the strike of June 25. Platonov in the "Battle of Leningrad" describes orders to the army being "not to initiate hostilities as long as Finns do not openly side with Germans".

I hope it helps a little bit to clear up the confusion as to who started the war.

The starter of the war is generally considered to being the one who is first to commit open hostilities against the other, regardless of the undercover actions before that. Soviet air offensive was too big and too carefully planned and executed that it couldn't be explained away. (Did Israel started six-day war? Or did Japan open the Pacific theatre?) All previous actions were too minor to act such a way. (Turkey was considered neutral or even anti-US in current US-Iraq war even it allowed US bombers to rise from its soil and allowed reconnaisence teams to operate from there.) The situation was like two schoolboys in the same table: Both kicking each other under the table until one of them starts using fists over the table.
Finns were not blameless. Finns did allow German fleet to hide in the archipelago and come out to mine the Gulf of Finland. Finns did allow returning German bombers to refuel in Finland thus allowing bombardment of targets otherwise outside German reach. Finns have placed one division and some detachments under German command in Northern Finland. Finns have allowed Germans to place too many soldiers to the Northern Finland. But does it mean Finns started the war? No. The commander of the German forces was furious that his forces were not allowed to attack or even fire the Soviets on the other side of the border, openly preparing their fortifications.

Nazi butchers worked side-by-side with the democratic Finnish troops to block and starve to death 1 million civilians in Leningrad, precisely how Russians feared it would happen. If anyone is still in doubt, there is plenty more fun facts we can look up! Guinness man 11:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it a great relief that finally someone from Russia gets interest to these articles. As my Russian skill is nonexistent, I have a certain handicap when using Russian/Soviet sources. Please add more facts whenever possible (but please give sources...), especially on issues you consider misrepresented. --Whiskey 21:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and even according to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the war officially started at June 26. ;-) --Whiskey 21:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for being a sane and fair person :) Sadly, everyone is pressed for time, but I'm trying to check on things periodically and look up some sources. And btw, I'm from sunny California :) (not so sunny at the moment) Guinness man 06:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate war

You have to make up your mind with regard to the separate war-theory (for the Continuation War). Was the war contemporary with, or a part of, WWII? Wikipedia better stick to one version by default, and expand on arguments for or against in one appropriate article. /M.L.

 Comment: From Finland's perspective the war was separate but not from international and Soviet,           although internationally the only enemy of Finland was Soviet Union. Even in Finland both the winter  war and continuation war were considered (and still are) to be part of WW2 in a larger international scale. Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is one "evidence" of this.

[edit] Some weird things here

some really wild claims made here - sourses? Too much Fantasy Undefeatable Finnish Warriors and other BS. 150 000 troops is not a 1/3 of Soviet Army anyway, and so on 20 000 losses also doesn't look like much.

I agree that 1/3 claim is fantasy, and I haven't found it in any respectable source of the battle. This article needs serious cleanup, as it concentrates too much to what happened before the battle esp. at Valkeasaari. (f.ex. that artillery fire concentration...)--Whiskey 15:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Nazi butchers"

Don't generalize. By your logic all Soviet soldiers were fanatical communist.

"to block and starve to death 1 million civilians in Leningrad"

Finnish did not take part in the siege and the siege was not a war crime. Stalin could have evacuated civialian population if he would have wanted to, like in Stalingrad. If Finnish could evacuate over 500000 people from the territories that were given to Soviet Union after Winter War in few days notice, Soviets could certainly do the same with longer amount of time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs).

Where exactly did I generalize or used the word all or all Germans or all Finns? Are you by any chance denying that among the Nazis were sadistic people who starved and mass-murdered the Jewish people, Slavs, Gypsies and others?
I am not even going to talk about the second part. Could have-would have-should have. Point me to at least a single credible reference with your claims. Guinness man 18:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


What are the proves that the Soviets knew about the minings? That they were laid doesn't prove that they knew about them. Hence one cannot say that it led to the Soviet attack. I belive that it is widely accepted that it was Hitler's radio speech in which he talked about alliance with Finland that in the end led to the bombings. Kurt.
Your acts of vandalism are pure and simple, all the items you removed have been sourced. You not only removed real information but also the sources which proves that you are only interested in vandalism. (Deng 11:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
Kurt, I don't think it as widely accepted that Hitler's radio speech was the main reason for Soviet offensive. The Soviet Union had extensive spy network in Finland at that time, and was fully aware of German troop movements inside Finland. (F.ex. mobilization transportation to Kem and Salla started immediately after German troops had turned eastward from Rovaniemi.) Also Soviets were aware that German bombers cannot reach Leningrad from Germany proper without refuelling somewhere, which led to misbelief that they were based on Finland. --Whiskey 11:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"I don't think it as widely accepted that Hitler's radio speech was the main reason for Soviet offensive."
Not the main reason, but the attack did come soon after it. Soviet Union saw Finland (the radio speech only made their opinion stronger) as an ally of Germany. Kurt.
The speech was at the morning of June 22. The attacks were at the morning of June 25. There was time to collect and analyze information from many sources, not only from Hitler's speech, which was countered by Finnish Foreign office. --Whiskey 12:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"which was countered by Finnish Foreign office" Correct me if I am wrong, but hadn't the Soviet embassy and Soviet officials stopped all diplomatic talk with Finland after the start of Barbarossa? And my apologies. I was under impression that Hitler held the speech later than that. Kurt.
The talks continued, as it witnessed by ambassador Orlov's statements, but telegraph connection between Finland and Soviet Union become more and more controlled. Also contacts continued in third countries (like in Sweden). --Whiskey 12:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peace, please

Kurt, would you please refrain from editing the article for a while. I'm trying to find common version with Deng. --Whiskey 13:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Losses

Ive changed a sentece in the Losses section. "The Finnish army lost 8,561 men wounded, missing or killed." changed to "The Finnish army reports that 8,561 men were wounded, missing and/or killed in action". It makes more sence now in my oppinion, I might be wrong tough, feel free to re-edit.--DerMeister 21:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete it?

Does this battle have a Russian name or is it just a creation of Finnish pro-Nazi propaganda? --Ghirla -трёп- 14:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We have Soviet sources from Platonov, which describes the order to Govorov to continue attack to Priozersk on the north and to the border of 1940 on the west. Platonov describes the results of the command in one paragraph cited in the article. From other sources, we have the lists of the units serving in the different parts of the frontline at the time. It is very hard to believe that Govorov, who was just promoted from his capture of Vyborg to field marshall, and who had advanced just according to planned timetable to Vyborg, wouldn't even try to fulfill his order.
There are reasons why these battles don't have Russian names: 1) On the Finnish measure, they were big, but in the Soviet measure they were small (50 000 were 10% of Finnish armed forces, 150 000 were, what, ~1%(?), of Soviet armed forces). 2) They weren't successful. It would be nicer to remember successful Vyborg operation, or Vyborg-Petrozavodsk operation instead. 3) The whole Finnish-Soviet war was a sideshow of the Great Patriotic War and all real and meaningful battles happened against Germans. This had directed Soviet military researchers and their research away from Finnish front to the more 'fashionable' targets. --Whiskey 00:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armored losses

The web page of Antti Maunuksela wasn't a scientific research (or even his pro gradu work) but a short historics about the sites he and his group were going to visit during the summer of 2002.

He is also using his sources carelessly, as IV Corps reports that it has destroyed 351 tanks by June 30, it doesn't mean that they had destroyed them during the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, but during the whole retreat through the Karelian Isthmus, where IV Corps was facing the main Soviet thrust all the way from Valkeasaari through Kuuterselkä to Tali-Ihantala. The official history of the Continuation War by Finnish National Defence College (http://www.mpkk.fi/en/) states that Soviets lost 750 tanks destroyed and damaged during the whole summer offensive of 1944 at Karelian Isthmus. Matti Koskimaa in his work "Veitsenterällä" ("On the knife's edge" estimates that Finns destroyed 600 Soviet tanks at Karelian Isthmus during the summer of 1944 and about a half of them during the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. From Soviet sources, P. Igumenov's "Research of defeats of domestic tanks" gives Soviet losses to 415 tanks during the summer offensive at Karelian Isthmus.

I hope this helps.--Whiskey 08:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Tali-Ihantala_ac5a.html"