Talk:Battle of Tali-Ihantala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Battle of Tali-Ihantala is part of WikiProject Soviet Union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Soviet Union. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the class scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Finland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(comments)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
It was one battle in the Soviet fourth strategic offensive --MoRsE 14:25, 12 June 2007 (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)

Pekka Kantakoski also gives the number 750 in Punaiset Panssarit (p. 438), he refers to Jatkosodan Historia 5. --MoRsE 05:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Also on page 442 he says that an additional 200 were destroyed on other fronts during 1944. The Soviets manufactured at this point 79 tanks per day which means that the losses were equivalent to 12 days production, while the finns destroyed 9.2 soviet tanks per day. The battles against Finland (from June 9, 1944 until the armistace) lasted for 103 days. During this period the Soviet Union manufactured 8,137 tanks. The Finnish Air Force destroyed about 40 tanks on the isthmus and the Germans claimed that they had destroyed about 130. Kantakoski says that this number is somewhat wrong as his research shows that the Finnish land forces destroyed 612 tanks (the StuG brigade destroyed 87 tanks alone). Tank destroyer badges were awarded to 327 men during 1944.. The German Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 303 destroyed 3 tanks....phew he lists a lot of information on specific units here too. --MoRsE 05:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tali

The Tali section of the artical needs more text!--Posse72 15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So ill added a littel text to Tali. My refernces is Laguksen rynnäkkötykit- Rynnäkkötykkipataljoona 1943-1944 Erlli Käkelä WSOY 1996 ISBN 951-50-1560-x (ill used the Swedish verision of this book) Soumen Sota 1941-1945, Eero Kuussaari-Vilho Niitemaa ,Militärlitraturensförlag 1949 (Swedish version) Veitsen Terällä Matti Koskimaa wsoy 1993 ISBN 951-0-18811-5 Finlands krig del3 Kai Brunilla Schildts förlag 2001 ISBN 951-50-1200-7

If anyone could help me with the referens ill would be glad.--Posse72 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The German commanders

When I first added this information long ago you reverted it, implying that the German commanders do not deserve to be mentioned in the battlebox because they did not act "independently". I find this a bit confusing and would be thankful if you could clarify it. How did they not act independently? Were they under overall Finnish command in this case and who were the commanders? Regards, --Kurt Leyman 14:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The 303 sturmgescutzebrigad was a battalion strenght unit who was put under the command of the finnish armred division (Gen Laugus) im not sure about the commad structure for geschwader Kuhlmey.--Posse72 15:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok im sorry but this scale of this battle dose not justiffy puting Khumley in the leader box, when it come to Hans-Wilhelm Cardeneo and 303 SGB his efoort was a best described as mediocer, AND itwas under the command of the Finnish General Ruben Laugus.--Posse72 22:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Herr Kurt from what iv seen you only make trubble on the Wikipedia. In the leader box only the suprem commanders of the battle should be namned. As this was a Finnish operation with only "2" german support formations. If we name them we aölso must name the other batalion sized leaders who, would not be wise as the list would be so large that it coluld turn in to an own artical. Khumley and especially Cardeneo hade either the supreority or the the inpact on the battel as General Oesch. These batlion sized leader do not have anything to do in the suprem leader box.--Posse72 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Herr Kurt from what iv seen you only make trubble on the Wikipedia." Thank you for these kind lines, but no one answered my question properly. "german support formations" You do not seem to know how important the support of Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey was to the Finnish forces. "If we name them we aölso must name the other batalion sized leaders who" No, we must not. The Germans themselves were not part of the Finnish military, unlike the other forces. If someone could answer my question properly then we could stop this. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 12:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Flight detachment Kuhlmey was ordered to function independently, but Col Lorentz asked for their help and Kuhlmey answered as much as they could, in all the ways he could. The cooperation between the Finns and the Germans was completely seemless and the results were also good.
The German 122nd Division (Greif) was subordinated the Finnish 5th Army Corps --MoRsE 13:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If the Hans-Wilhelm Cardeneo's Sturmgeschütz-Brigade 303 was working under the operational command of Ruben Lagus I am fine with Cardeneo not being mentioned in the battlebox, but if Kurt Kyhlmey's Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey was technically functioning independently I feel that he should be mentioned in the box. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 15:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

303 operated under command of Ruben Lagus and 122.D (Breusing) first directly under command of Oesch and later under V Corps (Svensson). Kuhlmey instead operated independently although with close co-operation with Oesch and Laatikainen. So, as Kuhlmey was not part of the chain of command up to Oesch, and because the importance of German bombers in the battle, he should be listed in the commander box, although he didn't command any land forces. --Whiskey 21:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Even more important was the Finnish radio integence, should we but thier commanders namn in the box as well?--Posse72 11:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No. There were a lot of troops and their commanders whose work was essential to Finnish success but who were only in a supporting role to the troops performing the actual battle. Kuhlmey didn't command any land forces, which could be reason for removing his name, but coming outside from Finnish chain of command and the portion of the bombs his unit dropped are good reasons to add his name here. Also other battles have important subcommanders named in a commander listing (See f.ex.Battle of Lützen (1632)). --Whiskey 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impact

First, a 3:1 troop ratio is not an overwhelming force, when assaulting fortified positions. It is, in fact, a theoretical minimum requirement for the attacker.

Second, It remains unanswered whether or not the Soviet Union would have had enough adequate resources for defeating Finland and if some of its forces were not needed elsewhere.

I don't understand this statement. Does it imply that the strongest land army in the world (at the time) would not be able to defeat the exhausted Finnish one if the former had this goal as a top priority (at the price of letting Berlin fall into the hands of western Allies, that is)?
I removed the sentence from mainspace until someone explains it and provides objective reasons for its inclusion.

It would probably be a good idea to mention the concessions that the Soviet leadership had made to the proposed peace treaty (instead of an unconditional surrender it had demanded before). --Illythr 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: Since the Soviet Union was the attacker in this battle, shouldn't it be list first in the infobox? --Illythr 00:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What you call "fortified positions" were nothing like what you seem to think. "3:1 troop ratio is not an overwhelming force" I beg to differ. "exhausted Finnish" You apparently have no idea of the Finnish military situation when the peace was signed. Finnish forces were far better equipped when they were at the beginning of the Soviet offensive. I do not see how the Finnish military was "exhausted". --Kurt Leyman 15:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Finnish situation was growing from hard to desperate at the time, as its chief supporter was now more concerned with its own survival than with aiding its ally. The Soviet Union, on the other hand was at the peak of its military production capability. Without external support, Finland had no hope withstanding the Soviet war machine, had Helsinki been its main target. However, by putting up a competent defense, Finland had indeed managed to "convince" the Soviet military to focus on more important matters instead and being satisfied with the Moscow armistice. So, "difficult" is ok. But "Impossible" needs to go. The sentence above is a rather strange speculation that must go as well. --Illythr 21:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, Kurt is partly right, as the only fortifications which were available when the Soviet offensive begun were built at front of Vyborg, and the rest of the line was on the map only. Also when the Fourth Strategic Offensive was planned, it was decided that 2.4:1 was necessary ratio, but in reality STAVKA overestimated Finnish numbers so they had higher ratio (Platonov et.al. Bitva za Leningrad). And as Finland called back into the service some age classes which had been demobilized during the war in trenches, the usable manpower was much higher after the battles of June/July than before, and thanks to material deliveries from Germany, they were better equipped, it is hard to claim Finns were exhausted.
BUT, you are right that Finnish strategic situation were becoming more desperate, as German defeats elsewhere made it's continuing support less likely and effective. Also the statement you pointed out is very confusing and missing important qualification: "...with the forces available". And in fact it became clear that Leningrad Front didn't have enough forces and material to defeat Finland at the time, and it would have needed resources from German front to prepare a new offensive and finish the job, which would have weakened Bagration and Lvov-Sandomierz at critical phases. So I agree with your wording. Also, it is evident that T-I didn't "convince" Soviet commanders, as they tried to flank Ihantala in the battles of Bay of Vyborg and Vuosalmi at Karelian Isthmus and at Nietjärvi and Ilomantsi at Ladoga Karelia. It wasn't a single battle which convinced Soviet leaders, but all these battles together, that Finland was still a hard nut to crack. --Whiskey 23:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Were the "trenches" of the "War in trenches" dismantled by the time? As for exhaustion - I derived this from the last sentences here. I mean, Finland was suing for peace...
Soviet offensive had passed those trenches already. Finns had concentrated the fortification work to the front line (so called "main line" and to the VT-line, so there wasn't enough material and workforce to do anything on VKT-line. It seems that I have to continue writing...
Well, with "...with the forces available" is still a speculation. Fact is that the Soviet Union decided not to and din't (or, rather, vice versa :) ). Convincing: well, was this the last battle? Then we can write that "...after it the Soviet command became convinced..." etc.--Illythr 23:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Not so much. Govorov asked more men and materal from STAVKA, but was not only refused, but had to release his breakthrough forces. Ergo, he didn't have enough forces, and STAVKA didn't consider this section important enough to give more men and material to him, but cancelled it's previous attack order. --Whiskey 12:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to forget: The landings at Normandy took place during the fighting, initiationg the race to Berlin. --MoRsE 08:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Overlord happened before Valkeasaari. I consider race to Berlin starting with the breakout from Normandy, which happened at July 27 (Operation Cobra), when it became evident that Germans cannot contain the beachhead.--Whiskey 12:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, 3:1 infantry thats not an overwhelming force, but the Soviet warfare of summer 1944 was not about hugh infantry attack (do they still existed) It was about firepower and mobility, so in the air, the numbers of guns and tanks trully made the Soviet force overwhelming compering to the finnish forces.--Posse72 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discusion over Karelia diversion

I dont agree on the recent divison of Karelia is the "tradionally" as Viipuri certaintly under any spectrum used is a tradionally Finnish city.--Posse72 (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headline text