Talk:Soviet-Finnish conflict 1921—1922 and East Karelian Uprising

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Intervention is intervention

I have connected the first and the second name of the article therefore the intrusion of finnish interventionists into the territory of the Soviet Russia ocurred also. Civil war for this moment (november 1921) in Russia has ended (for exception of the Far East). There was a government controlled all territory of Russia ((for exception of the Far East)). But even civil war is not the valid reason for foreign intervention and capture of historical territory of the country by foreign troops. The events 1921-1922 were not the internal civil conflict of Russia and they ended with the Agreement between the governments of two countries, the Soviet Russia and Finland. Ben-Velvel 10:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you or your references sure, that reason was to capture East Karelian to Finland? In other sources (Niinistö, Jussi: "Heimosotien historia") the reason was to gain attention for East Karelians needs and to gain independence for East Karelia. Kahkonen 10:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And the justification of the rebellion is not our trouble, we only list facts and views. It's ok to say that "from Russian view the conflict was a Finnish intervention and from Finnish view it was uprising of East Karelians who was helped by Finnish volunteers. According to Russian sources there were 5000-6000 Finnish soldiers and according to Finnish sources there were 550 Finnish soldiers and 3000 Karelian metsäsissit forces.(and refs here)" (don't have sources now and don't remember accurate numbers...) But if we write something "it was un-justified intervention by Finnish troops" or if we only write Finnish or Russian view, we violate neutral point of view (ie. listing all significant views). Kahkonen 11:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-aggression pact was signed btw in 1932[1]. The aggreement you refer could be decicion of League of Nations in which it decided that East Karelia should be autonomous part of Soviet Union.[2]? Kahkonen 11:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

East Karelia is a historical part of Russia and the world community (League of Nations) never supported claims of Finland of this region. The agreement to which I refer, is the intergovernmental agreement of Russia and Finland (Agreements between the governments of Soviet Russia and Finland about the measures of maintenance of the inviolability of the Soviet-Finnish border, 21 March 1922). The existence of this agreement proves, that it was the conflict between the states.

Volunteers can be also interventionists. If the Finnish volunteers were representatives of other state (Finland), they were interventionists. ONLY the residents of Russian East Karelia can be considered as rebels.

Whether Finnish soldiers were volunteers or not is completely minor question. (For example the Waffen SS have been formed of volunteers also). More important question. Did operate the Finnish volunteers in interests of the Finnish government? Obviously, yes. The Finnish government would arrest volunteers if did not approve their action.

I do not understand, why you do not like the words "capture of East Karelia". In any case the Finnish volunteers and insurgents should grasp Karelia, separate it from Russia, and then define its further destiny.

The position of the Finnish authors seems to me strange. In their opinion the invasions of Finnish soldiers to Russia is the innocent help to the Karelian relatives ("Kinship Wars"). It turns out, that Russian soldiers can help any slavic brothers too, and the Soviet Karelians could help the Finnish brothers to construct the socialism.Ben-Velvel 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for answering now. In future, it would be better first write talk and then edit :-) I'll now answer in same paragraph order:

To "East Karelia is..." – I did not write that League of Nations or Haag supported claims of Finland in this case. Claims of Russia they supported (?) or at least didn't take position to this East Karelian question.

"Volunteers can be..."' – In this conflict, there is surely Russian and Finnish view. As you can read, Wikipedias guideline is to write about all views, not to try tell, which of them is "right". Read more: WP:NPOV. So if. If they were representatives of Finnish government. Or were they only private soldiers in order to help East Karelian uprising? I don't say anything about it, I don't have Niinistö's book yet. Btw, my conclusions and my opinions, they are insignificant - but what say Finnish and Russian historians? It's great we can improve articles with both point of view.

"Whether Finnish..." – For that you have to give references (eg this way: Shirokorad, Alexander 2006, page 49: "Finnish government gave guns for soldiers" or whatever it reads in the book. Please give exact sources). Our own conclusions does not have any importance here (see WP:NOR).

"I do not understand..." – Again, it is not about what I or you like. Sources: what say eg. Shirokorad and what say eg. Niinistö. There are surely other historians too (In Finland: Toivo Nygård, Jouko Vahtola).

"The position of the..." – Again.

Kahkonen 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I found from "Finnish political history" one sentence: "Finland and Soviet Russia signed in summer 1922 border peace agreement." (p.129) In Niinistö's "Heimosotien historia", we can read: "By order of Interior minister Ritavuori border control was tighten and in start of February 1922 transferring ammunition, food and volunteers was prevented almost totally." (p. 258) (I hope you can read and understand my English...). Page 250: "Although official Finland did not support rebellers, there was a risk that war could extend. - - President Ståhlberg as a leader of foreign policy aspired avoid conflict in every way." I'll write to the article something about Finnish view. Kahkonen 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

very detailed article in German Wikipedia could be translated into English

Is there? Where? Kahkonen 09:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)