User talk:Koskenkorva

Battle of Tali-Ihantala

You are continuously editing result of Battle of Tali-Ihantala to look same as result of whole Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, and give them same explanations. I hope you read first these two articles (Vyborg-Petrozavodsk and Tali-Ihantala) before editing them, and overall check the timeline of Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offensive. The offensive lasted from June 9th to August 9th in 1944. Battle of Tali-Ihantala was fought between June 25th and July 9th (major soviet attack in Tali was stopped on 3th July, and only minor fighting happened after this). So, even if it was the largest and most decisive battle of the whole offensive, it did not stop it. Soviet offensive continued by trying break finnish lines in Vuosalmi 4th July - 11th July (Battle of Vuosalmi), and Battle of Vyborg Bay 4th July - 10th July, and in Nietjärvi 15th July - 17th July (Battle of Nietjärvi). Last attempt was to break finnish lines in north Karelia (Battle of Ilomantsi) 26th July - 13th August. All of these operations failed and ended to finnish victories. Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offensive was completely halted, and Soviet troops were unable to continue offensive without reinforcements (which were not given to them, because the focus of Soviet High Command had turned to elsewhere in Europe after Normandy Landings by western allies 6th July 1944, causing race to Berlin). July 12th Soviet troops dug to defensive positions in Tali and first cargo trains from Leningrad were send to pick up the attack elements (tanks) from Tali-Ihantala section to Baltic countries. Offense elements were withdrawn from Karelia because: a.) they had suffered great losses and lost many major battles (most important Tali-Ihantala) b.) they could not continue offensive on their own c.) they were needed in Baltics as soon as possible d.) Soviet leadership had decided not to try occupy Finland because of recent failed operations and changed military situation in Europe e.) peace negotations were about to begin between Finland and Soviet Union 62.216.127.93 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have discussed the events on the discussion page for Continuation War. You cannot take one separate "battle" out of a whole content. The whole picture is that the Soviet troops were re-directed from the Karelian isthmus to the Baltics, which set even higher pressure on the Finns only 2-3 weeks after Ihantala offensive was interrupted by their own orders. It was a concious maneuver by the Soviets. With your way of thinking Germans won "decisive defensive battles" when Russians choose not to assault certain villages during the Moscow counteroffensive in December 1941. To remove troops from the Isthmus and to use these in the Baltics achieved the same result and at a lesser cost that it otherwise would. The Soviets set Germans (the Finnish allies) under pressure, and the Germans withdrew their troops from the Vyborg area = Finns found themselves even more isolated. Thus the re-deployment of Soviet troops was even a victory in some sense, but definitely not a defeat. When classifying Tali-Ihantala as a Finnish victory one must take responsibility for spreading a direct lie, that the battle was lost by the Soviets. But it's not true, it was the Soviet side that threw the Finns back all the way to Ihantala (on that route Tali was captured). THEN - the Soviets redeployed and won with other means and at another point (front section). I can never accept the description of Tali-Ihantala as a "Finnish victory". When I write "stalemate" for Tali-Ihantala I am still very kind towards the Finns. It was actually a Soviet victory in the long run. I still think that "stalemate" is the wisest compromise for the Wikipedia article. Koskenkorva (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, you can and you should always take separate battles out from the whole content. If you don't do that, then you'll see in a long run extremely peculiar results as even crushing defeats could be redefined as victories if the whole war was won. With your logic, Cannae was a Roman victory. It also wears down the credibility of any publication which present things in a such way.

Your analogy with Moscow counteroffensive is failed. First this is about the battle, not the whole offensive. Battles can be won while simultaneously losing the offensive. Second, Soviet forces were under order to attack to Lake Saimaa, in other words, they failed to reach their stated objectives, which means a victory to the defendents. If you check the casualty figures of the units participating the battle, you'll notice that almost all of those units withdrawn were not used in Baltic Offensive as initially thought, but they needed time to recuperate from the losses suffered. Most of them saw battle again in Courland pocket and near Oder-Neisse. Third, it never matters how the victory was achieved in the battle. Soviet tried to breach Finnish lines and failed in that. It doesn't matter if it was achieved by losing too many soldiers or STAVKA ordering Govorov to release some units or Dmitri Gusev having a nightmare three days before the battle started. Only the end result matters. --Whiskey (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what DID the Finns win in Tali-Ihantala? 1. Russians TOOK Tali and 2. they PRESSED the Finns all the way back TO IHANTALA where they stopped at Stavka's order. It wasn't mainly thanks to the Finns. When a battle stalemates (as in this case) one must seek another way (solution) to work around the problem. Russians solved the problem by setting the Germans in the Baltics under even more pressure using the troops (5 divisions and tanks) from the Isthmus - with the desired result - German troops ON THE ISTHMUS started to pull back from there in a matter of 1-2 weeks. Meanwhile the frontline ON THE ISTHMUS stagnated, but that doesn't mean the Russians lost the battle. After all the side which won most ground in the battle so far was the Soviet side. They now moved around the hardest pocket of resistance and solved the problem with other means. You must see the whole picture, not just a few kilometres of a front line in the Finnish woods.

Before those divisions were withdrawn, 21st army had lost men equal to four divisions offensive force at Tali-Ihantala, so those divisions really needed a thorough refit and re-men before they were available to Baltic states, so I don't believe that was the reason why Germans withdrew their Assault gun brigade and two regimental infantry division from the Isthmus so soon. The reason why they left, was because the front line stagnated, they were no longer needed there, but they were transferred elsewhere where they weren't just sitting around. I see the goals Soviets set to themselves to the offensive and how they were only partially reached. --Whiskey (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, with your logic "you can and you should always take separate battles out from the whole content". But WHY ON EARTH are you then putting in Vuosalmi, Vyborg Bay, Nietjärvi and Ilomantsi into the context??? You break your own rule. By same logic I describe the battle at Ihantala as connected to the events the followed in the Baltics which were directly connected to that Ihantala battle, the events which had much more impact on the outcome of this whole story than all those separate events on the Isthmus and in Karelia that you mention. By taking Pskov, Ostrov and Narva the Russians annihilated all the other Finnish resistance attempts in Finland. So - by transferring the troops from Finland to Estonia Russians solved the "Isthmus problem" with much less losses (lower cost) than we otherwise would have seen.

Soviets stopped because of Finnish resistance, not because of STAVKA's order. STAVKA's order was to advance to Virojoki-Lappeenrajta-Imatra-line, not to the gates of Ihantala. The failure of 21st army to breach Finnish defences was attempted to solve by going around it at Bay of Viborg and at Vuosalmi. Also in the same offensive battles of Nietjärvi and Ilomantsi followed, although less relevant in this article and could be removed from here. I'd say you would be hard pressed if you try to explain that Baltics offensive was launched because of Finns.

The Finns are known to have been revising their WWII history from day 1 after the WWII ended. Mannerheim's memoirs are full of glorifying writing. Should we believe him, then it were the Finns (read: Mannerheim personally) who "rescued" Leningrad from the Germans. And we see the same phenomena when Tali-Ihantala is described as a "decisive finnish victory". It's called "myth making". Please, tell me, what was so decisingly won in this particular battle? Was it A. avoiding occupation of Finland, B. fighting back the so called "unconditional surrender" demand from Russians from June 23 or C. stopping Russians from reaching the Finnish-Soviet border from 1940, or what? And, once again, what stopped (temporarily) the Russian advance towards the Finnish-Soviet border, the Finns or the Russian Stavka order? Koskenkorva (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course we have been revising it! It is called academic research. Every time new ideas are invented, new archives are opened, new memoirs written we have done it! We have had ardent communists as professional historians who have tried to press official Soviet view also here. We have discussed those views. We have investigated them thoroughly. We have argued pro and con. And as they have not fitted the facts on the ground, we have dismissed them.

What was won? The correct answer is B. A would had become only a question if Soviet offensive had really been so successful as STAVKA had planned it to be, and if Finns couldn't have stopped Soviets somewhere, the fate of Romania would have befell on us. The narrows between Bay of Vyborg and River Vuoksi was the best place to do that. (Oh, there came C.) By stopping the Soviet offensive the Finns forced Soviets to bring back March proposal with two easenings to the conditions instead of the prepared document for Finnish "kapitulation".

To the last question the answer is easy: Finns. STAVKA order was to reach border of 1940. To fulfill this order Soviet troops went into the battle. STAVKA recognized defeat by issuing an order to stop offensive. --Whiskey (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, with your logic, every operation (even if succesful to the ending point, where it come to a halt) would be a defeat for the attacking side, if the attacking side hasn't succeded in reaching the goals it wanted at the start of the operation. With your logic, the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk-operation was a Russian defeat too (despite Russians taking both Vyborg and Petrozavodsk), even more your could easily "revise" the history and call that operations too "Decisive Finnish Victories". Do I understand you correctly? For instance, the Germans wanted to take Stalingrad in the summer of 1942. The operations that brought them from Voronezh all the way to the outskirts of the Stalingrad would be a "Decisive Russian Victory"? Aha, now I now how the Finns think when they "revise" the well-known history (it's called "creating myths" with other words). The Germans never took Stalingrad, therefore the whole campaign in the Summer of 1942 was won by Russians. Interesting approach. One continues to learn new things all his life. :-) Koskenkorva (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I tried to fight against that once in Operation Barbarossa, where I wanted to define it as a German victory, but I was overruled, just based on the German goals to the operation. If you can convince them to alter the result, I'll accept it also in Vyborg-Petrozavodsk operation. And currently I support in V-P operation end result as stalemate, as Soviet forces reached some of the goals given to that operation. That's life... 8-) --Whiskey (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

But the big difference between your attempts to re-define "Operation Barbarossa" as a "German victory" and Tali-Ihantala, is that Tali-Ihantala was a stalemate, and shortly after that that that Russians won the Continuation War (Finland asked for peace as we know). "Operation Barbarossa's" plan was to defeat the whole Russia. That goal wasn't achieved. The Russian goal towards Finland was achieved, Finland seeked for peace only 6-7 weeks after the Ihantala front halted (stalemated). At the same moment as the Russians turned over to the defence in the Ihantala area the battle became a "war of positions". The outcome of the fightings in this limited area was remi (to use a check term). Russians didn't loose any ground after the operations near Ihantala stopped (for instance they held Tali - one of the villages in the name of this "battle"). The Finns on the contrary were deeply concerned about the nearest future, they didn't know what the Russian troop re-deployments ment. It could be the begginning of continued attacks at some other and weaker point of the front line. The Finnish command gave orders to create two more defence lines behind the "VKT line", which means they were ready to retreat further westwards. Meanwhile, Govorov planned to put in 2 divisions on the other side of the Vyborg Bay on July 12... If Stalin hadn't stopped him from doing that, we don't know for how long the VKT line would hold after that. It would be absurd to talk about Ihantala as as "Decisive Finnish Victory" (???) - what a lie then! What was so very "decisive" about it - can you tell me that? Was it very decisive that Russians didn't take Imatra area and advanced 50-80 kilometres further westwards, huh? Take the Battle of Antietam, as another example. The battle ended indecisively, but it's still concidered to be a strategic victory for the northern Union. The same at Ihantala, the battle was indecisive (tactically), but in the long run the Finnish standoff didn't mean a broken penni, they had to abandon the area, as the Soviets held their ground, re-deployed and set more pressure on the Finns through their operations in the Baltics.

You shuld also know what the Soviet general Sergey Matveyevich Shtemenko wrote. He wrote that the Soviets planned to "create an invasion threat from the Soviet forces into the deep of Finland towards the most important political and economic centras, including Hensinki". (A.S. Shtemenko, "Generalnyi shtab v gody voiny", book 2, M., 1973, p. 381). Creating a threat would mean the Soviets wanted to scare Finland with a possible invasion scenario, which they, as we know didn't even plan in a large scale. Preparing plans for advancing 50-100 kilometres into Finland is not the same as GIVEN ORDERS to do so. Don't mix together those two things. Koskenkorva (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning

You seem to be engaged in an edit war at Battle of Tali-Ihantala. I want to make sure you are aware of the three-revert rule, which prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period (including edits made while not logged in). If you violate the rule, you may be blocked from editing. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Please discuss instead of reverting, rather than in addition to it. And remember: there are no emergencies on Wikipedia! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The points in your comment have been discussed on the talk page - various sources on each point are posted there

REGARDING THE CONTINUATION WAR ARTICLE:

Please understand, that this is not about your or my opinion. In this type of article, we must contribute only information and findings that are provided by known and credited historians.

Wikipedia has certain "rules" - ways of doing things - that we should follow.

Thus, for each piece of information we should provide thorough sources from the related historiography - preferably multiple sources, full with exact quotes and the related page numbers. If we don't, we must accept the information from others, if it comes with the required sources attached.

This is exactly how I have proceeded, providing such sources in detail - following the nature of Wikipedia.

If you believe that some researchers must agree with you on any contrary information, please provide the related works for our review - in similar manner -, full with exact quotes and the related page numbers.

While doing that, you get to simultaneously test your knowledge and views against the information reported by the scholars and academia.

Please do not blame the messenger, user Koskenkorva. I am not always contributing to Wikipedia information which - necessarily - matches my own exact views.

Please notice, that unlike most others, I provide multiple sources for just about any single piece of information which I provide, from historians from various counties, including - in the case of this article - those from Russia, USA, Germany, Sweden and elsewhere.

In addition, I try always providing the related page numbers for my quotes, and the related quotes from the pages referred to. I take pride in doing my work in very honest manner, not exaggerating or changing or distorting any information provided. If I ever make a mistake, I am happy to have it corrected.

Furthermore, I like to discuss my contributions on the discussion page first, to give all a possibility to respond and to ask questions and to provide possible sources of their own, which might represent contradicting information and/or views.

Please take the rest of my answer on the Continuation War discussion page. I'll add more distinguished sources there now on the points which you challenged - full with the related page numbers and the exact related quotes.

Again, please provide your own sources (with page numbers and the exact related quotes - links too, when ever possible) prior to removing properly sourced information from the article in question. Have a nice day, user Koskenkorva. 87.93.111.58 (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

As previously warned, you have been blocked for edit warring.[1][2][3][4] The duration of the block is 24 hours. You may resume editing after the block expires, but any continued edit warring will result in longer blocks without further warnings. Discuss instead of reverting. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Gen. Platonov: "repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces failed ... Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks"

Regarding your editing of the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, user Koskenkorva. In your edit summary you state:

"... it was the Soviets' own order that halted the offensive - troops were order to the Baltics".

However, it is wrong for anyone to try to insinuate that the Soviets lost the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, because troops - or a part of troops - had "already" been moved away. The burden of proof of such troop movements is on the contributor who makes the claim.

In the article, the sources given for this claim appear to have been misused. No support for such pre-battle troop movement can be found from the sources offered. Only Soviet troop movements reported are the ones which took place after the Red Army loss in the battle. Thus:

What proof can you provide us of such troop transfers which would have been executed from this battle arena, before the battle took place. We need your detailed source information please - full with the page number of the book in question, as well as the quote which makes such claim.

Furthermore, even if troop movement had taken place, that would not change the fact that the Soviets lost this battle, as it has been correctly stated in the result segment.

The Soviet specialist on the topic, General S.P. Platonov, makes no false excuses for the Soviet loss. In a Soviet period book 'Bitva za Leningrad, 1941-1944', published in the Soviet Union and edited by the General himself, Platonov states the following:

"The repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and in repulsing all attacks of our troops ... During the offensive operations, lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them in the orders of the Supreme Command, issued on June 21."

Which source in your view describes this battle as a "stalemate" ? If you believe such a source exists, we need to review the source in question. Please make sure to provide us with the exact page number and the related quote in question.

If you cannot provide us with such a quote from an appropriate source, please do not revert the result of this battle.

The result will be now reverted back to Finnish victory - and, the Soviet General Platonov's book will be attached as a source for the information. Other sources can be added. 87.93.76.18 (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Still, it it was Russian's own order which interrupted the battle and transferred troops to the Baltics as planned prior to the battle, on June 17 (I have quoted Vasilevsky on that). Koskenkorva (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

About the order... Do you mean the order given to Govorov at July 12 to cease the offensive and release the troops south of the Gulf of Finland? --Whiskey (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked... again

You have been blocked for creating a sockpuppet to continue edit warring at Battle of Tali-Ihantala.

Discuss your opinions on the talk page. The change you want will not be implemented through edit warring, no matter how many alternate accounts you create. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)