Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Continuation War

Parties' agreement to mediation

I could agree to mediation on the matters related to the listed topics but as it stands issues list does not list issues instead it lists what user YMB29 wants them to state without any indication of user's willingness to compromise. I will agree to starting the mediation on actually neutral basis but i can not agree to it on the basis of the currently issued list of demands by user YMB29. I see no point starting mediation under such loaded terms. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you not agree with?

Perhaps you should have filed for this? However, you did not want to file for dispute resolution and seemed uninterested in filing for mediation too, so I had to do it... -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If the topic lists only and nothing but the issues (e.g. 'result of the VP-offensive' & 'Novyi Beloostrov 4-5 September 1941') and none of your personal POV behind them, ie. would actually be neutral, then i have no problem agreeing to mediation. And to the compromises involved as stated in RfM Guide.

I saw no need for it since there already was WP:3 which you have refused accept. In similar manner DRN offered the very same solution which you again refused to accept. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you are again manipulating what others have said. The only thing clear from DR is your OR with the war diaries.

The descriptions are more neutral now. -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you both intend to resolve this dispute, if not through mediation? Please also be aware that, as part of the mediation proceedings, the mediator will establish the issues in dispute, so the current list of issues is likely to be changed. AGK [•] 10:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I do welcome mediation even if I'm not certain that it is needed after what WP:3 has stated and what took place at DRN. What i objected to was the clearly non-neutral and non-compromising way the issues had been placed forward. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to take third opinions and dispute resolution into account, then you agree with the OR for issue #2? -YMB29 (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Except it is not OR as per what was discussed with other editors earlier since i provided a secondary source as well. Just because the view differs from yours does not make it OR. But since you included the matter to mediation there is little point to discuss it until mediator comments it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If the two issues will be rephrased or broken down further, it is ok with me. -YMB29 (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening Statements

User 1

The offensive was a Soviet strategic victory and this is backed up by many reliable sources[1], such as books by well known historians Glantz and Erickson. They clearly talk about the goals and results of the offensive, not the war. The main goal was to force Finland from the war on Soviet terms and this was accomplished.
Only one or two Finnish sources provided by Wanderer602 say that the entire offensive was a failure. His other sources talk only about a part of the offensive or are quoted out of context; one quote from a book by Ziemke is outdated since the quoted text was corrected in a newer version of the book.
I originally wanted the result to be just Soviet victory (without the word strategic). Third opinions agreed with me, but also suggested not writing a result as a compromise. I then suggested strategic victory, but there were no further comments on this.
I see no reason that the result should not be Strategic Soviet victory when there are so many sources supporting it. I don't like it is not a valid reason.

The second issue is a clear case of original research by Wanderer602. He explains it well himself. -YMB29 (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

User 2

Several sources have been provided which state that the operation was a Soviet failure (operationally). Most of the sources provided by YMB29 discuss the result of the war not the result of the offensive, and the article in case (i) is about the offensive not about the war. Since there are now sources with opinions of the result on different levels it seems that most practical solution would be to blank the result entry and discuss the result itself in the article, that was also the one recommended by WP:3 (requested by YMB29 who subsequently rejected the said recommendation) and also by guidelines for the use of military conflict infobox.

Finnish primary documents (war diaries) do not mention the fighting in the village (not a town) of Novyi Beloostrov (Template:Lang-fi - lit. Valkeasaari station), not in any level, starting from General HQ down to regimental at that time. Neither do Finnish secondary sources which give an overview to the fighting in the area while they note other fighting of similar scale nearby. All sources have since been marked 'OR' by YMB29 without any basis for such an action. Finnish documents do state that Finns advanced up to the small stream just north of the village however. Also meanwhile there was fighting at Staryi Beloostrov (Template:Lang-fi) (other village some 6 km north of the first one) which Finns did capture and in where Soviets counterattacked though that village was in the end still in Finnish control.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user

It looks like there's a very easy solution to this dispute. Rather than oversimplifying the issue by labeling victory for one side, use the "result" section of the infobox to be more specific, such as in this article: Battle of Damascus (2012). Since it looks like the operation was not a complete victory, break the operation down and list in the "results" section what territory the Soviets gained and what territory they failed to gain. A "decisive victory" does not need to be labeled for one side for every battle article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can do that. Also, strategic victory does not mean that one side won decisively. -YMB29 (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Next steps

I am going to read over the whole history of this dispute (i.e., the prior DR attempts) and then begin the discussion process. Thank you both for posting your statements quickly. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Issues to be resolved

I have read over the discussions on the talk page and all your statements to gain a better understanding of the dispute at hand. Before we move on, we need to first agree to the two issues we will actually discuss. If my short summary below is satisfactory, please sign below.

• Issue One: Was the offensive a strategic victory? If it was not, is the better alternative to note how partial it was in the infobox, or refer to the Aftermath section for discussion.

• Issue Two: Was there small fighting near that Finnish town in September 1941? How much weight should be given to the primary and secondary Finnish sources?

Parties endorsing this summary

2. I'm ok with them, but not with YMB29's suggested change. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

For the second issue the problem is how the Finnish sources can be used, whether the statement that there was no fighting according to these sources is original research or not. -YMB29 (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

So far i haven't been able to find any evidence supporting the fight, and neither have other users (Whiskey) who have tried. There isn't even indirect support for it which i have left out from the article since it would OR to use it, but for example casualty reports have nothing of a kind listed in them for the formations which were at the site at the time. Using Finnish information of the units which were at the site, of whose location and the absence of other units being verified by primary and secondary sources, is not OR. It simply states what Finnish sources state of the site at the time, which is that nothing happened. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That is your conclusion based on your own research and analysis of sources, so it is OR. -YMB29 (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Woah. Hold on a second there fellas. We'll get to these issues in an orderly fashion. Now YMB29, I understand you disagree with his use of those sources. Is that an issue you want us to talk about in this mediation? If yes, please sign an endorsement of the issues for us to review. If not, please tell me what things you want to change specifically about the summary. If you're concerned about those sources, we'll get there. -- Lord Roem (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not concerned about the sources, but about how they are used. I think this should be stated in the summary. -YMB29 (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"How much weight should be given to the primary and secondary Finnish sources?" This would address the usage of those sources. Lord Roem (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the issue is not about their weight (I am not saying that they are less important than others), but how they are used or misused for the statement that there was no fighting. -YMB29 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Revised issues to be resolved

Small revision/addition based on discussion above.

• Issue One: Was the offensive a strategic victory? If it was not, is the better alternative to note how partial it was in the infobox, or refer to the Aftermath section for discussion?

• Issue Two: Was there small fighting near that Finnish town in September 1941? How should the primary and secondary Finnish sources be used in relation to that event?

Parties endorsing this summary

1. The summaries are fine now. -YMB29 (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
2. I suppose i can accept them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's focus on one thing at a time. Issues list first, then discussion. Let's not get sidetracked. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: If it's unclear or disputed that fighting took place in the Finnish town, can't you guys just simply mention in the article that it's unclear whether clashes occurred there? Do we really need to decide whether it happened or not?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Well there are sources that clearly state that there was fighting and there are no sources that dispute this. Wanderer602 himself came to the conclusion that there was no fighting after he looked at several Finnish sources. -YMB29 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Problem is that there can not be sources discussing an absence of something. Reports and later on documents discuss on what took place, not what didn't - in other words military reports do not make note unless something happened. Or if they do it does go anywhere apart from the lowest level sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Strategic Victory?

We have to first determine whether the offensive was a "strategic victory". There are several sub-points here for us to discuss to reach a decision. The reason you both are here in formal mediation is because prior attempts at working this out have failed. Please keep an open mind, be willing to compromise, and understand the structure I am using to help guide you two to a result you both can live with.

Sub-issues: (1) Do Glantz & Erickson conclude that the offensive was a "Soviet strategic victory"; (2) If Yes, what specific 'strategic' goals were accomplished; (3) What weight should be afforded the Glantz & Erickson paper; (4) What, if any, sources conclude that it was not a strategic victory; (5) Are these sources to be afforded any weight; (6) Drafting a compromise

Let's first begin with the preliminary question of whether Glantz and Erickson conclude that the offensive was a "strategic victory" for the Soviets. For this, and all discussions, I want to minimize blocks of text. Find a quote from the source to support your position, and we'll see where it goes.

It's not a bad thing to agree with each other on any of these small points. Don't have a battlefield mentality (no pun intended). -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Glantz & Erickson's conclusions

Glantz: (When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler, pp. 202-203):

The Karelian operations of 1944, the first phase of the summer campaign, were designed to drive Finland from the war, divert attention from Soviet offensive preparations further south, and embarrass the Germans by driving one of their allies from the war. The Stavka ordered the Leningrad and Karelian Fronts to secure the Karelo-Finnish isthmus and the expanse of Karelia north and northwest of Leningrad. Govorov's front, supported by the Baltic Fleet, was ordered to attack on 10 June 1944 to secure Vyborg within 10 days and Meretskov's front was to strike north of Lake Ladoga beginning on 21 June... By 21 June, the left flank of his 21st Army had secured Vyborg despite intense and sordid negotiations between the Finns and Germans over the possible dispatch of German assistance. Govorov then reinforced his forward forces at Vyborg with units of 59th Army, which were transported by ship to the Finnish city. The same day Meretskov's 7th Army commenced operations into Central Karelia from its positions along the Svir River. The combined Soviet operations north and south of Lake Ladoga ultimately forced the Finns to sue for peace in September, and although token German assistance finally did arrive, the die was already cast for the Finns. Soon events elsewhere rendered the Karelian operations a distinct sideshow to the main military effort taking place to the south of Belorussia. For their efforts against the Finns, both Govorov and Meretskov were promoted to the rank of Marshal of the Soviet Union. The Finnish campaign had the added bonus of keeping German attention focused away from Army Group Center. In fact, an organized strategic deception campaign portrayed major Soviet offensives on the northern and southern flanks, with only limited attacks on Army Group Center expected later in the summer.

Erickson (The Road to Berlin: Stalin's War with Germany, pp. 197, 329-330) [2] [3]:

The General Staff plan envisaged the summer offensive being opened with the Leningrad Front attack, timed for the beginning of June and aimed at Vyborg, to be supplemented by the Karelian Front striking out for Svirsk—Petrozavodsk to knock Finland right out of the war...

The moment to tighten the screw on Finland had finally come; the first June attacks, though ultimately contained, virtually exhausted Finnish reserves (so Marshal Mannerheim reported to Hitler), and after another month of ceaseless hammering the situation had grown desperate. The Finns struggled furiously to seal up every path and passage from the defile between the two great lakes but it was, as Meretskov observed, a losing battle. Soviet troops bored on with Finnish resistance stiffening nearer to the frontier; roads were mined and barricaded, bridges blown, stretches of open country mined. The Red Army pounded the Finns into asking for an armistice and into repudiating the Waffenbrudenchaft with Germany. Already on 28 July President Ryti appeared at Finnish Headquarters to inform Mannerheim of his decision to lay down his office and begged the Marshal to assume the presidency. President Ryti resigned on 1 August and Mannerheim took up his new post, intent on leading Finland out of the war.

So they state the main goal of the strategic offensive (forcing Finland from the war) and then say that it was accomplished. Obviously this means strategic victory[4] and Wanderer602 even agreed with this[5]. -YMB29 (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think these sources do conclude that the offensive lead to the armistice. They don't, though, use the term strategic victory - a term of art - in their language. Both those points I feel are a fair reading of the text. Thoughts? Lord Roem (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You both need to stop your side conversations and follow the structure. We will get to all issues in time, but you must follow the process I have set out. The reason you are here is because your discussions haven't worked in the past.

The only question right now is whether the statement I made above is a fair reading of this source. Namely, that the mission of the offensive lead to the peace and succeeded in that regard, but that it doesn't explicitly say it was a "strategic victory". Lord Roem (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Technically no to both. To be precise the source states only that Red Army achieved something, not that the offensive in question would have do so on its own. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wanderer602, just a tad confused. You agree that it says the Russians got something out of the offensive, but that the offensive wasn't the necessary element of that success, i.e. it was just part of the elements that led to victory? I just want to make sure I know where you're coming from. Lord Roem (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly so. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool.

So, what's your take on this sentence: "The combined Soviet operations north and south of Lake Ladoga ultimately forced the Finns to sue for peace in September, and although token German assistance finally did arrive, the die was already cast for the Finns." -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That it is discussing that the offensive contributed to the armistice, eventually. More so because offensive ended for most parts already in July and the source is discussing event that took place in September. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your statement is accurate. The sources don't explicitly say that it was a strategic victory. However, if they say that the main goal was achieved then it is obviously a victory, and it is acceptable to conclude that, as I verified on the military history talk page.[6] -YMB29 (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears we have some agreements between the two of you on a few points. First, you both agree the sources don't explicitly use the term "strategic victory" to define the offensive. Additionally, you both agree that the offensive resulted or help result in the peace. YMB29 said "the main goal was achieved" and Wanderer602 said "it is discussing that the offensive contributed to the armistice, eventually" and that the Russians "got something out of the offensive". That's fertile ground for compromise!

But let's leave that aside for now, we don't want to jump the gun without addressing everything.

We need to discuss what exactly these sources say was the goal of the offensive. YMB29, could you please post the most pertinent part on that subject? Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well the sources quoted above clearly say what the main goal was (to drive Finland from the war, to knock Finland right out of the war). -YMB29 (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a fair reading of the text. Wanderer, your thoughts? Do you agree that these sources say this particular offensive was to get Finland out of the war, as part of a larger effort to attack the "Army Group Centre" of the Germans? Lord Roem (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

From these particular sources at a certain level, yes. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright then, looks like we have an understanding on what this source says. I'm glad both of you have kept an open mind so far. Next, we'll move on to any source that says the opposite of Glantz. Wanderer, if would like to post any text from any sources you think conclude that the offensive did not accomplish its goals/was not a strategic victory/wasn't the real cause of the peace, please post them below. -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources contrary to Glantz

German Northern Theatre Of Operations 1940-45, by Ziemke, p.288 & Hitler's Forgotten Armies: Combat in Norway and Finland, by Bob Carruthers (2012)

It appeared that as in the Winter War, although the Soviet Union could claim a victory, its offensive had failed, largely for the same reasons - underestimation of the Finnish capacity to resist and rigid, unimaginative Soviet tactical leadership.

Kun hyökkääjän tie suljettiin, by Moisala & Alanen (1988) (Template:Lang-en)

Which quite bluntly states that Stalin's great offensive against Finns failed to reach its conclusion: Finland was not defeated militarily. In fact from military strategic view point the offensive was Soviet Union's failure, which was caused by the fact that neither of the fronts participating to the offensive managed to accomplish their respective operational/strategic missions...

The Battle for Leningrad, by David Glantz

During the final assault on Vyborg, the Stavka radioed a directive to the Leningrad Front promoting Govorov to the rank of Marshall of the Soviet Union and both Zhdanov and Gusev to the rank of Colonel General. Although the capture of Vyborg and the Red Army advance to the Vuoksi River line essentially ended the Vyborg operation, it did not satisfy the STAVKA's strategic aims. & By 14 July it was clear to Soviet and Finn alike that Govorov's offensive into Southern Finland had failed.

---

Like I said before, the Ziemke quote is wrong, since it was corrected in the newer version of the book:

Ziemke (Stalingrad to Berlin. The German Defeat in the East, p. 388):

It appeared that as in the Winter War of 1939-40, although the Soviet Union could claim a victory, its offensive fell short of the success it ought to have had, largely for the same reasons — underestimation of the Finnish capacity to resist and rigid, unimaginative Soviet tactical leadership.

The Glantz quote is taken out of context. The did not satisfy the STAVKA's strategic aims refers to the capture of Vyborg on June 20, when the offensive was going according to schedule. Glantz means that the capture of Vyborg alone (not the whole offensive) was not enough to achieve the strategic aims, so the operations of the offensive needed to continue.

The second sentence, Govorov's offensive into Southern Finland had failed, again refers to only one part of the offensive and not to the entire offensive. Invading southern Finland was not a strategic goal, and so the failure does not contradict strategic victory in any way.

So without all the misquoting, only one Finnish source is left. -YMB29 (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please abide by the agreed rules of the mediation? Or is it too much to ask? I was asked to provide sources and i did. You were not asked to do anything. If you can't handle the rules then why did you agree to take part to mediation? - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Who said that I can't comment? If you are going to keep on misquoting sources, I think I am allowed to point this out... -YMB29 (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's take one source at a time. In this section, we'll start with Carruthers. I think, if the source says the offensive failed, that's explicit. But we do need to ensure that it is taken into context. Wanderer, is it possible you could quote the immediately preceding paragraph (or the next paragraph, whichever provides more context). -- Lord Roem (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Whole paragraph it is then

With the Army Group North making its stand on the shores of the Narva River and Lake Peipus and with the Soviet summer offensive degenerating into local attacks on the Isthmus of Karelia, the military position of Finland in August was, if only for the time being, as favorable as even a confirmed optimist would have dared to predict a month or so earlier. Between mid-July and mid-August the Russians reduced their forces on the Isthmus by 10 rifle divisions and 5 tank brigades. On 10 August in East Karelia the Finnish Army ended its last major operation in World War II with a victory when the 14th Division, the 21st Brigade and the Cavalry Brigade trapped and nearly destroyed Russian divisions in a pocket east of Ilomantsi. It appeared that as in the Winter War, altough the Soviet Union could claim a victory, its offensive had failed largely for the same reasons-underestimation of the Finnish capacity to resist and rigid, unimaginative Soviet tactical leadership.

Following paragraph discusses the relation of the offensive to the Normandy landings. And one preceding the paragraph i copied here discusses the problems of German Army Group North. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Author, as the text is seemingly direct copy of earlier text by Ziemke, makes here clear separation between the offensive and the war as well as of their respective results. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It is from Ziemke.

If the exact sentence was changed for a new book, we should go by the updated text. -YMB29 (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Two things. First, the text above I think makes the claim Wanderer is speaking of, in a fairly direct way. Second, YMB29, which sentence was changed? Lord Roem (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said above the text was changed to this: It appeared that as in the Winter War of 1939-40, although the Soviet Union could claim a victory, its offensive fell short of the success it ought to have had, largely for the same reasons — underestimation of the Finnish capacity to resist and rigid, unimaginative Soviet tactical leadership.

This makes a big difference. -YMB29 (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Wanderer, what's your response to that change? I personally think the paragraph still says stuff didn't go right, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this last sentence thing. Lord Roem (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

To me it seems cosmetic change. It does not matter which version is used as both seem to state that offensive failed to achieve its goals - first outright states that it failed and other that it fell short of its goals (i.e. failed). - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Did not have the success it should have had is not the same as failed. I don't know how anyone can claim that it is the same as failed.

Some things not going right contradicts decisive victory, not strategic. -YMB29 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually that can be done quite easily, since 'fell short of the success' is a flowery phrase for saying 'unsuccessful', which is defined in various dictionaries as wiktionary, Free dictonary, Websters online dictionary - common expression being 'failed'. Or should you insist on 'fall short' expression then, Free dictionary: fall short ~ To fail to..., Websters: fall short ~ Fail to... - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The phrase is fell short of the success it ought to have had, not just fell short of success and not unsuccessful or fell short. You are really trying hard to twist this. -YMB29 (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

[7][8][9], and what exactly does that expression ('ought to have had') mean according to you? Dictionaries seem to indicate that the whole expression is nothing but different wording for 'offensive failed to attain its goals'. Even more so with explicit 'the success' which indicates that the goal of the offensive was known but that the offensive failed to reach it (i.e. ought to have had). To be precise it does not in any way or level indicate success. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It actually does, just not the success it could have had. What it does not indicate is that the offensive failed, which is what you are claiming. The author obviously changed the sentence for a reason... -YMB29 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And on what do you actually base that claim on? Because the dictionaries disagree with your interpretation. Even more so with your statement of 'could have had', since 'ought to' can be understood synonymous to 'should' not to 'could'. Hence closer would be 'should have had' (with implied 'according to plan') which has totally different meaning than the phrase you suggested since it means that the offensive failed to accomplish its goals. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That is quite a jump by you from should have had to failed... Whether it is could or should does not even matter. It just cannot be interpreted as failed, and it does not make sense for the author to change it if he still meant failed. -YMB29 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can not recognize the difference between should and could then i think this discussion has run its length already. Also for the record only you have claimed so far that it would have been from should have had to failed, please read what was discussed above again. Before that only 'jump' there has been was your claim that ought to would have been the same as could. Also authors can to change their wording if they so choose to do without changing the meaning. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So why did he leave the other parts of the sentence and other sentences unchanged?

You did not write - Hence closer would be 'should have had' (with implied 'according to plan') which has totally different meaning than the phrase you suggested since it means that the offensive failed to accomplish its goals?

Of course there is a difference between could and should, but in the context of what we are discussing it does not matter. -YMB29 (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Because he chose to (freedom of expression). It is not up to me - nor to you - to judge why certain changes were made by the author. And yes i wrote that as a reference to the whole of the contested expression of which includes the phrase "fell short" which is analogous to "to fail to". What I meant with it was that instead of your suggestion, success it could have had, it turned into something else, success it should have had. With "could" it would have implied that offensive would have had chances to achieve better results however with the "should" it is merely a notation that the offensive failed to accomplish its set goals. Hence the difference between could and should is important. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you are not making sense. You are still jumping to failed... -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I already said it above (several times over): "fall short" is analogous to "to fail to". Try this: offensive fell short of the success it ought to have had ~ offensive fell short of its goals ~ offensive failed to achieve its goals. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not what it means. Again, you can't make that jump. I don't know if you are having trouble with English or just refuse to understand. -YMB29 (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no jump. So far only false conclusion was your usage of could as synonymous to ought to. Just because you don't like it does not mean it wouldn't be so. And also given the comments from the mediator it appears only you have the opinion that it would have a different meaning from the expression used in the earlier book. Don't get me wrong here, you are entitled to have your opinions but it would be beneficial to all of us as well as to the mediation if you could base them on something other than to emotional appeals. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Also you have so far not provided any versions of your own of the phrase apart from the one which was already shown to be wrong due to the use of could. So, can you provide an explanation on what the phrase means now that you are aware that ought to is synonymous to should instead of could? - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It is a simple phrase...

Why don't you explain how fell short of the success it ought to have had means failed? I don't know how that can be made to be the same thing? Maybe you are using an online translator and it is mistranslating it?

Funny how you are trying to accuse me of misinterpreting it, when you are guilty of that. Just admit that you are wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So far you have been totally unable to explain what it means which casts doubt on your claim. And no, i don't use online translator.

Fall short = fail to; ought to = should

fell short of the success it ought to have had -> Failed to have the success it should have had. Since we are discussing a military operation the success it should have had is the same as achieve its goal since that is how the planned (what it 'should have had') success of the operation is defined. And we get failed to achieve its goals.

Trying to once again redirect the discussion does not help with the mediation. So far you have not provided any valid interpretation for the phrase. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the phrase is clear, but you are making out of it something that it is not.

The phrase success it should have had is not the same as achieve its goals. This is where you are getting lost.

I think we should wait for Lord Roem to comment... -YMB29 (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is clear then it should not be difficult for you to explain it. Please do so. Also you haven't pointed out what exactly was wrong in what i stated above, just because you dislike it does not make it wrong. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

How many times must I tell you why you don't make sense?

All that phrase means is that the offensive could or should have had more success than it did, not that it did not have success or failed. -YMB29 (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So far you have not provided anything apart from emotional appeals. As for your statement, it can not be could, as per definition of ought (see dictionaries - like answers.com: Syn. -- Ought, Should. Usage: Both words imply obligation, but ought is the stronger. Should may imply merely an obligation of propriety, expendiency, etc.; ought denotes an obligation of duty.) Also explicit expression of "the success" indicates that the offensive had definite goal(s) and goes on stating that offensive fell short of having them, i.e. failed to accomplish. All which comes around to statement that offensive failed to achieve its goals. Technically you could claim that it indicates that offensive failed to complete its duty but that also comes back into same statement since duty of an offensive is to achieve its goals. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well you still not making any sense... -YMB29 (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In where exactly? Vagueness does not help here. If you are so unwilling to take part to the mediation why did you agree to it in the first place? - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you fail to understand what has been explained to you many times, what can I do? Just wait for Lord Roem to comment. -YMB29 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So far your explanations have not been supported by dictionaries and have hence been solely emotional appeals. As for Lord Roem:

Two things. First, the text above I think makes the claim Wanderer is speaking of, in a fairly direct way. Second, YMB29, which sentence was changed? Lord Roem (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Wanderer, what's your response to that change? I personally think the paragraph still says stuff didn't go right, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this last sentence thing. Lord Roem (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So according Lord Roem the two statements are roughly equal and support the claim i made (even the second one still does so). - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I am mostly off-line today. Stuck with little access to internet, stuck by Hurricane Sandy. I'll read through your discussions likely tonight. Please freeze your discussion until then, because it appears my short absence was too long. Lord Roem (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay people. I read through your extended debate over definitions. Let's refocus discussion from interpreting that one sentence to seeing whether there are any other significant changes to the text on this issue. If all the surrounding information remained the same from one version to the other, then we'd probably have to say he concludes that the offensive failed. If, on the other hand, there were numerous other changes that, read through the lens of a switch to 'didn't do everything and actually worked', we could say this change was major and deserves a different reading. Is there any evidence to suggest such an expansive change? (FYI, I have internet access now, so please feel free to engage in discussion below). -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems largely the same. See for example via Google books preview. Apart from reordering some of the contents of that paragraph and adding more specific designation for certain units they are the same as far as i can see. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well if the surrounding text is almost the same and only the disputed part was significantly changed, would not this change be important?

Do you see a difference between offensive had failed and offensive fell short of the success it ought to have had? -YMB29 (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, that depends on what he thinks the objectives of the offensive were. By saying it could claim a victory but didn't achieve what it sought -- however you look at the change in language -- it seems he thinks the broader success in pushing the enemy out of the war was not the primary objective.

Could you both agree, at least, that this source is not as positive of the effort of the offensive, that it wasn't a complete success that it was fully desired to be? Lord Roem (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is not positive of the effort of the offensive. And that it was not the success it was intended to be. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that.

From the text we can tell that the author thinks the offensive did not meet all of the expectations, but, as far as what we are discussing, that does not contradict strategic victory. -YMB29 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Except same exact reasoning you used with Glantz applies here, either both refer to strategic level or neither do. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, Ziemke is unclear about the goals and results of the offensive. All we can conclude from his text is that he thinks that it was not a decisive victory. -YMB29 (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

He is not unclear, as in his writing "...the success it ought to have had" Ziemke remarks that it had explicit goal that it failed to achieve. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that is your interpretation.

And what goal would that be? -YMB29 (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That is what the text is stating. Ziemke is clearly saying that offensive had clear goal which it failed to accomplish. He simply chose not to discuss what that goal would have been. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The text does not say anything about goals... -YMB29 (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Except for the definite and explicit the success that the offensive failed to reach. You do understand the significance of 'the' in that statement. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You are trying too hard to interpret it the way you want it. -YMB29 (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In which exact way to be precise? By actually reading the statement as it was written? - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

By not reading the statement as it was written... -YMB29 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And how exactly is that so? I have presented what the source is saying several times using dictionaries while you have not shown anything apart from your personal opinion. Please do understand that trying once again to be more and more vague does not benefit any one. If you refuse to accept what the source is saying then say so. However regardless of your opinion Ziemke makes it clear that offensive had a goal (i.e. the success the source refers to) which it failed to accomplish. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well you can see what you want in that statement and use dictionaries or whatever you want to try to prove your point, but that is not going to change what the text says. -YMB29 (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Both of texts are quite clear to be honest, with both versions stating that offensive failed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Only one says that it failed and that was corrected by the second. -YMB29 (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

They are two separate sources by the same author. First one is just as valid as a source as the latter. And also in the above discussion it was already shown that the meaning of the phrase used in the second was the same as in the first. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you attempted to show this, but you made no sense. Second source makes the first one outdated. -YMB29 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It made sense to every one else but to you. Also you would be correct if the second source was a new edition of the same exact book as the earlier one, however it is not (German Northern Theatre Of Operations 1940-45 vs. Stalingrad to Berlin. The German Defeat in the East). They are from two separate books so your claim it second would somehow mysteriously outdate the earlier is invalid. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the text was changed for a reason. You can continue to claim that the first quote is as valid, but that is weak argumentation. Well I guess you are desperate for sources that support you...

And your explanation of how the two quotes are the same probably did not even make sense to you. -YMB29 (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Texts are from two separate books. You can not claim that it is the same book. If it is not the same book then it is not a correction to the earlier statement. Given the Lord Roem also commented that the entries were roughly the same i fail to see the point in your other comment other than that you refuse to accept any views that contradict your personal beliefs. This even when you initial interpretation of the source was based on false conclusions (the should vs. could). - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You are the only one who is making false conclusions and interpretations here.

It does not matter if the books are different, when the author is the same and the whole section of the newer book is almost the same.

Lord Roem did not say that the two quotes are the same, and only you can make such a claim... -YMB29 (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually he did, reposting for your convenience:

Wanderer, what's your response to that change? I personally think the paragraph still says stuff didn't go right, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this last sentence thing. Lord Roem (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is not the same book then you can not claim that it would have been a newer edit of it. They are separate books and need to be considered as such. Simply because you prefer not to see them as such does not mean they would not be. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The same person wrote them both and he fixed his mistake in the second book.

Stuff not going right is not the same as failed, well for you maybe it is... -YMB29 (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Great! Before we move onto more of the sources, I think it may be worthwhile to see if there are any sources that define the term strategic victory. If it's a term of art (and not just a subjective description), that's something to keep in mind through this discussion. Lord Roem (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

'Strategic victory' definitions

Here is some information about strategic victory, strategic aims (or goals), and tactical vs. strategic success:

A strategic victory is achieved when a defeat of the enemy military forces compels the enemy government to modify its political aims. In other words, a tactical victory, defeating the enemy on the field of battle, is different from a strategic success. The victory is strategic when it has repercussions on the enemy's political desires and prompts a change in the enemy's political objectives. [10]

The strategic aim (strategicheskaia tsel') of any conflict dictates the nature, scope and form of military operations. Established by the political leadership of a nation, strategic aims represent the desired end of strategic-scale military actions. Achievement of strategic aims generally leads to significant, and sometimes fundamental, changes in military-political and strategic conditions, which, in turn, can contribute to the victorious conclusion of a war. The Soviets subdivided strategic aims into overall (obshchie) strategic aims which represent the "fundamental results of the war" and particular (chastnye) strategic aims, which result from successful campaigns or strategic operations. The strategic war aims determine the size and nature of strategic groupings of forces within a theater of military operations or on a strategic direction and determine the form of military actions undertaken. These aims transcend all other considerations. [11]

In modern times, the result of a single battle is seldom sufficient to achieve strategic victory, as it often was in Napoleon's time. In fact, a single battle alone can rarely resolve the outcome of a campaign, much less an entire war. One example in which a single tactical victory did end a campaign ironically demonstrates that tactical victory does not necessarily even result in strategic advantage. Robert E. Lee's costly tactical victory at Antietam in 1862 was an operational defeat in that it compelled him to abort his offensive campaign into the North. Even a succession of tactical victories, taken together, often does not ensure strategic victory, the obvious example being the American experience in the war in Vietnam. Thus, we must recognize that to defeat the enemy in combat cannot be an end in itself, but rather must be viewed as a means to a larger end. [12]

-YMB29 (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Great work, YMB29.

Wanderer, what's your thinking on that definition. For easy-access: "strategic aims represent the desired end of strategic-scale military actions" (the second para. above). -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As a blanket statement, sure. However, what exactly constitutes which specific level of operation is different story. See [13][14][15][16]. Irony is that according to those strategic goals - such as forcing Finland from the war - exist outside and above the aims of individual campaigns or operations, and article discusses just one single campaign, not the whole of the war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a strategic campaign/offensive, not an individual operation, and so its main goal is the strategic one. We already agreed that forcing Finland from the war (strategic goal/aim) was its main goal.

If there is still doubt, we can refer to the other source (Gebhardt), which directly refers to the main goal and result of this offensive as strategic. -YMB29 (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand Gebhardt explicitly states that "This offensive... ...was strategically significant..." not that the offensive would have been a strategic victory. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that means that the goal was accomplished... -YMB29 (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As per YMB29 (in this occasion its actually true): "The text does not say anything about goals". Just because something is significant does not mean it would be a victory for either side - it simply states that offensive had an effect not that it would have been in accordance with strategic goals. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It clearly says that the strategic goal was to force Finland from the war, and then it says that the offensive was strategically significant since it led to the restarting of negotiations to end the war (accomplishment of the strategic goal). -YMB29 (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Except it is only saying that it led to restarting of negotiations, not that it would have forced Finland from the war which had been its goal. So, no, still not saying that it would have accomplished the strategic goal. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And why did Finland restart negotiations? It was a required step to end the war. Right after that it says that an armistice was signed and Finland had to kick the Germans out of its territory. -YMB29 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Now you are doing deductions on what the sources is saying and not reading what it is actually saying. Source in itself does not say that that it would have accomplished its strategic goal. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If it says that the goal of the offensive was to force Finland from the war and the offensive led to negotiations which resulted in an armistice, then it is obvious that the goal was accomplished, unless you think that the armistice did not mean that Finland stopped its war against the USSR...

Are you going to continue denying the obvious? I thought that you would not behave like this for the mediation; I guess I was wrong... -YMB29 (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, source is not saying that, the part in which describe as 'obvious' is already your own deduction, not what the source is stating. Just like you demanded earlier, I'm merely reading the text from the source without making deductions based on it. Just because certain jump for a conclusion seems obvious to you does not mean that it would be what the source is saying. Source is quite explicitly stating it as 'strategically significant' without making any notions of the result to either side. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Is 2 + 2 = 4 also my own deduction? Are you saying that the armistice did not mean that Finland exited the war? -YMB29 (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Trying to misdirect the discussion does not really benefit any one. All i stated was that the source does not state that offensive would have accomplished its strategic goal. Your argument on the other hand is based on your own deduction, not on what the source is actually stating. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Chill Pill

I'd like to hear a specific reply from YMB29 about Wanderer's point about the different levels of strategic thinking in operations. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I already replied. He said that the offensive did not have strategic goals (that it was not a strategic level operation). I pointed out that it was a strategic operation and that the sources prove him wrong. He tries to argue this by making his own strange interpretations of the text and claiming that any simple logical conclusions derived from the text (such as Finland concluding an armistice with the USSR = Finland exiting the war against the USSR) are personal interpretations. He is just in denial mode, and that is what got us here. -YMB29 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the text we were talking about:

The Soviet General Staff then recommended that the Leningrad and Karelian Fronts launch an offensive against Finnish forces in the sector from Leningrad to Petrozavodsk. The strategic objective of the offensive was to defeat the Finnish Army and force Finland from the war. On 10 June 1944, the Red Army began the offensive against Finnish forces north of Leningrad and quickly captured Vyborg, thereby threatening the capital, Helsinki. As soon as the Finnish military command transferred forces from southern Karelia to meet this threat, Soviet forces of the Karelian Front, under Army General K. A. Meretskov, attacked northward and westward out of Soviet Karelia and quickly advanced through the area between Lakes Ladoga and Onega. This offensive, known as the Svir-Petrozavodsk Operation, continued until 9 August and was strategically significant in that it led to the reopening of bilateral negotiations between Finland and the U.S.S.R. on 25 August. On 4 September, the two sides signed an armistice that required Finland to expel or disarm all German troops still on its soil by 15 September. [17]

-YMB29 (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

YMB29, I see your argument and I think it's a fair one. But please avoid saying "he is just in denial mode". I know you both want to avoid anything more than Formal Mediation. Now, Wanderer, what's your response to YMB29's point that it is irrelevant the distinction of different levels of strategy because it is possible to say the goal was to push Finland from the war? That's his argument, and I'd be grateful for your reply. Lord Roem (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

To put it simply, which of the strategic goals are actually those of the war and which are those of the offensive. Since the Soviets had bombed Helsinki in early 1944 and exerted diplomatic pressure via USA delegation it can be stated that goal of getting Finland out of the war superseded that of the offensive. Last time when YMB29 provided sources to support his view of this most of them discussed the result of the war instead of that of the offensive.

When we get down to individual sources it gets even more muddled up, even the one used as an example by YMB29 clearly states that offensive "was strategically significant in that it led to the reopening of bilateral negotiations". Not that it would have been strategic victory. Especially when keeping in mind that those same negotiations had existed before the offensive. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Negotiations had to happen before Finland could exit the war you know, unless Finland wanted to surrender unconditionally... Finland was negotiating its exit from the war and, because the negotiations resulted in an armistice, the main strategic goal was accomplished.

The sources clearly say that forcing Finland from the war was the goal of this offensive and you agreed with this above, but now you are back to denying it? This mediation won't get anywhere if you are going to continue doing this. -YMB29 (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Source only states that offensive led to restart of negotiations, not that it would have led to anything else. By using claims and deductions from other books you are already performing synthesis on what the source is saying. Source merely states that offensive led to reopening of negotiations. Nothing beyond that. Any extrapolation on that is either OR or SYN depending on how you perform it. And last i checked that is not what should be done. I agreed what that particular source said, nothing else. I didn't agree to anything beyond that. Also for that matter, in mediation both sides are required to compromise, unless you show willingness to compromise i see very little point to compromise either. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Compromise is only possible when each side has a clear position backed up by sources.

You agreed on what the goal of the offensive was according to those sources, so don't say now that it was not the goal.

Also, simple logic is not original research. -YMB29 (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Both sides have sources so i fail to see your objection about this issue. I agreed on what the source said of the issue, not that i would have agreed with the source. Also by combining the sources and then forming your opinion of them you are already performing synthesis. Actually using logic to extrapolate what source is saying is exactly what OR is by definition if it is not supported by the source itself. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

So if it is known that you live in Finland, it would be OR to say that you live in Europe...

You were disagreeing on what the sources say was the goal, not with the sources in general.

As for sources, you have only one or two Finnish sources supporting your denial of strategic victory. -YMB29 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion you can not go linking up the sources by cherry picking the statements from them and combining them later on, that is specifically what synthesis is. Also, I didn't realize you consider Glantz and Ziemke to be Finns. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Glantz and Ziemke don't support you...

There is no cherry picking or combining. The sources are clear in what they say, but you refuse to accept this. -YMB29 (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Source in question only states that offensive led to reopening bilateral negotiations. Nothing beyond that. Anything more like you have tried to attribute to that source is either OR or SYN depending if you use logic or combine other sources to it. As for Ziemke: offensive had failed & offensive fell short of the success it ought to have had and Glantz: it did not satisfy the STAVKA's strategic aims. Do note that while Glantz is discussing the Vyborg operation he specifically mentions that it failed to accomplish strategic aims of STAVKA (i.e. Soviet supreme command). So he is stating that offensive failed to achieve its strategic aims of the highest level. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you have no idea what you are talking about once again... Glantz is talking about the situation right after the Vyborg operation was completed successfully, not about the entire offensive; the capture of Vyborg by itself was not enough to force Finland to ask for peace, so the offensive had to continue. With Ziemke I already explained to you how you are wrong. So all you are left with are a couple of patriotic Finnish sources...

About the Gebhardt source, well what can I do if logical conclusions on the level of 2+2=4 are OR or SYNTH to you... -YMB29 (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I already said as much of Glantz, however he also explicitly and specifically notes that "Although the capture of Vyborg and the Red Army advance to the Vuoksi River line essentially ended the Vyborg operation, it did not satisfy the STAVKA's strategic aims... ...By 14 July it was clear to Soviet and Finn alike that Govorov's offensive into Southern Finland had failed". In other words while Vyborg was reached the offensive failed to reach the strategic goals set by supreme Soviet command. Also so far your claims regarding what Ziemke have been based on erroneous translation you made yourself and to your unfounded claim that one book would somehow supersede another even though you have not even shown that the second book would have describe the matter in any different from than the first one.

As for Gebhardt, you can claim what you will but that does change the fact that source does not say what you claim it does. If you are intentionally extrapolating what the source states then it is nothing but OR by definition - it does not matter how logical or justified it would seem to you. The source does not state that offensive would have led to anything else than to reopening of bilateral negotiations. You simply can not claim anything beyond that without already performing SYN or OR. It is slightly more complex matter than basic arithmetics. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't know, maybe it is more complex for you... It even says that an armistice was signed in the next sentence, so if it is not clear that this means that Finland exited the war with the USSR (accomplishment of the strategic goal), I don't know what to say...

Why don't you read the whole section in that Glantz book (Battle for Leningrad) before you make ridiculous claims about what he said. The part where he says that Govorov's offensive into Southern Finland had failed is from another section of the book, so clear SYNTH by you here...

Go find an English professor or teacher near you and ask him or her if failed and fell short of the success it ought to have had mean the same exact thing or not. -YMB29 (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to comment here, so if you deem this inappropriate, please remove this. So... few points: 1) There are no documents written before the offensive which state that getting Finland out of the war was an objective of the offensive. That claim was presented only in documents/interviews/memoirs written after the war. 2) It seems, that those sources writing very little about Soviet-Finnish war (couple of paragraphs in 400-pages book) tend to view Soviets more successful than those who provide tens or hundreds of pages about the issue. 3) It is unbelieveable how inaccurately even the most famous modern western historians handle Soviet-Finnish war (I just read a book which claimed Mannerheim was the president already at 1939!). --Whiskey (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess we should only go by what patriotic Finnish historiography says. Who cares about what Western historians have to say... -YMB29 (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Whiskey did not in any way refer to Finnish or other historiography apart from the example of certain gross inaccuracies shown by some of the Western historians with regards to Finland in WWII. It is hardly patriotic to make note of errors of the magnitude described. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not talking about such errors... -YMB29 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for Compromise

Idea. What do you two think about (1) changing the infobox to say "Partial Soviet strategic victory" and (2) blue-link that phrase to the Aftermath section where more of the discussion of these sources can be brought out. As we all agreed above, the best sources in favor of Soviet strategic victory can be extrapolated to mean that, but don't say those words all together. On the other side, other sources shed doubt on what the actual goal of the offensive was. We all also agree that it succeeded in something, being necessary for the peace although not sufficient.

With all that above, it seems the word "partial" is a fair descriptor and both satisfies the interests of showing the offensive did result in something desired by the Soviets while not being everything. War is never a game of absolutes, nuance is okay.

Additionally, the aftermath section of the page can go more into detail. Discussion of motivations and specifics seem to be suited there.

With this compromise, Wanderer would accede to the label of "partial strategic victory" in the infobox, and YMB would accede to more critical examination in an aftermath section.

Thoughts? (and please, one at a time) -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification please, replacing the current result entry with 'partial strategic victory' altogether or having 'partial strategic victory' in the result entry? Issue being that there are several sources which explicitly state that Soviet offensive failed at operational level.

As to the actual compromise suggested; I am still in favor of using the suggestion made by WP:3 - from the request of YMB29 who since rejected suggestion made by WP:3 in favor of different result entry - which was to leave result entry blank altogether and discuss the result in proper length and manner in the actual article aftermath section instead. This was in the end what both WP:3 as well as the guidelines for infobox military conflict suggested to be done in controversial cases.

Furthermore there is distinct problem with the phrasing you used, "being necessary for the peace", since from Finnish POV offensive was never necessary for peace. After all negotiations for Finnish exit from the war existed long before the offensive and Soviet terms were only reduced - addressing the reparations and German withdrawal, the exact points which had been considered impossible to fulfill by the Finns in the spring 1944 - following the offensive. I can agree with the offensive achieving something but i don't agree it being necessary for anything. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The result entry keeping the term "Partial Strategic Soviet Victory". Not removing any of the other items, since we haven't discussed any of that (and I haven't read discussion on those points). Sorry about that, is that clearer? Lord Roem (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I can accept that but i still would prefer to see totally blank result entry due to its complexity. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the purpose of the word "partial".

YMB, your thoughts, now that Wanderer seems open to some version of this compromise? Lord Roem (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well Wanderer602 is again being misleading (about WP:3) and making his own conclusions (offensive not "being necessary for anything") contrary to what the sources say. I don't think partial victory is used in any article, since it sounds confusing. As for compromise, like I said above, it is only possible if both sides have a position backed up by sources. Wanderer602 does not have a clear position, besides not allowing any sort of a Soviet victory in the result. He only tries to deny what sources say and makes his own interpretations and conclusions. While strategic victory is backed up by many sources, there are only one or two Finnish sources provided by Wanderer602 that contradict this result.

The aftermath section has criticism of the offensive and I am not against it being more critical. I suggest for the result to be "strategic Soviet victory; operational and tactical stalemate". This is accurate since it reflects some of the Soviet failures on the tactical and operational levels. -YMB29 (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. First, let me note that you're fine with the Aftermath section being more critical. I think that's important for everyone to see at this point. Now, Wanderer, your thoughts on "Strategic Soviet Victory; operational and tactical stalemate"?

I think that could work as well, as it balances elements of the operation that failed and those objectives which likely succeeded. At the same time, more analysis of the dispute of whether it actually led to the peace can be extrapolated in the Aftermath section. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, but... How about "Partial Soviet Victory, partial stalemate" and a link to aftermath section? --Whiskey (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)