Talk:Continuation War

Obvious tired Finnish propaganda

Finnish efforts in the Winter War were noble, but I'm tired of this implied framing that they won that war. Take the initial paragraph "which ended with the Soviet failure to conquer Finland and the Moscow Peace Treaty." The war ended with Finland losing not just the original territory, but partial access to the Barents Sea as well as other territory now part of I believe Murmansk and Karelia. Not leading with this is an obvious attempt to obscure that fact. EmilePersaud (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to point out where exactly this supposed propaganda is. The sentence right after it mentions territorial losses, not to mention that there's a link to the Moscow Peace Treaty where this is discussed in detail. And the Soviets did indeed fail to conquer Finland. Leaving that out would be an attempt to obscure the outcome of the war, as you put it. Betelgeuse X (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Definitely a very biased (almost propaganda pamphlet) on how Finns destroyed divisions of Soviet Army and obce they got tired of destroying Soviets they negotiated peace under very unfavorable conditions. Nvocka (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Where in the article is this supposed propaganda? Betelgeuse X (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

just look at the referenced listed. Disproportionate Finnish sources but that fits the current narrative. Nvocka (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

There are both Finnish and Russian sources listed. And the majority of sources are in English anyway.

The facts clearly conflict with your personal opinions, so you refer to them as propaganda/biased/fake news. Betelgeuse X (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You are using Finnish sources for soviet casualties and losses and Finnish sources for Finnish losses. That is called bias and borderline propaganda. Find me a Soviet source for losses on both sides and lets compare. English language doesn't matter. Nvocka (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. And soviet sources are free from propaganda and show each and every single loss. Hardly believable. Soviets have a habit to inflate enemy losses while downplaying/hiding own losses. Was so in WW2, Afghanistan and is still so in their war in Ukraine.--Denniss (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Both sides do that, that is why you should reference both sides and not only one. When you do as it is done in this article you end up with nonsense that Soviets had 1400 planes and lost 1600. And asking "where do you see propaganda"? Soviet military losses are 10:1? Really? Nvocka (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't need to find anything for you. You're the one making accusations of propaganda, so it's your job to prove it. English sources are used in both the Finnish and Soviet casualty figures, and a Russian source is also present in the Soviet figures. No "propaganda" here. Betelgeuse X (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You are right, no "propaganda" but PROPAGANDA here. I proved my case multiple times, it unbalanced and biased and I will dispute this article based on this. You literally have more planes in losses than Soviets had to begin with. You used partial (only for dead) soviet source but did not use any soviet source for finnish losses. Etc etc. Garbage article Nvocka (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Helsinki Air Defence

Are there any sources for this mighty air defense that repelled 95% of bombing sorties? Country that had single digit number of tanks apparently spent all the money on air defense weapons that proved better than anything Germans had been using. Nvocka (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

That part already has a citation. However, a more recent source about the bombings would be Ville Jalovaara's book Helsinki 1944 - Taistelu pääkaupungista (2023). Jalovaara attributes the minor damage caused to Helsinki to two factors: the effectiveness of the defenses and the lack of skill among Soviet long-range bomber crews. According to him "Better-trained and more experienced pilots could have flown through the flak to hit their targets". Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

That is not a source. We need a source about count and strength of air defense around Helsinki in 1944. How many batteries or flak positions, what type, etc. Allies were bombing German cities in 1944 to the ground (Leipzig, Dresden etc) but Helsinki had superior air defense. I am not saying that Soviets didn't miss the targets due to Finnish tactics but claims of 1000s of downed planes must be supported with military records not some qualitative analysis. 2600:1702:3F10:1800:419F:849C:5A42:639A (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the WP article text mentions thousands of downed planes. Jalovaara's book draws both from previous analyses and primary sources, and as such seems like it would be a useful source. For the purposes of this article, a detailed analysis is not needed. For Bombing of Helsinki in World War II, that might be useful. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Soviet aircraft were more fragile and flew at much lower height than allied B-17/B-24 over germany. --Denniss (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Really? Fragile aircrafts and impenetrable air defense? I guess we'll have to take your word for source. Nvocka (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

it literally says 1600 downed airplanes in the article. Source is questionable. Nvocka (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

During the whole war, not during the bombing of Helsinki, which was the topic of this discussion. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, Soviets started with 1382 aircrafts but lost 1600 according to this wp article. That somehow sound familiar to news we see these days. This article should be reported and disputed. Nvocka (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

misspelling of arctic

in the section on Order of battle and operational planning, under Soviet, there is a misspelling of arctic ocean as 'artic' on the map Skdkkh (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This is an issue for Wikimedia Commons: File:Continuation War July 1941 English.jpg. Mellk (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of Molotov's meeting with Finnish envoy and link to WP:RU article

Hello! Why edits

1) Molotov's meeting with Finnish envoy 23 June 1941

2) link to Ruwiki (via not-translated) Soviet Airforce operation against Finland in June 1941

are deleted ? Average Encyclopedia Fan (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Numerous grammar mistakes plus a link to a non-English article. Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Non-English sources are allowed in en-Wiki (as other languages sources in other language Wiki)

As for mistakes in text, I assume it is good-manners for Wiki-editor to fix errors and typos, not to remove fragments of text. Average Encyclopedia Fan (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It isn't the job of other editors to fix your mistakes. The link you provided didn't even work. Betelgeuse X (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)