Talk:Battle of Tali–Ihantala

Noskua vs Ihantala

Something which seems to be quite usually ignored.. The attempt of Soviet 23rd Army's 6th Army Corps (13th & 177th & 382th RD, supported by (not exclusive list) 2 Guards rocket artillery regiments, 3 mortar regiments, 2 AT-gun regiments, a cannon brigade and a regiment, 2 howitzer brigades and 3 armored regiments) to push towards Antrea on the west side of the Vuoksi (between Noskuanselkä and Vuoksi) on 21 to 30 of June (just when Tali-Ihantala was being fought). That is it happened along the line starting from Vyborg and ending to Vuoksi but on east side of 21st / 23rd army operational boundary. Should it be included to the Tali-Ihantala? Or it does it have any 'better' name assuming it would be handled as separate? - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the monologue... As the Tali-Ihantala page lists that Pajari's 3rd Division was part of the Tali-Ihantala then it also sorta requires that Noskua battle would be included to the Tali-Ihantala. Problem lies in that are the values - losses - currently listed only for the 21st Army or for the whole Leningrad Front. That is according to 'Jatkosodan torjuntaisteluja 1942-44' (Raunio, Ari; Kilin, Juri) 23rd Army's 6th Corps had 7 905 casualties between June 21 - June 30 (of which 1458 KIA, 288 MIA). - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested citations...

To date, it is the largest battle in the history of the Nordic countries.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice: p.306: "The fighting which had taken place in the Tali-Ihantala area northeast of Viipuri over a three-week period, is referred to as the largest battle in Nordic history. It ended in a Finnish defensive victory which undoubtedly had its impact on later political developments. The fighting had been carried out successfully against vastly superior enemy and the margin between success and failure had often been razor-thin."

One of the reasons leading to the Soviet failure was that the Finns were able to intercept the Soviet radio messages and to forewarn and prompt the Finnish Army to put up a firmly resolved defense.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice: p. 306: "A Finnish intercept of Soviet radio traffic indicated that several elite guard and tank units were a decisive attack in the direction of Ihantala. The concentrated all the artillery they could lay their hands on - about 250 pieces." .. "The planned Soviet attack was completely frustrated."

At the same time, the Soviet 59th Army attacked across the islands of the Bay of Viipuri from July 4 on, but the attack on the mainland was thrown back to the sea by the 122nd Division of the V AK on July 10.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice, p. 307: "The Soviets successively captured the small islands in the Gulf of Viipuri. The two islands of Teikarinsaari and Melansaari were defended tenaciously by the 22nd Coastal Artillery Regiment beween July 3 and 5, but Soviet' vast superiority eventually prevailed." .. "The Soviet operation was a complete failure as the Germans attacked and repelled the landing force"

Further defensive victories were achieved at the Bay of Viipuri and on the northeast side of Lake Ladoga, and in the Battle of Ilomantsi the Finns were able to encircle two Soviet divisions

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice, p. 299: "General Raappana commenced operations on July 30 and the Finns were able to encircle the two attacking Soviet divisions - the 176th and 289th. The Soviets brought in reinforcements but these were also encircled. Most of the encircled Soviet troops managed to slip out of the trap but had to abandon much of their equipment. General Erfurt claims that four Soviet regiments were destroyed in this action.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice, p. 307: as above regarding the Bay of Viipuri.

On July 12, the Soviet troops received an order to stop their attempts to advance and to dig in. Soon, the Finnish scouts noticed trains with empty trucks advancing towards the city of Viipuri to take troops away from the Finnish front. They were needed for the great push towards Berlin.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice: p. 306 - 307: "On July 13 Marshal Govorov was ordered to transfer five fully equipped divisions to Leningrad because they were needed in southern Russia. Govorov ordered his troops to end their attacks in the Ihantala sector. Finnish intelligence noted that although Soviet strength on the Karelian Isthmus had grown to 26 infantry divisions and 12 to 14 tank brigades, some of the best guard units had begun withdrawing and were being replaced by garrison troops. While Soviet attacks ended northeast of Viipuri, operations in the Bay of Viipuri and at Vuosalmi continued.

In addition to the defensive victory gained at Tali-Ihantala, the Finnish front line held fast at Kivisilta and Tienhaara to the north of the Bay of Viipuri, and at Vuosalmi on the shores of the River Vuoksi.

Lunde: Finland's War of Choice: p. 289: The 61st Infantry Regiment, under Lieutenant Colonel Alpo Kullervo Marttinen, arrived at Tienhaara in the afternoon of June 22 and established itself along the shore. German aircraft from Group Kuhlmey carried out bombing attack against the amphibious craft assembled by the Soviets on the other side of the bay. Troops from two Soviets divisions attacked across the bay in the evening of June 22 following a heavy artillery barrage. The attack was repelled but new attempts were made throughout the night.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

POV

The POV tag should remain until this article is more balanced. -YMB29 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also some other issues:

However, Russian histography states the Soviet command never intended to conquer Finland with this offensive. According to Marshall Vasilevsky, already on June 17 it was decided that after taking Vyborg and the Vyborg Bay islands, the offensive would stop at the line Elisenvaara-Imatra-Virojoki (or at most at the Kymi River which was located far beyond the 1940 border), Soviet forces would switch to defense, and the main forces of the Leningrad Front would be concentrated on reconquering Estonia. The goal was to create a threat to Helsinki and other major political and economic centers in Finland. After transferring most of its available forces to the Karelian Isthmus and receiving significant aid from Germany, the Finns managed to slow down and stop the Soviet offensive on the Isthmus before it reached the Finnish border. This boosted the morale of the Finnish troops, who were previously constantly retreating. Some Russian historians claim that Finnish propaganda turned battle into a victory, and that after the war this claim of achieving a victory in stopping the Soviets from conquering Finland became the official theme in Finnish historiography, however this view is not widely supported.

The goals of the offensive are well known and written about by historians outside Russia, like you don't know that...

It is equally known that that the offensive failed by historians outside Russia and Finland - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Like who? We have been through this countless times... -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

For starters... Lunde is neither Finnish or Russian. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Where does he say that the offensive failed? He is not Finnish but he does stick to Finnish sources. -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read through his bibliography section before you make such claims. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok quote the bibliography then... Of course he probably uses sources other than Finnish but to make the conclusions he does he uses Finnish sources (what others can he use? Soviet/Russian or German?). -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are so interested then perhaps you need to actually buy the book, i can't copy all the book here. Lunde uses primarily German sources (such as Ziemke and Erfurt). He does use some Finnish and Russian sources as well but only those translated to English. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This still does not mean that he does not parrot Finnish historiography for his conclusions about the offensive... In the preface section he clearly says that he uses mostly Finnish and German sources, and his use of Russian sources is limited.

And again where does he say that the offensive failed? -YMB29 (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

He actually states that his usage of both Finnish and Russian sources is limited. In the very same section you refer to. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No his use of Finnish sources is not nearly as limited. He mentions books by Finnish authors that are available in English. He also writes that a certain Finn helped him translate Finnish sources that are not available in English and understand the Finnish views on the war. -YMB29 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That is only your deduction and also it happens to be original research on your part. The listed sources include few Finnish and Soviet or Russian sources but are predominantly from elsewhere. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No it is not my deduction. Read the preface section... -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

In preface he states quite clearly that his usage of both Finnish and Russian sources is limited because of the language barrier. You did read the whole of the preface and not just single paragraph? - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No unlike you I read more than that...

Two books by Finnish-Americans, John H. Wuorinen, and Leonard C. Lundin, deserve mention... The most recent work translated into English of which I am aware is that written by the Finnish historian Olli Vehvilainen in 2002... Jukka Juutinen, a Finnish national, has helped with the translation of passages from Finnish sources and answered numerous questions that I had over the past year. By making available Finnish views on various aspects of the war he has made a valuable contribution.

So you still going to deny the obvious? -YMB29 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That still does not mean in way - other than your OR - that he would be writing according to Finnish historiography.

My own difficulty in reading Finnish has served as a limitation on the use of Finnish sources. ... My use of Russian sources has basically been limited to works that have been translate to English.

Clearly he has been limited in using either of Finnish or Russian sources. But again, regardless of those mentions it does not turn his book into Finnish historiography - that part is your OR still. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you have the book... Look at the sources he uses for this battle. Again, him using non-Finnish sources in his book does not make him represent a non-Finnish historiography when it comes to views about this battles or the war. -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And from the citations of the chapter which handles the Soviet summer offensive 1944 we can see he used primarily Ziemke and Erfurt as his sources for that chapter. Non-Finnish sources in other words, your claim of him representing Finnish historiography still remain your own OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No denying that he represents Finnish views when there is a source that states that such views are Finnish is your OR. -YMB29 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Estonia was part of the USSR so reconquering is the wrong word.

Estonia_in_World_War_II#Soviet_return This states is is reconquering. Same as this, Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states#Attempts_to_restore_independence_and_the_Soviet_offensive_of_1944. Please do face the fact that Soviet occupation of Baltic states was not accepted elsewhere de jure - there still existed legal Estonian government in exile. By pressing that you are already making the article NPOV. Please do not use the term liberated since that is not generally accepted outside Russia (or Soviet propaganda). - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No the claim is Baltic nationalist propaganda... Don't create an offtopic discussion here with your POV. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not propaganda. Term liberated is not used outside Soviet/Russian sources. Since this is English language wiki we should stick with generally accepted term which is 'reconquered'. Neither was Soviet rule of the Baltics accepted de jure. -

And of course you did your own research on this... Offtopic, but this is propaganda. -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The matter has been discussed in quite a depth in the pages related to occupation of the Baltic states. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That means Talk:Occupation of the Baltic States --Whiskey (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that article has been part of many edit wars and arbitration cases. There is so much biased views there... There is no need to bring that into this article. -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Saying "turned battle into a victory" is wrong since the source is not talking only about this battle.

And this is relevant to Battle of Tali-Ihantala in exactly what manner? If you need to state something of the Soviet offensive please stick to the article where such comments belong to. -Wanderer602 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant since it talks about all Finnish claims of "decisive victories", including this battle. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Then it discusses the Fourth Strategic Offensive and not this battle. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No it refers to battles such as this. -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So first you state its not talking of about this battle but now you are saying it is talking of this battle? Could you please make up your mind? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is talking about this and other battles in which the Finns claim "decisive victories". -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Same statement (defensive victory) is provided amongst other by Lunde who is clearly not Finnish. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So what, if he simply repeats Finnish historiography? But what does this have to do with what Baryshnikov writes? -YMB29 (talk)

Since it contradicts what Baryshnikov writes. And is not written by a Finn. It shows that Baryshnikov's comment of the view being limited to Finnish histography alone is false. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No, an author does not have to be a Finn to use Finnish historiography... Or are you suggesting that Lunde represents US historiography? -YMB29 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As discussed above Lunde mainly uses other than Finnish sources. You may not like it but that is how it is. Without reliable sources on your part to state that he follows Finnish historiography that remains your original research. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is your source that he follows US historiography? It does not matter that he uses sources other than Finnish in his book. You saying that his claim of victory in this battle is not based on a Finnish source? I have a reliable source that states that such claims come from Finnish historiography, and that is enough. -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It is only your OR that it would be Finnish historiography. Lunde is not Finnish and according to citations he primarily uses German sources (especially for the section in question). Baryshnikov may state that Finnish historians generally phrase it like that but that does not turn what Lunde wrote into Finnish historiography - that part is 100% your OR, nothing more. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that he does not present Finnish views and that this proves Baryshnikov wrong is OR. -YMB29 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-Finnish historian using predominantly non-Finnish sources. You'll find it rather difficult to prove that it would OR and so far your allegations of it have been nothing but OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

To disprove a reliable source you need another reliable source that explicitly mentions what you are saying. -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point, so Lunde then can not be part of Finnish historiography since he is not Finnish. Unless you have source which explicitly states that Lunde is writing in Finnish historiography, otherwise that claim remains your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is OR by you to claim that he represents a non-Finnish historiography when there is evidence that he does. -YMB29 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "not widely supported" is OR because that is your own conclusion; no source explicitly says that. -YMB29 (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Only certain Russian historians support that point of view - such opinions are not shared in other sources. So it can be said that Baryshnikov's ideas are not widely supported. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok so where is the source for this statement or is this your own private conclusion again? -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That there are severa other researches who have come with totally different conclusion which shows which clearly show that Baryshnikov's ideas are not widely supported. Provide other Russian (and non-Russian sources) that support that statement then i have no complaints of it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No you need to provide sources for your claims. You have to learn and follow the rules... -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I provided sources. Several sources which directly disagree with Baryshnikov. While you have provided none which would actually support the statement that the opinion would not be Baryshnikov's alone. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No you have to provide sources for your claim. As if you read all the sources in the world to know that this is not widely supported. Even then it would still be your OR... -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I did, you are just in denial. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So again where are the sources that make this analysis? You are denying your OR again... -YMB29 (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So far you have only Baryshnikov's view of the matter while there several opposing sources. Which clearly shows that Baryshnikov's ideas were not widely supported. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That is your own false conclusion. No source you presented makes this kind of analysis. Please learn to follow the rules...

Baryshnikov's views are confirmed by Glantz and Erickson, who clearly state the goals of the Soviet offensive, and conquering Finland was not one of them. -YMB29 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Baryshnikov's comment is now reflected in the article. However as discussed it is opposed by other sources so i moved it to end of the paragraph as it is clearly not a dominant view of anything. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Who are you to say that it is dominant or not? Maybe not dominant in Finland... You need a source for that. -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several non connected sources which contradict his claims while Baryshnikov's claims remain supported by only Baryshnikov. Also had you read the text more closely it does not contradict the claim of not conquering Finland - which is supported also other writers than Baryshnikov. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Followers of Finnish historiography of course support your claims while ignoring obvious evidence against them. Baryshnikov analyzes these claims and the weak evidence used for them. You cannot analyze Baryshnikov here and claim that he is in the minority, just because he disproves the pro-Finnish sources you are used to reading... -YMB29 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As discussed below it is clear that Baryshnikov is a minority, even a fringe historian. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Clear according to who? Your opinion? -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

His books are published by the only person who endorses his views, i think that is saying enough of the matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Another case of OR by you... The first source was not even published by that "person". And you have to look at the historian and author, not the publisher. I suggest you stop reverting sourced information and using weak excuses like this as a reason. -YMB29 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Futher citations for the YMB29

Lunde p. 306, with regards to defensive victory (and to Tali-Ihantala):

It ended in a Finnish defensive victory, which undoubtedly had its impact on later political developments.

Lunde p. 307

The Soviets successively captured the small islands in the Gulf of Viipuri, The two islands of Teikarinsaari and Melansaari were defended tenaciously by the 22nd Coastal Artillery Regiment between July 3 and 5 but Soviets' vast superiority eventually prevailed.

The defensive operations by the Finns and Germans in the Bay of Viipuri became a victory when Lieutenant General Korovnikov received orders canceling his attack.

Lunde p. 308-309, with regards to Battle of Vuosalmi:

Nevertheless, the defenders were eventually able to limit the dangerous penetration and prevent a breakthrough. Finnish artillery continued to dominate the river crossing sites and this prevented a large inflow of Soviet reinforcements and complicated their supply situation. The combat activity lessened and the front took on the aspects of trench warfare.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Moisala & Alanen p. 154 (translated):

Soviet historian Colonel Morozov comes up with following conclusions from the Leningrad Fronts battles in Karelian Isthmus after the capture of the Viipuri: In this manner from 21 June to mid July over three weeks of continued offensive the forced of the right flank of the Leningrad Front were unable to carry out the tasks with had been assigned for it by STAVKA on 21 June 1941. Forces of the front failed to advance to the border (1940) and failed to clean Karelian Isthmus of enemy forces. By moving enough troops Finnish military leadership prevented Soviet forces from penetrating deeply into Finland.

Neither of the fronts participating to the offensive were able to carry out their operational-strategic goals which in fact resulted in Soviet Union failing (in its offensive) from military strategic perspective.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Raunio & Kilin p.204 - 205 (written by Juri Kilin) (translated):

224th Division (Soviet) which had shrunk to one third strenght was ordered to defense .. 59th Army did not carry out the orders given to it and its formations suffered heavy losses.

Raunio & Kilin p.198 - 199 (written by Juri Kilin) (translated):

160th Infantry Regiment (Soviet) that fought in Teikarinsaari suffered extremely heavy losses. According to reported losses of the 1266 strong landing party 1136 took part to the landing of which only 82 returned. 1027 were declared as missing though some of them later returned. Totally destroyed 160th Infantry Regiment lost all its heavy equipment on Teikarinsaari, including 4 x 45 mm antitank guns, 4 x 76 mm cannons, 6 x 120 mm mortars. Those who returned (from failed landing) carried between them only 79 rifles and submachineguns.

Raunio & Kilin p. 212 - 213 (by Kilin & Raunio) (translated):

Map describing the situation on 9 July 1944. Soviet 10th, 92nd, 142nd Divisions arrayed against Finnish 2nd Division.

Raunio & Kilin p. 215(by Kilin & Raunio) (translated):

Also 115th Army Corps' commander Major General Kozatsek gave 10 July order to attack. All three divisions of the army corps were assigned for the attack. Only reserve for the commander was to be 203rd Infantry Regiment.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Moisala & Alanen p. 155-156 (translated - bold replaced italics from source):

It is therefore wrong, against historical facts, to claim for example that "in summer 1944 Soviet Union could have crushed Finland if it had wanted to". According to Soviet researchers the opposite is true; Soviet leadership wanted to crush Finland militarily and it meant to do exactly that according to the plans laid out. Soviet Union did not gather nearly half a million man for to initial strike of the summer 1944 only to return restore borders of the Moscow peace or "to take back what rightfully according 1940 agreement belonged to it" as is sometimes heard. Soviet Union did not move its goals further into Finland before VT-line and Viipuri had been captured. The plan was from the start a large whole with goals set deep in Finland. And this goal was not just for marshals and generals operative plans, but had been told for example to standard line infantry men before 9 June when the assault battalions manned the trenches at the starting point of the offensive. From this there exists from both June and July convergent reports from POWs. Prisoners (POWs) had belonged to different outfits but their story is the same: Govorov had in his speech to the troops before the offensive stated the goals as 'Viipuri, 1940 border and Helsinki'. While attacking on the Isthmus in 1944 Simonjak's guardsmen and Busarov's, Alferov's and other Soviet generals' troops knew they were headed to Helsinki, and not just to the 1940 border. Govorov, Gusev and Svetsov with their soldiers did all they could to fulfill the orders from Moscow.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Baryshnikov

So far I've only found his opinion pieces published under the aegis of the ultra-fringe Johan Bäckman Institute. I've been looking to no avail. Quite frankly, I never thought I'd run across an outfit that makes Dyukov look mainstream. Националист-патриот ►TALK 00:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that was a constructive comment... Yes let's remove him just because you don't like what he writes... -YMB29 (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the point is that I can't find him represented as a reputable historian other than by Bäckman. There's nothing about liking or disliking, no one considers Bäckman or his circle as mainstream. Националист-патриот ►TALK 02:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that Bäckman Baryshnikovis not a historian and is known to biased on the issue the fact that only Bäckman agrees with him is not much of a praise. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is Backman? The source is Baryshnikov, not Backman.

If you think he is unreliable or is fringe, that is your problem. Your personal opinion does not matter here. -YMB29 (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read what User:Vecrumba wrote on the matter. His views are not supported by anyone. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Only Bäckman represents Baryshnikov as a reputable historian, and, clearly, because Baryshnikov's writings align to Bäckman's (fringe) politics and agenda. I spent quite a bit of time doing some more searches subsequent to my earlier comment here, and after removing "Bäckman" and "wikipedia" the only claim that Baryshnikov is a historian is from unacknowledged Wikipedia clones of content editors have inserted that Baryshnikov is a historian. (There is a professor Baryshnikov, but he is a professor of linguistics.)

With regard to not advancing to Helsinki, of course Soviet historiography is going to be the proverbial sour grapes (we weren't planning to take it anyway). Look at the case of the Courland Pocket, where Stalin poured in division after division to be slaughtered; yet Soviet historiography describes it as a pimple on the glorious advance to Berlin (Germans cut off, ignored, and just held in to prevent their escape). We can present Soviet accounts/accounts based on Soviet evidence, but only if they are specifically identified as such. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29, really, the paucity of editors unwilling to expend their energies to engage you in debate here over your championing of Soviet WWII historiography with regard to the Soviet-Finnish conflict (and my thanks to Wanderer602 for his editorial thick skin) does not reflect on the merit of my editorial position on Baryshnikov and his association with Bäckman. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@YMB29, and are you really unaware of who Bäckman is? Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your obsession with the Courland Pocket out of this article. Everyone knows your POV when it comes to Soviet/Russian history...

I don't know who Backman is and I don't care. Criticize the author not the publisher. -YMB29 (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that no one but the publisher (ie. the said Bäckman) is the main proponent of the Baryshnikovs views. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)