The subject of this article iscontroversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article,be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them.Content must be written from aneutral point of view. Includecitations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article iswritten inBritish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour,travelled,centre,defence,artefact,analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Russia, aWikiProject dedicated to coverage ofRussia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at theproject page, or contribute to theproject discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofFinland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of thehistory of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
In my opinion, the Winter War was a Soviet Pyrrhic victory. Now, I know that a good chunk of you reading this will probably write a few paragraphs on why the Soviet Union didn't win, so I want to say that i'll listen to any of your arguments.
It was a Soviet victory (sort of), and they got what they wanted (or, what they claimed they wanted). They manage to force the Finns to surrender (sort of) by signing the Moscow Peace Treaty. They got half of the Karelian Isthmus, they got their naval base, and they got more influence in the region. On the other hand, they didn't get what a majority of the historical community accepts what they actually wanted: the complete annexation of Finland. They suffered a horrific amount of casualties in terms of manpower and armor. Their international reputation was ruined. The poor performance of the Red Army in the Karelian Isthmus convinced Hitler that the Soviet Union was weak, and therefore resulted in the Invasion of the Soviet Union. A good chunk people on here point to the establishment of the Finnish Democratic Republic as proof that the Soviets wanted to annex Finland as a socialist republic. But, it's likely that the Soviets wanted a buffer/puppet state (like the nations of the Warsaw Pact after the war). Even if the Soviets theoretically manage to annex all of Finland, would the Finnish population accept rule under a government with a system that they disagreed with and under the influence of a nation that they despised? Annexation of Finland would've resulted in an insurgency that the Soviets had to deal with, taking manpower and resources that would be needed if the Germans attacked (which they did). Then the Germans would've (probably) won in the East with the help of Finnish partisans drawing troops away from the Eastern Front that the Soviets needed. If the Soviets DID manage to annex Finland, it would've been undone in 10 years anyway, so I think that the theory that the Soviets wanted to annex all of Finland is ridiculous. It would've been a waste of manpower and time for a pointless cause; resources that they needed for the fight against the Germans.Ulysses S. Grant III (talk)14:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your post is full of speculation and "original research".
It's clear that the Soviets wanted to annex Finland. You already brought up the Terijoki puppet government. Announcing their intention to install the puppet government into Helsinki and dropping leaflets over Helsinki saying that the Soviets were coming "not as conquerors but as liberators" makes it even more obvious that annexation was the reason for invading. So does their invasion all along the full length of the border, hundreds of kilometers away from the land on the Karelian Isthmus that they claimed to only be interested in. Red Army troops were warned not cross into Sweden. And of course, there's the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, where the land falling under the Soviet sphere just so happened to form the western border of the Russian Empire, and this includes Finland. In other words, the invasion intended to return Finland to Russian control.Betelgeuse X (talk)19:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The part about the whole border being attacked, I didn’t mention. It’s just my idea about how the Soviets won the war and how it didn’t. Also, that “speculation” is alternate history.
This isn't the place to discuss alternate history. The idea that the "Finns would launch a rebellion" makes zero sense as an argument against annexation being the Soviet objective. Not to mention that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, eastern Poland, and Bessarabia were all successfully annexed by the USSR in 1939 and 1940.Betelgeuse X (talk)05:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if their original intention WAS to annex Finland, their plan was ruined by the stubborn Finnish defence, and they settled on annexing a good chunk of Finland instead of just annexing the whole country.
In the case of Eastern Poland, they used the Belarusian and Ukrainian populations of the East as an excuse to attack Poland. For the Baltic states, they claimed that they wanted to protect the Baltic states from German invasion (which is obviously not true). For Bessarabia, they just strait up did whatever they want because they could (with Germany's support). And for all of them, rebuilding the old Russian Empire to it's former borders was obviously Stalin's intentions. But when it came to Finland, those plans were obviously ruined.Ulysses S. Grant III (talk)12:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soviets wanted Finland to be part of Soviet Union, they still want it so FInalnd is now part of NATO... so Soviets lost over 126000 soldiers,compared to Finland 25000 (more than 5:1 ratio) so they could not afford any more losses,so they had to be satisfied on cutting 10% of Finaland's territory, so was it 9% exactly? This is similar way Ukraine can end this war according to military strategist naJ.— Precedingunsigned comment added byWinter War Draw (talk •contribs)08:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requested change: Changing the infobox result toSoviet victory (See§ Aftermath and casualties). The Winter War ended in Soviet victory (albeit a victory that came at heavy cost, but nonetheless a victory) and there are manyWP:RS supporting this:
"Technically,the Soviets ended up winning the war, as the Finns eventually sued for peace and ceded their eastern province of Karelia to Joseph Stalin, but it was very much a Pyrrhic victory for Moscow."
"Both in 1864 and in the Winter War, the smaller nation was defeated by its bigger neighbour, but Finland having, in the words of a character in Väinö Linna’s 1954 novel The Unknown Soldier, ‘crossed the line a respectable second’, gave the Finns a confidence that deserted the Danes after their devastating defeat."
"Althoughthe Red Army would eventually win the war, the defeat of the country of just 3.7 million people came only months later -- and at a terrible cost."
"Within five years the Soviet Union defeated Finland in two wars, but failed to realize its doctrinal concept of deep battle and by its own definition operational art."
"Although by sheer attritional weight of numbersStalin eventually prevailed over the Finns, their pointed resistance enabled their country to remain free, even as other countries fell one by one."
"Facing a total breakdown of their army, the Finns had no choice but to sign the agreement, handing Stalin his territory. Just before theFinns signed the surrender, the French and British both announced they would help Finland if they kept fighting."
"The western Ukraine and the Balkan States were seized in 1939-40, and although iteventfully won the 1939-40 Winter War with Finland, its humiliating initial defeats against a poorly equipped and much smaller army reinforced Hitler’s perception that the cumbersome, overstuffed Red Army was ill prepared to face the Blitzkrieg offensive."
"By the time Great Britain and France got around to notifying the Finns that they would send troops and planes to fight the Soviets, the Finnish army had exhausted its reserves, and the choice was between being overrun by the Reds and accepting Stalin's terms. On March 12, 1940,the Finns capitulated."
"'Britain, especially, was swift to pledge its support of Finland and the western world wasshocked by the Russian victory as winter turned to spring in 1940.
If you're "well aware" that you're ignoring what other people say and making pointless comments, I'm going to continue talking to the editor who is able to discuss the article. Have a nice day.MilesVorkosigan (talk)21:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to pretend anything. If you think belittling someone by saying they're making pointless comments isn't insulting, then again we have nothing to talk about. This isn't some sort of sandbox you threw sand at me crap. There's an importance to civility here. If you're not willing to respect it and your fellow editors, there's no reason to continue conversation with you. --Hammersoft (talk)11:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop lying, as you know, I said your comment was unhelpful, because you ignored the fact that I said I had already looked at the archives. Remember you said you were well aware of that?
Lying and pretending that someone insulted you is also unhelpful. Maybe you should refrain from commenting until you can do so less emotionally?MilesVorkosigan (talk)12:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don’t like it when people point out that you’re saying things that aren’t true, it would be easier to stop doing that than making false reports? But I guess do what you want.MilesVorkosigan (talk)00:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one making accusations of lying, not me. I stand by my comments. They were not lies. I don't particularly care if you found them unhelpful, but that doesn't make them lies. I'm going to do you a favor here, and collapse this section before it gets any worse for you. If you have a problem with that or wish to insult me more, take it to my talk page. --Hammersoft (talk)01:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at archives. Strangest argument to me was "Finland inflicted much higher losses on the Soviets" as an argument for why the war wasn't a Soviet victory. For example, theSiege of Suiyang article used to have "Tang strategic victory" result on the basis of inflicting much higher losses on the Yan forces, with Yan having "pyrrhic victory" result.[1] However, the result was later changed to simply "Yan victory" as this is how it's supposed to be done perinfobox military parameters (result) without using terms like "strategic" or "pyrrhic" but with the side that achieved "immediate" victory (which in the case of Yan was capturing Suiyang). This is a similar situation since the Winter War was a Finnish strategic victory on this basis, but the "immediate" result was a Soviet victory which many sources support. The Soviet side achieved their tactical objectives which would be the "immediate" result in this caseEthan D. Beck (2018) p. 61:
"By acquiring territory crucial to Russia's defense should Germany invade, Russia achieved its tactical objectives."
We then have a lot of speculation and "original research", alongside misinterpretations of certain statements on what the Soviet goals were. Khrushchev's statement was misinterpreted to claim Soviets lost, which is contradicted by his other statement where he makes it clear that despite winning the war it felt like a defeat (not that the Soviets actually lost).Ethan D. Beck (2018) p. 61:
"In this vein, Nikita Khrushchev would later say that “all of us sensed in our victory a defeat by the Finns.”"
Also arguments about how Soviets didn't win because of Finnshelping to besiege Leningrad during theContinuation War, which looks like another case of speculation andWP:OR, alongside saying that Soviets wanted to conquer the entirety of Finland. All of this is contradicted byEthan D. Beck (2018) p. 61:
"On the positive side, Russia had acquired more territory than it had originally sought in negotiations, including the naval bases in the Gulf of Finland and the land on the Karelian Isthmus, which it considered so important to Russian national defense."
There were also statements used from the sources which ambiguously describe the war as a "failure" for the Soviet side, which can easily be a misinterpretation of the war being a Soviet defeat (like in the case of Khrushchev's statement) rather than the Soviets performing really poorly despite eventually winning the war. That's exactly howUSMC Command and Staff College (2015) describe it:
"Within five years the Soviet Union defeated Finland in two wars, but failed to realize its doctrinal concept of deep battle and by its own definition operational art."StephanSnow (talk)00:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the arguments I saw were for things like 'The USSR really wanted to conquer all of Finland, so that means they didn't win'. It seemed to be mostly original research.MilesVorkosigan (talk)00:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in my other post, sources describe the war as a Soviet failure and fiasco, pointing out that the USSR failed to achieve its objective of installing the Soviet puppet government into Helsinki. Not sure what posts you were looking at.Betelgeuse X (talk)04:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ones like that, which seem to base arguments on exactly what I said? You've got Kruschev calling it a 'defeat' without any context, and then a bunch of 'but they really wanted to install a puppet government, so that means they didn't win'.
I think we should focus more on what the actual sources say, and as I pointed out, I've never, ever seen a single source that doesn't say that the Soviets won the war. Even the Finns don't seem to think it was a draw.MilesVorkosigan (talk)17:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no misinterpretations on what the USSR's objective was during the war. They intended to conquer Finland and replace the Finnish government with their Terijoki puppet government. This strategic objective failed to be achieved - as you yourself seem to understand.
"The Soviet war against Finland (1939–40) is generally seen as a fiasco because the U.S.S.R. failed to conquer and absorb Finland, as Joseph Stalin had planned". (Reese 2008)
"The Winter War had been, for the Soviet Union, a dismal and embarrassing failure". (Roberts 2006)
"Notable, however, is the Soviet willingness to accept a limited war outcome...the Soviet Union might have fought on to achieve a decisive and complete victory over Finnish forces, allowing it to impose a friendly government in Helsinki." (Reiter 2009)
"It was a dangerous defeat because it encouraged our enemies' conviction that the Soviet Union was a colossus with feet of clay." - Nikita Khrushchev
You complain about others engaging in original research, yet you try to explain how Khrushchev's statement on Soviet defeat is somehow negated due to other statements. In other words, original research.
In your USMC source you left out the very next sentence following your quote: "However, Finland's systematic withdrawal prevented the destruction of its army - the key Soviet operational objective".
You wrote:
"...alongside saying that Soviets wanted to conquer the entirety of Finland. All of this is contradicted by Ethan D. Beck"
The Winter War article has numerous sources stating the Soviets intended to conquer Finland. Earlier in your post you seem to acknowledge this, yet now you're contradicting yourself.
Sources concluding that the Soviets achieved limited victory, how they failed to achieve their key objective, how the war was a dismal and embarrassing failure, a fiasco, or point-blank defeat (as Khrushchev himself put it) do not point to "Soviet victory" being a valid outcome in the result box. Wikipedia doesn't allow the result box to mention strategic or tactical outcomes, hence why "Moscow Peace Treaty" is what it currently says.Betelgeuse X (talk)04:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly correct for result, what I meant is that the result parameter in infobox is for an immediate outcome (which aligns with Soviet tactical objectives in this case and current result for infobox isn't appropriate, I will explain that shortly) and I addressed the arguments I saw in archives, including the issues I saw with them.
Anyway, perinfobox military parameters: "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result.".
That means the current result of "Moscow Peace Treaty" isn’t appropriate and will have to be changed either way, as it isn't in line with the Wikipedia guideline. However, theMoscow Peace Treaty here is what falls under the definition of immediate otucome (i.e what ended the war).
In the Moscow Peace Treaty, Finland was forced to accept Soviet demands on handing over the territories that the Soviet side demanded. This could only be defined as a Soviet victory and Finnish defeat, whichWP:RS support:
The chapter for this is also titled "Soviet victory in the Winter War".Chris Nann (2016) p. 31:
"A delegation flew to Moscow and signed the peace treaty’ on 12 March 1940. Hostilities ceased the following day. TheFinns were forced to cede the Karelian Isthmus, their second city’ of Viipuri, areas west and north of Lake Ladoga and a 30 year lease on the Hanko Peninsula to the USSR. The Winter War was over."
"Facing a total breakdown of their army, theFinns had no choice but to sign the agreement, handing Stalin his territory. Just before theFinns signed the surrender, the French and British both announced they would help Finland if they kept fighting."
"By the time Great Britain and France got around to notifying the Finns that they would send troops and planes to fight the Soviets, the Finnish army had exhausted its reserves, and the choice was between being overrun by the Reds and accepting Stalin's terms.On March 12, 1940, the Finns capitulated."
"Allocated to Moscow’s "sphere of influence" by the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact of August 1939,Finland eventually yielded in its 1939-1940 Winter War with the USSR and was forced to cede Finish-populated Karelia."
"In March 1940 Finland was forced to ask for peace. Russia obtained the Finnish bases it wanted and then had a secure defense line from the Baltic Sea to the Arctic Ocean."
The immediate result of this conflict was a treaty where Finland capitulated, accepting Soviets demands. The result "Soviet victory" in infobox is appropriate per military infobox template guideline. The sources you provided are non-immediate outcome interpretations and analysis of the wider objectives which Soviet side failed to achieve (none of which refer to the Moscow Peace Treaty which is what ended the Winter War, therefore is the immediate outcome here). This is important since any side could spin the outcome of the war however they want, which is why the Wikipedia guideline onimmediate outcome exists. The immediate outcome was a treaty that clearly wasn't favourable for Finland. There's no problem with including the information from sources you provided in the aftermath, but they won't define the infobox result which is only intended for immediate outcome, which in this case is an unambiguous Soviet victory.StephanSnow (talk)10:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to cite the template, then the mere fact that there is controversy over this means that the article should link the reader to the appropriate section where the result is discussed.
"Information in the infobox should not be "controversial". Refer the reader to an appropriate section in the article or leave the parameter blank rather than make an unsubstantiated or doubtful claim."
It isn't controversial, though, it's the unanimous opinion of every military historian I've ever seen comment on it? This page is the first time I've ever heard anyone try to claim that otherwise, and they're mostly doing it via original research.MilesVorkosigan (talk)22:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The immediate outcome was the acceptance of a peace treaty that differed entirely from the Soviets' objectives at the start of the war. Those Soviet demands only became demands several months into that war, when Soviet leadership decided to give up on their attempt to install a puppet government into Helsinki.
Referring to the Winter War as an "unambiguous Soviet victory" is nothing short of laughable, when numerous sources describe it as a Soviet failure/fiasco/embarrassment/defeat. Not mention that at least half of the sources you provided include some sort of qualifier stating how the Soviets failed to achieve their objective, how the war was actually a Pyrrhic victory, or that the "Finns gained a victory in defeat". You accused me of doing exactly what you're doing: searching for a specific phrase while ignoring the context and subsequent wording around that phrase.
The only unambiguous immediate result of the war was the Moscow Peace Treaty. Which was a Finnish capitulation/surrender,[2] aka Soviet victory[3] (narrative that's overwhelmingly supported byWP:RS).
You acknowledged the sources I provided say the war ended in Soviet victory despite failing to achieve original objective, performing poorly, while also being viewed and described for the Soviet side as a failure/fiasco/embarrassment/defeat (pyrrhic victory is still a victory, point that me[4] and MilesVorkosigan[5] made from the beginning) which you use to somehow dismiss the original point (Soviet victory) and ridicule as it as "nothing short of laughable". That's not an ambiguous outcome; the sources you addressed don't dispute Soviet victory in the war while recognising all the complications and failures that occurred.
The sort of information you addressed for dismissing the original point (Soviet victory), saying I "ignored" is intended for detailed assessment in the aftermath section. That's how it is viewed for USSR in this war after all, but none of which defines the immediate outcome (which is what is being discussed here).
You've thrown a lot of allegations at me of "accusing" you and others throughout the discussion. However, you confirmed the point I previously made on how the poor Soviet performance in this war was misinterpreted into the Soviet side losing the war.[6] You confirmed what MilesVorkosigan said on there being noWP:RS that actually say USSR didn't win the war. The small number of sources which could interpret it as such would beWP:UNDUE, as there's overwhelmingly more sources saying the war ended in Soviet victory than there is disputing this (let alone claiming the war ended in Finnish victory). There's noWP:RS that says the war ended in Finnish victory, because the war didn't end in Finnish victory.StephanSnow (talk)13:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that initial Soviet goals were the annexation of Finland. They failed to achieve that goal. If you define 'victory' as achieving the goal under which they initiated the war, then the USSR did not win. Soviet goals for the war changedafter the war began. Their goals establishedafter the war began were far less ambitious. Sources note that Finland's staunch defense forced the Soviets to the negotiating table. Yes, there are sources that claim the USSR achieved victory. There's also sources that indicate a cataclysmic failure by the Soviets and great achievement by Finland in resisting being annexed. The picture of 'victory' is cloudy at best. This is why this keeps being debated, and this is why the infobox says what it does. There wasn't a victor. USSR did not achieve their goals, and Finland failed to hang on to all their territory. There was a peace treaty. That much we can affirmatively state without having to conductsynthesis of sources. --Hammersoft (talk)14:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be argued over and over on how the war was a Soviet defeat for failing to achieve wider objectives and with counterarguments to this. Which is whyimmediate outcome Wikipedia guideline exists (infobox military parameters).
Similar discussions took place at theFirst Chechen War talk page, where the result was removed from the infobox since the immediate outcome of this war wasn’t concluded by military means, and in the subsequent peace treaty that concluded the war neither side admitted defeat.
In the case of Winter War, Finland was forced to sue for peace and accept Soviet demands after theMannerheim Line was breached (Overwhelming number of sources agree Finnish side was the one forced to sue for peace, making this viewWP:DUE). Finnish side admitted defeat by accepting Soviet demands. It also becomes obvious that the negotiations took place as a result of Soviet military success, there was no stalemate. Only after the war it begun to be viewed as a moral blow and failure for a much bigger country which struggled against a smaller one.
There is also noWP:RS for Winter War being a Finnish victory, only views and statements in non-immediate aftermath viewing it as a failure for USSR. An overwhelming number of sources I presented unambiguously describe the war as a Soviet victory. This is clearly a widely accepted view that can't be simply ignored (WP:WEIGHT).StephanSnow (talk)03:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand what the term "unambiguous" actually means. Many, if not most of those sources you're referring to contain qualifiers that most definitely do not indicate "unambiguous Soviet victory". And at the same time, you brush aside sources describing the war as a Soviet failure by claiming that wasn't an immediate result - not sure how that makes any sense to you.
The bottom line is that the Soviets failed to achieve their objective - something that even those sources indicating "unambiguous Soviet victory" state. If you'd actually read what those sources say and not just focus on the one word where it says "victory", then it's clear that they aren't unambiguous at all.Betelgeuse X (talk)06:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You acknowledged that the sources I presented don't dispute the Soviet victory in this war while also acknowledging all the Soviet failures and how the war is viewed as an embarrassment for them. All of this without disputing the eventual Soviet victory in war, and the subject here is immediate outcome intended for result in the infobox rather than a detailed breakdown like this intended for aftermath section.
I presented sources to you that say the war ended in Soviet victory. Which sources say it was a Finnish victory? There isn't anyWP:RS for it because the war wasn't a Finnish victory.
We base the result onWP:RS (which overwhelmingly and unambiguously acknowledge Soviet victory) instead of coming to a conclusion on what the ACTUAL RESULT was based on the original objectives that Soviet side failed to achieve or how it is perceived as a failure/fiasco, as this would beWP:OR.StephanSnow (talk)13:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're not discussing whether or not the war ended in a Finnish victory. We're discussing whether or not it should state Soviet victory. I feel like that should be clear at this point.
Feel free to point out where I acknowledged anything about unambiguous Soviet victory. Your reading comprehension might need some work.
Your argument essentially consists of disregarding all sources concluding that the war was a Soviet failure - i.e. not a Soviet victory- using the bizarre reasoning that somehow it isn't an "immediate result", not to mention ignoring Khrushchev's statement on the war being a Soviet defeat, due to not taking context into account, while subsequently ignoring all the context in your own sources.Betelgeuse X (talk)20:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only unambiguous immediate result of the war was the Moscow Peace Treaty (which you acknowledged).[7] The Moscow Peace Treaty was a Finnish capitulation/surrender.[8] The sources you presented again address that the results were humiliating, but none of them try to pretend that the Finns weren't forced to sue for peace (as MilesVorkosigan noted).[9]
Immediate result was a peace treaty where Finland capitulated/surrendered (i.e Soviet victory) which isn't ambiguous at all, I'm yet to see any source that actually disputes this. The interpretations of how the war was a failure for USSR because they performed poorly, didn't fully annex Finland, etc. These emerged after the war ended. This is why Wikipedia has a strict guideline for only including information in the infobox for animmediate outcome, as any side after the war ended can try to spin how it ACTUALLY ended, interpreting it as a Soviet failure/calling it defeat for various reasons (like the ones presented here on not fully annexing Finland).
Views on how the war was actually Soviet failure only emerged after the war. These views are not wrong, but they are not in line with theimmediate outcome guideline, which was a peace treaty in which Finland was the loser. Experienced editors in other such discussions similar to ours on result know this when referring toimmediate outcome.[10]StephanSnow (talk)05:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous sources indicating that the war was a Soviet failure - including several stating that it was a Finnish victory - invalidate "Soviet victory" as a legitimate result of the war. The fact that you continue to ignore this simply means that you're engaging in original research, something that you of all editors should understand, considering your obsession with Wikipedia policy. Try readingWP:WEIGHT again, as you apparently haven't done so despite referring to it several times.
Another point that you fail to grasp is that it was the Soviets that informed Finland in January 1940 that they were willing to negotiate peace. It was only at this point did peace talks begin, meaning that your apparent belief that the Finns suddenly "sued for peace" in March is incorrect.Betelgeuse X (talk)04:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"February 11th 1940, The Soviet Union started a new massive offensive to Finland, sinceFinland had not agreed on the terms of peace… …The triumphant offensives of the Red Army, the physical exhaustion of the Finnish troops and losses as well as shortage of the reserve led to the reopening of the peace negotiations. On the last day of February 1940, the Government of Finland decided to start peace negotiations with the Soviet Union. Furthermore, March 11th 1940 the Government of Finland was ready to accept the terms of peace. March 13th 1940, the flag of Finland was lowered in the tower of the Vyborg Castle at 3.40 p.m. The same day, Winter War ended in signing of the Moscow Peace Treaty."
You previously accused me of "ignoring context" and how I currently engage inWP:OR while you clearly failed to mention that the peace negotiations started by the Soviet Union were rejected by Finland (also ignored previous sources I presented on how Finns were forced to sue for peace, on it being a Finnish capitulation/surrender[11]). That’s why the war continued and only after Soviet military success there were peace negotiations again, this time started by Finland and in which it was forced to accept Soviet terms:
"The Soviets, owing to far superior manpower and a reshuffle of leadership,eventually overcame the Finns, who were forced to sue for peace. The result was the Moscow Peace Treaty, signed on 12 March 1940."
"In what became known as the Winter War, brave Finnish resistance eventually succumbed to Soviet forces three times more numerous and much better equipped. Under the Moscow armstice signed on 12 March, 1940,Finland was compelled to make territorial concessions substantially greater than the original Soviet demands, amounting to the restoration of the 1721 line secured by Peter the Great."
"Unable to win the war and deprived of sufficient foreign aid in manpower and materiel,the Finns sued for peace. Peace was concluded in Moscow on March 12, 1940."
"In February 1940, however, the Soviets used massive artillery bombardments to breach the Mannerheim Line (the Finns’ southern defensive barrier stretching across the Karelian Isthmus), after which they streamed northward across the isthmus to the Finnish city of Viipuri (Vyborg). Unable to secure help from Britain and France,the exhausted Finns made peace (the Treaty of Moscow) on Soviet terms on March 12, 1940, agreeing to the cession of western Karelia and to the construction of a Soviet naval base on the Hanko Peninsula."
Claiming the sources "overwhelmingly and unambiguously acknowledge Soviet victory" is inaccurate. That's why we can never get consensus of 'victory' for the Soviet Union. It's a similar situation to the modern day Russia-Ukraine war. Russia's objective when they began the war was to conquer Ukraine and subjugate it. In 3.5 years of fighting, they've failed to do that. If peace were achieved today, Russia would probably end up with 20% of Ukrainian territory. Similarly Russia has suffered enormous losses compared to the Ukrainians. Is this a Russian 'victory' if it were to end today? The results of the Winter War will always be debated. That's why there's no consensus here and no consensus in the sources. I grant some sources say the Soviets won. I also know that some sources did not say they won. We reflect the sources, not what we think of them. --Hammersoft (talk)17:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not similar at all to the Ukraine war, because they haven't sued for peace and accepted Putin's terms.
And the only source that mentions a Soviet defeat was Kruschev's line years later, while none call it a draw.
Was it humiliating for Russia? Sure! Embarassing? Yep. A Pyrrhic victory? Definitely. But again, I've never seen a single source call it a draw. I tried looking through the article, and I may have missed it, are there any in there that make the claim? I'm happy to read through them.MilesVorkosigan (talk)17:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like either you or StephanSnow are making the argument that it should say "Pyrrhic victory" though, it seems you just want to add "Soviet victory". But I could be mistaken.TylerBurden (talk)19:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that kind of thing is normally explained in the infobox, but I don't have a problem with it.
I don't support a draw. I support what it currently says;Moscow Peace Treaty. In my experience it's pretty rare for any war to be called a 'draw'. I doubt any sources would be found to call it that. There are sources that call the Moscow Peace Treaty the result of the war though as opposed to saying 'victory' or 'defeat' for either side. --Hammersoft (talk)20:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And those are the sources I asked about before and you decided to get weirdly aggressive about? And that you're still refusing to actually name?MilesVorkosigan (talk)20:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And now you devolve intopersonal attacks again claiming I'm being "weirdly aggressive"? I think you need to understand that issuing such insults is a reflection on you, not me, and rather dramatically weakens your argument. If you can't make a post without commenting on the person to who you are replying, then don't post at all. Again, if you feel the need to insult me again, take it to my talk page. If you feel the need to have a meta discussion about what is and is not a personal attack, take it to my talk page. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Focus your comments here on content, not people. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk)22:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Readinfobox military parameters) for result field because putting "Moscow Peace Treaty" isn't in line with the Wikipedia guideline. It should be "X victory", "inconclusive" or no result field (alternatively a link that leads to section discussing result if the immediate outcome is ambiguous or used in conjunction with standard terms). There were also this sort of proposals on articles similar to this one on what the result field should be (Peace Treaty), but weren't in line with the Wikipedia guideline.[12]StephanSnow (talk)05:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost no sources describe the war as a Soviet Pyrrhic victory. The vast majority imply either Soviet victory or Soviet failure - two conflicting terms and hence why this article simply uses "Moscow Peace Treaty" as the result.Betelgeuse X (talk)20:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Readinfobox military parameters for result field. Non-standard terms such as "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical" shouldn't be used, which includes "pyrrhic" so only Soviet victory would be appropriate for the result field. I made arguments on the immediate outcome being a Soviet victory (since the war concluded with the Moscow Peace Treaty which was a Finnish capitulation/surrender[13] and I'm yet to see any source actually disputing this instead of later post-war interpretations on how the war was a "Soviet failure" with none addressing immediate outcome, which was a peace treaty).
That the "victory" was pyrrhic is not an unsubstantiated or doubtful claim as outlined by the template, nor is it controversial, pretty sure even a lot of Russian sources agree. Your arguments are based on treating this template as some sort of bible, when in reality it's exactly that, a template to be used as needed for the subject it covers, a template isn't cut in stone, and fixating on the "immediate outcome".
There is nothing wrong with the current solution from a template standpoint anyway, it appropriately refers to the section of the article that covers the outcome of the war. The lead of the article also says: "It began with a Soviet invasion of Finland on 30 November 1939, three months after the outbreak of World War II, and ended three and a half months later with the Moscow Peace Treaty on 13 March 1940."
So even looking at it from aWP:INFOBOXPURPOSE standpoint, there is nothing inappropriate about referring to the treaty. The infobox is based on the article, not specific commanders or results you want to insert into it.TylerBurden (talk)19:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this violates Wikipedia guideline for the result field. There should alternatively be a link to Result section where many different POVs on how the war ended are explained. However, since it is foremost based on theimmediate outcome (Moscow Peace Treaty which was a Finnish capitulation/surrender to which I still haven't seen a source disputing this) I suggested a Soviet victory result in conjunction with a link to aftermath where is can be explained how the war has been viewed despite theimmediate outcome.
Do you want to ping the editor whose points I also referenced here (GreenC) for input as this is the same situation as the discussions for result of theFirst Chechen War. I also feel like all the points made here can be argued ad nauseam and there haven't been other editors willing to participate in the discussion.StephanSnow (talk)20:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheOperation Barbarossa article has "Axis strategic failure" as the result. The Axis held Soviet territory at the conclusion of Barbarossa, yet it's still considered a strategic failure. A similar result applies to this war for the Soviets.Betelgeuse X (talk)04:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Long explanation was given for this result at the talk page.[16] Odd comparison either way since Barbarossa was part of the wider war, didn't defeat USSR, didn't involve treaties and I don't know any historian that calls it Axis victory. Also seems like an outlier.StephanSnow (talk)12:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both were failed invasions. I assume that by now you are indeed aware that we have many sources concluding that the Soviet invasion of Finland was a failure.Betelgeuse X (talk)08:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In February the Soviets threw in 54 divisions (one million men) against the Mannerheim Line and, despite huge losses, finally broke through. In the face of such an onslaught the Finns were forced to capitulate (12 March 1940)."
"While the giant Russian army ultimately won, the fact that little Finland held them off for three months demonstrated how poorly organized the bigger force was."
"When President Kyösti Kallio signed the Moscow peace agreement on March 13, 1940, ending the Winter War, he said, “Let the hand wither that signs this monstrous treaty!”"
"In an offensive begun on February 11, the Red Army broke through the Mannerheim Line, then moved on a secondary belt of defenses around Vyborg, which it captured. The Finns sued for peace and the Winter War ended on March 13, 1940. The subsequent treaty restored the old frontier established under Peter the Great."
"As President Kallio signed the document that gave the Moscow delegation authority to conclude the war on Moscow’s terms, he growled, “May the hand wither that is forced to sign such a document as this.”"
"Territorial concessions thoroughly upset Finland’s economic and topographic structure. Material losses were astronomical when Finland’s economy at that time is taken into consideration. Human losses were crushing — 22 000 dead and 43 000 wounded, and the spiritual burden left by the war was overwhelming. On the basis of all this it could be argued that Finland lost the Winter War."
"The Finns were made to suffer under the terms of the peace treaty. The Soviets took the Hango Peninsula, the Karelian Isthmus, Petsamo and large areas in the northeast."
"But by mid-January Soviet forces were reorganized to take the offensive. They were aided by the winter, the most severe for many years. Fifty degrees C. of frost froze the sea so hard that the Russians could bring their tanks across the Gulf of Finland and attack the Finnish lines from the rear. In February they broke through the Finnish defences, and in March the government was compelled to sign a peace treaty."
"The Soviet war against Finland (1939–40) is generally seen as a fiasco because the U.S.S.R. failed to conquer and absorb Finland, as Joseph Stalin had planned". (Reese 2008)
"The Winter War had been, for the Soviet Union, a dismal and embarrassing failure". (Roberts 2006)
"It was a dangerous defeat because it encouraged our enemies' conviction that the Soviet Union was a colossus with feet of clay." - Nikita Khrushchev
"Nevertheless, the Soviet strategy to defeat this small country of 4 million people in two weeks and install a puppet government failed abysmally." - To the Bomb and Back: Finnish War Children Tell Their World War II Stories. Sue Saffle (2015), p. 6
That's just more stating that they failed to take over the whole country, except for the one from NK that you've repeated three times and is a Primary Source. So you're still at only two sources that say it can *kind of* be seen as a Finnish victory.
No, those sources do not say that the USSR won. They say that the war was a Soviet failure. If an "overwhelming" number of sources were indeed saying Soviet victory, then they would say this, instead of concluding that the war was a Soviet failure. I'll just keep repeating this until it starts to sink in for you.Betelgeuse X (talk)19:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that the sources you provided claimed that the Soviets won. I pointed out that only two of them claimed that the Sovietskinda lost. Those are two different sentences.
They don't say anything about "kinda" losing. They say that Finland won. Is it really that hard to just look at what the sources actually say, instead of continually making your own interpretations?
Okay, as you know, that’s a lie, the words are right here. “It can be argued” is not “they won”. Is English your first language? That phrasing isn’t as definite as you want to claim.
And I’ve already explained that to you a couple times. Is this why people can’t get consensus to fix the page, you just keep ignoring responses you don’t like and pretending you can’t see them?MilesVorkosigan (talk)17:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lie? Do you know how to read?? English clearly isn't your first language as you somehow think that a statement on Finnish victory is actually "kinda losing".
I recommend improving your own English skills, instead of hurling silly insults at others. You also might want to take a break from Wikipedia, as this topic seems to be winding you up.Betelgeuse X (talk)08:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Then came the winter war of 1939-40 with Russia, when, until the mass weight of Russia crushed them, the Finns thrilled the courageous of the world with their magnificent fighting qualities and courage."
"The Mannerheim Line, a strong defensive position named after Finland’s senior military commander, was key to the war between the Soviet Union and Finland in 1939-40. After the Soviets broke through the Line in February 1940, the Finns had to agree to a negotiated peace."
"In February 1940, the Soviet Union resumed the onslaught with redoubled force, and on March 13, 1940 Finland was compelled to sign a peace treaty with severe terms, ceding Finnish Karelia, the outer islands of the Gulf of Finland and the Salla region."
"The breakthrough came when the Finns, faced with a deteriorating military situation and fearful, too, of being dragged into the European war, conceded the essential Soviet demands of a naval base on Hango and a substantial adjustment of the Finnish-Leningrad border. Finnish negotiators arrived in Moscow in early March. The peace treaty was signed on 12 March 1940."
"However, two defeats at the hands of the Red Army (in the Winter War of 1939-40 and the Continuation War of 1941-4) meant that the Second Republic was born in adversity: land in Karelia was ceded, and the Soviet Union imposed a substantial reparations levy."
"After Finland had been defeated in the winter war and Norway and Denmark occupied by the Wehrmacht, the country was surrounded and it was impossible to know what fate the Ribbentrop Pact had prepared for Sweden."
"Then, in the spring of 1940, only a few weeks after the Winter War had ended with Finland yielding to overwhelming Russian force, the German blitzkrieg was unleashed in the West."
"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."
"The war lasted for a hundred and five days. By the spring of 1940 Russia’s overwhelming might broke through the defense lines."
Overwhelming number of sources agree that the war ended in Soviet victory, as I already stated. " "less than convincing" victory" result (mentioned in the article) for USSR is still a victory. "Finland had been defeated, but not conquered." also enforces what MilesVorkosigan has been saying that failing to fully annex a country ≠ defeat in war.StephanSnow (talk)05:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. A large number of sources state that the war was either a Soviet victoryor a Soviet failure. Seems like I'll need to continually repeat this for you too, as well as the other editor who can't grasp this.
Your last point is pure original research. The sources state Soviet failure. Period. You trying to draw your own conclusions based on what the sources say violatesWP:OR, which is hilarious given how many times you've referred to that policy.
Since you clearly can't be bothered to actually read what it says, or choose to ignore it, I'll help you out:
So you're saying that "Finland had been defeated, but not conquered." doesn't actually mean that failing to fully annex a country ≠ defeat in war? I mentioned this since there were arguments here on how "USSR failed to conquer Finland" for why the war wasn't a Soviet victory, which isWP:OR and the sources presented here don't agree with this assessment.
The general point I made here is that there many more sources that agree the war ended in Soviet victory (dozens of these here already) not vice versa.[20]StephanSnow (talk)04:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, again with the OR. It's like whenever you accuse someone else of it you immediately go into a speil of your own original research.
The sources I've presented along with others in the article make no mentuon about Soviet victory, they only say that Soviet invasion was a failure. Trying to draw your own conclusions from that is original research - as I've pointed out who knows how many times now. The Operation Barbarossa article is an example of a result box stating that an invasion was a failure, something that applies to this article as well given the numerous sources stating as such.Betelgeuse X (talk)08:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"although the Soviet Union could claim a victory, its offensive had failed, largely for the same reasons"
I've posted sources stating something similar for a Finnish victory, i.e. "can be viewed as", and was told that was invalid due to the "could be claimed as" part. Using that logic, this source provides more proof of a Soviet failure than a Soviet victory, as it also states that the Soviets did indeed fail.Betelgeuse X (talk)09:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, one source that says USSR failed in its offensive (but can still claim victory) while the rest agree that it eventually succeeded militarily in defeating Finland.StephanSnow (talk)04:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you've also provided sources, willingly or unwillingly, stating how the war "could" be viewed as a Soviet victory, but was actually an operational failure. This doesn't imply Soviet victory based on the arguments used against me. And feel free to provide an example of a wikipedia article on a war that states that side X won, despite having this many sources concluding that it was a failure for side X, or that the opposing side was actually the victor.Betelgeuse X (talk)08:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an excellent comparison if the Finns had marched into Moscow, destroyed it, and then kept half of Russia as part of their empire for the next 45 years or so.
They didn't! That's why your attempt to argue that Barbarossa is in any way comparable to the results of an entire war are so incredibly silly, thank you for agreeing with me.
And again, your original research that 'they didn't achieve all of their objectives so that means they didn't really win' isn't something that should be in the article. Why are you still going around in circles like this?MilesVorkosigan (talk)16:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned GreenC. Here's what they had to say about the result field:
"The |result= field is a nightmare. Can someone please make it stop? I am constantly having to revert (mostly IPs and SPAs) who declare their side VICTORY! And they go on and on.. causing IP blocks, page blocks, etc.. it never ends. This is one of the worst infobox fields on Wikipedia. The word "victory" has no place on Wikipedia, in wiki-voice, without a longer explanation that an infobox can not provide. "Victory" is too emotive, unclear, subjective - it's imprecise. Even when a side clearly won militarily (often unclear), did they really "win", when there is also civilian, cultural and economic destruction. Or taking a longer view of the history aftermath. It is debatable. And so people revert and change."
"We can still list immediate results: signing a treaty, refactor borders, etc.. precise and unambiguous information. But trying to encompass all that into a single subjective word that will make both sides happy is fraught."
"This violates the guideline for what the result field is for. It either says "Victory", "Inconclusive", or no result field. Have you read the guideline? I suggest create a section in the article titled "Result", and add all the many different POVs that keep coming up on this talk page, with sources, and counter opinions. But I understand this is work, and many editors only want a single POV, and to keep out other POVs. That is the problem."[21]
So, how about we ping GreenC (as I previously suggested) for clarification so we won't have engage in speculation on what other editors actually meant? I'm content with closing the discussion once there's a proper argument for why Soviet victory isn't justified in result field based onimmediate outcome which you claimed was a peace treaty where Soviets sued for peace, when it was actually other way around and took place due to Soviet military success.[22]StephanSnow (talk)12:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no violation, you're literally ignoring my points at this rate, a link to a "result section" would still be an improvement over simply stating "Soviet victory" when the result is evidently more nuanced than that.TylerBurden (talk)20:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(At the moment) I'm suggesting Soviet victory in conjunction with "see result" link since the sources I presented make it clear that Finland was forced to sign the peace treaty on Soviet terms due to Soviet military success,[23] with other sources stating it was Finnish capitulation/surrender.[24] By definition theimmediate outcome of the war being "Soviet victory" is justified. Is there anything more nuanced about this?
Otherwise, I'm in favour of changing the result field to simply "See Result" link where the result is discussed in detail, instead of the current result field of "Moscow Peace Treaty" which looks like an outlier and exception for what the result should be rather than a rule.
@GreenC could we have your input on this? This discussion has been going on for a while and still hasn't concluded. It also appears to be similar to the ones at theFirst Chechen War over result in which I seen you take part.StephanSnow (talk)04:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only indisputable, immediate outcome of the war was the Moscow Peace Treaty. "Soviet victory" makes no sense, and violates the concept of unambiguity when we have numerous sources stating that the Soviet invasion was a failure. You don't seem to have any interest in followingWP:WEIGHT despite the fact that you yourself have referenced it multiple times. The fact that I need to keep repeating this over and over is silly.Betelgeuse X (talk)08:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can probably stop tagging the same person over and over again, not only is it disrespectful to ping someone over and over, it just makes it look like you want them here because you think they're going to agree with you.TylerBurden (talk)17:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged an uninvolved editor I believed was going to contribute to resolving the discussion (WP:3O) as I seen them take part in similar discussions. There was no guarantee of them agreeing with me.
Also, this is the first time I pinged anyone in this entire discussion (not "over and over again") so please don’t make false statements about other editors (WP:LIE) as this only weakens your point.StephanSnow (talk)05:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we know what the Soviets' objectives were. This article is full of sources saying as such. Try reading the article if you're unaware of this.Betelgeuse X (talk)20:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the OR I was talking about, "we can't say the Soviets won because they *actually* wanted to conquer all of Finland".
More sources, in addition to the previous ones I listed, concluding that the Soviet invasion failed, or ended in a Finnish victory:
"In retrospect, one can argue that Finland, for example, won the Winter War against the Soviet Union in 1939-1940, since even though it lost territories in the east, it still hindered an occupation of the entire country and thereby also avoided a later enforced membership in the Warsaw Pact and Soviet domination."- Contemporary Military Theory: The dynamics of war.Jan Angstrom, J.J. Widen (2014), p. 44
"At other points, however, Russia and the Soviet Union found themselves humiliated by much smaller powers. Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905) shocked the world and led to a political revolution in the Tsarist empire. Similarly, Finland maintained its independence from the Soviet Union in the ferocious 1940 Winter War. Russia's vastly larger size and population could not compensate in these instances for its mismanagement and poor government."- Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground. James Dobbins, Raphael S. Cohen, Nathan Chandler, Bryan Frederick, Edward Geist, Paul DeLuca, Forrest E. Morgan, Howard J. Shatz, Brent Williams (2019), p. 9
"Had Stalin succeeded at controlling Finland, it would have communicated the power of the Soviet Union to the rest of the world. Instead, the severe setbacks the Red Army had suffered indicated that the country was vulnerable to attack and even takeover, which prompted Hitler to move forward with Operation Barbarossa."- Swedish Volunteers in the Russo-Finnish Winter War, 1939-1940. Martina Sprague (2010), p. 179
"Nevertheless, the Soviet strategy to defeat this small country of 4 million people in two weeks and install a puppet government failed abysmally."- To the Bomb and Back: Finnish War Children Tell Their World War II Stories. Sue Saffle (2015), p. 6
"When states assume that they will win easily regardless of what the enemy does, they feel little need to resort to stratagem and deception; instead, they opt for the most direct way to attack and defeat the enemy. Such attacks often end in disaster. (The Soviet Union's attack on Finland in the Winter war, Germany's attack on Russia, and the Arab attack on Israel in 1948 - which was announced in advance in the radio - are all cases in point.)"- War, Strategy and Intelligence. Michael I. Handel (1989), p. 391Betelgeuse X (talk)04:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of those sources says that "one can argue" that it was a victory. That isn't saying that it *was*. The rest of them don't at all. They again address that the results were humiliating, but none of them try to pretend that the Finns weren't forced to sue for peace.MilesVorkosigan (talk)20:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more original research from someone hammering away at the supposed original research of others. It states that Finland won the war. Not much more to it.
The other sources state it was a Soviet failure. This contradicts with Soviet victory. How can something so simple be so difficult to understand?Betelgeuse X (talk)04:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you keep focusing on the "humiliating" aspect of the war, but this isn't the point. The point is that the war was a failure from the Soviet perspective, as stated by numerous sources.Betelgeuse X (talk)05:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We focus on that because the vast majority of the sources that you claim say that they didn't win actually just point out that it was humiliating. Almost none of them say it was a 'failure', either, that's the original research part of why people keep bringing up 'but they wanted the whole country'.MilesVorkosigan (talk)15:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Thus, the Winter War can be viewed as an overall strategic victory for Finland despite the territorial concessions that were made." - What Free Men Can Do: The Winter War, the use of delay, and lessons for the 21st century. Cpt. Rick Chersicla
Another source indicating Finnish strategic victory. Let me guess, you're going to disregard this source as well because it says "can be viewed as"?Betelgeuse X (talk)07:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so out of the very, very large number of sources that have been posted, there are now *two* that say either 'can be viewed' or 'can be argued' as a victory. Why is that small minority WP:DUE?MilesVorkosigan (talk)15:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One plus one is actually still two, and both of them are still saying that it can kinda be seen as a victory, they are nowhere near as certain about it as you are.MilesVorkosigan (talk)16:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing by, but here are some numbers I thought I'd share: Sincethe template's guideline for the parameter "result" (this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive" ... and so on) was brought to the discussion: Ofthe 22,964 articles using the template,18,840 (82.04%) "result" parameters in those articles mention either the word "victory" or "inconclusive".3,110 (13.54%) mention something else that does not include either word. These numbers shouldn't, of course, be used as backup, since there's no way to differentiate clear cases from unclear ones like this. Also (since the term "Pyrrhic victory" was also mentioned), only17 articles' "result" parameters mention "Pyrrhic victory".85.23.88.144 (talk)22:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And here we are a week later, and we're still at no consensus, just as all the other conversations about this have turned out. --Hammersoft (talk)16:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason is the one I suggested in the beginning. The overwhelming majority of authors and reliable sources claim that the war was a Soviet victory. The two editors who disagree have found two authors who say it cankinda be seen as a Finnish victory if you squint real hard, and one line from a primary source that does unequivocally call it a defeat, years later.
Heck, even the President of Finland at the time felt that it was a defeat! But we have some Original Research in here that says he didn't know what he was talking about.MilesVorkosigan (talk)17:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur that you have most emphatically stated your case. I do not concur that your conclusions as to what we should do are correct. --Hammersoft (talk)18:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because you're one of the ones pushing original research, and the one who hasn't been able to discuss any of the sources? That's what I just said. You don't need to repeat it.MilesVorkosigan (talk)19:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been pushing any original research. Sources have been provided to you. I can happily provide others, but it's a moot point. There is no public consensus on the outcome of the war, despite your claims of "overwhelming majority". Wikipedia reflects what is available in sources. The sources do not agree. What we do know as an outcome is the Moscow Peace Treaty. That much is what we have agreed upon in the past, as it is a clear and unequivocal outcome of the war. --Hammersoft (talk)20:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its amazing that you still haven't figured out that it's the numerous sources stating that the war was a Soviet failure that invalidate your notion that the war was a Soviet victory. The three additional sources stating that it was actually a Finnish victory only further back this up. Seriously, what part of this isn't making sense?Betelgeuse X (talk)19:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep pretending that other people are having trouble reading, while you repeatedly post sources that don't agree with you and don't appear to understand what they say.
Please focus on what the sources actually say, and what people are really saying, if you're confused like this, you can ask.
For example, saying that the Soviets failed at their maximal goals, or expected goals, does not mean that they lost, or drew. Those are DIFFERENT WORDS. Your choice to disagree with the President of Finland at the time and claim that it was 'actually' a draw and he should have been happy is, again, Original Research.
This is why only two out of that mass of sources you posted only partly agreed with your claim and said that it couldkinda be seen as a Finnish victory. Neither of those sources were as emphatic as you want to believe. Again, read the things that you post, it will save a lot of time.MilesVorkosigan (talk)19:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This antagonistic approach isn't bringing any light to the discussion. I'm bowing out of responding further to you for that reason and because this entire thread has become repetitive both of itself and prior discussions. There's no further reason to discuss it, barring presentation of something new. For the record, I disagree with changing the result from the status quo of "Moscow Peace Treaty". --Hammersoft (talk)20:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEAT: "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideallynot be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors."
Which is why I’m making policy-related points here as this is ideally how it should be done in such discussions.
Even if there isn't going to be "Soviet victory" result, wouldn't it be better changing the result to simply "See Result" redirect for the result section? That would undeniably be an improvement of the article where the views that are constantly debated here will be addressed. There will likely be less such discussions reoccurring too.
If no one else wants to continue this discussion, how about we change the result field to "See Result" where all the views on how the war ended are addressed. That's how it was done for theFirst Barbary War where the result field was changed from a Peace Treaty to "See Outcome" after a discussion, where different views on how the war ended are addressed.StephanSnow (talk)05:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with listing Moscow Peace Treaty as the result. It is the result of the war after all, and there is an aftermath section that a reader can skip to if they want.Betelgeuse X (talk)09:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not even Moscow Peace Treaty (See & Result) so the readers could skip straight away to aftermath section if they want?
I don't get such opposition here in correcting this article so it would in line with Wikipedia policy. Disagreement here extends beyond just Soviet victory as a result for infobox.StephanSnow (talk)04:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a link to the Aftermath section. It just seems a bit redundant. But it is in line with the Infobox template page guidelines as you pointed out.Betelgeuse X (talk)08:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
even though it would be accurate, there seems to be a lack of will to dispel the myth of a successful finnish repelling of the soviet forces, which people are usually very inline to refer to soviet losses. I agree correcting the infobox to soviet victory is accurate but I doubt others would agree due to the mythPhilovGraves (talk)18:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Army won the Battles of Petsamo and Summa. It was stalemated or defeated in the Battles of Taipale, Kollaa, Ilomantsi, Kuhmo, Suomussalmi, Salla, and Pelkosenniemi. Is this the myth you're referring to?Betelgeuse X (talk)07:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the soviets did not take over the entire country, they gained more than they wanted from the earlier demands, making the finnish resistance basically pointless as they lost more land than if they just took the dealPhilovGraves (talk)16:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how the Soviet objective was to conquer Finland, and the Finns prevented this, the defense of Finland was most definitely not pointless. The Soviet demands prior to the start of the war were similar to that of the Baltics, which were annexed a year later. All four countries were required to permit the establishment of Soviet military bases on their territory, with Finland additionally required to destroy its defenses on the Karelian Isthmus. It's not too difficult to figure out why, assuming that you can ignore silly Soviet/Russian propaganda.Betelgeuse X (talk)07:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So now you acknowledge that Soviet forces were indeed repelled in multiple battles, contradicting your original comment. The defeats the Soviets suffered in those battles prevented their advance into Finland, and at Suomussalmi in particular, prevented the Soviets from advancing to Oulu and cutting the country in half. Calling this moot is hilariously misinformed.
I'm not sure what you mean by "inevitable". The Soviets had intended to replace the Finnish government with their Terijoki puppet government, and as such were planning on taking over the whole country. Last I checked they failed to meet that objective. And it was in January 1940 when the Soviets communicated to the Finnish government that they were willing to negotiate an end to the war. The process didn't start in March like you seem to believe.Betelgeuse X (talk)07:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source on intention of puppet replacement from day 1 of negotiations? The original goals of negotiation was finland to recieve east karelia while soviets got karelian Isthumus and a few island south (See Stalin's original plan). The reason for the treaty ending the war was "February 1940, Finland's commander-in-chief, Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim expressed his pessimism about the military situation, which prompted the government to start peace talks on 29 February, the same day the Red Army started an attack on Viipuri (now Vyborg)." This shows the capitulation of the Finnish government to give up more land with no soviet concessions. This is accurately portraying the Finns lost, likewise to WW1 the armstice.PhilovGraves (talk)16:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In short, the Russians took large casualties but still got more than asked originally. It can be chalked up to either a victory or a pyrrhic victory (if k/d is part of the metrics(which it is not in a war of attrition like this)), and to argue otherwise would be at least incorrect, propagandist at worst (Allies in WW1 lost 1 mil more soldiers than the Centralists, yet is a victory of the Allies).PhilovGraves (talk)16:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the obsession is regarding casualty count. The basis of the Soviet failure per the sources stating as such is due to the Soviets not achieving their objective of conquering Finland.Betelgeuse X (talk)19:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Hungarian historian István Ravasz wrote that the Soviet Central Committee had set out in 1939 that the former borders of the Tsarist Empire were to be restored, including Finland." - Ravasz, 2003
The reason for the treaty ending the war was because the Soviets gave up on conquering Finland. That's why they told the Finnish government in January 1940 that they were willing to negotiate peace.
An accuate description of the war according to numerous sources is that the invasion was a Soviet failure. We just had a long discussion about this.Betelgeuse X (talk)19:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to "The Soviet Union demanded territories on the Karelian Isthmus, the islands of the Gulf of Finland, a military base near the Finnish capital, and the destruction of all defensive fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus. Helsinki again refused, and the Red Army attacked on 30 November 1939." with citation Chubaryan; Shukman 2002, p. xxi onBackground of the Winter War for the cause and goal of the war. Total takeover would be a bonus but not the main goalPhilovGraves (talk)15:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for proof of the Soviets' pre-negotiation plans to conquer Finland and that's exactly what I provided. Now you've listed their pre-war demands to Finland, which is a completely separate topic. And your implication that conquering Finland would have been some "bonus" is laughable. I've seen this same obnoxious whataboutism and rationalization in this talk page and elsewhere too.Betelgeuse X (talk)17:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedFA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Not done It is unclear what change you are asking to be made in the article. Is there more information that should be in the article, & do you haveverification from areliable source?Peaceray (talk)18:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg)
