Talk:Moscow Peace Treaty

Old talk

Abolisj Finalands' democracy - this ia POV statement.In fact to conquer all Finland captures it.If you really want to put it, you may try, abolish Finland's socialist government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgarga (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

But unfortunately that wouldn't be factual: Neither Kallio (agrarian), Cajander (moderate right) or Ryti (liberal) were socialist. It was up to the end of January Soviet intention to replace Finland's democratically elected government with Soviet installed puppet government (Terijoki government).--Whiskey 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't revert perfectly valid information in favor of less information and a POV statement like "abolish Finland's democracy". Add back what you removed in your own way, or I'll revert it back myself. Everyking 19:36, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But, but, but...
That's what I'm doing.

Remember, this is the article about the Peace Treaty and the steps toward that. Perfectly valid information may not be as relevant.

The important first step was when Stalin gave up the idea of overtrowing the system of government. He was clearly not at all confident with Socialists in charge of government, which showed many times both before and after. Many times the Soviet Union actually favored non-Socialsts for Socialists when interfering in Finland's political struggles.

The Terijoki puppet government doesn't belong in this article, but in the Winter War article. As long as Stalin held on to the Terijoki government, there was no need for peace negotiations. Its continued existence after Stalin's peace offer was pointless and irrelevant.

It's also clearly disputable if "turning Finland into a Soviet Republic" was any important aim, and in particular if that kind of ambitions were connected to reasons for the war or the peace.

Stalin wanted control of the territory, likely the destruction of the sturdy nation of Finns – in any case, their detatchment from their cultural heritage and connection to (democratic) Western Europe. For the Finns, notably Socialist Finns, the threat against the Finnish nation aswell as against the Finnish democracy were of gravest importance for their stance in the war and their disappointing Stalin's hope for being greated as a liberator.

This also had obvious bearings on the stance taken in Paris, London and most notably in Stockholm. Stalin's peace-feeler changed the odds for international intervention. Before, it had been Finland's strugle on life and death. After, it was merely about a piece of Finland's territory.

Best and friendliest regards!
--Ruhrjung 20:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You evidentally want to include the statement "abolish Finland's democracy" in the article, regarding Soviet intentions. I feel this is POV and I tried to replace it with a more factual statement of what the Soviets hoped to do. If you want to remove your version of this from the article, I won't insist on mine, but I do think it deserves a mention. Everyking 20:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's what changed it all, i.e. when he gave up that ambition, for the Finns and for the powers who considered intervention – and to some degree also for the Nazis. Berlin and Stockholm could urge Finland to seek peace, and Paris and London lost a strong reason (alternatively: disguise) for military support.

It is not only factual, but central.

Could you please explain which/whose POV you feel this to be representing?
--Ruhrjung 20:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are getting at. You are making this dispute something that it is not. I say "abolish Finland's democracy" should be replaced by the more NPOV "establish a Soviet-style socialist government." In order to defend your revert, you need to explain how your version of that is better than mine. Everyking 20:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But what's not neutral with the mentioning of Soviet accepting Finland to keep its ties to the West, its sovereignty and its system of government being the critical step commencing the peace process?

Being a democratic country, including being the first to introduce universal suffrage, in a time when one European democracy after the other had gone under for authoritharianism and fascism, was important to the Finns' self-picture, for their ties to (democratic) Western Europe, for their hopes for military help from those akin democracies. Similarly it was important for the countries considering giving military help. When Stalin had signalled he could live with and independent democratic Finland on Russia's side, then the whole situation was changed - the peace process was commenced.

I do not realize how your wording should be more NPOV, and I've explained how it is of lesser relevance for the scope of this very article. Although it's not false or incorrect in any way.
--Ruhrjung 21:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is more NPOV because A) We should give information as positives as well as negatives whenever possible (This is what he wanted, and this is what he didn't want -- or if we're only going to say one of the two, it should be the first, because it is more exact) and B) because it is plain that Stalin would've liked a Soviet-style socialist government in power, but it sounds like a propaganda piece to say that this would've meant the abolition of Finnish democracy, and I think we should avoid that kind of wording for the sake of neutrality. Everyking 21:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So, if the truth sounds as a pice of propaganda, then say something else?
--Ruhrjung 21:17, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, but say it in a NPOV manner befitting an encyclopedia. Everyking 21:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung asked me to give an opinion on this dispute and although I am certainly not an expert in these matters, I think that it may be possible to find a compromise here. So let's have a look: the Red Army had fought to occupy all of Finland and abolish Finland's democracy looks factual, but perhaps slightly off the mark, as the thrust of the Soviet invasion was probably rather to abolish the Finnish government, with democracy as a secondary victim. However, I don't think that, historically, any Eastern European country has ever desired to have a Stalinist puppet regime installed, so the need of abolishing (or at least significantly posioning) democracy first seems evident. While and establish a Soviet-style socialist government is also factual, this may be an overly neutral way of expressing things, precisely because the opposition of the Finnish people merits mentioning. So why not describe the sequence of events from the Soviet perspective: first invade, then subdue authority of Finnish institutions, then try to establish a Soviet-style government. I guess that may be the most neutral way to describe the situation. One might argue that this means ascribing motives instead of decribing facts, but this argument would hold only if there were no sufficient documentary evidence about the Soviet intentions to consider them historic facts. Hope that helps, Kosebamse 05:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I think this wording or something similar would be fine: "...sought to replace Finland's democracy with a Soviet-style socialist system." Everyking 06:06, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about "sought to replace Finland's parliamentary democracy with a Soviet-style socialist system"? While few people now would argue that a Soviet-style socialist system is particularly democratic (to say the least), certainly there were arguments at the time (which some might still make) that a Soviet-style socialist system is the only truly democratic form of government. I don't believe that, but I'm not sure we should be privileging liberal parliamentarism as "true" democracy, either. john 09:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Or maybe: "sought to replace Finland's Western-type democracy"?
I think this, at least, mirrors the Finnish feeling of being at the border between West and East (for a millenium on the border of Eastern and Western Christianity), now again threatened to become digested by "the East" (this time in the guise of Communism). It conveys the incentive for popular support in the West, including public debate in particularly Sweden, France and Britain over sending regulary military units to Finland. Since the sentence discussed is one of the first in the section, and indeed in the article as a whole, it's good to have it brief and concentrated; but it can easily be expanded on in a following paragraph.
--Ruhrjung 10:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As someone who should care, as I happen to be a native Finn, let me say that this whole thing is much ado about nothing. All the formulations I have read, are A-Okay by me. I think we can trust our readers to put two and two together, and figure out that installing a Soviet-style government in Finland would have some obvious repercussions to the government in place previously. All I can say, is that let the wiser man yield. -- J-V Heiskanen 18:16, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

western-type is fine with me, although I don't think it should be capitalized. john 18:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)