Talk:Continuation War/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Continuation War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Could there be discussion of the what is written concerning the Isthmus (or rather Valkeasaari / Beloostrov) in history books instead of edit warring? - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The information is sourced (one of the books is even available online), so I don't see why you have to edit war to remove it.

Just because you never heard of it, does not mean it never happened...

Here are the quotes:

There is also no doubt that the Finns did, at one moment, push beyond the old frontier, since they captured the Russian frontier town of Beloostrov only twenty miles north-west of Leningrad; here, however, the Russians counter-attacked, and the Finns were thrown out on the very next day, after which this part of the front was stabilised.

Russia at War, 1941-1945, by Werth

The battle for Beloostrov went on and on into September. Twice the Russians were thrown out of the city and fought their way back in hand-to-hand combat in which an outstanding Soviet tank commander, Major General Lavrionovich, was killed. But his tanks moved forward in heavy rain and mud and managed to secure the city. Finnish attacks went on for the next three months, but the Soviet lines held.

The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad, by Salisbury

-YMB29 (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

How come then did the Valkeasaari remain mostly within Finnish lines all the way until June 1944? That is if the Russians took it. From Finnish military archives (war diaries) it appears the Finns held the locality while Soviets repeatedly attacked. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are talking about Staryi Beloostrov, that is slightly further north. That is why I specified Novyi Beloostrov. -YMB29 (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Soviets never attacked at Valkeasaari station. All Soviet attacks (by 450th motorized regiment and 708th infantry regiment) were aimed at 'northern' Valkeasaari. From the sections written by Juri Kilin in Jatkosodan hyökkäystaisteluja 1941 (based on Soviet archives instead of Soviet legends):

Finnish forces captured on September 2 Uusi-Alakylä and Mainila. On the following day enemy forces (ie. Finns) captured without resistance Termola in the north and Valkeasaari railroad station in the south. On September 4 Finns captured both Valkeasaari and Aleksandrovka.

Forces of general(-major) Krjukov's 198th Motorized Division made counter attack on September 5 with goal set to 1939 border. According to reports 708th infantry regiment supported with 146th armored regiment captured Valkeasaari. Aleksandrova saw intense fighting. Finns recaptured Valkeasaari and held on to Aleksandrovka. At Suur-Kaljala region Finns penetrated the Valkeasaari region and forced 450th motorized infantry regiment further to the east.

Troops of 23rd Army attempted to capture Valkeasaari yet again in September 1941. Naval infantry battalion and a motorized company attacked at mid-September. Attack failed to achieve anything. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

From the corresponding section (same book, another section written by Ari Raunio (Finn) according Finnish archives):

Enemy counterattack which began after the noon (referring to September 5) forced Finns to withdraw to Mottori (a locality just - less than 1 km - south of Valkeasaari). Lt.Colonel Haanterä's infantry regiment (JR 27) managed to breach enemy positions (ie. Soviet) only on September 5 at Pien-Kivi region (1 - 2 km north of Valkeasaari). And troops reached their goals (Valkeasaari) on September 7. .. 18th Divisions sector changed to defence on September 9. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So it seems according to both Soviet and Finnish archives Valkeasaari remained in Finnish hands. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't present Finnish sources as Soviet... The two books I sourced are clear in what they say. Don't censor the article according to Finnish historiography.

Your quotes only talk about events until September 9th. The Finns were pushed back from Novyi Beloostrov for the second time on the 20th:

Однако на направлении Н. Белоостров противнику удалось прорваться за основной оборонительный рубеж. Это было весьма опасно, так как до Невы, куда шли фашисты, оставались считанные километры. Поэтому вся тяжелая артиллерия линкоров, крейсеров и фортов день и ночь била по противнику. Подтянув резервы, 23-я армия при поддержке артиллерии и авиации флота 20 сентября выбила противника из района Н. Белоостров. Противник вынужден был отойти и перейти к обороне, которая продолжалась до июня 1944 г.

Оборона Прибалтики и Ленинграда, 1941-1944 гг, Касатонов

translation:

However in the direction of N. Beloostrov the enemy managed to break through the main defensive line. This was very dangerous, as they were only a few miles away from the Neva, where the Nazis were advancing. Therefore, all the heavy artillery of battleships, cruisers and forts fired at the enemy day and night. Pulling up reserves, the 23rd Army, supported by artillery and aircraft of the fleet threw the enemy out from the area of ​​N. Beloostrov on September 20th. The enemy was forced to withdraw and switch to defense, which lasted until June 1944.

The Defense of the Baltic States and Leningrad, by Kasatonov

Now be nice and put my edits back. -YMB29 (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That depends on what your edits state. Reading from Finnish 12th Division war diary and from Finnish GHQ war diary it appears the part about Soviets taking Valkeasaari railroad station is supported. Talk about actual Valkeasaari however does not appear to be supported by available evidence. Also reading from the same documents it appears that though there was some fighting around Valkeasaari railroad station it did not appear to have been lost from Finns - Soviets did reach it on September 13 but managed to keep it only for few hours - since it was first captured in September 10 until it was given up in September 20. It appears the station saw repeated Soviet attacks which repulsed and much less Finnish attacks. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If it is not in Finnish war dairies, it did not happen... Again the sources I presented are specific in what they say, so don't try to alter them. -YMB29 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The war diaries are official documents. And the parts i linked refer to the event in question. You are free to comment it how you will but fact remains that official record of events does not support it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am using reliable sources. Who are you to say what sources are more important and reinterpret them? You want me to check the article according to official Soviet records and remove anything that is not confirmed by them? -YMB29 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing information from Soviet military archives being used to verify information - exactly the same goes with Finnish military archives. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides your claim that the books would have discussed the railroad station alone does not appear to be true either

There is also no doubt that the Finns did, at one moment, push beyond the old frontier, since they captured the Russian frontier town of Beloostrov only twenty miles north-west of Leningrad; here, however, the Russians counter-attacked, and the Finns were thrown out on the very next day, after which this part of the front was stabilised.

Russia at War, 1941-1945, by Werth

No mentions of the N. Beloostrov or Valkeasaari railroad station where there was fighting. Town (or village, it was not exactly a large place) of Valkeasaari remained within Finnish lines until June 1944. Also 'on the very next day' does appear to be true either since it took 10 days before the railroad station area was retaken.

The battle for Beloostrov went on and on into September. Twice the Russians were thrown out of the city and fought their way back in hand-to-hand combat in which an outstanding Soviet tank commander, Major General Lavrionovich, was killed. But his tanks moved forward in heavy rain and mud and managed to secure the city. Finnish attacks went on for the next three months, but the Soviet lines held.

The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad, by Salisbury

Again the 'town' (centre) remained in Finnish control until June 1944 and again not a single mention that would have discussed the railroad station (ie. N. Beloostrov). There are no records (war diary) nor are there excess losses in the records that would indicate anything else than trench or defensive warfare on the Finnish side for the three months that followed. Just like the other 'Finnish offensive' in November 1941 against Leningrad (in Siege of Leningrad article) which ended up being 'slightly exaggerated' version of Finnish patrol raid that destroyed one bunker. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to continue censoring the article with your Finnish war diaries, I am going to get admins to take a look at your behavior. Obviously the books refer to Novyi Beloostrov (the Russian source clearly states that). The Finns took it on the 4th аnd then were kicked out on the 5th ("on the very next day"), and again took it on the 10-11th and were kicked out on the 20th-22nd.

Undo your revert as there is no reason for you to remove sourced information. -YMB29 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Other books do not support your opinion that the they would have been discussing Novey Beloostrov (Valkeasaari station). They are plainly talking of Valkeasaari/Beloostrov which is a village north of the station. Finnish JR49 took the village on September 4. Soviet counterattack on September 5 reached the village (fighting reached the village church) but failed to recapture the it (it did drive Finns back from place called 'Merituittu', small village some 2 - 3 km east of Valkeasaari village). Finnish attacks restored the lines 'east of Valkeasaari' on the evening of the same day (September 5). Further Soviet attempts to force Finns from Valkeasaari village in mid September failed and Valkeasaari village remained in Finnish control until June 1944.

At the railroad station area however Finnish JR47 had reached the Rajajoki already on September 1. A platoon captured the (apparently undefended) railroad station on September 10. Soviet attack on September 13 reached the railroad station but was driven back on the same day. Soviets captured the railroad station on September 20.

You are mixing two separate areas and sources discussing those areas. Apparently Soviets described that the attack on September 5 would have captured the village however Finns did regain the lost sections on the same evening or early on the following morning. Regardless the village remained in Finnish hands from September 5 1941 to June 10 1944. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No I am not mixing anything; this is clearly about Novyi Beloostrov (the railroad station town/settlement). See below. -YMB29 (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This was a great discussion! I have wondered a long time about that discrepancy in Finnish-Soviet history: The original Soviet writers intented Beloostrov train station, but further writers failed to make distinction with railway station and the village/town and so everything got confused. Thanks YMB29! --Whiskey (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well yes it was confusing at first. At some point Novyi Beloostrov (the train station town/village) started being called just Beloostrov and the town to the north something else. -YMB29 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Following sourced information is from Jatkosodan historia 2:

(p.261)Näillä perusteilla päämajan operatiivisella osastolla laadittiin käsky, joka annettiin sotatoimiyhtymille 31.8. presidentti Rytin toisen käynnin jälkeen:

...

2. IV ja II AK jatkavat etenemistään tavoitteena Rajajoen suu-Retukylä-Aleksandrovka-Valkeasaaren itäreuna-Ohta. Tavoitteen saavutettuaan AK:t asettuvat puolustukseen.

(On those grounds after the second visit of president Ryti the operative division of the HQ prepared an order, which was given to the units at 31 August:

...

2. IV and II Corps continue their advance with the target level mouth of Sestra River-Retukylä-Aleksandrovka-eastern border of Beloostrov-Ohta. After the level is reached, corps settle to defence.)

I provide only translations from the following excerpts:

(p.264)September 3 18D. continued it's attack by breaking enemy prepared positions and defending against Soviet counter-attacks. Light detachment 7 (ratsumestari E. Puolakka) had moved to Ollila and started it's attack there. The detachment captured Aleksandrovka. Fighting along the highway, IR49 reached fighting the Beloostrov center.

...

Operating under the division, separate border IB started September 4 from Beloostrov center and continued along the highway to Merituittu road crossing. During the afternoon Soviet counterattack pushed the battallion backwards to Mottori. During the following day Soviet forces conducted several counter-attacks, but Finnish forces held their positions.

The following picture is a section from Matti Koskimaa's Veitsenterällä,p.29 and shows Finnish defensive lines. The lower Valkeasaari (Beloostrov) is a railway station, and the northern one is a town with the center marked with a cross. As you see, it is still behind the Finnish lines. Image:Valkeasaari.jpg --Whiskey (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about the railway station town. -YMB29 (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Town" which according to Finnish war time maps consisted of half a dozen buildings, including the actual railroad station building... - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know... the Finns obviously felt it was important as they tried to take and hold it twice. -YMB29 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Valkeasaari station was actually in front of the ordered defense line (running along Rajajoki river at that location) however commenders at the front lines were allowed on their discretion to take advance/forward bases. Finns took the station area in Sep 10. At dawn of Sep 13 Soviet attack reached the station house but failed to hold it or force Finns out of the (rest of the) area. Finns counterattacked before noon on the same day and held it until Sep 20. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

More OR from you... According to the Russian source above, it was an important point. Again the Finns also took it on the 4th and lost it the next day. -YMB29 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Again you are mixing the two sites (just like plenty of authers apparently do). - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, nothing is being mixed up... -YMB29 (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Soviet view: Where is Beloostrov? See [1] --Whiskey (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is in the top-middle part. Белоостров in large bold letters is Staryi Beloostrov and the same name written in smaller letters below is Novyi Beloostrov. -YMB29 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually on the map there is no difference in how they are labeled. Both are called just "Белоостров" - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is not labeled there, but so what? -YMB29 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just that it seems quite possible that some one might have mixed up the localities. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not someone who knew the area... -YMB29 (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Soviet war diary - Through the Siege, by Pavel Luknitskiy:

p. 58:

Новый Белоостров, захваченный был противником 4 сентября и отбитый нами на следующий день, снова три дня назад, 11 сентября, оказался в руках врага. Создался опасный клин, угрожающий всей линии обороны 291 й дивизии. Следовало немедленно восстановить положение.

traslantion:

Novyi Beloostrov was captured by the enemy on September 4 and retaken by us the next day, but three days ago, on September 11, it was in the hands of the enemy again. This created a dangerous bulge that threatens the entire defensive line of the 291st Division. The situation needs to be restored.

p. 72:

ШТУРМ БЕЛООСТРОВА 22 сентября...

К 9 часам утра общая задача оказалась выполненной – весь Белоостров, кроме северной окраины с финским полукапониром, был занят. Наши части очищали город от отдельных пулеметных гнезд финнов и прятавшихся по подвалам и чердакам снайперов и автоматчиков.

translation:

THE ASSAULT ON BELOOSTROV 22 September...

By 9 o'clock the general goal was achieved - all of Beloostrov, except the northern edge with a Finnish fortified pillbox, was taken. Our troops were clearing the town of individual Finnish machine-gun nests, snipers and sub-machine gunners who were hiding in basements and attics.

So are you still going to deny it happened? -YMB29 (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What you provided is a personal diary of the war, not official war diary. I assume you do understand that one is a discription of the events from a single person's point of view as he understood them - as a case with diaries or descriptions of the war (like in a book you used) he did not need to actually witness the events - and the second (official war diary - such as found from Soviet military archives) is essentially the record of the events without embellishments unlike the book which you provided.

The official war diary of JR47 (47th Infantry Regiment), which was responsible for the front at the Valkeasaari station, in this page is a clear description of events that took place on September 4. No fighting, 2 KIA, 4 WIA. One mention is made of "We were made aware that Pajari's troops which had already passed east (literally beyond) of Valkeasaari village had to withdraw roughly one km due enemy actions/pressure". Until September 10 the JR47 stayed on the 'west bank' of the Rajajoki river from the sea to the 'bend' in the river just north of the station from which line continued towards Aleksandrovka.

From the war diary of JR6 (which took responsibility of the front lines at Valkeasaari village on September 16/17 from JR49) describes indeed witnessing attacks on September 20 - 22 towards area of Valkeasaari station. However that was not a town nor even a village, merely a railroad station. In JR47's war diary is mentioned that Valkeasaari station was lost on September 20. In JR46's official war diary (which replaced JR47 at front on September 21) it is mentioned that Soviets attacked on 21 and 22 however only mentions of Soviet attack on 22 was that it was directed towards 'Bunkkeri' (Bunker) sector however Finnish lines held (presumably the fortified pillbox mentioned in Through the Siege, by Pavel Luknitskiy).

What i can deduct from those official documents there were no actions at Valkeasaari station on September 4 or 5, and neither did Soviet efforts on September 22 gain anything (station was already taken on 20). - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What you deduct has no meaning here... Sources differ on whether it was the 20th or 22nd. Reading that section more carefully, Luknitskiy writes that he got to Beloostrov on the 20th and by that time the railroad station itself was captured (it was almost destroyed), but fighting for the rest of the settlement went on till the 22nd.

The fortified pillbox near the settlement is the only thing the Finns held until June 1944.

Also from Luknitskiy's writings it is clear that Novyi Beloostrov was not just the railroad station with a few houses...

What did I tell you about censoring the article and going by Finnish sources only?

If you think my sources are unreliable go complain here. -YMB29 (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

On 22nd Finns did not have to retreat at all. The reports state that after September 20 Finns were able to hold their positions. All the same what Luknitskiy writes is not official war diary unlike what has been provided from the Finnsh National Archives, i suggest you find comparable evidence from Soviet/Russian National Archives (or its equivalent which stores military documents of WW II era) if you want to provide comparable evidence.

Fortified pillbox was indeed the only thing Finns held at Valkeasaari railroad station area after June 20. There are no mentions that Finns would have been fighting at the station after September 20. However Finns did hold all of the Valkeasaari village for the whole duration from September 4 1941 to June 10 1944. The description from Soviet side is still mixing up with the two locations. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

According to you, which is OR... The Russian sources are specific about it being the railroad station. The Finns captured it on September 4th (either the 47th infantry regiment or a unit of the 18th division) along with the pillbox/bunker, which was undefended (maybe that is why there were almost no casualties on that day?).

As far as your official war diary, who gave you the idea that it has priority over other sources? If you can't find matching events there, it does not mean they did not happen. Maybe I should take this to the NPOV noticeboard and see what others say about your censoring, if you continue reverting sourced information. -YMB29 (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually even your sources are ambigious about the Valkeasaari issue. They seem to discuss the both localities with the same term. Finnish sources however make it clear which locality is discussed. Valkeasaari village was captured on September 4 and Soviet attempt to retake was fought back on September 5. Valkeasaari station on the other hand was captured on September 10 and Soviet attempt to retake it was unsuccessful on September 13 but succeeded on the September 20. Subsequent Soviet attempts to push the Finns further back on September 21 and 22 however failed. The official war diary is an official account of the events. Personal diary (like Luknitskiy's) is not. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Your official diaries are based on what? On the accounts of the people who were there. Luknitskiy was also there.

The quotes I posted clearly say Novyi Beloostrov, so stop ignoring that.

Soviet attempts to take back the bunker area after recapturing the settlement failed so there is no contradiction there. The difference in dates of the second recapture (20 vs. 22) is a minor issue. The real problem here is you denying that there were battles on the 4-5th. There has to be some mention of capturing the station and/or the bunker on the 4th in Finnish sources. However, that does not really matter since I have reliable sources that say this happened. -YMB29 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Luknitskiy might have been there however his diary is still just his own personal view of the issue. Not a factual account of events unlike both Finnish and Soviet official military war diaries. Finnish sources are absolutely clear that on September 4 there was no offensive action in the section of the front facing the Valkeasaari station. However they make it very clear that Valkeasaari village was taken on September 4.

Link to the war diary of JR47 on September 4:

03:30 - Artillery fire from Totleben (Soviet fort) to Kuokkala

09:00 - Briefing. Regiment forms into defense... (rather longwinded description of defense setup)

09:00 - 10:35 - II/JR47 (Rinne): Contact to Aleksandrovka gained with a patrol. Our neighboring unit attacks there. Requests support to pin down Soviets...

10:05 - I/JR47: POWs captured near command post, 2 NCO and 21 enlisted1.

10:10 - Divisional HQ: Roughly 300 Soviets seen on south-eastern end of Kaukjärvi lake. (continues with reorganization order and complaint of inaccurate information)

17:20 - ... description of gains Pajari's troops had made and suggestion for the boundary of operations between the units.

21:30 - I/JR47 (Lindgren): Reported having checked the lines between the beach and Rajajoki. OPs partially on border partially ~150 m from it. Soviets still on the ridge from of Ruostekanava (Rust channel) and in corner of Rajajoki. No Soviets between Hatsala hill and railroad. We were made aware that Pajari's troops who had already partially passed Valkeasaari had to withdraw roughly a kilometer due enemy resistance.

Casulties - September 4: 2 enlisted KIA, 4 enlisted WIA.

September 5:

01:00 - Laitinen, CO of JR47's Jaeger platoon: Roughly 100 Soviets seen between Terijoki and Kellomäki. (Finnish soldiers guarding the railroad had seen the Soviets but since they marched in closed - ie. parade - formation they did not believe them to be Soviets until they were too close)

06:00 - III/JR47 - More POWs. Concentrated to our camp. Few wounded.

08:00 - ... (Switch between I/JR47 and II/JR47 - I/JR47 was ordered to mop up the wandering Soviets from rear areas)

09:15 - No report of enemy action from the battalions.

09:55 - I/JR47 - Small skirmish on the right. Are tanks available? One was sent immediately (T-26) two later. Morning was spent in mopping up. Captured 42 prisoners, III/JR47 got 17, I/JR47 got 18.

12:45 - I/JR47 - Skirmish resolved. Soviets tried to make a beachhead to capture some fishing equipment that was left on our side.

13:55 - Divisional HQ: Heavy tanks heading north along Retukylä road, so large that AT-rifles of JR6 are ineffective against them (KV ?) - Rinne was ordered to 'get it done' so that Soviets wouldnt be able to drive as they pleased on the road on the other side of the Rajajoki.

17:00 - 18:50 - I/JR47: Switch completed on 17:00 - 3rd company has the front.

19:45 - II/JR47: Connection made to troops operating on left flank.

Over the day ~110 POWs were taken and 40-50 killed so it can be assumed that the unit seen in the morning on the railroad has been destroyed

Casualties - September 5: 2 officers WIA, 4 NCO WIA, 9 enlisted WIA

In other words, no action at Valkeasaari station on September 4 or 5 - however even that diary makes it very clear that there was considerable action at Valkeasaari village on September 5. You are indeed free to state that Luknitskiy says the station was attacked on September 4-5 however you should also make it clear that nothing of the kind happened at Valkeasaari station on September 4 - 5 according to Finnish sources nor according to Finnish war diaries. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess for other events we can also say that they are not confirmed by Soviet sources...

Who wrote this Finnish diary and what makes it "better" than other diaries? What about the diaries of other units?

Making the conclusion that there was no action on the 4-5th from these diary entries is interpreting a primary source and, therefore, original research. -YMB29 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Who wrote it? Some one at HQ of JR47 (Infantry regiment 47) i presume. Same (well not word to word but comparable) information is also on official war diary of Finnish General HQ. Finnish GHQ's diary as well as other war diaries agree with it - no significant action (there was some skirmishes) and more importantly no capturing of Valkeasaari station on September 4/5. However capture of the Valkeasaari village (the 'old Beloostrov') is clearly mentioned as happening on September 4 with Soviet counter attack being fought off on September 5. If some one attacked Valkeasaari station on September 4 it wasnt the Finns and nor were the Finns attacked at (or nearby) Valkeasaari station on September 5. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the local snowmen attacked it then...

You mean it was a personal account of someone in the HQ?

Anyway, for an "official" Soviet source see below. -YMB29 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it is a War diary - impersonal account of events - closest analogue would be ship's Logbook. Totally different from personal diary. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much difference except that the Finnish diary is much more brief. -YMB29 (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Difference is that war diary is official impersonal record of events. Personal diary - by definition - consists of opinions, hearsay, and whatever the writer thought he experienced or knew that the writer chose to write down. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Same thing can be said about your "official" diary. -YMB29 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand what is the difference between diary and a war diary? War diary is not a diary of a war. Its a document handling the events and more importantly the history of the unit the war diary belonged to. A diary is just a literary creation based on personal views and experiences of the writer. A war diary is a historical document. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Who wrote your diary? Some robot at the HQ? Any diary can be a historical document... -YMB29 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please try to grasp the concept of logbook or unit war diary before you go making such allegations. - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand it yourself so why tell others... -YMB29 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Read War Diary (ie. a Logbook of a military unit) or even better read the de:Kriegstagebuch which nicely explains the difference between official war diary (such as those maintained by Finnish National Archives) and unofficial war diary (such as Luknitskiy's). - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Does it also nicely explain that official diaries are better sources just because they are "official" and that you can make wide interpretations based on them? -YMB29 (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not need to make interpretations based on them. They are the official record of events as Finns saw them at the time. In essence this means that if the war diary from Finnish unit on front duty does not include fighting on their sector of the front then it is very unlikely that such fighting took place. Either record of the fighting itself of then the reports of guards who witnessed such a fight would have been included to the war diary (depending if the unit itself took part in battle or not). Please read the pages i linked once again, this time with thought. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you read the pages on OR with thought? Is OR so hard to understand? Well if it is maybe you should not be editing here... -YMB29 (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have, I also discussed using the war diaries from National Archives and in wiki help channel (IRC) they were deemed by others to be valid sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course they are valid; it is all about how you use them... -YMB29 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

From Suomen sota 1941-1945, part 6 p.112 writes about this event: "Meanwhile September 10 had IR 47 with it's jäger(infantry) platoons captured Beloostrov railway station area, to get more depth to it's defensive positions. Already at September 13 Russians conducted counterattack with armored train and artillery supported battallion. They managed to push Finns from the station, but by noon Finns have recaptured the station. The rest of the day Russians unsuccessfully tried to capture the station. Here defeated Russian battallion was Separate Marine Bettallion, which had been in reserve south of Tipuna(translation?). Russian attacks continued during the next two days, but with weaker forces. Then was couple of days only normal artillery fire, until Septeamber 20 enemy early in the morning started attack prepared by strong artillery barrage, by 10-12 tanks and 800-900 men. Finns retreated from the Beloostrov railway station and pulled the detachment back to the western bank of River Sestra." --Whiskey (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

So this matches Luknitskiy's account almost exactly. He also talks about the failed attack on the 13th with the marines. The only difference is the date of the final attack but I explained that above. -YMB29 (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It actually supports the sources i posted even more closely. Unlike what Luknitskiy describes it however makes it crystal clear that Finns did not capture Valkeasaari station before September 10 1941. Instead they captured Valkeasaari (ie. the village) on September 4, same location Soviets tried to recapture on September 5 but were driven back. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No this quote says nothing about September 4th and 5th, which does not mean that it supports you... -YMB29 (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither does it support at all what you are saying. On the contrary it contradicts the description the Luknitskiy gives as it makes it clear that the station was lost on September 20 and not on 22. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It just says that the attack started on the 20th. -YMB29 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not mention that same attack would have continued until 22nd. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It says the town was taken on the 22nd. -YMB29 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it does not. Only mention is that Soviets attacked on early morning of September 20. Not a single mention is made of September 22. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Luknitskiy's entry is dated September 22nd and he then writes about the attack as taking place "today". -YMB29 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Soviets did attack on 22nd there is no doubt about that. However they had already taken the railroad station on 20th. Attack on 22nd was directed at Finnish bunker north of the station but failed to achieve any concrete results. Nor did it cause much casulties either. According to Finnish database of those who perished in the wars 1939 - 1945 it appears JR 46 suffered 11 KIA and JR 47 additional 6 KIA on 22nd (values may include previously wounded dying from their wounds and lacks all WIAs - including those who eventually died of their wounds). - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The attacks on the bunker after the town was captured were on a much lesser scale. Luknitskiy writes that the attack that captured the town was on the 22nd. -YMB29 (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Finnish lines did not budge in 22nd that would be kinda surprising. Finns had withdrawn to the 'main line' already on the 20th so the Valkeasaari station (and what other buildings there was) were all already in Soviet hands on September 20. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Again 20th vs. 22nd is a minor issue. -YMB29 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly why I prefer to have as exact information as possible. Propaganda lives in half-truths, omissions and generalisations. If we bump into a controversal issue, it is much better to get as much exact information as possible. That is the way to get through the propagandished, embellished veils that hide the truth beneath.

Although Luknitskiy's diary is not an official document, it can be used as a source in a same manner as other diaries/memoirs can be used. But now we have conflicting sources, how can we resolve this? It would be very helpful if you could provide more information about Luknitskiy and his book. In what unit did he fight? At what position? We know from other sources where the unit was positioned at different times. When he writes we, does he mean his unit or Soviets? We know from Finnish and Soviet sources that there was fighting around the town of Beloostrov at 4th and 5th September. We know the units participating in that fight. There is no metion in Finnish sources about fighting in Beloostrov railroad station, no attack or counter-attack, at 4th/5th September. We know the Finnish unit responsible to that section of the front. What was the Soviet unit responsible of the defence to that section? Which Soviet unit carried out the counter-attack to Beloostrov railroad station at 4th/5th September?

If we think logically, and take a good faith point of view to the issue, then the most logical explanation is that Luknitskiy accidentally mixes - most propably due to lack of information - the town of Beloostrov and Beloostrov railway station. Typically the town and it's railway station is located in the same place, but not in this case at 1941. --Whiskey (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There were two locations known as Beloostrov, as the map you found shows. Luknitskiy was a war correspondent with the Leningrad Front. He can't be mixing it up since he was there on the 22nd of September. He mentions the fighting on the 4th, 5th, 11th, and 13th without actually being at the town, but he clarifies that it was Novyi Beloostrov.

Another source[2] mentions that the station was taken on the 4th by units of the 18th division commanded by A. Pajari, and retaken by the Soviet 1025th rifle regiment of the 291st division commanded by I. Shutov. -YMB29 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well... Valkeasaari (the village) was indeed taken by troops of 18th division commanded by Pajari on September 4. But the troops at Rajajoki in front of Valkeasaari station (incl. both JR47 and JR46) belonged to Vihma's 12th division and no to Pajari's 18th division. Operational boundary between the 12th and 18th divisions run between the two Valkeasaari localities. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you check the diaries of the 18th division? -YMB29 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some of those [3] (which described JR49 at Valkeasaari village on September 4/5) but those are essentially copies (both sender and receiver were essentially required to maintain records) of the reports given to the divisional HQ from the regiments and other subordinated formations. This seems to be report from 18th D CO to II AKE (2nd Army Corps HQ) of events at Valkeasaari village on September 4 (and few pages forward September 5) - no mention of 18th divisions involvement in any operations at Valkeasaari station. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I can read that... Maybe they are mixing up the locations... -YMB29 (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You asked for the war diaries of the 18th Division for the period and i provided them. They make it - just like all the other war diaries - very clear that Valkeasaari village saw fighting on September 4/5. Mixing up locations is essentially impossible since the references used in context of Valkeasaari mentioned in reports regarding September 4/5 always include that it happened near localities named 'Mottori' and 'Merituittu'. Which are both neighbouring the Valkeasaari village - see (hopefully it works for non-Finnish IPs) [4] - in case it doesn't, Mottori is located at 60.18683 N, 30.04421 E (WGS84 - the same google uses) and Merituittu at 60.188647 N,30.083299 E (WGS84). Also Valkeasaari station was outside of the operational area of the 18th division. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I know those locations. Mixing up locations by the Soviets is also impossible... However, you not being able to find Finnish diary entries that mention the fighting does not mean that the fighting never happened. -YMB29 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong there, i dug up war diaries of all the units that were in action in that are from September 4/5, no reports of activity at Valkeasaari station. Same is repeated at Finnish GHQ war diary as well as in 'midlevel' (Army Corps or Division) war diaries, nothing on September 4/5 concerning Valkeasaari station. Should something had happened it would have been presented in at least one (most like in several) of the related war diaries. Furthermore there were no excess casualties (no more than in normal trench warfare) during that time from the troops at front duty facing the Valkeasaari station. In other words there were no Finnish troops at Valkeasaari station nor in action at that location on September 4/5. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is the conclusion you made based on primary sources... See below. -YMB29 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So first you ask for war diary entries and when they did not support you dismiss them as OR? - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I only told you to check the entries for other units since that is the only source you accept... This does not change the fact that the way you are using the diaries is OR. -YMB29 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the official Finnish war diary entries talk of any significant combat activity at Valkeasaari station area. Official Finnish database of those who perished during WWII contain nothing that could indicate at there were anything except static warfare going on at Valkeasaari station on September 4/5. Or how would you interpret it? That despite hard fighting during which Finns first captured the station and then lost it no one was killed or taken as POW from the Finnish side and that somehow all entries regarding that fight were removed from war diaries while other entries for those days still exist? - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not a qualified expert to analyze primary sources. Even if you were, you would have to publish a book or an article explaining that, before your interpretation can be used here. You have to understand what OR is... -YMB29 (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That may be so, but regardless any of the several Finnish records of the events do not show fighting at Valkeasaari station on September 4/5. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, your personal research can't be used in articles... -YMB29 (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Could it be, that Luknitskiy doesn't really make a distinction, or doesn't consider it important, between the two Beloostrovs? They really were only few kilometers from each other. According to Juri Kilin the September 4th counter-attack to village of Beloostrov was conducted by Mj.Gen. Krjukov's 198. Motorized Division's forces, namely IR 708 strenghtened with 146. Armored Regiment. By the middle of the month, 198. MtD was withdrawn from the front, and it's place between the railroad and Ohta was taken by 291.D. Also the Finnish sources agree, that the southernmost section, bordering to the Beloostrov station, was manned by IR 1025. Does Luknitskiy provide any dates when 291.D took responsibility of the front? --Whiskey (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No Luknitskiy does not write about that.

As I said he does make the distinction between the two places, and not only him... -YMB29 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is an "official" Soviet source - a report to the HQ of the 23rd army [5]:

В ночь на 5.9.41 г. противник ворвался в Новый Белоостров и наши подразделения вели с ним там бой до 12.00, 5.9.41 г. когда Белоостров был окончательно очищен от противника и находился в наших руках.

translation:

On the night to 9/5/41, the enemy broke into Novyi Beloostrov and our units were fighting him there until 12:00, 9/5/41 when Beloostrov was finally cleared of the enemy and was in our hands.

-YMB29 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There are seems to be total of 1 KIA reported in the database for the 5th for JR47 (the Finnish units located at front of Valkeasaari station) at that time. For JR6/JR49 (at Valkeasaari village) however the database reports 40 casualties at September 4/5 indicating that fighting of much higher intensity than at Valkeasaari station happened at Valkeasaari village. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I have both secondary and primary sources that say fighting took place at the settlement on the 4-5th, while you only have original research based on primary Finnish sources. So there is no reason for you to remove or significantly modify sourced information about this. -YMB29 (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually i have primary sources - both official Finnish war diaries (several of these, from different units and different levels of organization) as well as Finnish database of people who were killed during the war in the armed service - which all make it abundantly clear that there was no fighting at Valkeasaari station on September 4/5. Same information is available from a wide number of secondary/tertiary sources (see for example what Whiskey posted). Instead all of those agree that there was fighting of some intensity taking place at Valkeasaari village at that exact time. Seems more than likely that Luknitskiy wrote down what he had heard without realizing that 'Beloostrov' that was being discussed at September 4/5 and September 10-20 were two different places. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not when there is a primary source that confirms what he wrote... Even if you use non-primary sources, what you are doing is still original research since you are making the conclusion that there was no fighting at the station. -YMB29 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There are also the primary sources which oppose it just as well. Then there are also sources which make it very clear that there were no excess casualties from the Finnish units in the area. In other words there is no evidence from the Finnish side that the fighting at Valkeasaari station on 4/5 ever took place. On the contrary there is considerable evidence against it. Same is repeated in non-primary sources just as well. Stating that were no fighting based on that information is not original research. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You are lost... Please educate yourself with Wikipedia rules against OR, especially look at WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTHESIS. Maybe Whiskey can help explain it to you. -YMB29 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So again you are stating that if sources (not just primary sources) disagree with you then those must be OR? - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

They don't disagree with me; you are making this conclusion. You don't see evidence of fighting in the diaries you looked at and conclude that the Soviet sources are wrong. You can't do that on Wikipedia. -YMB29 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither can you dismiss the documents i linked here - you can't go off claiming that Finnish sources were wrong either. War diaries were meticulously written, they included everything starting from minor harassment artillery bombardments to even unique events like when an officer shot himself to the leg (accidentally). Claiming that a unit would have taken part to a fight without a single mention of it in the war diary (or in war diaries of other units) is absurd.

Actually with war diaries and fighting on the modern times when documents actually exists from the both sides we should try to find evidence from both (or all) sides for some fight or event to have happened. Which is actually exactly the reason why the books Talvisodan taisteluja (Battles of Winter War), Jatkosodan hyökkäystaisteluja 1941 (Offensive battles of Continuation War 1941), and Jatkosodan puolustustaisteluja 1942-44 (Defensive battles of Continuation War 1942-44) are so interesting as they are written jointly by Finnish and Russian researchers using both Finnish and Russian/Soviet archives to reach consensus. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the rules about OR from the links I gave you? Either you are ignoring the rules or not being able to understand them. Maybe you can read the Finnish wiki pages about OR, if you have trouble understanding the concept in English... -YMB29 (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I did read those, however there are sources which contradict your version. Even Soviet sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok what sources say that there was no fighting on the 4-5th? -YMB29 (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

All Finnish war diaries, Finnish casualty database, even the Soviet report of action seen in September 4 and 5 that i forwarded to you. Beyond the war diaries there are no mentions of the Valkeasaari station area in Finnish sources for September 4 and 5 since nothing took place there. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes the Soviet report... So now not only are you a professional historian but also proficient in Russian. This is beyond ridiculous... Where does it specifically say in your diaries that there was no fighting on those dates? -YMB29 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Never claimed i was either - and even if i was that shouldnt matter. I requested you to point if the status reports of 23rd Army at the time of the alleged fighting at Valkeasaari station actually reported any fighting and so far you have been unable to find any. I posted the diary entries in this very talk page. Please say if you can see any mentions of fighting at the Valkeasaari station in them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So you ignore the report to the 23rd Army HQ I found and then point to some documents that are not about the fighting near the station, and this supposedly proves that there was no fighting... You know other people besides me can read what you write... -YMB29 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Never said i would ignore it. I merely contested it. 'Some documents' you mentioned were status reports of the 23rd Army. What you have are Soviet documents that both state that there were fighting (the report you found) and that there are weren't fighting (the ones i posted). In additiona to those there are the Finnish reports of which none mention fighting at Valkeasaari station. I find it impossible for there to have been a fight without both sides making note of it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What is there to contest about the document I found? You think I faked it? There are tons of documents about the 23rd Army, so just because you found two that happen not to mention the fighting, does not mean the fighting did not take place. Going by your logic, if I find two 23rd Army documents that don't mention the Finns, I can conclude that Finland did not take part in the war... And I am not going to explain your OR with the Finnish diaries a 100 times. -YMB29 (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not contesting the document itself but the location reported in the document. I certainly do not believe that you would have faked a document. Problem with your statement that 'two that wont mention the fighting' is that the two documents were official status reports. They did mention all the other fighting on the 23rd Army's area of responsibility at the same time. Yet Valkeasaari station is omitted from them as well as from all Finnish documents. Both all the Finnish and 'those two Soviet' clearly mention the fighting at Valkeasaari village instead. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You only understand two words in those documents and you claim you know what they are... They are very brief reports that only mention the general area of fighting along the front without details. Again, just because you found them does not mean they are the only documents that exist on the issue and that they must contain every bit of information. You are not a historian who looked at hundreds of documents and came to a conclusion... -YMB29 (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it does not mean that those documents would have some magical value of being absolut truth. But neither does the document you found. Besides the documents made very clear of the events which took place at Valkeasaari village. It would be really strange, unless it was somehow Soviet habit of not writing factual accounts into reports, that if a fighting took place at Valkeasaari station neither of the documents say a single word of it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

YMB29, could you please provide translations also for the first and the third paragraph of that page? It seems there is information about IR1025 and Aleksandrovka in those paragraphs. In which forum post you found that document? Are there more pages available?

For Finnish formations during that time, I/IR47 was located between the coast and railroad (included), II/IR47 between the railroad and south of Aleksandrovka and III/IR47 along the coast to Kellomäki. According to the war diary of IR47, total casualties were September 4: 2KIA, 4WIA and September 5: 15WIA. --Whiskey (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I found it in this thread [6]. It is from a forum of a website dedicated to Staryi and Novyi Beloostrov. More translation of the text is below. -YMB29 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

To the Chief of Staff of the 23rd Army

Brief Report

About the inspection results of the activities of the 291st Rifle Division in the fortified region.

Carrying out the orders of the War Soviet, on the 5th of this September I, following your orders, arrived at the headquarters of the 291st division, where I found out that, by the time of my arrival together with the head of the engineering department - Major Palladiev, the most difficult situation was on the division's left flank - on the front of the 1025th Rifle Regiment.

Having gone there right away I established:

a) On the night to 9/5/41, the enemy broke into Novyi Beloostrov and our units were fighting him there until 12:00, 9/5/41 when Beloostrov was finally cleared of the enemy and was in our hands.

b) Aleksandrovka on 9/4/41 was also taken by the enemy that, despite all attempts by the 1025th regiment, still firmly holds on to it. Occupying two stone barracks buildings with sub-machine gunners, the enemy does not allow our units to make a successful attack, keeping them under heavy fire. Attempts to destroy the barracks with 76mm rounds did not give results due to the inadequate caliber of the rounds; they don't penetrate the walls. The enemy operated with no more than a battalion's strength, supported by a large number of mortars, mostly of 120mm and 82mm caliber, and by at least two artillery batteries. [7]

Then it goes on for three more pages.[8][9][10] It is dated September 6th. On page 3 there is another mention of an attack on Beloostrov:

m) In the fortified region there are personnel from the battleship Marat (forward observers and artillery spotters), the artillery of which is aimed and ready to open heavy fire, on an order, on the coordinates in the zones of Aleksandrovskaya, Beloostrov, Kamenka, Mertut' and Mednyi Zavod.

Because right upon its arrival the 1025th regiment came into contact with the enemy and the situation developed into constant battles, the positions of the fortified region were not manned nor studied.

The commander of the 291st division got permission from the commander of the army to take back the 1025th regiment to the positions, leaving in front, on the line of Aleksandrovka-Beloostrov, strong battle outposts.

The upcoming task of taking the units from battle is very difficult and demands serious preparations and support of this maneuver, especially since from the evening today the enemy directed all of its strength to again take Beloostrov and gain access to the highway, with most likely the goal to go around and surround the fortified region from the southwest. In the worst case our units will have the enemy following right behind them.

I think it would be appropriate to organize a counterattack with the aim to throw the enemy behind Beloostrov and Aleksandrovka, followed by the creation of a powerful and reliable fire barrier, which if successfully accomplished will give the best opportunity to safely exit and enter the fortified region.

-YMB29 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Granted that i do not read Russian but via using googles translator (as well as the cyrillic keyboard in the translation page) it seemed that via these Soviet archives it was reported that (used '09.1941' as date and '23 Армии' as author) in report id as "146/ОП" and titled as "Оперсводка к 16:00 05.09.1941 г." (last page) that 1025th would have been fighting in old Beloostrov in an official status report of 23rd army. Similar reports (including 148/ОП) seemed to again point activity at the "Стар. БЕЛООСТРОВ" (tried to write 'ctap.' in cyrillics but apparently it gets autocorrected to 'cmap.') old Beloostrov ie. the Valkeasaari village). Granted this should be verified by someone actually proficient in Russian. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That just says that the 1025th regiment is fighting on the frontier of (на рубеже) Staryi Beloostrov and some place called Pil'n; it does not say that the regiment was in Staryi Beloostrov, just somewhere in the area.

The document I posted is not good enough for you? I don't know what you are trying to find, proof that the regiment was fighting somewhere else on the 5th and so could not have been in Novyi Beloostrov? So you are even trying to interpret Soviet primary sources... -YMB29 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was only trying to find evidence that fighting at Valkeasaari village or at Valkeasaari station on 4/5 would have happened also according to Soviet bookkeeping. I was far less interested in the 1025th regiment itself. However as far as i can see in the document (or the one which follows that - 148/ОП - is that there are several mentions of Staryi Beloostrov but not really any mentions of anything going on at Novyi Beloostrov. Which oddly coincides with Finnish war diaries and conflicts with the ones you posted here earlier. However i'm not interpreting anything - i merely forwarded the documents. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You are trying to make interpretations from documents written in a language you don't understand... No mention of Novyi Beloostrov? Well if you choose to ignore the document I found... -YMB29 (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are selectively choosing only those sources which support you and ignoring without a single comment those which contradict you, that is a novel attitude. I did not ignore the document, however since there are no evidence what so ever from the Finnish side that anything took place at Valkeasaari station on September 4/5 i find it very difficult to believe that anything took place there. Especially when there are Soviet sources which explictly mention activities taking place at Valkeasaari village at the time while neglecting to mention that anything would have happened at Valkeasaari station. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The report above does not mention fighting at the station town? You don't even understand what the Soviet documents you found say... Tell me what sources contradict me? Only your OR does that... -YMB29 (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That report you found from private website did. However there is no evidence of that from Finnish sources, not in 'higher sources' nor in war diaries. You can not go off claiming something took place when there is opposing evidence for it. There is always the chance that somehow the things got mixed up. From Finnish side this seems very unlikely since all documents (and even casualty database) uniformly state that fighting on September 4 & 5 took place at Valkeasaari village and that no fighting happened at Valkeasaari station. From Soviet side you seem to have mixed sources, some state that fighting took place at Valkeasaari station and others that it took place on Valkeasaari village. I hope you can understand the underlying issue here. As for the documents, please say where and how in the document(s) that i forwarded to you does it state that fighting took place at Valkeasaari station on September 4 and 5? - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It just does not mention it, but for you, no mention of something in the documents you find = nothing happening. Thankfully you are not a historian and your interpretations and conclusions based on patriotic feelings have no meaning here. When it comes to the underlying issue here (OR by you) you are lost... Maybe the opinions of others may help you understand. -YMB29 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So the fact the there is no mention of fighting at Valkeasaari station on September 4/5 means to you that there was fighting at Valkeasaari station at that time? Can you please explain to me the logic in that? - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you think that those two documents are the only documents in the world regarding the activities of the 23rd Army at that time... As the report I found above shows, this is not true... -YMB29 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So far there is a Soviet document stating that there was something going on at Valkeasaari station and two Soviet documents and whole pile of Finnish documents stating that action at that time took place at Valkeasaari village, not at Valkeasaari station. Are you reserving the sole right to judge which document is valid and which is not for yourself or what exactly is your excuse to summarily dismiss all opposing documents? - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous... If only you can find a source that contradicts me and the sources I presented, instead of claiming that the fighting did not happen because your original research of documents did not confirm the event... -YMB29 (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem with this logic is that if nothing happened then nothing is exactly what is reported about it anywhere. Which is exactly the reason why you generally need evidence from both sides to actually prove that some event took place - or it ends up being highly biased POV issue. Otherwise this is just similar situation like the Baryshnikov's famed Finnish assault against Leningrad in October/November 1941 (mentioned in Siege of Leningrad talk page). Again there is nothing on the Finnish side of such an event since nothing of the kind took place - only war diary entries. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of many of the "deciding" battles from Finnish historiography in Soviet sources, so I guess they did not happen... -YMB29 (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Its intriguing then that Juri Kilin (Russian professor) did manage to find evidence of those events from Soviet sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Kilin is a professional historian. You are not... -YMB29 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I found it interesting that you apparently have enough authority to decide there are no mentions of the battles in any (!) Soviet sources while Russian historian actually have no difficulty locating them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So before Kilin found "proof", such information was not on wiki and it was dismissed as Finnish propaganda?

I am just doing the same thing you are doing... I also find it interesting how you have the authority to claim that battles did not happen when no Finnish (or any) historian supports you... -YMB29 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite follow what you are after with relation to prof. Kilin. And actually situations are not the same. Proving that nothing took place is quite different (since if nothing happened usually no one wrote down anything from it, after all nothing happened) than proving that something happened. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well you being unable to follow is nothing new... There is more than enough proof that it happened. Your OR can't disprove reliable sources like an army report; only a real historian can try to do that. -YMB29 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As it happens the Finnish war diaries are reliable sources just as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes but you are not... -YMB29 (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal insults are sure to help when arguing - its interesting discussing technique you are using - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So saying that your OR is not reliable is making a personal insult? -YMB29 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You were not calling my 'OR' as not reliable, you were calling me unreliable. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the source of your OR, so you are unreliable as a source on Wikipedia, just like any other user. -YMB29 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right there! This is beyond ridiculous! Instead of trying to find what really happened there, you continuously accuse sources which do not agree with your interpretation forged or politically manipulated. Could you please calm down!

And again: Primary sources can be used to state what they directly say, so you cannot dismiss them right away.

Here we have primary source, the war diary of IR 47, which tells us where IR 47 was located and tells how it prevented a small Soviet detachment to recover lost fishing equipment at the Gulf coast and how it captured or destroyed small units of Soviet stragglers trying to reach Soviet lines but no mention to any positions or fightings at Beloostrov railway station at September 4/5. We have the Finnish official histories of the Continuation War, where there is no mention about fighting at Beloostrov railway station at September 4/5, instead, there is mentioned Soviet counterattack to Beloostrov village at the same day and how it was pushed back next day. We have professor Juri Kilin from Petrozavodsk university who has researched the issue and he gives more detail from the Soviet side to the above mentioned attack to the Beloostrov village at September 4/5, but he gives no information about the attack to the Beloostrov railway station at the same time. Also the Soviet attack to Beloostrov village at September 4/5 is documented from several other Finnish secondary sources, as well as Soviet unsuccessful attempt to capture Aleksandrovka at September 5.

We seem to agree, that IR 47 captured Beloostrov railway station at September 10/11 and Soviets recaptured it September 20.--Whiskey (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And You should be aware, that if we don't manage to find reasonable solution to this issue, we have to write this down strictly by the book, referring both points of view to the article. And believe me, it would really make a ridiculous edit to the article, when there is a claim from one side that heavy fighting happened while the other side writes that no fighting happened. --Whiskey (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought you knew the rules better...

If primary sources that you looked at don't confirm an event, concluding that nothing happened is an interpretation. Finnish sources don't say that the fighting did not happen; you are making that conclusion. How do you know if you are looking at the right diary or if a diary is complete? Maybe there are other Finnish primary sources that confirm the fighting. This requires research by a professional historian, not an e-historian... -YMB29 (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually they are saying that fighting did not happen. Its not even a conclusion. For example here [11] (12th Division War Diary) of 47th Infantry Regiment operating at Rajajoki at the entry of the night between September 4/5 1941: "Rajajoki-Aleksandrovka rauhallista" (en. "Calm from Rajajoki to Aleksandrovka", exactly the area opposing the Valkeasaari station. Later on at the summary section for September 5 1941: "Päivä kului kaikkialla rauhallisesti. Takamaastoa puhdistettaessa saatiin 746 ryssää vangiksi" (en. "Day was peaceful all around (in the area of operations). 746 ruskies were captured while 'cleaning out' the rear areas"). Unless you can somehow claim that fighting would be calm or peaceful (finnish exact words being: rauhallista and rauhallisesti, feel free to check them dictionary if you like). - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I answered to this synthesis on the other page. -YMB29 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(for 3rd opinion)

The dispute (in the section above - Late 1941 in Karelian Isthmus) is about whether a battle occurred at a certain time and place. I have found both English and Russian language sources that say that fighting did take place on the 4th and 5th of September, 1941 at the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov. I even found a primary source that directly confirms this.[12] However User:Wanderer602 claims that such information is false because official Finnish war diaries don't confirm it. What he did is look in the war diaries of Finnish units, that he says should have been in the area, and could not find evidence of fighting on those dates and at that location. From the discussion above:

Wrong there, i dug up war diaries of all the units that were in action in that are from September 4/5, no reports of activity at Valkeasaari station [Novyi Beloostrov]. Same is repeated at Finnish GHQ war diary as well as in 'midlevel' (Army Corps or Division) war diaries, nothing on September 4/5 concerning Valkeasaari station. Should something had happened it would have been presented in at least one (most like in several) of the related war diaries. Furthermore there were no excess casualties (no more than in normal trench warfare) during that time from the troops at front duty facing the Valkeasaari station. In other words there were no Finnish troops at Valkeasaari station nor in action at that location on September 4/5.[13]

His edit in the article: [14]

I tried to explain to him that making such conclusions from selective primary sources is original research and is against Wikipedia's rules, however he still does not see anything wrong with what he is doing. He either simply ignores the rules against original research or fails to understand the concept. He even tries to interpret a Russian primary source he found, [15] even though he does not understand Russian:

However as far as i can see in the document (or the one which follows that - 148/ОП - is that there are several mentions of Staryi Beloostrov but not really any mentions of anything going on at Novyi Beloostrov. Which oddly coincides with Finnish war diaries and conflicts with the ones you posted here earlier.[16]

Can someone else explain to him that what he is doing is a clear example of original research and can't be done here? -YMB29 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

While you're right that "Not in primary source" is not a valid way to do things with respect to WP:RS, 3O is not intended as a means to recruit another editor to endorse your point of view. It's a non-binding tool for helping establish consensus between editors. If you have a concern about original research being used in an article, I would reccomend Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard. i kan reed (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Recruit another editor?? I just explained how the other user is using primary sources for original research. Others can agree with me or decide that he is right. Thanks for agreeing with me I guess. And yes I was thinking of posting this at that noticeboard. -YMB29 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the official Finnish war diaries of the units operating in the area, nor war diaries of the higher Finnish HQ levels note any activity at Valkeasaari station (ie. Novyi Beloostrov). According to official Finnish casulty database (KIA) the regiment responsible for the sector suffered total of 3 losses at 4-5 September 1941. I did not try to interpret the Soviet document i found. I asked if he could find any evidence of the fight from the document in question (official status report of the Soviet 23rd Army for the time in question) which he was unable to do since the document does not make any mention of activity at Novyi Beloostrov area. Problem here is that certain Soviet reports state that fight took place while other documents (including all Finnish ones) do not mention anything out of the ordinary happening at the location in question at the defined timeframe. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate if you're writing an essay for a history class, or a book about the subject, that's a fantastic point. However, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia, secondary sources can only be used as justifications for assertions of this sort. Especially in these sorts of "facts by omission" points. There are a lot of reasons why that point may not have made it into war diaries, from censorship to grief. It's not our role as editors to make guesses as to what happened based on raw evidence. I know that's beuraucratic BS(it really is), but that's how wikipedia works, and for good reason. i kan reed (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be mixing official war diary (see War Diary or de:Kriegstagebuch) with diary telling about war. War diary is essentially a log book of events. If some one omitted a mention of an event from the said log book / war diary he actually committed a crime regardless of the reason. I have said before that i have no problems with his description of the event in page as long as there are clear mentions that the none of the Finnish sources nor even some of the Soviet sources support the statement that the fighting took place. It is just as valid for him to use primary sources for proving his case as it is for me to point out the whole pile of other primary sources disproving it. Otherwise you are opening a Pandora's Box with one sided descriptions. I suppose the Soviet (fantasy) stories of Finnish Spitfire's in Winter War must also be true under that logic since there are no (AFAIK) Finnish secondary sources disproving it - never mind that Finland never even had any Spitfires...

As for that matter the whole mention of the events at that accuracy have really no place on the actual 'higher level' page - there are separate pages handling the events at that detail level like Finnish reconquest of the Karelian Isthmus (1941) - FYI whole discussion is about 500 meters deep and perhaps 1000 meters wide salient. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You still don't get it...

I am going to post this at the OR noticeboard. -YMB29 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

450.000 are not from, because the Baltic fleet (90 000) was used basically against Germen, not Finns. It is possible to add to it about 30 000 Northern fleet. In case of use of Majnenin it is necessary to show reliability of its numbers. Whence he has got them? He used the Soviet archives? If used, why values strongly disperse from Krivosheyev. Values can't so strongly disperses. One of them is incompetent in this theme.--Germash19 (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is from what are included into the numbers. The Finnish and German numbers include everything, every man and woman in service at that theatre. Those numbers include all supply, support, guard, signal etc. personnel from Army, Navy and Air Force. On the other hand, Krivosheev includes only the divisional strength and not supporting elements. It is only estimate from Manninen's part, which takes into account all the same people which were included to the Finnish and German numbers.

If we start to use Krivosheevs numbers, we have to remove almost 2/3 from the German and Finnish numbers so we could say we are counting the same thing.--Whiskey (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you about Organisation Todt it is a part of the Wehrmacht. Similar parts were and in RKKA. They are counted up at Krivosheyev, as well as secretaries, bookkeepers and other military men of armed forces. Once again. It is necessary to show as Manninen has received 1,500,000, about use of archives of the USSR by him. If he has added on the peace population to red army, it is necessary to specify it.--Germash19 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There are bit more odd values with Krivosheyev as well. Take for example the '4th Strategic Offensive' or as per Krivosheyevs' nomenclature the 'Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive'. Krivosheyev lists Soviet strength at Karelian Isthmus alone to be '15 rifle divisions, 1 armored brigade, 2 fortified regions (ie. defense divisions).' While for example this [17] and several other primary and secondary sources (Russian, German and Finnish) give Soviet strength at Karelian Isthmus (21st, 23rd and 59th Armies) at around 25 rifle divisions, 3 armored brigades, 14 armored regiments, 2 artillery divisions, 20 or so artillery regiments etc. That is 'a slight' omission is it not? That is still not including any of the forces in 7th or 32nd Armies. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Your reference proves nothing. At Krivosheyev the data for June 10th, not on July 1st. If you possess reliable sources about discrepancies of Krivosheyev write the note in article. As exceptional claims require exceptional sources I hope reliability of values of Manninen will be shown (they about June 1941?), differently it is necessary to remove it.--Germash19 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about the Todt. I mean the all necessary supportive organization all armies need. Supply, guard, signal etc. Also, Krivosheev's numbers totally misses Soviet forces located on the northern 2/3 of the front from Repola to Pechenga. --Whiskey (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting that you notice the date being June 10. I wonder why all those units which are recognized at the isthmus at the later date were not included? Doesn't it add to the number of participating men to the offensive if the offensive is reinforced after it started? --Whiskey (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, if you possess reliable sources about discrepancies of Krivosheyev write the note in article. Nothing surprising, this commonplace. Number of armies daily changes and usually show quantity for certain day. For example for june, 22 1941 for the USSR write 3,1 million, not 5,8 – all to the USSR in this day and not 34,5 – all for 41-45 years. I agree with inclusion of additional figures on combatants, they can be written down in article, in a template I think it is necessary to leave only quantity for june 1941.--Germash19 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

From "Finland's war of choice: The troubled German-Finnish Coalition in World War II", page 379:

Finland, unlike many of Germany's allies, retained its independence after the war and the terms of peace could well have been harsher. The reason was probably not any sense of magnanimity on the part of the Soviet Union. Credit must be given to the fighting quality of he Finnish soldiers and the Soviets may have concluded that it was not worth another costly offensive to impose harder terms.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It is false to say that Italy was only nominally belligerent. It was actively fighting the Soviets, even in a minor way on the Finnish front (i.e., the Continuation War). Britain was nominally belligerent because its only action took place before its declaration of war, but its dominions equally made independent declarations of war against Finland and were equally involved nominally. Srnec (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Italy was fighting actively the Soviets - however within respect of the Continuation War the Italian participation was only nominal - that Italian units fought against Soviets elsewhere in the Eastern Front has no relevance within this article. Also i suggest you read Template:Infobox military conflict - Reading from the description of the combatant (belligerent) box it seems that adding the British dominions would go against it since they provided no forces to the conflict. From the description it seems best to leave the British participation as it is (explained in notes section in more detail) since it is a 'special case' - in both that it actually engaged in hostilities as well as in the actual declaration of war itself (democracy declaring war to a democracy). Additionally Italy participated only as part of the Naval Detachment K, not as independent unit in any sense of the word and also the Italian participation was marginal at best. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Presence of article the siege of Leningrad not an occasion to removal casualties. There is article WW II, in it casualties of Leningrad or Finland aren't removed though there is article Continuation war. I can not present, what arguments should be what not to include in article of loss of one of the longest operations of this war.--Germash19 (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That is because the Siege of Leningrad as well as Continuation War happened within the scope the World War II. However the Siege of Leningrad did not happen as a part of (ie. within the scope of) the Continuation War (or this article) - it happened parallel to it. After all the Siege of Leningrad was primarily an operation of the German Army Group North - Finnish forces did not shell or bomb the city during the siege and even the attempts on the supply transports in Ladoga were made by Italian MTBs and German ferries and the front lines (Finnish - Soviet) were quiet on both sides - yet you stack the civilian casualties on the Finnish (Continuation War) lot. Additionally if you include the casualties of the Siege of Leningrad to the page shouldn't we also be including all the relevant losses of the Army Group North as well? If you go that far shouldn't you be including the all the losses on the whole Eastern Front to it while you are at it? - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to discuss a theme of inclusion of Army Group North create a separate topic. Some Soviet military unit battled simultaneously against Finland and against Army Group North, and they are counted up in this article. Not parallel. The siege is a part of war with participation as Germany so Finland to. Result of shelling and bombing the city is 17000 civilian deaths, rest casualties (600 000 – 1 000 000) is result to passively participation 2 countries. It is impossible to tell how many died for hunger on fault Finland and how many on fault Germany. If it so important write the comment in article to figures of losses.--Germash19 (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the siege was a primarily an German operation the inclusion of the Army Group North would be required. However Army Group North has never been considered as part of the continuation war - and neither has the Siege of Leningrad been - so like User:Illythr commented in this talk page - something you did not answer - it is OR. Blaming siege casualties on the besieger? They were a tragic consequence of the siege and the Soviet unwillingness to evacuate them - they were able to transport enough food to sustain the city in the same effort they could have evacuated the city should they have wanted to do so. Also the Siege of Leningrad is generally considered to be large enough event of war to be a separate event - hence parallel to the Continuation War. Besides with documented Finnish orders not to advance towards the city, not to shell the city, and not to bomb the city your claim that casualties of it must be included to this article seem very odd. You could write there a section to the 'trench warfare' segment of the participation, i doubt anyone would consider that a problem or OR, however pressing to set the loss list to the infobox is one another since in this case it appears that all the losses from Siege of Leningrad would have been caused by the Finns which would be OR or POV pushing. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So all casualties of Finland because it resisted, instead of evacuated all population to Sweden? While your arguments it is original research which (refusal to consider some losses in this war) you strenuously push in article. In article are available reliable sources that casualties it is result of the siege. The siege is a part of this war, and Finland took in it part, it as is confirmed reliable sources. Continuation war it not war only the USSR and Finland, Finland had the ally Germany about what it is told in article therefore any person won't tell that all the losses have been caused by the Finns. All is simple with inclusion in article a number of combatants and losses Finland, for the USSR it is more difficult: the Baltic fleet counted in article, aviation of the Leningrad front battled simultaneously against Finland and Germany Army Group North, Leningrad was besieged by Germany and Finland.--Germash19 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure i understand all what you are saying - there are some issues with your English. Finland closed of the northern border, yes, which ran very close to the 1939 border in the Karelian Isthmus. The fact the Finns had progressed to Svir on the other side of Ladoga had little relevance since it did not provide nor cut a land connection. Finns however just sat there. There was no shelling, no bombing, nothing - even operations against supply lines were performed by non-Finnish units. So one denies that Siege of Leningrad wouldn't be connected to the Continuation War however attempt to capture the city was purely German operation (regardless of so commonly quoted Ryti's comment he also decreed with Mannerheim that Finns would not take part to the fighting at Leningrad - which they didn't) and the whole issue would be better handled in a separate article. The difficulty of separating the losses is one of the reasons why it would be better to stick with Siege of Leningrad being handled in a separate article - like you have been told several times there is a separate article for the siege of Leningrad. Use it instead. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's imagine, that Finland is not besieged Leningrad. Then on a place of the finns should be germans, or siege would not exist. If the north of Leningrad no enemy troops and a Army Group North located on their positions. Where the USSR delivered to cargo in Leningrad? By railway to the north of lake Ladoga to the Karelian isthmus, and across lake Ladoga in existing ports, instead of on empty coast (Osinovets). Again about the bomb. 600 000 died of hunger, not from bombs. Due to the blockade, and not as a result of attempts to capture.--Germash19 (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure i understand what you are trying to say. Fact remains that Finns moved in the Karelian Isthmus roughly to the 1939 borders and stopped as per ordered - and did not shell nor bomb the city either - yet you are placing all the civilian casualties from the Siege of Leningrad into the Continuation War article - even though it is known that bulk of the forces opposing the Soviets in the Leningrad area were not Finnish or other forces considered to be part of Continuation War. Regardless you can not remove Finns from the scenario and suppose that German operations would have remained the exactly same in their absence. Also to be honest i can't really see why you are so interested in distributing civilian losses - after Soviet failures to evacuate and later the choice not to even try to surrender speak volumes that it was Soviet choice to face the siege. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to say that the finns had cut the communication of Leningrad with the USSR. You don't want to hear me. Once again, I agree to divide casualties of the siege of Leningrad between Germany and Finland, but it is not possible. If you have reliable sources that Finland has not participated in the siege, and therefore, the casualties of the siege are not to be considered in the Continuation war, specify this in the article.--Germash19 (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can't separate the losses and it is an acknowledged fact that the siege was not actively pursued by the Finns wouldn't it then be more appropriate then to handle the siege in its own article instead? Besides you are forgetting that in a siege civilian casualties are also defenders choice should he choose not to surrender (and on top of that besieger can refuse to allow civilians to leave the besieged position). - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Raunio, Ari; Kilin, Juri (2008). Jatkosodan torjuntataisteluja 1942-44 (in Finnish). Keuruu: Otavan Kirjapaino Oy. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-951-593-070-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

Translated from Finnish

In the western section of Svir front (Finnish) troops formed for defense during September 1941 while the troops close to Onega did that only in second half of the October. In the latter section of the front troops of (Finnish) VI Army Group (VI AK) commanded by Major General Paavo Talvela repelled Soviet counterattack - which had started on October 14 - by October 23. Forces of the Red Army attacked again in the same region in December (1941) and these so called 'Battles of Gora' lasted nearly for a month.

In the western section of the Svir front Soviet troops attacked on October 21 1941 across the Svir against the positions of German 163rd Infantry Division (163.D) arrayed near Ladoga managing to capture a bridgehead from the seam (ie. edge) of the Finnish and German operational areas at Gorka region. Enemy (Soviets) were beaten back in heavy fighting lasting for two days.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I copied the following text from abovementioned noticeboard, as it started to get too heated for handling it there. Please continue the discussion here. --Whiskey (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a disagreement on whether certain events took place in the beginning of the war. I found reliable sources, both in English and Russian, that say that there was fighting on September 4th and 5th, 1941 at the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov (or Valkeasaari station). However User:Wanderer602 says that such information is wrong since official Finnish war diaries don't confirm it. He says that he looked in the war diaries of Finnish units (the ones that according to him should have been in the area) and could not find evidence of fighting at that settlement on those dates. Here it is in his own words:

Wrong there, i dug up war diaries of all the units that were in action in that are from September 4/5, no reports of activity at Valkeasaari station [Novyi Beloostrov]. Same is repeated at Finnish GHQ war diary as well as in 'midlevel' (Army Corps or Division) war diaries, nothing on September 4/5 concerning Valkeasaari station. Should something had happened it would have been presented in at least one (most like in several) of the related war diaries. Furthermore there were no excess casualties (no more than in normal trench warfare) during that time from the troops at front duty facing the Valkeasaari station. In other words there were no Finnish troops at Valkeasaari station nor in action at that location on September 4/5. [18]

His edit in the article: [19]

To me this is an obvious example of original research based on primary sources, or am I wrong? -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it looks very much like OR, but maybe "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.". I think his investigative work can contribute to a line something like: "there was fighting on September 4th and 5th, 1941 at the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov (or Valkeasaari station), however this is not mentioned in the war diaries". It would be wrong to put a line: "there was no fighting on September 4th and 5th, 1941 at the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov (or Valkeasaari station), because this is not mentioned in the war diaries". But I cannot decide if war diaries are reliable sources and if any other educated person will be able to verify those statements. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the official Finnish histories of the Continuation War doesn't contain any information about fighting at Beloostrov railroad station at September 4/5. However, at the same time there was a heavy fighting around the Beloostrov village, about 10km north of the Beloostrov railroad station. There are also no mention about fighting at Beloostrov railroad station at September 4/5 at unit histories or any other military history books using Finnish sources (which also mention the fighting at Beloostrov village at the same time). Also fighting at Aleksandrovka, between the Beloostrov station and the Beloostrov village at September 5 is mentioned in those books.

In all, this is a very complicated situation, and I do value Your input in this issue: How is an issue resolved if one side claims that something happened and the other side doesn't mention that at all? It is ridiculous to demand that official war diaries should contain long lists of places where unit was not located and where nothing happened to the unit. In a similar way how should secondary sources claim that unit wasn't somewhere and nothing happened there? There are too many places on earth to list all those places where the unit was not located and while it wasn't located there, it wasn't attacked there. You get my point? --Whiskey (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are indeed reliable secondary sources that do not mention fighting at that location, than the claim that there was no fighting is not original resource. Of course the Finnish source should be reliable in that it is a thorough description of where fightings took place. If the Finnish source never mentions many other fightings where it is clear that those fightings did took place, then of course one must accept that maybe that Finnish source also simply omitted to mention the fight in question and is not reliable for this issue. I glanced over the edit that was made and I noticed that there are a lot of words used to explain what Wanderer602 has found out from the war diaries, that verbose wording might be getting too close to WP:OR. I do not know how much of that wording is directly (word by word) supported by secondary sources. So basically we have conflicting secondary sources the Russian and English on the one side and the Finnish on the other side. And the Finnish one appears to be supported from what can be read from the war diaries. So the investigation from Wanderer is not OR, but an assessment whether the "not mentioning" of the fight by the Finnish source is due to the fight not taking place or due to the source not being exhaustive enough. And it looks like the fight did not take place. Why not just mention the contradiction in the sources.

As a final guidance. I am a perfect example of a WP-reader, so I suggest you write that piece of the history for me :-). I don't mind that there are conflicting sources, so that should be mentioned. I wish to read in very few words and without any conclusions that there is no mentioning of that fight in the war diaries. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What is an interesting piece of history of place names, the name Beloostrov initially (and up to the Winter War) meant the village located along the St. Petersburg-Vyborg highway. But after the Winter War and the Continuation War new buildings were made especially near the Beloostrov station, and gradually the name Beloostrov moved from the village to the railway station. As they are quite close to each other, I presume (this is my original research ;-)) that this is the reason for confusion between Soviet and Finnish sources: Modern historians reading about the Soviet attack to Beloostrov think about the "modern" Beloostrov instead of the historical one. --Whiskey (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I also came to the private conclusion (OR) that it might be a naming mixup. So all sources could be be correct, but they use different definitions in their claims, ie the definition of the place name is not identical. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No there is no confusion there. Russian sources clearly say Novyi (New) Beloostrov, which refers to the newer settlement around the train station.

Again, the issue is that while I have secondary sources and a primary source (that is direct, no interpretation required) that say the fighting happened, Wanderer602 relies on his interpretation of primary sources (which the diaries are). Can he claim that it did not happen because his own research of primary sources did not confirm it, and that not be considered OR? -YMB29 (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's new info. So now we have a Russian secondary source and a primary source on one side and secondary sources and a primary source on the other side. Wander602 cannot claim it did not happen, but he can include the fact that his primary source does not mention it. btw. I personally still wouldn't be supprised if the Russian naming somehow got "lost in translation", but I cannot conclude. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

On Finnish side there are no naming issues either. Also there is whole ton of Finnish war diaries (not just a single war diary) of the units (and their subunits as well as higher echelons all the way to Finnish main HQ war diaries) none of which mention any activity at the location at that time. In addition (one difficult to cite) the official Finnish database of war casualties contain whole 3 KIA for the time period (September 4/5) in question for the unit responsible for the area (47th Infantry Regiment). Also at least one Soviet version told explictly how it was the General Pajari's 18th division that attacked N. Beloostrov, while according to all Finnish sources (primary, secondary and so on) 18th Infantry Division (Gen. Pajari) attacked S. Beloostrov at that very day, N. Beloostrov belonged to operational area of 12th division (Vihma). So yes, i have no problems with there being a mention of Soviet version of events that Finns attacked Valkeasaari station (Novyi Beloostrov) as long as its clearly noted that neither Finnish sources agree with it nor can there be found any Finnish casualties related to fighting at Valkeasaari station (of the 3 KIA only 1 died nearby Valkeasaari, at Aleksandrovka). - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the 18th division attacked S. Beloostrov does not mean that its units did not attack N. Beloostrov also. -YMB29 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually it does. The fighting at S. Beloostrov and all the 18th divisions actions there (successes as well as failures) are well documented in Finnish war literature (primary, secondary and so on sources) since something actually happened there. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Russian sources usually make the distinction between the old settlement and the new one, but I am not sure about Finnish sources. With regard to the fighting at the new settlement (Novyi Beloostrov, railway station), Wanderer602 only has a primary source (the diaries); his secondary sources is just used to reference the fighting at the old settlement (Staryi Beloostrov, village).

If he includes that his primary source does not mention it, would not that still be OR since that is his conclusion based on the primary source? How do we know that he is looking at the right diaries or that the diaries available to the public are complete? It is not something that any educated reader can verify without special knowledge, especially since the source is in Finnish.

To me it seems that the best way to phrase it would be something like: According to Soviet/Russian sources there was fighting at the Novyi Beloostrov settlement on the 4th and 5th of September. -YMB29 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@wanderer: your comment here is way too much detail and interpretation for WP, sorry.

@YMB29: you are an educated person, if you had access to Wanderer's sources, you would be able to observe that the fights are not mentioned. An observation is not a conclusion. He cannot conclude that the fights did not take place. Yes, we don't know if his sources are reliable or exhaustive. "the right diaries" "diaries are complete", yes, but every source can be questioned. Language barriers should not count as accessibility issues, learn Finnish :-). I like your proposal and would add something like "war diaries do not mention it".

Now you both should be able to come to an agreement, with help from Whiskey. If you want I will review your final joint proposal. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And one final comment: if we can't conclude one truth from the sources we must live with a bit of unclear undefined history --POVbrigand (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the Finnish literature mentions it, war diaries or other primary sources are no way unique in that regard - in addition some of the Soviet sources which should mention (ie. primary source, status report of that section of the front on that exact day) makes no mention of fighting at Valkeasaari station, they do however mention fighting at Valkeasaari village. In my opinion whole entry should be removed but if it is insisted that it must be included then something "...however no Finnish source - including war diaries - can substantiate the Soviet claim" is far closer than "war diaries do not mention it" statement. Also it should be noted somehow that neither were there any Finnish casualties (KIA) at that time and place. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So again you think you are a professional historian who looked at tons of Finnish documents to conclude that no Finnish sources can substantiate the "claim"...

You also continue to make interpretations from two random Soviet documents you found (while ignoring the document I found), even though you don't understand what they say... -YMB29 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you or any one else can provide a single Finnish document which supports the Soviet claim i would gladly take such a statement away. Besides I know enough Russian (or cyrilic alphabet) to read/decypher the location names from the documents. In addition to that it is not exactly that difficult to translate the documents - it would be beyond my abilities if those were handwritten but typewrited pages are doable. Good old dictionary and modern translation software can do wonders. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok then let's see you translate them...

I don't have to provide any Finnish documents to you. One reliable source is enough. Wikipedia is not about Finnish sources only... -YMB29 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are demanding that i should translate them for you? Right... And as it happens the war diaries are reliable sources just as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable but you can't misuse them. Are you able to follow what is going on?

Well if you say that you can understand those Soviet reports, you should be able to translate them... -YMB29 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because i can understand them does not mean that i need to translate them for you. I'm hoping however that you are yourself able to read enough Russian to do that but should you be incapable of reading them then i can help you out. - Wanderer602 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You can help yourself out first. At least tell me what it says there if you understand them. -YMB29 (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If it seems to be so difficult for you to read Russian text it seems surprising that you were able to find sources in that language.

The 146 report however goes (never said it would be smooth)

Operational summary n. 146/op 16.00 5.9.1941 23rd Army HQ, Agalatovo.

1. Army continues to perform the task assigned (for it) by commander in chief...

- Wanderer602 (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry I can read it just fine. I just want to see if you understand it as you claim. What does it say in regard to what we are talking about? -YMB29 (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not make any mention of N. Beloostrov. So, none. First text page refers to other areas of the front and the last page has some content on S. Beloostrov. 1025th regiment (which alledgedly by the other source was at N. Beloostrov) was fighting at S. Beloostrov, results of the battle were not yet known. Rest is comments that some parts of the division were still hadnt been deployed and that units at Siestarjoki (Rajajoki) were firmly holding the line going along old border and that Finns facing him showed no activity (do note that is directly adjacent to the Valkeasaari station). And finally some details of planned unit deployments (of 43rd RD) and information that 941st regiment is fighting surrounded at Kirja(t)salo and so on... - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, it says nothing about the regiment fighting at S. Beloostrov. See that is why you should not interpret primary sources, especially those written in a language you don't understand. -YMB29 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is saying that regiment is fighting in a line from S. Beloostrov to Pil'n. The deduction that there the unit is not fighting at the area separately mentioned in the document is your OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No I am explaining what it says in Russian. The deduction from that statement that the unit was fighting in S. Beloostrov is OR. -YMB29 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So in your expert opinion if a source explicitly states that unit was fighting on a line going from S. Beloostrov to Pi'n it is actually stating that unit was not fighting at S. Beloostrov? - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't try to twist my words. I said that it does not mean that the unit was fighting in the settlement, which you claim must be true. If you could speak Russian you would know that. Again, you trying to interpret original sources written in Russian is beyond ridiculous... -YMB29 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources, as stated by yourself need to be read exactly as they have been written, without interpretation. Now that source states that unit (1025th regiment) fought on a line from S. Beloostrov to Pil'n making explicit mention of S.Beloostrov. Which according to the rules of the primary source usage means the fighting happened (at least) at S. Beloostrov. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So you understand the rules now? Well I guess only when you think the rules suit you... Very good, but на рубеже does not mean in... Learn Russian if you want to use sources written in Russian. -YMB29 (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that it would have there is no point twisting my comments. However you have represented it as an evidence that if unit fights on a line extending from S. Beloostrov it is according to you stating that it couldn't have been fighting at S. Beloostrov. Which last time i checked is interpreting the sources and OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You said: "Which according to the rules of the primary source usage means the fighting happened (at least) at S. Beloostrov", so I am not twisting anything. Once again you are the one twisting words here. I just said that you are wrong, that the phrase does not mean that the unit fought at S. Beloostrov. -YMB29 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight if a source explicitly states a location in relation to where unit fought you deduct that this means that unit could not have fought at that location? - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No I just told you what the phrase means in Russian, but apparently you are an expert on the Russian language... -YMB29 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that if in Soviet source the location name is explicitly spelled out as a point in the line the troops were fighting at it actually means that troops were not fighting in that location? - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not mean that it is a point where the unit was fighting at. The phrase means that the unit was fighting at the edge of the line (or boundary) that connects S. Beloostrov and Pil'n. This is the last time I am telling you this. -YMB29 (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So if it explicitly states that you are interpreting it that it is also saying that it is not fighting at the specifically defined end of the lines? If that is not OR from your part then i do not know what is. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What? -YMB29 (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding User:YMB29 comment on the noticeboard page... Perhaps he or some one can then explain the exact meaning of phrase "ведет бой на рубеже" (which according to translations available to me translate into 'fights on the line' or 'fights at') and also what precisely does "1025сп ведет бой на рубеже: Cтар. БЕЛООСТРОВ, ПИЛЬН, кв. 7064Б. о результатах боя 5.9.41г. данные не поступили." mean exactly? - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I told you before that it says that the regiment is fighting along the frontline from S. Beloostrov to a place called Pil'n. This does not mean that it was fighting in S. Beloostrov itself.

This document actually fits well with what I found. It is from the 23rd Army HQ and written on the 5th. It says that information about the fighting by the 1025th regiment on the 5th did not arrive yet. The report I found was sent to the 23rd Army HQ by the 291st division and was written on the 6th. So the 23rd Army HQ did not have information on the activities of the 1025th regiment until the 6th, when they got the report that I found. So all the 23rd Army HQ could report on the 5th about the regiment is where it was approximately fighting, without details. -YMB29 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So now you claim you have authority and knowledge make your own interpretation and judgements on what the primary sources states - that is to say - that the definition of the fighting area is exclusive instead of inclusive. Aint that exactly the type of OR you have been blaming me for? - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, I just told you that it does not say that there was fighting at S. Beloostrov. We can analyze and interpret sources on the talk page, but not in the article. -YMB29 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Same as above, if the source does state that unit fight on a line running from S. Beloostrov to some other place then is it not direct quote to state that unit fought at S. Beloostrov? According to what you are saying is that if a source explicitly mentions unit fighting at S. Beloostrov (or from it) it is according to your interpretation stating that it was not fighting at S. Beloostrov? How is that not OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who is guilty of OR here, since you insist that the statement means that the regiment was fighting there. I am telling you that your assertion is wrong and that it is just your wishful interpretation, but you think that you are some Russian-speaking historian... -YMB29 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As stated in the usage of primary sources - one you have been so fond of repeatedly posting for me the primary source needs to be read as it has been written. Now the source explicitly states that unit fought in S. Beloostrov (or from a line extending from there). How is that you can summarily dismiss in that case? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See above. Learn Russian before you claim that a Russian sentence explicitly states something... -YMB29 (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I answered this one at the first branch, better continue it there. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know about the language issue. This is English wiki so I would think a reader should not have to learn another language to verify information from a primary source.

In that context the statement that "war diaries do not mention it" is still a conclusion, not just an observation. He looked at a few diaries and concludes that; this is his own research. The statement assumes that he knew all the right diaries to look at. -YMB29 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I didnt' look 'a few diaries' i went through all the digitized war diaries of all the units deployed in that area at that time (JR6, JR46, JR47, JR49), their higher echelons (divisional and army corps level) and the top level war diary (Finnish General HQ, which btw makes clear mention of fighting at Valkeasaari village at that time). List of the units deployed at the area at the time can be found from a number of Finnish sources (primary, secondary, and i suppose even tertiary). Since the digitized war diaries included the main war diary (ie. the timestamped entries of the events - the ones i even linked to the discussion page) of the units in question it was not that challenging to go through the data and check if any of them reported that the unit had taken part or even witnessed combat at Valkeasaari station at September 4/5. So in short, no, i did not miss any of the main war diaries of the units question, and no, none of them took part to the fighting at or even saw any fighting going on at Valkeasaari station. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In other words i searched pretty much 'every nook and cranny' to prove that fighting would have taken place at Valkeasaari station at September 4/5. However there was none to be found from the Finnish side. On the other hand there appears to be assortment of Soviet documents, some of which state that fighting did happened there, and others which just the Finnish documents do not make any mention of the Novyi Beloostrov at the specified time. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Again you only found two Soviet documents, that are very brief in what they mention, and dismiss the one I found, so how does that prove anything I don't know... Maybe if those two documents were the only ones in the world...

So in other words you carried out an exhaustive research of Finnish primary sources? Now only if you can study to become a qualified expert and publish a book... Then you could cite your book and it won't be OR. You can't expect an average educated reader without special knowledge of the issue to verify your research.

Thank you for proving my point... -YMB29 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The two documents do not summarily dismiss the one you found - however you should not ignore them either. So far you have summarily dismissed them. Problem with your logic - with regards to Finnish sources - is that if nothing happened there wouldnt have been any mention of it either - nor would there ever be any books of the topic since if nothing took place there is nothing to talk or discuss about. As usual the lack of evidence on one side does not translate into abundance of evidence on the other. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Here comes the twisted logic again... When there is no evidence on one side and enough on the other, you have to go by what evidence there is, even though you might not like it. A historian can analyze Soviet and Finnish sources in a book and conclude that the Soviet sources are wrong, but you can't do that.

As for the Soviet documents, how many times can I tell you that them not mentioning the fighting means nothing to our discussion, since they are just two reports from a sea of documents. Like I said, I can pick two other ones at random that happen to not mention the Finns at all and conclude that Finland was not in the war... -YMB29 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So... With [20] (the last diff segment) that there is a clear mention of the front at the 12th divisions sector (including Valkeasaari station) was calm and/or peaceful. Clearly opposite from the Soviet claim that there was heavy fighting in that area. But i suppose you will try to dismiss it regardless with some excuse. Also 'Soviet sea of documents' seems very intriguing since you can end with two totally opposite answers by carefully selecting your sources which handle the same area at similar level of detail. - Wanderer602 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Give it up, you don't make sense...

(A) 47th regiment operated in the area + (B) diary entries saying that it was calm and peaceful for the 47th regiment = (C) no fighting at N. Beloostrov <--- clear example of synthesis. Are you going to continue proving my point? -YMB29 (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite close with your example however it is the diary source alone which state the 47th regiments area as well as the fact that nothing happened and that it was calm and peaceful. So there is no synthesis (using multiple sources). It is just a conclusion (all data is available from the single source), but nice try. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No wrong again... It does not matter if it all comes from one source; if you make a conclusion based on two separate statements from one source, it is still synthesis. It is not synthesis of sources but synthesis of separate information, since you still reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. -YMB29 (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

All true except the information is from a single line and from a single statement (which according you you makes it clear that it is not a synthesis) [21] the first entry on the page on the timestamped 4./5.9.41: JR47: Rajajoki-Aleksandrovka rauhallista. Single line which conveniently IDs the unit facing the Valkeasaari station and notes that night (when according to Soviet sources the attack happened) was calm (as in 'quiet' or 'peaceful'). No synthesis, sorry. Then there is the separate statement in the document that notes that the September 5 1941 in the 12th divisions area of operations was quiet (or 'calm' or 'peaceful'). They are separate statements both stating that it was quiet. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So? From that you conclude that there was no fighting at N. Beloostrov.

You have to learn to read the rules carefully. WP:PRIMARY: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. -YMB29 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

N. Beloostrov is located by the Rajajoki (fact). Finnish reports stated that whole 12th division's (into whose area of operations N. Beloostrov belonged to) area was quiet. And even more specifically it stated that the river area of 47th regiment (opposing the station) was quiet at the time of the alledged fighting. There is no analysis, synthesis, interpretation or evaluation related to those statements they are clear as they are. If it is helpful according to wiktionary 'rauhallinen' and 'rauhallisesti' (its adverb) the Finnish terms used to describe the situation translate to peaceful, quiet, restful, serene, tranquil - nothing that would even remotely describe heavy fighting. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is still your interpretation any way you put it. You derive a lot from one short sentence, that only the 47th regiment could have been at N. Beloostrov and that the area that is mentioned as being quite includes the settlement. This OR can't be taken seriously here, especially when it tries to disprove reliable sources. -YMB29 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that doesn't hold. 1) JR 47 war diary should have mentioned the adjacent unit there, as it had identified other adjacent units (6th and 49th). 2) No Finnish secondary sources place any unit to N. Beloostrov at that time. (JR 47 goes there only at 10th.) 3) It doesn't make military sense: Why should there be a separate unit in the middle of the line of I/JR47? Tactical nightmare. --Whiskey (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, you are not a historian and that attempt at an analysis means nothing... Reliable sources cannot be disproved by OR. -YMB29 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Finnish War Diaries (especially those by National Archives Services - Arkistolaitos) are also reliable sources. Finnish secondary sources place no other units than JR 47 at the section of the front facing N. Beloostrov at September 4/5 1941. Finnish primary source - the said 12. D war diary - state exactly the same but also state that situation in night between September 4 - 5 as well as on during the day of September 5 was 'rauhallinen' (quiet, tranquil, serene). It states exactly that without being subjected to any analysis, synthesis, interpretation or evaluation. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So it says that it was "quiet/tranquil/serene" in N. Beloostrov? Could you quote where it says exactly that because you did not provide that quote the last time...

There is no point watching you go in circles, constantly repeating the same thing, denying your own OR, and pretending to not understand the rules. I am going to try to get more users or an admin to comment. So far the two users who did comment agreed that what you are doing is indeed OR. -YMB29 (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have posted the quotes several times. It's a fact that N. Beloostrov lies at the edge of Rajajoki (River Сестра). Finnish secondary sources place that location under 12th Divisions area of operations and they also (explicitly) state that JR 47 alone was at 'front duty' in that sector of the front at the time. 12th Division's war diary verifies both of the above and also (explicitly) states that it was 'rauhallista' during the night between 4 and 5 September at JR 47's sector of the front and that September 5 was 'rauhallinen' throughout 12th Divisions area. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You just proved my point once again... -YMB29 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

And what would that be? The primary sources in above are used exactly according to the stated rules in wikipedia. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you just don't understand the rules and don't listen to others when they try to explain them. -YMB29 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually the rules are quite specific and allow the use of the primary sources within the limits there are currently used in the article. So far your personal opinion that it would be OR has not been supported by any one. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You sure about that? [22]

And what rules allow you to use primary sources for your own conclusions? -YMB29 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Draw conclusions? The source explicitly states that the front facing the N. Beloostrov was quiet/calm/tranquil/peaceful (those are how the words the word 'rauhallinen' translates to) at the time. There are no conclusions, or anything such in there (SYN or OR) - only what the primary source states. I would have much preferred to use something other than primary source however given no others sources mention anything about N. Beloostrov on or about September4/5 there really were nothing else than primary sources to use. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

How many times have you repeated the same thing?

I will repeat too then: Certain units facing N. Beloostrov + Diary entries of those units saying that it was quiet = No fighting in N. Beloostrov

This is obvious synthesis... Should I draw a diagram? -YMB29 (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, its not since N. Beloostrov is located on that very site (on the east bank of Rajajoki/River Sestra). That was part of their operational area and they reported it to be quiet. They explictly mention the locations of their units in the document and make it explicitly clear that the front in that area (of which N. Beloostrov was part of) was quiet. It might be synthesis if the documents would not mention their locations but it does so it is not synthesis. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You have two sources - one for that the division's units were in the area (where is the quote?) and another that says that it was quiet for those units. Then based on this synthesis of sources you conclude that there was no fighting in N. Beloostrov...

There is no explicit mention of N. Beloostrov being part of their area of operations only or that it was quiet there; you are making the conclusion that only they could have been in the town and that there was no fighting there. -YMB29 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You never asked a quote for that, however there are plenty of those for example from 'Jatkosodan hyökkäystaisteluja 1941' (see refs from article), page 151 referring to September 1: "Kapteeni Eero Rinteen pataljoona (II/JR47) eteni rajalle rautatien suunnassa. (En. Captain Eero Rinne's battalion (2nd battalion of 47th Infantry Regiment) advanced to the border at the direction of the railroad.). In other words stating very clearly that JR47 (which was part of the 12th Division, or do you insist on a quote before you believe that?) reached border (which run along Rajajoki river at the direction of the railroad) at the shore opposing the N. Beloostrov since it existed along that very same railroad on the shore of the very same river Sestra (Rajajoki) only on the 'Soviet bank'. Unless you are claiming that N. Beloostrov perhaps existed in some other place than that? Same exact information is in the war diary, written out very clearly in status report where the location of JR47 is reported. Now we know that from those documents (and from many others) that JR47 was stationed on the western bank of Rajajoki river at the railroad - which is the location facing the N. Beloostrov. Next we have war diary which (in addition to reporting the location) states that situation was quiet/calm/tranquil both for the night of the September 4/5 as well as for the September 5. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care what the Soviet sources state but Finnish sources make it clear that no significant action was seen in that area at that time - infact only actions mentioned in any of those war diaries for that date are the mopping up actions as there were lots of Soviet stragglers from the shattered 23rd Army who were retreating more or less disorderly towards Leningrad only to find that Finns had reached Rajajoki before them. Then there is also the total absence of anything mentioned in the area in other Finnish records. In other words according to Finnish sources (primary or secondary) very little or anything besides mopping up actions took place there at the time of the claimed attack or counterattack. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What you just explained is a clear example of original research; you looked at multiple sources, including original, and arrived at your own conclusion. Thanks for proving my point once again...

And your quote says nothing about N. Beloostrov, just like I thought... -YMB29 (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No it does not. It is just stating exactly what the source is stating. Multiple sources are there just to verify the location of the 12th Divisions since you denied that it couldnt be at that particular location. There is no research of any kind being done regarding the primary source there. Also while it is true that does not mention N.Beloostrov it does however explicitly mention the location where N. Beloostrov is located (you see, the station was not of importance to Finns, the river was). Only if you deny that N. Beloostrov is in that location then it would not refer to the location of N. Beloostrov - so do you deny that N. Beloostrov was located at the eastern shore of river Sestra (or Rajojoki river) along the main railroad leading from Leningrad to Finland (if you do not then the location reported in Finnish documents is the same as the location of the N. Beloostrov, if you do then you are in contradiction of several documents and maps produced of the area)? - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So from "advanced to the border at the direction of the railroad" you deduct that they were right near N. Beloostrov and no other Finnish military unit could have been there? That is really stretching it...

Unless you provide a source that explicitly says it was quiet in the town on September 4-5, 1941, this is all just your own conclusions. Do I have to post this on the OR noticeboard again? -YMB29 (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You are again misrepresenting the situation. As stated Finnish troops of JR47 of the 12th Division reached Rajajoki at the direction of the railroad (ie. advanced up to the point where the railroad crosses the river Sestra). Furthermore the document states that no other units advanced in that direction. And that is with the secondary source. The primary source states the JR47 was at Rajajoki at the location where the railroad crosses it in September 4 and 5. Which means that the Finnish unit JR47 was holding position in the western bank of the Rajajoki (Sestra) river opposite to the location of N. Beloostrov. And primary source explicitly states that the area facing N. Beloostrov was quiet at the time. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not explicitly say anything you claim. This is your analysis. -YMB29 (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It does actually, the war diary explicitly mentions that it was quiet/tranquil (even separately for both JR47 and for the whole 12D). There is nothing to be analyzed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Where does it explicitly say that it was quiet in N. Beloostrov? -YMB29 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It states that on Rajajoki river (the front) - by which N. Beloostrov was built to, unless you are again disputing the location of N. Beloostrov - it was quiet. N. Beloostrov was on the edge of that river by the railroad crossing, the exact location which the sources states that was quiet.

I have honestly tried to find any Finnish evidence that anything took place there. However there is none. No units have reported anything. No casualties have been reported in the are. It was quiet exactly like the 12th Division war diary states. So far only unit ID that was given by the Soviet based sources was for unit fighting at S. Beloostrov at that very day. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can't find any evidence then that is your problem. Again, you are not a historian for your research to count here... There are reliable sources that say it happened, so that is enough. This article is not only about Finnish sources... -YMB29 (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually its not. Finnish chronologies going over the fighting in the area does not mention events at N.Beloostrov on 4/5 Sept. So those are equally reliable sources stating that it did not. There is a conflict between the sources that much is true. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Again your sources don't say that it did not happen; this is your own conclusion. -YMB29 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There are no Finnish sources (those that i references or others) that would state there had been a fight. Instead there are several sources (like the ones i have used) which go through the fighting in the area but do not mention fighting at N. Beloostrov while noting amongst other fighting at S. Beloostrov. As per what POVbrigand stated a Finnish source which goes through the fighting in the area and omits the fighting on September 4/5 at N. Beloostrov is enough to refute the statement that there had been a fight. That being said best way would be to represent the both views. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No you cannot use your own personal view here... There has to be a reliable published source that explicitly says this for the view to count. How many times can I tell you that? -YMB29 (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not using personal views, I'm using reliable sources. I added a source which deals with fighting in the war clearly mentioning the nearby fighting however omitting the fighting at N. Beloostrov on 4/5 September. As per what has been said before that is enough to refute the Soviet claim of the fighting there. You do not need to like it but that is how it is. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to learn to follow the rules, and not only when you like it... Once again, your own research cannot refute reliable sources. -YMB29 (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Both sides are using reliable sources. And reliable sources can be used to refute other reliable sources. There is nothing different or special about the sources on either side. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that your sources don't refute anything... -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

They refute the Soviet claim of fighting at N. Beloostrov on 4/5 September 1941. Nothing more. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No that is the conclusion you make. -YMB29 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And you base this on what exactly? The source i added there is the chronology of the Continuation War which lists the battles which took place. It omits the events at N. Beloostrov on 4/5 September 1941 while clearly describing other events at the front at that time (including battles at S. Beloostrov). As per the guidelines from POVbrigand that is enough to refute the Soviet claim. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that there was no fighting. You conclude that because you can't find a mention of it in the sources you looked at. -YMB29 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Does any book which discusses fighting ever mention every place where there was no fighting? The book handles fighting in sufficient detail to include all the fighting in the vicinity into it. Yet it omits mentioning N. Beloostrov with regards to September 4/5. On the books there have been no references into any activity at Valkeasaari railroad station on September 4/5. War diaries do not mention any. Official history of the war does not mention any. However there were wealth of mentions regarding Soviets efforts towards Aleksandrovka and S. Beloostrov. In short there are no mentions that Finns would have captured N. Beloostrov on September 4/5. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because you did not find any mention of it does not mean it did not happen. There are reliable sources mentioning it, so your personal research means nothing... -YMB29 (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And there are reliable sources which describe the fighting in the area which omit any mention of such fights. Which makes it not original research to contest the claim of that the fighting at N. Beloostrov took place. It is just a fact that the sources contradict each other. What Whiskey has been doing here is to found out why exactly they do so. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is OR and there just is no way around that. You need to follow the rules... -YMB29 (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As per what has been discussed before that is a valid reference without being OR. Just because you do not like it does not mean it wouldn't be valid. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because you like it does not mean it is valid... The other user mentioned that you could add only a simple phrase, but that too would be OR. -YMB29 (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the only problem with the phrase was that it directly implied that Soviet sources were wrong not that it would be OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No since it implied that based on your research. -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Read more closely what he wrote about it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I did... -YMB29 (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wonder how you missed: "If there are indeed reliable secondary sources that do not mention fighting at that location, than the claim that there was no fighting is not original resource." section then. And that is exactly what i did. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No that is wrong, since it is still your personal conclusion. -YMB29 (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not mine conclusion, the reliable secondary sources which goes through the fighting in the war makes no mention of the fact. It is the conclusion done in the chronology in question that fighting at N. Beloostrov did not take place at that time. Not mine. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok so again, quote where it explicitly says that there was no fighting, otherwise it is your conclusion. It is really simple... -YMB29 (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read what the statements in the article state. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I did... -YMB29 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's see then...

However, according to Soviet sources the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day,[61][62] although the war diary of the Finnish 12th Division facing the settlement[60] does not mention the fighting and notes that it was quiet at the time[63] while the neighboring 18th Division gave clear orders on the morning of 4 September 1941 not to advance to N. Beloostrov.[64] Neither does Finnish chronology of the Continuation War mention fighting at N. Beloostrov on 4-5 September 1941.[65]

Finnish 12th D diary states precisely what is said in the article

Finnish 18th D diary does the same.

The chronology does not mention activity at N. Beloostrov either on 4/5 September.

What would be OR there? - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wanderer602, YMB29 - let's wait until the mediation starts properly to discuss this. It's really not helpful to keep arguments going on the talk page while we are in mediation. There will be plenty of time later to discuss this and all the other issues, so please have a little patience until we go through this on the mediation page. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

If I were to make up my mind based on how and in what tone both parties present their point, I would favor Wanderer.

YMB29, you brought this case to the noticeboard, because you thought Wanderer was making OR. I think that wanderer seems to be really happy in plowing through numerous war diaries in the hope to get a better picture on what happened. Unfortunately for him, WP is not interested in hearing his conclusions, that would be OR. However it is allowable to add the direct (uninterpreted) facts from the primary sources to WP. The primary sources that he read "do not mention the fight". YMB29, this does not mean that your sources are wrong. This does not mean that "somebody lost" and "somebody won". WP does not work like that. In this case WP wins when both parties lose a little, and WP loses when one of the parties wins.

I really think that both of you should stop bringing up more details or more defense babble, it will not bring you any closer to an agreement. And both of you have already indicated willingness to come to an agreement, so I don't understand why you are not working in that direction.

@YMB29, please accept that there are contradicting sources, there is nothing against presenting both positions.

@Wanderer, do not combine information from different primary sources. Do not add more and more supporting facts like "too few casualties" or "unit XY was not there". If you put all that stuff together, then the combination of all those fact is SYNTH even if you don't explicitly make the conclusion, let's call it "SYNTH by suggestion" (I made that one up myself). If you present too many facts from primary sources in such a way that the reader will surely start making conclusions that the russian sources must be wrong, then you clearly overdid it. The only thing you can add is "the diaries do not mention it", your earlier proposal "...however no Finnish source - including war diaries - can substantiate the Soviet claim" is not ok, because you are insinuating that the russian sources are wrong. Don't do that. Mention the war diaries, make a reference to the material you reviewed. Anybody that is interested will then be able to find those diaries, learn Finnish :-) and do their own OR just like you did.

I forgot to mention: If there are Finnish secondary sources that come to different conclusions than Russian secondary sources, then just present both views. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just posted it to the noticeboard, didn't notice these posts before that. Copied the last statements over - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not against presenting both contradicting views. However in this case the only thing contradicting the sources I found is his OR.

Adding that diaries "do not mention the fight" is still OR since that statement is based on his research of primary sources. -YMB29 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That part is not OR since none of the cited sources state that there would have been any fighting and one of the sources is a in depth research (reliable secondary source) into the fighting of the Continuation War.

If there are indeed reliable secondary sources that do not mention fighting at that location, than the claim that there was no fighting is not original resource. Of course the Finnish source should be reliable in that it is a thorough description of where fightings took place.... -POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

- Wanderer602 (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if you looked at secondary sources, it is still your research. None of your sources make that conclusion, but you do. Is that so hard to understand? -YMB29 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Partially wrong. If a source describes the fighting in the area and omits that particular event (while still making full account of similar events that took place in vicinity) it is strong enough evidence to be used as source to state that fighting did not happen - it is not original research in that case. As per previous reviewer of the issue. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No it is still OR. You are making the judgment that the source mentions all fighting except that particular event, and concluding that it did not happen. -YMB29 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is perfectly in line with the guidance for such issues given from POVbrigand. The source handles the fighting in detail (including both the Aleksandrova and S. Beloostrov events) but there is not a single word of anything with regards to N. Beloostrov. Same conclusion is supported by all the war diaries. Just because you do not like it does not mean it wasn't so. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because you don't like that the Finns got kicked out of there, does not mean that you can claim that it did not happen... Wikipedia is about what reliable sources say and not what your own research finds. Besides, the information Whiskey found proves you wrong... -YMB29 (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact it doesn't. We are talking about the stretch of a road running between Aleksandrovka and Beloostrov station. The frontline cut the road at a certain point. At the Finnish side, the closest location was Aleksandrovka and the forces were based there, so any attack against them was considered an attack against Aleksandrovka. At the Soviet side, the closest location was Beloostrov station and the forces tried to ease the threat to the station. It is just the point of view, how one looks at it. In fact, I'm positively surprised how we are narrowing our differences on the issue when we get as close as possible to the reports written at the time by the people who were there, on the both sides, and abandoning the high level historians who wrote without local knowledge! --Whiskey (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What Whiskey found is perfectly in-line with what is described in both the war diaries and in the official history. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe but not in line with your personal research... -YMB29 (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, also in line with the war diaries (assuming you refer to those reliable sources as my personal research). - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about what you personally conclude based on reliable sources. -YMB29 (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Concluding? If the source comments on activities on the area in detail and omits any mentions of activity towards Valkeasaari station is that not the sources conclusion that nothing happened there? - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No that is your conclusion... -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually as stated that conclusion is done in the source, not by me. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So quote it where it explicitly says that there was no fighting... -YMB29 (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

See above - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it... -YMB29 (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion above. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

All I see are your conclusions... -YMB29 (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's try a little different approach: Let's take all those documents as they are written, in good faith. That means they are all written as their writers had seen as truthful as possible. This means that all discrepansies from these documents comes because of some misunderstanding, lack of information or accidental writing errors.

Now I ask both of you to play devil's advocate and provide two reasons why your supported documents might not provide truthful image of what happened. --Whiskey (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

YMB29 on Soviet documents:

There was a possibility that Luknitskiy might have mixed up the locations since he was not actually there on the 4-5th, but many other Soviet/Russian sources say the same thing. When I found the report it became clear that he was not mixing anything up. I don't know how the report to the army HQ could have such a mistake... -YMB29 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wanderer602 on Finnish documents:

War diary of Finnish 12th division - under which the JR47 facing the Valkeasaari station belonged to. Operational boundary between 12th and 18th divisions placed Valkeasaari station (Novyi Beloostrov) into 12th divisions area of operations.

4./5.9.41: JR47: Rajajoki-Aleksandrovka rauhallista. (en. (Night between) September 4 - 5 1941: 47th Infantry Regiment: All quiet at Rajajoki-Aleksandrovka.)

5.9.1941: Päivä kului kaikkialla rauhallisesti (en. September 5 1941: Day was everywhere quiet - referring to the divisions area of operations)

- Wanderer602 (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a general remark on how to resolve this (the sources are unavailable to me). Under normal circumstances, we should trust an army's reports on its own actions only, because a belligerent side never has sufficient data on the opponent's operations. In this case, if one side reports the other one's attack while the opponent claims it was peaceful, we should not consider it as a fact. Vice versa, if an army reports an attack while the defender says it was peaceful, we should consider it proven. It is standard establishment of facts. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise true however there is one minor point you are overlooking here. Fighting is a action into which both parties fighting the battle took part to. Last i checked the fighting is a action into which both parties taking part to the battle actually need to participate for a battle to happen in the first place. Its just the same if one claims that enemy attacked or that it itself attacked if no evidence of either action can be found from the opposing side - after all the some one on the opposing side should have taken part to a battle for it to happen in the first place. Besides with the Soviet version starts with Finns attacking the station (which according to your rules is not true, since its not supported by Finnish evidence) and then continues with Soviets attacking and retaking the station (which according to your rules is true, since its supported by Soviet evidence) were are with your set rules left with controversial evidence. Can an event which by your rules is not proven lead to event that is proven - ie. we have two options either the first attack didn't happen which means that the second attack couldn't have happen either - or if the first attack happened then the the second attack must have happened as well... (first attack - Finnish taking the station; second attack - Soviets retaking the station) - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

First, in the book Kannaksen kahlaajat, JR6 jatkosodassa by E.I.Häkkinen, the end of the offensive is described as follows: "... then commander of the regiment ordered to advance along the (Aleksandrovka) road to the creek about 0.5km north of Beloostrov station. At 9 o'clock began the attack of the III Battallion. ...III B reached the target at 11. Then it was noticed, that the small hill south of the creek had to be secured, because it controlled surrounding terrain. ...At 15 o'clock the new target was reached." --Whiskey (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Location of this hill was at 60°08′58.2″N 30°00′47″E / 60.149500°N 30.01306°E / 60.149500; 30.01306. At 4.30 September 5 Soviet forces began their counterattack agains III B, but it failed to gain ground. At 7.00 a new attack with an assist of three tanks, one KV-1 advancing from Beloostrov station, running through Finnish lines and finally stuck to the creek behind the Finnish lines. While Finns managed to hold the lines against the Soviet attacks, it took several hours before Finns managed to destroy the tank stuck behind their backs.

This account supports both the War Diary of JR47, book of "Suomen sota 1941-1945" and Soviet documents chastising front commanders from ineffective use of tanks. It also establishes the Finnish frontline at the sector, as we now know exactly where both 12D and 18D were located at the time relative to Beloostrov station. As Häkkinen's book describes also neighbouring units, it is clear that according the Finnish sources, there was no Finnish forces in Beloostrov station at September 4/5. --Whiskey (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes Soviet sources also mention the tank being stuck, so there is no contradiction.

That last sentence is your conclusion though. This information actually is close to confirming Soviet sources about fighting in N. Beloostrov, as it proves Wanderer602's claims of the Finns being only on the western side of the river and it being "quiet" in the area to be wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, JR47/12D was at the western side of the river and it was quiet on their section of the front. Apart of that fishing equipment acqusition trip by the Gulf of Finland, there were only some Soviet stragglers trying to reach the Soviet side. Also, the Soviet counterattack to Aleksandrovka was also known at the Finnish side history books together with Soviet counterattack to Beloostrov village. You see, how we are getting closer to each other when we get deeper to this issue.:-)

I assumed Finnish positions were a little bit North from they really were, near the most eastern bend of the river, but in reality they were closer to Beloostrov station. But still not in the station itself or even in the rail yard. But close still that from the Soviet side they could be seen from the point of Beloostrov station, as the road to Aleksandrovka did go through the station. (Well, the other road did go through Merituittu, but it was used to attack towards Beloostrov village...) --Whiskey (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Finns were close enough to launch a raid into the town, which was impossible according to Wanderer602... -YMB29 (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. It had already been established that Finns were on the western side of the river, and these positions were even closer to the station than the positions JR6 were holding north of the station.

And I promised one theory which could satisfy accounts from the both sides: It is known, that one has to know the location of the enemy. When Finns were closing the advance, they had trouble keeping in contact with Soviet troops. For that reason, almost all frontline units dispatched recon squads to find out the location of Soviet troops. It is possible that JR47 could have dispatched such a squad to recon Beloostrov station area. If Soviet forces had spotted the recon squad at the station area, it is possible that they had interpreted it as Finns occupying the station, which would have provided the reaction described in Soviet sources. As there is no mention in the Finnish sources about losing a recon squad or fighting at the station, it seems the Finnish squad would have returned safely to the western side of the river. The forces of JR6 north of the station would have provided enough fight to Soviets to provide an evidence to Soviets that Finns really occupied the station and were driven off by the Soviet attack. --Whiskey (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter if it was a recon squad or not. There were Finns there and they were soon kicked out by the Soviets. -YMB29 (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Except there are no records of any kind that Finns would have attacked as has been discussed. Closest Finnish positions to the N.Beloostrov were on the western bank of the Rajajoki. Or would you be kind enough to disclose which Finnish units took in the action? - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was impossible for the Finns to raid the station. However there are no records of such Whiskey explains. In fact it was just one those recon patrols that on 10 September found N. Beloostrov unoccupied. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You were sure that the Finns were only on the western side of the river and that it was quiet in the area near N. Beloostrov. I kept explaining to you that this was just your OR. Now there is evidence that proves you wrong... -YMB29 (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Western side of the river at the Valkeasaari railroad station or N. Beloostrov. Of course Finnish troops were also on the 'eastern side' of the river, but just not at that location - just for reference the S. Beloostrov is also in the eastern side of the river as is Aleksandrovka - both locations were captured by Finnish during the time frame that is being discussed. I also never stated that S. Beloostrov or Aleksandrovka wouldn't have come under heavy attacks, the tank incident Whiskey refers to is very well known incident which happened on the road leading from N. Beloostrov to Aleksandrovka (but not at N. Beloostrov). Just because Finnish troops were also in the eastern side of the river at certain locations does not mean that they would have been at N. Beloostrov. The evidence Whishkey 'found' are just those very same war diaries i have been referring to from the start. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the new evidence shows that the Finns were on the eastern side and very close to N. Beloostrov, in the area where you repeatedly said it was quiet.

Actually according to that source they were in the northern part of N. Beloostrov or just outside it. Look at the coordinates Whiskey gave.[23] That is also where Soviet sources describe the tank being stuck (northern edge of the town). -YMB29 (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The western bank of Rajajoki was still closer to the N. Beloostrov than what the Finns had advanced on the eastern side of the river. And indeed, that location is fairly close to the N. Beloostrov, between N. Beloostrov and Aleksandrovka, however it was is not N. Beloostrov. So claiming that Finns had captured N. Beloostrov on September 4/5 is not true (at least according to Finnish documents). It should be noted that for Finns N. Beloostrov (ie. Valkeasaaren asema) was the station house and its immediate surroundings. And what JR47 and 12D reported corresponded with this. If something happened in what Soviets understood as N. Beloostrov communality (?) that does not directly translate into Finnish location names. In other words Finns could have been within what Soviets understood as N. Beloostrov but they did not capture the station house or its surroundings (ie. what Finns understood as N. Beloostrov) on September 4/5. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

First you claimed that the Finns were only on the other side of the river enjoying the quiet. Now when a Finnish source proved you wrong you admit that they were right on the edge of the town, but you are still sure that they did not take the town and the station. Well you were sure of your earlier claim too...

I know you only trust Finnish sources, but that is your problem. There are reliable Soviet sources that say that the town was taken, and this is not contradicted by Finnish sources. -YMB29 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

At the railroad bridge (ie. at N. Beloostrov) the Finns were only on the western side of the river. Those troops on the western bank of the river were still the closest Finnish troops to the N. Beloostrov. And N. Beloostrov was not a town at that time, even the larger Aleksandrovka and S. Beloostrov were mere villages. Blowing things out of proportions does not advance your case.

Actually it is contradicted by the Finnish sources, none of the units report that they would have taken part in such an operation. The official history (in the Finnish side) finds no evidence of any units taking part in fighting at N. Beloostrov at 4/5 September. On the road from N. Beloostrov to Aleksandrovka, yes, but not at N. Beloostrov. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No that is your OR again.

Beloostrov is referred to as a town in Soviet sources and now we know that Finnish sources say that the Finns were on the northern edge of it, even though you claimed that Finnish sources don't mention any fighting near it. Why can't you admit that you are wrong? -YMB29 (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That none of the Finnish units in the are reported taking part into fighting at N. Beloostrov is not OR, that is simply verified from the war diaries as well as from the chronology. Finnish forces in the western bank of the Rajajoki river were even closer to the N. Beloostrov than the troops at the northern edge. Also for that matter your claim was that Finns would have captured N. Beloostrov and Soviets would have then driven them out. That is not supported by any of the Finnish sources. That there was fighting in its vicinity does not mean that it would have been captured and i did not deny that there wouldn't have been fighting going slightly north of there. However that does not mean that there would have been fighting at N. Beloostrov or more specifically that Finns would have captured it in September 4/5. Furthermore reading from after action report from the JR6 it does not appear that Soviet ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Continuation_War&action=editttack against it 1km north of N.Beloostrov met any success. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again your OR does not count here. You were wrong about the Finns not being close to the town and there is no reason to believe you are right about them not taking it. Here everyone must go by reliable sources, not by what a user deducts... -YMB29 (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

War diaries and the secondary source i used are both reliable sources. Both war diaries (of the 18th and 12th Div) related to the issue make it clear that Finns did not capture N. Beloostrov on September 4/5. They did not even try to. The secondary source agrees with all this. No fighting at N. Beloostrov. In its vicinity, yes, but not at the railroad station itself. And i didn't say Finnish troops would not have been near it. And please do not call it a town since it clearly was not - its not a town even by Russian definition - Town#Russia. Urban-type settlement is just village laid out like a miniature town. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that it was a town...

When you are wrong you have to admit it.

Also I suggest you carefully reread the rules against original research before the mediation starts... -YMB29 (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources state it was 'urban-type settlement' which is just another name for a specific type of a village. Please read the definition of a town. And still, the ones you marked as OR are not such, please read the quoted content more carefully. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You use them to imply that there was no fighting which is OR...

And what reliable sources say that it was a village? -YMB29 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Urban type settlements are villages. They are just specific type of villages (laid out like miniature towns). - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, let's wait until this comes up in mediation for us to discuss it - see my comment above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Link: [24] - dated on September 4.

Partial translation:

Order for forming into defense after capture of Valkeasaari (S. Beloostrov)

2. 18th Division forms, after achieving its goals, into defense at section of the front which is limited on the right to bend in Rajajoki 1 km north from Valkeasaari railroad bridge...

3. Forward picket line: Mouth of the stream roughly 1 km north of Valkeasaari railroad bridge... & Forward edge of main positions: Bend of Rajajoki roughly 1 1/2 km north of Valkeasaari railroad bridge...

4. For those sections where the line ordered for the forward picket line has not been reached regiments must continue their attacks to reach the before mentioned line...

These are of the 18th Division to which JR 6 was subordinated to. There is not a single mention of anything relating to attack in the order, instead on September 4 it explicitly defines the line clearly north of N. Beloostrov and orders units to defense. Only exception being that they were allowed to advance to point 1 km north of the railroad bridge of Valkeasaari - but not to N. Beloostrov.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Link: [25] - concerning activities of III/JR 6.

Reports how school house hill just south of the stream 'dominated' the area. Also reports how it was captured and subsequent action in which Soviet counterattack was stopped. Soviet POWs and documents captured from Soviet messenger reported that goal of the attack was to retake Aleksandrovka. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)