Talk:Finland in World War II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War and Democracy[edit]

would i be correct in saying that when great britain declared war on finland (6 dec 1941) it was only time in history than one domcraticlly elected goverment has declared war on an other domcraticlly elected goverment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.32.6 (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember having read an interesting explantion on how it couldn't be considered such in Martti Koskenniemi's book Kansainväliset pakotteet ja Suomi. Ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikan alaan kuuluvat eisotilaalliset sanktiot ja niiden täytäntöönpano, (In Finnish, transl: "International Sanctions and Finland. Sanctions Relating to Foreign and Security Policy and their Implementation in Finland"), Helsinki 1994, ISBN 9516407056. Unfortunately, I don't have the book at hand, so I can't give an exact quote.--MoRsE 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complementing : After a quick serach I found something like this [1] --MoRsE 00:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finland and Nazism[edit]

I REALLY wonder if the Russian version of this article [2] is equivalent at all - the title is "Finnish occupation of Karelia in 1941-1944" and the first three sentences (machine translated) read: "In 1941?1944 Years the Finnish army occupied east Kareliya which never belonged neither Finland, nor Sweden in structure of which there was Finland up to 1809. The first camp for the Soviet citizens of a slavic origin, including women and children, has been created on October, 24th 1941 In Petrozavodsk. The purpose of creation of the Finnish concentration camps was « ethnic cleaning »: destruction of Russian population in the Russian region occupied by the Finnish army."..

This seems very different from the contents of this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.22.127 (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section reads as an argument rather than a balanced appraisal, in particular in light of the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947 and the Russian version, quoted above. I've tagged it WP:NPOV to encourage cleanup. Vagary 18:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the Russian Wikipedia, this article is categorized as "Genocides" and "Concentration camps". What the hell..--213.186.240.112 23:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please mind your language a little. Has ruwiki been informed about this? --MoRsE 00:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the whole article is quite funny. It's Finnish occupation of Karelia, not military history of Finland during WW2. The article is only about the camps though, and starts with that the reason was to make an ethnic cleansing. It also states that medical experiences were made on the civilians, and that the Finnish Nazis were even more evil than German. Ru-Wiki quality :) But yeah, this is not about military history of Finland during WW2 so the Interwiki link should be removed. --Pudeo (Talk) 14:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody state what specific points is the section in question are not neutral, and should be corrected? Is there any false or missing in information? The Russian Wikipedia appears to have even worse NPOW problems, so I really don't think that would be an argument. --Chino 04:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since for over 3 months nobody has provided any concrete example of NPOW problems, I'm removing the NPOW label. If you insert it again, please provide details on how the article should be improved. --Chino 03:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War and Democracy, again[edit]

Actually the statement about Britain declaring war on Finland being the only time which a democratic government has declared war on another democratic government is false. When America declared war on Japan It's government was a constitutional monarchy having a parliamentry government with it's lowwer house being elected by male citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.14.162 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a definition of "democratic government". The U.K. had at that time an undemocratic House of Lords of the parliament after all.. Of course this argument has been presented about various wars, and there is always a but, see MoRsE's link above 82.181.150.151 20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why this instance of mentioning democracy requires a definition, while others do not. If somebody needs a definition of democracy, he/she can go to the appropriate Wikipedia article. But for the record, since 1918 Finland has had elected parliament, elected president, independent judiciary and separation of powers. In 1944 elections could not be held due to the war, so president was elected by a democraticly elected parliament. --Chino 05:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is denying Finland was a democracy, just questioning the assertion that democracies don't, in the main, start wars. It seems dodgy to me (a lot of wars have been started by democracies, that I can think of) but it's a statement to let democrats feel good about themselves; I've seen it somewhere else on WP, as well. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the declaration of war by the US on the UK in 1812 the first case of such an instance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.95.52 (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one then or now thinks Britain was a democracy in 1812. Indeed the British press emphasized the need to destroy American republicanism & democracy was seen as a threat in 1861. Rjensen (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties: light or heavy?[edit]

Worldwide, Finnish total casualties were only 70% of world avegare, and 0.02% of average civilian casualties. In Europe, 25 countries participated in the war. From those, the total casualties of 10 (Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourgh, Malta, Norway, United Kingdom) were lighter than Finnish, and 14 (Albania, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia) were heavier than Finnish. The civilian casualties of only 3 countries (Albania, Denmark, Iceland) were lighter than in Finland. Only in military deaths there were just 6 countries (Albania, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia) with heavier losses.

World War II has catastrophic results worldwide, but in Finlsnd it was less catastrophic than elsewhere.--Whiskey 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article state that the Finnish occupation of East Karelia caused the British to declarer war. This is not correct. Winston Churchill makes clear in his war memoirs that Britain only reluctantly declared war on Finland at the insistence of Josef Stalin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.184.167 (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opening of this article[edit]

Says like this:

"During World War II the fate of Finland was different from everyone else. "

But I believe that there were many different kind of fates with different countries. Just what made the fate of Finland so unique that it has to be especially mentioned as different?

The opening also says that the territorial losses were relatively minor. While the area ceded to Russia wasn't that large compared to entire Finland, I believe Vyborg/Viipuri was the second largest Finnish city and and a major industrial city. I don't think the territorial losses were relatively minor. You cannot judge the importance of territories simply by their area. Their location, population, and economical and industrial properties also matter. 84.250.50.59 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alone[edit]

I've deleted the word "alone" from the statement about the Lapland War; you may not want to say Finland was fighting alongside the USSR (understandably, in the circumstances) but you can't deny they were also fighting the Germans in the North; see Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only three unoccupied capitals?[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sofia pull it's head out of the noose too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.32.13 (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin, Madrid and Bern were pretty much occupation free as well. Paxsimius (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says that there are three of all the nations that actively fought in the war, so I think it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.252.218 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Stockholm - but they didn't involved the war. 62.240.82.212 (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden was heavily involved in WW2, just not a fighting nation officially. Whether it was selling raw materials to Germany or 'interning' Allied personnel. FW 135.196.94.75 (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German troops in Finland[edit]

The section on Interim Peace says that Finland "also allowed German troops stationed in Finland" to begin fighting. Huh? How did Germany have troops stationed in Finland? It sounds like they were authorized by Finland. There's a large piece of the puzzle missing here. Could somebody explain how German troops were stationed in Finland? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by "fighters"?[edit]

"The two major powers sent some material aid, the most important being modern fighters that arrived just as the war was ending"

What is meant by "fighters" -- airplanes? This is very unclear as the article stands now. What type of fighter airplanes if it was airplanes? And, of course, can we get a citation in there?

Charles Gaudette (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign aid promises?[edit]

Near the bottom under the heading "Winter War", it says: "Any foreign aid or support was in very short supply and promises was made up..."

This is completely unclear. What is it supposed to mean?

Pollifax (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the first part of it refers to the low quantities (and qualities in certain cases) of the aid received or promised from abroad - or insufficient from Finnish point of view. And second to the British and French plans to come into aid of Finland, even though this has been in most cases understood just as a cover for actual task of the Allied force which would have been to secure the ore and other resources of northern Scandinavia and therefore deprive them from the Germany. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Military history of Finland during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Military history of Finland during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction between Winter War and WWII?[edit]

See Talk:Finnish submarine Vesikko#Winter War. Should the submarine's service in both be described as one conflict or two? Is the Winter War merely an early phase of WWII? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with the lead section[edit]

The lead states that:
Finland participated in the Second World War initially as an independent country battling the Soviet Union, followed by another battle with the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany and then finally switching sides to the Allies against Nazi Germany. As relations with the Soviet Union changed during the war, Finland was placed in the unusual situation of being for, then against and then for the overall interests of the Allied powers.
The first two major conflicts in which Finland was directly involved were the defensive Winter War against an invasion by the Soviet Union in 1939, followed by the Continuation War, alongside Germany and the other Axis Powers against the Soviets, in 1941–1944. The third conflict, the Lapland War against Germany in 1944–1945, followed the signing of the Moscow Armistice with the Allied Powers, which stipulated expulsion of Nazi German forces from Finnish territory.
By the end of hostilities, Finland had defended its independence, but had to cede nearly 10% of its territory, including its fourth largest city, Viipuri (Vyborg), and pay out a large amount of war reparations to the Soviet Union. As a result of this territorial loss, all East Karelians abandoned their homes, relocating to areas that remained within the borders of Finland.

I think this has some POV issues. That Finland was a "co-belligerent" of Germany was the official position of the Finnish government (though they also termed this as being "brothers-in-arms" of the Germans when talking to the Germans - and what is a "brother in arms" if not an ally?) since they did not sign the Tripartite Pact, but many, many sources list them as being an Axis country regardless of whether they signed the Tripartite Pact or not. For example:
  • This scholarly article on peace with "Italy and the Minor Axis Powers" freely refers to Finland as an Axis power.
  • "Germany and the Axis Powers from Coalition to Collapse" by R.L. DiNardo appears to list Finland as a member of the Axis, at least judging by this book review (which concurs with their inclusion). Again, signing of the Tripartite pact is not seen as essential.
  • Michael Jonas's essay in "Finland in World War II: History, Memory, Interpretations" describes the relationship between Helsinki and Berlin as "the most effective in the Axis coalition". Clearly the author considers Finland to have been part of the Axis regardless of whether they signed the Tripartite Pact.
  • World War II: The Eastern Front 1941-1945 by Geoffrey Jukes on p.52 describes Finland as "The only democracy to join the Axis". Signing the Tripartite again not seen as conclusive of Axis membership or not.
  • This book on occupations carried out by the European Axis written in 1944 includes a list of European Axis countries carrying out occupations, which, in a footnote, explicitly refers to Finland but says it is not included as "The role of Finland as an occupant [is] insignificant", which is to say that the author considered Finland to be an Axis country despite not having signed the Tripartite Pact, they just don't list them because they aren't occupying a lot of territory.
  • This Foreign Affairs article from 1941 on the blocking of funds to the Axis by the US lists Finland amongst "German-controlled" countries and as part of the Axis. The Tripartite pact is not seen as a requirement to be part of the Axis.
Moreover the view that Finland was not effectively an Axis country but simply accidentally on the same side as the Germans is challenged in this source and this source clearly state that this is actually just a narrow POV within Finland, part of a national myth that arose after the war, and the reality is that Finland made war "at the side of Hitler" in the 1941-44 period. It is notable that their is no similar caveating of Finland being on the side of the Allies in the lead section even though Finland also never signed the Declaration by United Nations.
An additional problem with the lead section is that Finland's position as a country that both fought for and against the Axis was not, actually, unusual. Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia all ended up turning against their German allies. The statement that "Finland had defended its independence" is also somewhat POV - Finland remained independent but 'Finlandized', which is to say not absolutely independent.
I propose to re-write this section to address the above problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 13:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It depends a lot on how exactly you would rewrite it. No actual agreement on alliance has been known to have ever existed. Lack of that agreement tends to lead to expressions like 'Axis-aligned', or 'alongside the Axis' or similar. The only known formalization is the Ryti–Ribbentrop Agreement which occurred in the summer of 1944 - which on the other hand was never ratified by the Finnish Parliament and hence had no actual legitimacy (it was deliberately crafted so that it wouldn't have).
Insisting on using 'Axis' however may open up a can or worms. Issue is that Finland fought 3 wars during the WW II. One against the Soviets at the time when the Soviets and the Nazis were at the time de facto allied via the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and its secret protocols - this can also be a problem as necessitating rewrite here might necessitate rewrites elsewhere due to this issue. At which time defining Finland as 'Axis country' would be a bit of a stretch. Then another against the Soviets this time alongside the Nazis. And lastly a war against the Nazis. Also your last statement is problematic since using definition of "a country that both fought for and against the Axis" happens to include the Soviet Union due to the joint invasion of Poland in 1939 - so according to that logic the Soviet Union should be listed as an 'Axis' country. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wanderer602 Thanks for your response. I think it's problematic to take at face-value the assertion by the wartime Finnish government and a minority of (primarily Finnish) historians that Finland was not part of the Axis from 1941-44. However that is dealt with, it should be dealt with. "Formally being part of the Axis" is problematic as the Axis is not treated as a formal alliance by many sources - signature of the Tripartite pact is not determinative of whether a country was in or out of it. This is not least because the Tripartite Pact was never invoked. The dictionary definition of the Axis provided in, e.g., Cambridge Dictionary, simply describes it as "the countries, including Germany, Italy, and Japan, that fought against the Allies in the Second World War", and the Britannica entry on it describes it as a "coalition headed by Germany, Italy, and Japan that opposed the Allied powers in World War II". Finland even signed, in 1947, a peace treaty saying that they had been "an ally of Hitlerite Germany", so at least at that point it was the official Finnish position that they had been a German ally.
My preferred formulation would be one that recognises that it was the official Finnish wartime position that Finland was a "co-belligerent" fighting alongside German "brothers-in-arms", but which does not state in the voice of Wiki that this was actually the case. If we mention the Tripartite Pact, that Finland did not sign, then we should mention the Anti-Comintern Pact, which Finland did sign. So for the lead section something like:
"The official position of the wartime Finnish government was that Finland was not a formal ally of the Germans during the 1941-44 Continuation War, who they described as "Brothers-in-Arms""
Regarding the USSR, that is clearly a different topic, albeit one regularly discussed on the talk-page of the article listing the members of the Axis, which does include the USSR, albeit as a controversial case. I personally have no problem with including the USSR there, so long as it is properly caveated, because, as you say, they made war on Poland along side Germany. FOARP (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of Tripartite Pact memberships is not really it, but more on that there didn't exist any legally valid agreements at all. This is likely intentionally by the the Finnish government because fair number of the actions by the Finnish leadership were done with 'plausible deniability'. But as said you can't really expand the definition without consequences (as the example with the USSR shows).
Finland hardly had a say on the wording in the peace treaty so that is not exactly a valid argument. Keep in mind that the Soviets required plenty of Finnish organizations being banned because of alleged 'fascism' or 'nazism' when in reality they had only been (at the time) akin to self defense and volunteer action (and hence anti-Soviet). So that argument doesn't work either, it was just what the Soviets wanted. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Finland hardly had a say on the wording in the peace treaty so that is not exactly a valid argument" - but it does represent the official position of the Finnish government when they signed it. It means we should not simply say something like "according to the Finns, they weren't German allies" because that isn't true - it was Finland's wartime government that claimed to only be co-belligerents of the Germans, and a later government said otherwise. Instead it was only Finland's wartime government that claimed that this was the case. PS - what defeated country ever has a say in the wording of the peace treaty? FOARP (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead an edited the lead per my suggested wording. I've mentioned the Paris peace treaty in a single sentence which is I think giving it due weight, though if you can find a source saying this was only signed under duress we can mention that too. The Norman Goda reference is pretty clear in describing wartime Finland as a German ally although with the caveats that they did not sign the Tripartite agreement, did not besiege Leningrad or cut the Murmansk railway, maintained a separate command, and claimed to only be co-belligerents. FOARP (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not represent official position of the Finnish government. It represents the wording the Soviets wanted in there. You should not read the label forced by the Soviets on the Finns as something the Finns took as their own official position. The last part only underlines what i wrote. You should not read something forced upon as 'official position' for the both sides. It certainly is one on the party that is forcing it, not so much for the one that it is being forced upon. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you should find sources of sufficient weight that say this? Things that are obviously true from the sources:
  • 1) During the war, Finland's government claimed to be a "co-belligerent" of Germany, who they called "brothers in arms".
  • 2) After the war, Finland's government signed a document saying that they had been "allies of Hitlerite Germany".
We should not state 1) without stating 2), and both should be given appropriate weight. Especially, we should not state that Finland was merely a "co-belligerent" of Germany as though it were undisputed fact because it clearly is disputed, obviously many historians - particularly non-Finnish historians - simply state that Finland was an ally of Germany. This is what Immi Tallgren calls an approach that "leans towards nationalism" and goes on to say that "It is striking to notice in comparison how similar the drive for arguing for the separateness of the war effort and a decisive “national specificity” of the participation in the war on the side of Hitler has been in several countries" (or, in more simple language: all the former Axis allies make similar arguments distancing themselves from Germany to the ones made in Finland).
At any rate I've made my edits (though I think the Finland and Nazi Germany section has become a bit incoherent, if more NPOV, so I may try to clean it up) - have a look at them and see what you disagree with. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Problem again with (2), like i tried to point out, is that you are equating what essentially amounts to victor's justice as being something willingly accepted by the other side. Which is not exactly true. It is just the view of the victor, nothing more. After all being forced to sign under duress is not an argument which can be used to define an actual opinion or view. However your edits are not really problematic (to me at least). - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I acknowledge that the 1947 Peace Treaty was "victor's justice", though I don't think this makes it wrong or (necessarily, without a source saying so) extracted under duress. We could just as easily argue that any number of things done by the Finnish leadership during the war and after were extracted under duress - not signing the Tripartite Pact and claiming only to be a co-belligerent was done out of fear of what the Allies would think, joining the Anti-Comintern Pact was done out of fear of being cut off by the Germans, turning on the Germans was done under duress from the Soviets etc. Soon enough it looks like Finland's leaders never had freedom to make any decisions at all - and we arrive at the (now discredited) "driftwood" theory. Yet in this article we discuss Finland preserving its independence (i.e., its freedom to choose), even the Tallgren article discusses the post-war "war guilt" trials and (by extension) the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty as something agreed to in order preserve independence, and hence at least from this POV as a choice made by Finland's government.
Ideally this article would have a section on the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty, the "war guilt" trials etc. that explains this. However, since this article is supposed to be about the military history of Finland during this period it is probably not the right place to go into detail about these things though. I think perhaps a new article is justified - or possibly a change of title to Finland during World War II since so much of this is not military history already? FOARP (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 October 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Military history of Finland during World War II → Finland during World War II – Per WP:CRITERIA we should pick a name that is recognisable, natural, concise, precise, and consistent. The present article is very obviously not just about the military history of Finland during WW2 - it contains a great deal about e.g., Finnish diplomacy, pre-WW2 history, and the post-war legacy of the conflict in Finland. The present title is therefore obviously not precise since this article is about more than just the military history of Finland during WW2, and is also not as concise as it should be as it is obviously about 20 characters longer than it needs to be (including spaces). It is also not consistent with the articles about other countries during WW2 (e.g., Thailand in World War II, Romania in World War II, Bulgaria during World War II, Hungary in World War II, Argentina during World War II, Cuba during World War II) where the formula appears to be either "COUNTRY in World War II" or "COUNTRY during World War II".

In contrast the proposed title is easily recognisable, natural, concise (it's 20 characters shorter), more precise (it envelops the whole subject covered on the page), and consistent with other articles. Whilst on conciseness grounds "Finland in World War II" is better, I think on neutrality grounds "Finland during World War II" is slightly preferable as a minority of sources deny that Finland was part of the war per se - either title is acceptable though.

Personally I don't think this is a controversial move, but Finland in World War II and Finland during World War II both presently redirect to this page, so a move request is needed to move over them FOARP (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I do not think that there is currently enough content to justify separating the pages into Military history of Finland during World War II and Finland during World War II - it could be split later should there be more content & interest. Also I think the Finland during World War II is less controversial as especially certain Russian/Soviet sources do their utmost to place the Winter War outside of the scope of the World War II. So phrasing it 'during' would probably be better choice. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as more concise and better.--Astral Leap (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, straightforward and covers the content. BD2412 T 16:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer Finland in World War II for consistency with other similar articles; this seems to be the most common formulation in Template:WWII_history_by_nation. (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom. Also would prefer Finland in... (rather than during), but okay with either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 23 May 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finland during World War II → Finland in World War II – For consistency with comparable articles, e.g. Soviet Union in World War II, Netherlands in World War II, and India in World War II, as suggested in the 2020 RM to the current title. Rublov (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Rublov (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Finland_in_World_War_II&oldid=1216440124"