This user may have left Wikipedia. Whiskey has not edited Wikipedia since 27 September 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Battle vs. Battles
Terve!
(Sain sähköpostisi mutta vastaan täällä jos sopii). The Continuation War article was under some dispute a while ago, but it seems that most of the people that worked on it before aren't interested anymore (I'am mostly on the finnish wikipedia nowadays). I think the article looks disgusting for the moment. So if you want to "fix" it then go right ahead! :)
About the Battles or Battle thing. I've seen both forms and don't really mind. I was going to write about it but the "Jatkosodan historia" had just _too_ much information about the subject. Your Battle of Tali-Ihantala seems like a good start! -- Jniemenmaa 10:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Ooops... The treaty didn't contain any provisions for troop and material transfer rights.
— I consider myself relatively well-versed with regard to the history of Independent Finland, but I must admit that I obviously must repeat the study of the Moscow Peace. Ouch! Back to the books!
It's good and important to be reminded of one's own's limits.
Thank you, thank you very much! /Tuomas 12:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, it belongs to the treaty nobody can be proud of, at a time nobody can be proud of, so generally it is silently forgotten. And as I said, it is very common misbelief. I have done a lot of reading and research about interim peace and Continuation War during the last 10 months, and I try to sort it out in Continuation War bit by bit. Unfortunately I don't have time to do it all in a single shot. (One wife, two jobs and three children... Ya know...) but try to rush parts every few months. --Whiskey 14:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Your additions are always of the greatest value — with regard to facts. But, pardon my French!, your last edit of the Continuation War article introduced a couple of grammatical errors and made the sentence less understandable - at least according to my judgement. What's your intention to express? I'm sorry, but this is one of the moments in my life when I truly regrett that I've never had any incentives to learn Finnish. :-( I wish I could have asked you to express yourself in your mother tongue! --Johan Magnus 14:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for my language! Well, German OKW/OKH and generals all the way understood the value of Finnish army and Finland as a base. Finnish army was tying at least 26 divisions, 5 armor brigades and 16 regiments and provided continuing threat to Leningrad and northern flank of Baltic front. So, military was practical and gave the material support when it was needed without any political connections. In fact, all necessary military aid was already in Finland or en route when Ribbentrop started pressuring the treaty from president Ryti. It was the Nazi political establishment, especially inside the Foreign ministry, which wanted to connect military aid to political concessions. Ryti and Mannerheim were in a position they didn't knew the internal balance between OKW and Wilhelmstrasse, and they couldn't take a chance that Foreign ministry could pressure Wehrmacht to withdraw it's support from Finland. That's why the distinction: Nazi leadership was not happy with separate war, Military leadership was only interested to use Finns to tie soviet resources and providing base for attacking Soviets, not some political treaty. Dr. Markku Jokisipilä has recently researched this area and written his doctorate thesis "Aseveljiä vai liittolaisia? Suomi, Hitlerin Saksan liittosopimusvaatimukset ja Rytin-Ribbentropin-sopimus." ("Brothers in arms or allies? Finland, alliance demands from Hitler's Germany and Ryti-Ribbentrop-treaty.") on this issue. --Whiskey 09:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
...so, it turns out that the only grammatical error was the absence of a "the". :-) I hope you don't dislike the slight reshuffling of words I did. The information above is, of course, as always!, interesting and relevant. I don't remember if there is a separate heading for the Ryti-treaty, but if not, I guess there ought to. :-) --Johan Magnus 16:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Petsamo
I've added Jäniskoski to the map. Take a look and tell me if something is incorrect. -- Jniemenmaa 13:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Molotov-Ribbentrop
I replied in the discussion area of Talk:Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. I don't believe this supposed "secret pact" ever took place, it's nowhere in the 7 articles of the pact. You can feel free to post *sources* that claim there was a secret pact if you want, but I will note in the article that there is a countervailing view that there was no such pact. For instance, Molotov himself denied to his death that such a pact ever took place (Molotov Remembers) Ruy Lopez 01:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And Molotov should be credible? The joke of the year! /Tuomas 06:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And with regards to 'true communist' Lopez, wasn't it Special Commission of Soviet Congress of People's Deputies (participated by top Soviet officials such as Yakovlev, foreign misister of Ukrianan SSR etc) that confirmed the existence of the secret protocols that were all put into effect precisely as proposed on the paper? A forgery fabricated by traitors in the highest level (a Moscow trial would have cleaned those reborn traitors of Soviet cause...), n'est pas? Constanz - Talk17:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point, but nevertheless a point, with your change[1] of the article is that, as I read the text, your version seems to stress a Finnish seeking of German "friendship" after the fall of France, when Tuomas' version (ehrm... "my previous version" maybe) stresses the experience of the Winter War. As I read the text, I believe Tuomas' version is more in accordance with what I've learned and read before. That can be totally wrong of course, as Swedish (and English) accounts on the Continuation War have usually a basic critical tendency, that may well give the reader exaggerated impressions, but Witting and Kivimäki had begun their work weeks and months before the Fall of France, hadn't they?
Well, I mostly object the word "immediately". Finland turned towards Scandinavia and Britain immediately after the Winter War, not Germany. It is although correct, that Finland tried to be pleasent to everyone, but like in the selection of the new cabinet, when Finlands ambassador in London, G.A. Gripenberg was the first choise, but he refused because he considered his selection too biased against Germany. You remember that Ryti himself was widely known from his anglophilism, only after the war he was branded as supporter of Germany.
Witting was unfortunate selection, that's true. He was considered good man to deal with Soviets, but his antipathy towards Sweden and lack of diplomatic skills necessary to handle British and German relations provided too great burden to Finland. Especially Paasikivi was extremely scathing when talking about him.
Kivimäki was late addition, as he did go to Berlin only in June 1940. Naturally his selection would have happened before that, but how much earlier? I don't have any source available right now.
I'd say the turning point is the occupation of Norway and Denmark, which made clear that there is no hope to get British support to Finland and made Swedish position extremely difficult. After that more energy was put to Germany than to Britain. Naturally rumours of British surrender intensified these efforts, not started, but intensified.
I wrote the rant above before I'd read your arguments at the article's talk page. Shame on me!
Anyway. It seems as you are the most knowledgeable on the subject, why I do not dare to change the article before I've seen your next response, but wouldn't you agree that seeking a more favorable attitude from Ribbentrop was a chief Finnish objective immediately after the Winter War, however one of several key policies where relations to Sweden/Norway and to the United Kingdom, and actually also to the Soviet Union, were others that however became obsoleted one after another until only the German rapprochement remained an option?
German attitude towards Finland was a shock, and Finnish government did start initiatives to improve relations, but I wouldn't say that it was among chief objectives until late April. Otherwise I think you are correct.
From most knowledgeable I'd say that I have perhaps the best collection of sources available. I have the fortune of being interested in history as well as my brother and father, and as my father lives only 3 km from my home, it is very easy to raid his library every now and then.;-) Together we have more than 40 books (very conservative estimate) on issue including biographies of almost every military and political player on Finnish side. That said, I confess my lack of Swedish and most British and US sources. Also Soviet sources are mostly unavailable, although I have been able to access some sources translated to English or Finnish.Whiskey 12:35, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
;-) Since we are at the self-confessional stage, I feel it might be appropriate to give you some info:
I'm born in 1963. I grew up in close contacts with my grand-parents' generation. One great-uncle had perceived it as his duty (particularly after the "shameful" statsrådsdiktamen) to receive a war-child from Finland, which after all was rather unusual in Scania, there increasingly disappointed alienation dominated the perception of Finland since the Civil War. His brother-in-law, my grandfather, was a Communist turned Liberal, who had been a ship's officer but left the sea shortly before the war. Their accounts of the war, and the political history surrounding it, has made a considerable impression on me.
Not so few of my relatives were born in that part of Karelia that was lost in 1940. Many ended up in Sweden. They didn't arrive at once. The first came in 1941, the last in 1986, and some have moved inbetween several times. Also their accounts of the war has made a certain impression on me.
This has made it natural for me to read virtually all books on Finland's 20th century history, that I've seen (not that I've seen that many), but this has been a long process starting in my teens. Today, I've sincere problems to know what of my beliefs are based on elderly relatives' accounts or on things that I've read in different books that might, or might not, be more or less credible.
Swedes and Scanians are not considerably interested in Finland. The lack of balance is striking between general knowledge on Sweden in Finland, and the lack of knowledge on Finland in Sweden. Scania, as being most distantly located from Finland, is no exception — rather the contrary. For being a Scanian, I might consider myself unusually interested and informed on matters of Finland's history and contemporary society, but that's easy when there is no competition. ;->
For some years, I was one of the active contributors in a usenetnewsgroup, soc.culture.nordic, when that still had serious and witty content beside the increasing amounts of brainless stupidity. Some traces thereof can still be found at http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/. Still today, I read contributions by Jussi Jalonen with great benefit. Almost a decade of experience of his writings has given me the greatest respect, and shamelessly I'm prepared to plagiate facts and statements given by him without ever considering the posibility they might be false. However, if challenged, I guess you'll see me back down without any hesitation.
I added some explanation and did reorganizing in that area. Is it closer what you think this way?
It wasn't that bad before, either, but yes, at the moment it looks fine to me! --Johan Magnus 18:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I still find it lacking somewhat in censorship area. Do you have any sources how anti-German articles were censored at that time? I have the feeling that about all censored products were "anti-Soviet" (like "Kollaa kestää" ("Kollaa holds on"), which only described very realistically fight of the Finnish unit in Ladoga Karelia against Soviets in Winter War.8-)) until the late autumn. Only after the German troop transit treaty and especially after Petsamo crisis in February 1941 anti-German censorship started in real.Whiskey 19:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, I've no such sources at hand. Swedish language accounts that I've read (like quoted reports from Karl Ivar Westman and other diplomats in Helsinki) report effects and were no comprehensive investigations focused on censorship with access to governmental archives in Finland. I'm sure such exist too, although most probably printed in Finnish and thus unaccessable for me. --Johan Magnus 18:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It was more like self-censorship: Soviet Union continued pressuring aggressively and it was right on the other side of the border. Nazi Germany was far away on the other side of the Baltic. The media was ready to omit German flaws by itself in hope to gain counterweight to Soviet Union so there was no need for anti-German censorship. The situation was totally different in Sweden, where German threat was more serious but neither of those two aggressively pressured Swedish government in a way Soviets did to Finland so there was no such urgency to the counterweight. This self-censorship was peculiar because it was common from right to left: even radical left refrained from most pointing criticism of Germany because of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But the effects were truly the same as anti-German opinions had been censored. Whiskey 15:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am not at all proposing to introduce the following in the article, but what would you say about describing leading Finns of 1940-41 as being in resonance with eachother, thus enhancing a concensus stating that a certain amount of adaption to the "New Germany" was necessary. (Although surely important, not to give in more than necessary.) A resonance that influenced most leading Finns, regardless of if politicians, news paper editors, industrialists, militaries or other professionals, but maybe not "the six", and maybe Paasikivi in Moscow less than others. A resonance that wasn't in harmony with the sentiments in Stockholm, and even less with those in London.
Swedish semi-censorship was very much based on appeals to editors, asking them to consider the National Interest. ...and some (in Berlin clearly noticed) editors didn't agree that it was in the Swedes' national interest to refrain from criticism of Hitlerism. ...actually, I've always suspected that Nazi Germany had more actual suporters in Sweden than in Finland, despite these supporters weren't interested in introducing Nazism in Sweden, which may be one reason why there also were some notable opponents. There can be plenty of arguements both for and against, but I guess I will never learn the truth about that.
Neither am I proposing that to article with my current knowledge on issue. Eljas Erkko, chief editor (and owner) of "Helsingin Sanomat" and Finnish ambassador in Stockholm in summer 1940 wrote to one of his reporters demanding him to tone down his writings. The issue needs more actual information.
Paasikivi wasn't out of that resonance even when he was in Moscow, as he wrote to his diary already at 10 April 1940: "Most important is working relationship with closest major power, Soviet Union. In the second place comes Germany regardless if there is empire (Kaiser), Weimar republic or Hitler's dictatorship. More distant Britain, France -and even more distant- United States are far less important." (Translation mine) But Paasikivi considered himself old germanophile(?).Whiskey 22:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Have I told you, that your contributions are great? Hmmm..., maybe I have not. OK, better late than sorry:
Your contributions are GREAT.
I'm currently reading up on Karl Ivar Westman.[2] I intend to cover his career as a whole, however of course with focus on his "accomplishments" in Helsinki, which was the most notable role he played in his career. I hope you'll fill up on details.
I intend to adjust and extend your addition to the article. Possibly, but not necessarily, it might turn out that our sources (and/or our interpretation of the reasons why Ryti proposed his name after Gripenberg had declined) disagree. In order to avoid unneccessary misunderstandings and bad feelings, let me better sooner than later state my background sentiments and bias to the issue:
I come from a family, where Paasikivi's mission to Stockholm and Ryti's (de facto) selection of Witting are often considered Finland's two single greatest foreign policy mistakes during all times. While the Paasikivi-failure is unproblematic and not much to speak of, as soon as facts are established, I've listened to plenty of endless late night discussions between (chiefly) elderly male relatives who have proposed what Ryti could have thought of (or not thought of) when chosing someone who from the start was designed to cause problems in the relations to Russia (without any doubt), with the western democracies in general (due to his association with the Lapua-ideas), and to Scandinavia in particular (due to his contempt for "red" Sweden — as that country had developed).
Witting might be disdained as a cause of much of Finland's misfortunes, but after all, it was pretty clear for Ryti, Mannerheim, Walden, Tanner, Hakkila, Linkomies, and others with similar influence what kind of man he was and what he represented. Thus, the blame is not to be thrown on Witting for doing exactly what he could be expected to do, but on Ryti for proposing and (effectively) selecting him in the first run, and even more so when after the first autumn of the Continuation War, not replacing him after the British declaration of War, which of course could be blamed on Mannerheim, but after all was a general failure of the foreign ministry. USA's formal entry in the war, and the obvious failure of the Wehrmacht's Blitzkrieg plans only increased the urgency of the matter.
...so far the line of thoughts I'm brought up with.
I might also add, for clarification of another of my biases, that I view the controversies between advocates of driftwood-theory and revanchist-theory as soon ripe for a (dialectic) synthesis.
So you see, that not the least your statement "intelligent and capable negotiator" [which was] "considered extremely important" [as] "negotiations were anticipated with the Soviet Union" [but] "became a burden" [in negotiations especially with] "Sweden and Germany", strikes me as interesting. Do you have any sources for (Ryti's?) assessment of his qualities for negotiations with the Russians? I see no particular reason to put a source in the visible text, but maybe in a comment! I also wonder from where you have it that he anyhow became a burden in relations to Germany. In most cases, I've learned to respect your proposals, but this I can't help to question. ...and of course, he was in no way unexperienced of the foreign ministry, for which he'd been the deputy chief in Kivimäki's cabinet of 1933-36 (the article says 1934-36, I think I'll have to check the sources...).
— BTW: I've exams early in January, and don't know how much time I'll spend with other things until then, but it's likely that I try to use Wikipedia as a (dangerous) means for relaxation.
I don't think there is much I can add to this discussion, but it gives me sort of a bad conscience seing you doing all the work... Please tell if there is anything you really think I could do for you! :-)
You're welcome to jump into the frying pan! :-) I don't own the article, and if you think something, feel free to participate. - But no pressure, I think I can handle this one. ;-)
The modifications what were done were quite to the safe side. I'll have to think about them more closely, but unfortunately I don't have time to do additional edits before next sunday. --Whiskey 23:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You cant delete that study, if you have another study that says something diffrent then put it in their and source it just as this study has been sourced. (Deng21:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
OK, I am persuaded by your arguments that Vyborg may do without detailed explanation as to which action of the Finns caused the deadliest siege in history. By the way, write something about yourself on your userpage. You've been a long time around, it is not good that your name remains a red link. --Ghirla-трёп-16:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt is messing up your numbers and he the whole article. He believes that Finalnd is a part of scandinavia, so go to the article and source your numbers. (Deng07:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Whiskey, can you ref the Finnish casualties and strenghts in Winter War as now someone added citation needed. By the way, Finnish Wikipedia has different numbers for strenghts, which is closer to truth? --Pudeo (Talk) 16:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont remove just add. And everything will be just fine, removeing is bad adding is good and apple pie is great ;) (Deng12:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Well, IF it's been reached a consensus on the article's talk page to go against a particular POV-pushing, then it's easier to counter any disruption regarding it. If the POV-pushing resumes after the article has been unprotected, warn the users disrespecting the consensus with the "Not adhering to neutral point of view" warning templates. If they persist, they'll eventually get blocked. Regards.--Húsönd01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... In the meantime, I have notified user:Husond about the lack of progress on our current issue. I have also provided him with a short summary of the situation. See here. Feel free to correct or update me if I missed something, but don't overdo it, because I think that we shouldn't be like the Many and create walls of text out of nothing. --Illythr01:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the you contributed to discussions there. Since I don't speak Finnish, I would like to ask you to describe the general attitude/trends of the article/editors there, when you have the time. From my experience I can say that sometimes, articles in their respective wikis are more neutral than their English counterparts, as nationalist POV-pushers appear to prefer to do their thing on the English Wikipedia instead of in their own language wiki. Then again, I am much less active on the ru:wiki myself. Hmm... --Illythr12:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think our friend has already discredited himself with his silly claims of you, me and those two other guys being evil Stalinists/sockpuppets of each other. Plus, the ramblings closely match the "Truth (tm)" patterns found on WP:ROUGE. I think that some sort of administrative intervention is in order. Husond appears to refrain from intervening for now (too busy, perhaps?). --Illythr12:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'd rather wish that The Many had been right about you being my sockpuppet. I mean, just look at your user page! That'd be two more interesting languages for me, including one at native level. I assume that it'd grant me natural immunity to the Yak-Tsup-Tsop brain disease as well. Additionally, I'd acquire detailed knowledge about an interesting country I otherwise may visit only briefly, if at all. Physics and astronomy are cool, too. On the other hand, I'd have to edit Wikipedia more than 24 hours a day. --Illythr00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I just noticed you've got a wife and three kids! Perhaps having you as my sockpuppet is not such a good idea after all... o_O --Illythr (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casualties in the Continuation war
To Whiskey: In fact I don't know the real number and I only took it from that user's edit which was "(Not true - 9 final conclusive battles were victorious for the Finns, including the very last, Ilomantsi !" Sorry for being careless without research. I don't support the edit warrer's actions at all anyway. Ed: I find it annoying that he drags me to this anyway, as I only posted the beginning of the chapter (which was proven wrong and I agree.) By the way, don't you find the Soviet casualties a bit too low? 200,000? Also, I don't have any sources but I've always though that the Soviets had over million men in the attack in 1944? --Pudeo (Talk) 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I'd ask you about this: in List of war criminals Risto Ryti is classed as a war criminal. I'm no expert but he was sentenced as "responsible for war", and we can add many controveries.. Though I've never heard spoken about Ryti, Finnish president, a war criminal. What do you think about this? --Pudeo (Talk) 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing a talk page without logging in is not a valid reason for protecting it. If there's actual disruption then yes the talk page can be semi-protected. But I currently cannot detect such disruption.--Húsönd22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin14:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terve! I think you might be interested in watching this list: User:AlexNewArtBot/FinlandSearchResult. By the way, I have created a number of stubs on landmarks of the Karelian Isthmus (localities, waterbodies, former Finnish municipalities, railways, defense lines), which might be useful as reference points for military history aticles.
And what do you think about creating an article on post-WWII representation of the Winter War by the Soviets? It looks pretty notable, being a source of numerous popular misbeliefs in Russia and having nothing to do with the war itself (e.g. it is striking how common it is for popular (and even scholarly) Soviet books published as late as in 1970s or 1980s to depict Finland as aggressor in November 1939 etc., given that they usually avoided discussing details and devoted only a few paragraphs to the war).
Colchicum22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you have some other info regarding Soviet Pow during winterwar.
As you may have noticed, Finland has been listed for some time being a part of the Allies of World War II (co-belligerent of UN in the Lapland War). This was justified by some editors that unlike some countries like the South American ones, Finland actually fought against the Germans, thus being more of an "ally". This might not be sufficient to classify it there. See also: Template:World War II. There it is listed as both Axis and Allied, both as co-belligerent in italics. Just thought you might want to look at it. That WWII template also had some quite ridiculous things, such as Finnish resistance movement that apparently supposedly operated during World War II.. --Pudeo⺮23:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anteeksi, jos tämä vaikuttaa mielestäsi siltä että sotken sinut mukaan "omaan sotkuuni", mutta saatan tarvita apua tämän hoitamisessa. Olet varmasti katsonut hiljattaisia muokkauksia koskien Leningradin piiritys artikkelia - sinähän peräti muokkasit takaisin versioon jonka muuan venäläinen herra oli revertoinut. Toivoisin että tarkkailisit kyseistä artikkelia, vaikuttaa nimittäin hieman siltä että minun editointiani ei siellä oikein arvosteta. Terveisin, --Kurt Leyman (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kiitän vaivannäöstäsi kyseisen artikkelin suhteen, vaikka nyt hieman alkaa vaikuttaa artikkeli menevän huonompaan suuntaan. Nyt herra Steveshelokhonov oikein valittaa muuan adminille syyttäen minua vandalismista artikkelissa. Terveisin, --Kurt Leyman (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the largest military operations in WWII with massive participation of women and children in the 2-year battle against the Nazis
It would be my greatest pleasure to see an academic milieu here, capable of providing multi-lingual collaboration among deeply knowledgeable and serious scholars.
Full Knowledge about the Siege of Leningrad is the goal, and it makes Wikipedia better. I was a member of search and study groups working on excavations of remains and building memorials to honor victims of the Siege of Leningrad. We, hundreds of thousands of shool-children and college sudents in Leningrad, were doing this work every summer during the 60s and 70s. Then I volunteered as English guide at Museum of Blockade, at the Hermitage, and at Peterhof, among other locations, showing history of St. Petersburg and the siege to American, Canadian, German, British, and other visitors. I have quite a number of book sources in my library. Now I am translating from well sourced Russian and German articles in Wikipedia.
We all know that without deep Knowledge one becomes a slave of manipulation, and never on the same page with reality. The reality is there on locations of the siege in St. Petersburg.
To realize the true magnitude of the Siege of Leningrad, please complete this useful educational studies:
2. Study numerous maps of Nazis and Finnish officers among other souces at several libraries (Publichka on the Nevsky, Academy of Sciences on V.O., and University library). This learning may help. Mannerheim was educated about such facts that many thousands of citizens in St. Petersburg were ethnic Finns and Karelians. Meet the survivors on the other side while they are still alive.
3. During your studies at St. Petersburg libraries, read Russian internet sources about the siege, and several Russian articles related to the siege in Wikipedia. Good articles, but too small to cover the huge reality. Visit St. Petersburg today to make yourself better informed. It'll be many years from now when all libraries with all sources may become available on the web.
4. Top-secret operations, such as "Eis Stoß" (Ice stoss) are not reflected on the web, albeit in reality Goering made sure that it killed tens of thousands. See all the evidence on locations in St. Petersburg - that is the main source of truth.
5. Find numerous remains of victims of the siege all over St. Petersburg and suburbs. There are tens of thousands of remains yet to be identified and buried properly. When you find remains - report to authorities, preserve all details of ammunition and weapons, be careful - there are still many unexploded shells and land-mines around St. Petersburg.
6. You are welcome to participate in burial ceremonies of many unknown remains, like it is done everywhere in the world.
7. Visit Nevsky pyatachok, known as one the deadliest spots on Earth with 300 thousand killed within less then one km. The ground there is still littered with unadentifiable bones and sculls, you can find human remains all over the place.
The Siege of Leningrad was one of the largest military operations in WWII. It was also one of the longest and most complex maze of battles and chain events in logistics, attacks and counterattacks leaving 1,5 million dead, and with major civilian participation in its battles including women and children.
SOME SURVIVORS ARE STILL ALIVE AND SPEAKING in the USA, in Russia, in Finland, and in Germany. A met a survivor of the Siege of Leningrad in West Berlin, in 1989. German government takes good care of survivors and their numerous archives. Some survivors of the siege were my patients in the 70s and 80s, and I'm still talking to a few survivors on the phone from my home here in LA. In honor of all victims and survivors, we shall help make Wikipedia better.
The best way is using many of English and German Wikipedia articles on WWII, Axis Powers, and many other, and also translating from Russian and German articles in Wikipedia with their Russian and German sources, to help make Wikipedia better.Steveshelokhonov23:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continuation War
Whiskey. Thanks for the nice note, but I plan to give Finland a short break. I will return to it in due course. The Brits did participate to a greater extent than is commonly realised and your interest in the matter is appreciated. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finnish War
This year marks the 200th anniversary on the Finnish War, which we are trying to show here on enwiki. I have recently begun translating the Finnish language wikipedia article into English in order to improve the enwiki article. Would you happen to be interested in helping out in the translation of the article? Otherwise I'll do it myself. It will just take longer. --MoRsE (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you deleted the reference to the Finnish South Eastern army; I got this from Bellamy’s book ( which I hadn't got round to adding; sorry!)
…”The Finns deployed two armies: the South-Eastern, just north of Leningrad, and the Karelian Army, further north” (p182).
I notice the List of Finnish armies in WWII page refers to an Army of the Isthmus, but doesn’t have a source (The phrase there is Kannaksen armeija, does that mean "Army of the Isthmus"?; I also notice that page is about the army during the Winter War.
I’ve put it back, to be consistent with the source used, but if you have a source for an alternative name, it's fine to change it. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
---
I'm replying to some of the points in your post here;
I was keen that the article content matched the source given, so that anyone following up the reference can find it; what I didn't want is for the article to say one thing and the source to back it up saying another. And it did need something more than you just saying so.
On the subject of using Finnish sources, it’s a tricky one; as far as WP is concerned, statements need to be verifiable, and on the English WP sources need to be written in English for this, translations or otherwise. If I could read Finnish, I’d look on the Finnish WP (but I can’t, and for that I apologize, though I’m probably typical of the majority of the English speaking world there).
If there are English translations of Finnish books, then great, and it’s worth adding them; You mentioned some to me in another conversation, which was useful ( though I didn't have much luck finding them!)
As for writers like Bellamy then it is a reasonable comment, most of the bibliography is English or Russian language works (though to be fair to him, the book was a general work on the Eastern front, not a specific work on the Continuation War).
As for “ To all except a complete idiot…” Well, a South-Eastern Army wasn’t impossible; there was a formation in the Isthmus in 1939, and a successor in 1941 would have been reasonable: and armies do change their names.
There is a page on the Finnish Army (1939); it would be useful to have a similar on the Finnish Army (1941-44), to clarify this situation; what do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Terve. Olisin kiitollinen jos voisimme yhteistyöllä hieman siistiä Leningradin piiritys artikellin englantilaista versiota. Lienee ms. olla "todella relevanttia" artikkelilta miten siinä kerroataan Mannerheimin saamista saksalaisista kunniamerkeistä ja miten kyseistä herraa kuvattiin niiden kanssa. T. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which one of you two thinks “minesweeper” should link to a disambiguation page, rather than the ship page? (I can’t work it out from all your reverting).
Aha ;o)...I have seen several different reference markup styles used, and finally decided on the simplest since I am loath to learn Wiki-markup after having learn HTML years go--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, Terijoki as a Russian "suburb" once again: [4]. Isn't that Steve, BTW? I cannot believe that the unfortunate idea with suburbs could occur to two persons independently. Both reside in California, both are obsessed with the siege in that particular way, both are nevertheless anti-Stalin. But if so, for what reason has he resorted to anonymous editing? Colchicum (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Such essays don't really need to be masterpieces of prose, in any case; so long as the point is clear, nobody will be overly concerned by the precise wording. Kirill(prof)00:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re: Help with grammar
Sorry about the belated reply to your message. I have not got time to help re-write though at the moment though as an essay it looks fine to me :) --ROGER DAVIEStalk07:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Whiskey
Could you help me with this?
I've been having a 'discussion' with someone editing from 217.140.254.122; His edits seem close to vandalism here. I notice there are edits on the Finnish WP from the same address; what are they like? Do they seem genuine? And can you tell me what he said? Thanks!
Xyl 54 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(moved from top to bottom)
Whiskey,
The first item under Timeline states that Hitler ordered the occupation and destruction of Leningrad. Is this right? It seems incompatible with having celebrations at the Astoria after the expected victory - unless the plan was: Occupy - Celebrate - Destroy. Sounds fishy to me. Have you ever seen evidence that Hitler actually said, "destroy Leningrad"? He didn't destroy Paris or Warsaw. --JHB (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs to the string of vague statements and unverified intentions. It can be verified, that at least Hitler's intention was to destroy Leningrad as a Russian and as a city. Generalplan Ost gives some hints that Germans intented to have some kind of town in the location. Then there were some military and diplomatic correspondence which gave indications that destruction would be more profound. --Whiskey (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"weapon emplacements and 25,000 km of open trenches were built by civilians."
THAT TRENCH LINE WOULD STRETCH MORE THAN HALF WAY ROUND THE PLANET. CAN IT BE RIGHT? --JHB (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I cannot confirm this.
Thanks again. I will stick with my basic principles and leave it alone - but I feel it must be wrong. I hope someone has the guts to take it out (or prove its authenticity). --JHB (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
English clean-up completed 10.30 (British Summer Time) 22.7.8 subject to calm and leisurely read through in the next few days. --JHB (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whiskey: I have seen the list of the phenomenal Lend-Lease supplies to USSR from US 1941-1945.
It would be nice to know how much of that went towards the relief of Leningrad - but I guess we could never find that out, could we? I feel that info would warrant a paragraph in the article, but I can't imagine any records exist. It would mean trawling through incoming supplies records for all the Soviet divisions involved (?). --JHB (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I added the source inquiry to the claim: I don't have any sources which support the given claim! I know that about 20% of lend-lease were directed through Murmansk, but I have no idea of the amount how large portion of that material did go to Leningrad. I'd remove the whole claim altogether.--Whiskey (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When "The Siege of Leningrad" is raised as a topic among educated people anywhere in the world the first thought that comes to mind is of the human suffering caused by starvation. I can still remember back some fifty years to the time I was informed that in order to try and stave off death some besieged civilians were trying to gain sustenance by eating boot leather. That thought has been ingrained in my mind for half a century.
It is therefore perfectly appropriate to depict starvation in the title image, because that was and is the enduring and underlying meaning of that Nazi atrocity. --JHB (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm about the last person you should suspect of Nazi sympathies, I do not believe a picture of a starving child is appropriate for a military conflict infobox. Perhaps it can be added somewhere below, to a section dealing with starvation, like it was done in the Russian article, but a huge caption in the infobox is just... no. --Illythr (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the font is not the best possible, but I do like the idea that lead paragraph at least in the large articles is a little bit different/larger than the rest of the text, thus rising it to the accidental reader.--Whiskey (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...unsuccessful military operation by the Axis powers to capture Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg)...
Wouldn't "destroy" be a more correct description of the Axis' goal, seeing as how a surrender was to be rejected and the city was to be wiped off the map, per statements by key participants?
Arvoistin sitä jos ottaisit taas osaa kyseisiin keskusteluihin. En ole oikein varma siitä että muuan henkilö/t tulee vakuttamaan yksin minun tekstistäni, vaikka se faktuaalista onkin. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Siege of Leningrad
We've had to deal with similar issues on several other high-profile articles in the past. I'll be on hand both as an admin and a coordinator. If you want me block or protect anyone/anything, just ask. Cam(Chat)02:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Looks like Nick's got it under control. I'll step in as a second moderator if things get out of hand. If they still persist, I suggest opening up formal dispute resolution. Cam(Chat)02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the disruptive, incivil POV pushing from the IPs on Talk:Siege_of_Leningrad and decided to do a little homework. Not sure if you know it or not, but of the four I spotted, User:130.166.34.165User:130.166.33.54 both geolocate to California State University at Northridge, CA, User:137.159.37.226 geolocates to Pepperdine University in Malibu, CA and User:12.34.80.73 geolocates to a residential address in Santa Clarita, CA. Based on the close proximity, the single-purpose "anti-Finland circa-WWII" POV, the article hopping, the endless cut-and-paste talkpage screeds and the same exact incivil, unhelpful tone, I would personally consider all four to be either sockpuppets or offWiki coordinated meatpuppets of a single POV pusher. There is cursory communication between several of them on their talk pages, but any sockpuppeteer worth his salt knows to "talk to himself" so later on if accused he can point to the posts as proof of his innocence. Either way, I wouldn't even bother attempting to engage with this user any more, since they're surely here simply to push a POV as aggressively as possible. If they get noisy again I'd recommend a WP:RFCU so they can be de-facto banned and we won't have to listen to their crap anymore. Bullzeyecontribs14:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finnish casualties in the Winter war
Hi, I was wondering if there were a way to contact Helge Seppälä or acquire the original text of his following interview: Seppälä H. Näin kulki talvisota 30.11.1939–13.3.1940 // Maailma ja me. 1989. №9. S.46–54. You see, he has made a statement there, about Finnish military casualties amounting to 23000+ and (total) casualties (including civilians) due to bombing amounting to 25243. Well, it seems that a Soviet translator managed to lose the words in brackets, resulting in a '89 article in a respectable Soviet journal stating that Finland has officially confirmed that its casualties in the war were over 48 thousand. The data from this article has been since then routinely used as a "Finnish official estimate" in many Soviet and Russian historians' works, including even Krivosheev's monumental work on Soviet losses! I guess they didn't bother to check the off-topic stuff... Ironically, the first person to cast doubt over this number was, apparently, I. Pyhalov, not a particularly pro-Finnish author when it comes to Soviet-Finnish wars. Here's the relevant (alas, archived) exchange. So, I wonder if this error can be permanently fixed somehow - by finding the original text in Finnish, or by contacting Mr. Seppälä himself. --Illythr (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a million! However, this leads me to the next problem - both you and I are just some random Wikipedia users, and the kind of people I'm arguing with certainly won't believe a Finnish Nazi collaborator such as myself. I will attempt to contact the publisher of the book by Krivosheev, so that hopefully they can correct this in the next issue of his book. Meanwhile, I'll ask the admins on ruwiki if the copyright waiver process for authors can be adapted to fix this obvious error. I'll also try to seek out the person who has apparently doubled this figure again, to over 90 thousand. --Illythr (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing - is it possible to obtain a scan of that article by Mr. Seppälä? To me, this seems to be the only way to fix this error without bothering the author to correct a mistake he didn't make. --Illythr (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Russian version of "Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive"
I do not know if you have any knowledge of Russian language, but with minimal translation from internet translators you can see that Russian version of the article is painted as something of a "great Soviet victory" - something which it certainly was not. "After being defeated at the front". Even part of the article - "result" - focuses only on Finnish casualties. The article needs serious non-biased rewriting --Kurt Leyman (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whiskey and me form something of a Fennonazi lobby on the Russian wiki, however, only I possess da skillz to push our POV into the mainspace. To address the problem, many articles about the war on ruwiki are written based on Soviet sources, which dictates their "systemic bias". Therefore, even the most neutral and fair POV will require reliable sources to base one's edits on. In this particular case, the best solution would be a source that cites the actual operational goals of that operation. The ruwiki articles lists them as 1) Liquidating the threat to Leningrad and to Soviet communication lines from Murmansk and 2) Knocking Finland out of the war. If we accept these goals as factual, then the operation was most definitely a Soviet victory. If we don't, we'd need good sources to back the new claims up (such as the destruction of the Finnish army and reaching the Kymi river presented here). --Illythr (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem had sorta resolved itself - the entire article turned out to be a copyvio from an external source, so I whacked it. --Illythr (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Winter War as part of WWII?
Hi there, Whiskey: I was recently discussing with Peltimikko whether the Winter War should be considered, for Wikipedia purposes, a part of World War II, and Illythr brought to my attention this discussion on the same theme you had with him a while back, which seems not too dissimilar from what we're discussing as part of resolving that.
New proposal for the Soviet attack header: a smaller sub-header, no longer suggested to be included in the main header
Hi Whiskey,
Please take a peak at the newer version for the Soviet attack header - a smaller sub-header in the lower part of the segment, for the part of text which discusses the attack only.
No longer is the Soviet attack being proposed to be included in the main header. Can you agree to this version, Whiskey ? On the Continuation War Talk:Continuation War page, I commented a bit more on the interesting points which you had raised in connection to the original version. Thanks! Boris Novikov (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Whiskey: The Soviets moved away troops only after loss in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Why do you revert that info ?
User Whiskey: You are reverting this, "After the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, the Red Army began withdrawing its troops away from the Finnish front ..." to this, "By that time, Finland had already become a sideshow for the Soviet leadership ..."
Finland clearly became a sideshow for the Soviets only after the loss in the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Only after the loss, the Soviet Union began moving away forces from the Finnish front, to be joined with the Allied forces marching towards Berlin.
If you have other information available, we'd love to have the source. Please include the page number for our convenience.
Suomi toisessa maailmansodassa ja tulosten muutokset
Terve.
En tunne teitä juurikaan, mutta tiedän että olette resurssikkaampi editoija Wikipediassa kuin minä. Siksi toivoisinkin että teette voitavanne etteivät muuan henkilöt tuhoa Suomen toisen maailmansodan historiaa omilla näkemyksillään. Ratkaisevin taistelu näyttäisi tällä hetkellä olevan suosittu kohde kyseisille henkilöille. Tehkää voitavanne: tämä on jotakin mikä ei saa tuhoutuvan joidenkin tyyppien omien näkemysten johdosta. T. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Art Dominique has changed tactics, I'm pretty much out - while the sources I've read either directly contradict or just don't state what he tries to push through, I can't read the presented Finnish sources, so it's pretty much up to you and Peltimikko to deal with those before some random admin locks the article on the Wrong Version™ for several weeks, like last time.
Hello again! I take it from your comment on the mediation page that you are interested in participating? It will be good to have another editor there, but please be aware that mediation can take time and patience, and that it will require that you compromise. If you do want to participate, could you read the ground rules and sign in the appropriate section? Once we agree to the ground rules I can bring you up to speed about what we have covered so far. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius♫03:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I've also created a section for a statement by you on issue 1, as it seems unfair to ask the other two participants to make a statement and not ask you to do so as well. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius♫08:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and another prod, sorry. I've left a comment for you at the end of the "Discussion of issue 1" section, and I thought you might have missed it. I'd like to make sure we're all on the same page before thinking of continuing to step 2. — Mr. Stradivarius♫15:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Maybe you missed the update to the page regarding step 2 of the naming conventions? I'd like to get your opinion before progressing. Thanks again — Mr. Stradivarius♫05:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear Whiskey: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tali-Ihantala mediation
Hi Whiskey, I notice that you haven't been around on Wikipedia lately. We're waiting for your input on the mediation thread here, if you would care to give your opinion. Thanks in advance for your trouble. — Mr. Stradivarius♫02:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear Whiskey: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Whiskey. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Hello, Whiskey. You have new messages at Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive. Message added 16:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
