Talk:Finnish Army

Tables of organization and equipment were incorrect. Most notably there's just one armoured brigade and there are also two mechanized groups. There are only 4 Jaeger Brigades and 7 Infantry Brigades. Source: http://www.mil.fi/selonteontoimeenpano/selonteko_selvaksi.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.128.206 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"# M72 LAW (66 KES 88) (170 000 pcs)" I always thought that the number was 70 000, not 170 000. Would anyone have a source for this? --85.49.224.196 22:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nasu isn't an armored vehicle, is it? http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/00098_en.dsp lists it as a "tracked transport vehicle" and mentions no armor but a "reinforced plastic exterior" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruwine (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the aviation template (which has been there for 2 years it seems). I really fail to see what air speed records etc. has to do with Finnish military. 80.248.106.227 23:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(And I managed to screw up the article by using older revision. Fortunately bot or something fixed it) 80.248.106.227 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Needs references/sources. Also has far too much emphasis on technical data, lists of units, this sort of thing, and nearly no prose paragraphs on the history or organizational structure. LordAmeth 13:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In Finland like in the other continental countries the word army does not only refer to the land force, but also to the navy and air force. Therefore a more appropriate name for the article would be Finnish land force. 81.175.158.114 13:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The main difference between jaeger and infantry units is their different wartime purpose and not the age of their materiel. Jaeger units' main task is attacking, while infantry units purpose is defending. This results in jaeger units being more mobile, while infantry units have more heavy and anti tank equipment (such as the recoilless rifle). So while generally speaking true, the sentence speaking about difference between the two unit types misses point, so I'll make correction. Maukku 08:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Finnish Soldiers Skiing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As told on the Finnish Army website, the Finnish Army was founded only in 1.1.2008 as independent branch. This article mentions the foundation as 1918, which is due often seen misconception when speaking in Finnish Defence Forces as "the Army". Prior to World War two, the ground forces were organized under so called "Armeijakunta" (Army Corps). The Finnish Army HQ page (https://puolustusvoimat.fi/web/historia/maavoimien-esikunta) also twells furthermore in the issue: There is a mention that Army Headquarters (Maavoimien Esikunta) existed from 16.3.1940 to 10.8.1940. Whilst speaking of the post-WW2 era the ground forces were not under unified branch till the Army's formation in 2008. The infobox is also incorrect about the size of the Army and it lists the Air Force aircraft under its strength. I'll be adjusting the infobox accordingly based on the official information listed on the FDF website. Caselius (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to provide some background on the 2008 founding year in the history section, as it comes across as a bit of a surprise to see such a recent date in the infobox. Betelgeuse X (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I've refixed the infobox. People seem to be misunderstanding that Finnish Army is the ground forces. As listed on the referenced Finnish Army page the current wartime size is 180,000 soldiers (not the 280 000 or 900 000 listed). Those numbers are for the Finnish Defence Forces overall and reservists overall. They are not all part of the army nor in their wartime strength which is documented on the source in question. (https://maavoimat.fi/en/web/maavoimat/about-us) Caselius (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I apologise for the constant reversions of the article and for any etiquette I may break on the talk page, I'm still new to editing Wikipedia

The primary aim of the Soviet invasion in 1939 was to either force a new pro-Soviet foreign policy or to replace Finland's government with a pro-Soviet regime. This is something that the Wikipedia article itself on the Winter War backs up with strong sourcing and it seems strange to push for a different opinion on the article for the Finnish Army. @Betelgeuse X is clearly well versed on this topic so I am unsure as to why this change in particular is being blocked? TheNewDesignIsAwfulLMAO (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The two sources I provided are from the Winter War article. I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that annexation was not a goal, when we have sources that state exactly otherwise. One states point-blank that the Soviet Union intended to annex Finland, and the other states that a majority of Russian historians think that annexation was amongst the possibilities of Soviet intentions. So to rule it out completely is simply original research.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, also mentioned in the Winter War article, allocated to the Soviet Union territory that had belonged to the Russian Empire (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Eastern Poland, and the northern portion of Romania [Bessarabia]). All of this territory would eventually be annexed into the Soviet Union by the summer of 1940 - with the exception of Finland.

The installation of the Terijoki puppet government into Helsinki was the immediate intention of the Soviet invasion. This followed the pattern that the Soviets used in the Baltic states, where a friendly government would eventually "decide" upon ascension into the USSR. There is nothing to suggest that Finland would have been an exception.

If you prefer to use the terminology from the Winter War article then I'm fine with something like "Finland resisted Soviet conquest". That's the phrasing used in opening paragraphs of that article. Betelgeuse X (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The source I used was from the Winter War article, and the overwhelming majority of sources and historians cited share the view that annexation was not the war aim. Moreover, the source that claims Stalin "declared that they had 2 years to restore the borders of the former Tsarist empire" is itself further unsourced, and I am unable to find any other source or historian who shares that claim.

The Terijoki government indeed followed a similar format to the Baltic states, however I don't think it is right to infer they had the same goal. The ceding of Karelian territory to the puppet regime and Molotov's insistence on it being a "peoples" rather than "soviet" government give credence to the aims in Finland being different to that of the Baltic states and Bessarabia.

I agree with your last line, terminology such as "Finland resisted Soviet domination / conquest / rule" sounds agreeable to both of us. TheNewDesignIsAwfulLMAO (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to point out who these "overwhelming" numbers of historians are who state that annexation was not the goal of the Soviet Union. We already have three that state otherwise.

You're now disagreeing with a source because you believe that source itself is unsourced. This is just silly.

I don't know where you got your claim about "peoples' government" vs Soviet government. The Soviets had puppet regimes intended for all four, and the end result was intended to be no different.

This argument is moot though, I'll modify the text as we discussed. Betelgeuse X (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, the section for Soviet Intentions on the Winter War article cites 13 sources directly supporting the idea that the Soviet Union did not want to annex Finland.

The claim about People's government is from Molotov himself, purposefully differentiating the actions in Finland from the Baltics, he stated that the new government "will not be Soviet, but one of a democratic republic. Nobody is going to set up Soviets over there, but we hope it will be a government we can come to terms with as to ensure the security of Leningrad" (Dan Reiter, How Wars End p124) TheNewDesignIsAwfulLMAO (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

List the sources that explicitly state that the Soviet Union did not intend to annex Finland. Those words, exactly.

The Soviets also carried out a false flag operation to start the war, broke the 1932 non-aggression pact between the USSR and Finland, lied about the Katyn massacre, etc. It should be fairly obvious that what an authoritarian regime says and what an authoritarian regime does are two entirely separate things. Hence why we have actual historians who conclude that annexation of Finland was in fact the Soviet objective, regardless of what the Soviets said. Betelgeuse X (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, from the article :

Tanner, Väinö (1957) [1950]. The Winter War: Finland against Russia 1939–1940. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-0482-3

Trotter, William R. (2002) [1991]. The Winter War: The Russo–Finnish War of 1939–40 (5th ed.). Aurum Press. ISBN 1-85410-881-6.

Reiter, Dan (2009). How Wars End (Illustrated ed.). Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691140605

Iltasanomat (22 December 2019). "Yuri Kilin interview"

Lightbody, Bradley (2004). The Second World War: Ambitions to Nemesis. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-22404-7.

Kotkin, Stephen (2017). Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929–1941. Penguin Press.

Of course the Soviets did all those things, however they also made a deliberate effort not to annex Mongolia. In a similar fashion to how Nazi Germany annexed Czechia and Poland but kept Slovakia, the USSR annexed the Baltics but wanted to keep Finland. TheNewDesignIsAwfulLMAO (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

On which pages is it stated that the Soviet Union did not intend to annex Finland in "How Wars End" and "The Winter War: The Russo-Finnish War of 1939-40"? In "The Second World War: Ambitions to Nemisis", it's stated that "Finland feared a step-by-step re-annexation by her giant neighbor" following independence in 1917. I don't see any mention about the Soviets not trying to annex Finland in the Winter War.

Are you even reading these sources? Betelgeuse X (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, the section of the Winter War that you linked to includes yet another source that states that "restoration of the tsarist borders" was the goal of the invasion. Betelgeuse X (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)