Talk:Petsamo–Kirkenes offensive

Beginning some real work on this

Help welcome. Andreas 09:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I Removed your username from the article page, add it if I am wrong in removeing it (Deng 02:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC))

A strategicaly significant offensive

This operation was quite significant in terms of strategy because it gave for a brief time to the Soviet union the possibility of expanding communism into Scandinavia in Norway. The fact that Stalin called it a Tenth Shock says something about this much ignored but largest offensive in Scandinavia to him and Stavka the current contents of the article seemingly confirm this--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But shouldn't the title reflect that this was the major Soviet offensive on the Arctic front? And that it started at the Zapadnaya Litsa River? That it was about more than just Petsamo and Kirkenes? Manxruler (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be better if you commented on the Talk:Baltic Offensive. The quick answer is that the name of a Soviet operation is usually based on the initial and final (strategic) objectives of the operation, and only rarely on staging area. However if you can cite a reference, please include above into the article which needs to be expanded anyway--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle at Kirkenes?

The article lists the battle for Kirkenes as the last of three major phases of the offensives; then goes on to say the Germans abandoned Kirkenes, apparently without a fight (as there's no description of one). Unclear. Was there an actual battle there or not? Would "seizure" of Kirkenes be more apt?

There are probably better sources but Lunde (2011) states following (excerpts from the book)

p. 366-367: ...the decision by the 20th Mountain Army - approved by OKW - not to fight for Kirkenes... ...The Germans withdrew rapidly northwest along Route 50, and only minor rear-guard actions preceded the Soviet capture of Kirkenes on October 25... ...Heavy losses were suffered at Kirkenes during the last last two days of embarkation of supplies due to Russian air attacks over 24 hours.

That is not to say there wouldn't have been fighting before the capture of Kirkenes of course but not really at Kirkenes itself. Technically capture does not that there would have been resistance and neither does seizure mean that it would have happened without resistance, however i think it might be more descriptive to use 'seizure'. And please sign your posts, with ~~~~. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Casualties and Strength numbers.

I would like to add soviet estimates for casualties as well as Soviet estimates for German strength. But user Wanderer602 deleted my addition saying we dont need it. But casualties are always a tricky subject and I think this wouldnt hurt. Thouts? --F.Alexsandr (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

My opinion... If we already have the actual casualty numbers for the respective sides without significant issues (like different scope in time or place or similar) then the guesswork that are the estimates has no place in the infobox. It simply serves no purpose there. However you can add the information into the article as its own section if you like. For example something like 'Soviet estimates of German losses' or some such just as long as it is clearly marked as being the Soviet estimates and nothing beyond that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The Germans were notorious for underreporting losses (See Battle of Moscow), furthermore I dont speak finnish, so I cant tell what source author (Ahto) uses for his numbers. I would appreciate if you would tell me. Furthermore, even if they are correct, the German number is only for ground troops and (possibly?) airforce, excluding naval aspects, while russians include them in their number. I think we should add the Soviet numbers in the infobox. F.Alexsandr (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Not any more notorious than any one else was - the Soviet guesswork was still much worse. In fact that notorious for misrepresenting applies very strongly to the Soviets/Russians try for example taking a look at Krivosheyev's records with regards to the losses the Leningrad Front suffered after the 20th of June 1944 when it failed to advance despite ordered to - they are not just downplayed, they are outright missing... As what i mentioned before - with the Battle of Moscow is issue is that there is no real consensus as to when battle started, when exactly it ended and which area it covered let alone which units took part to it. All which greatly affect the casualties caused by such fighting. Which is what i meant with different scopes. Regardless of that the German reports are still far better than any estimates by the Soviets.

As to what Ahto is reporting... He refers directly to the German archives, to the report of the losses suffered by the XIX Mountain Corps in October 1944. As loosely translated into English the part reads as To their superiors the formations of the corps reported having suffered altogether losses of 8263 men during the October 1944, the dead and the missing comprised less than half of the total number of casualties. Ahto provides the actual references too: Tätigkeitsbericht der Abt. IIa/IIb d. Gen.Kdo. XIX.Geb.A.K., BA/MA 76207 && Gen.Kdo. XXXVI.Geb.A.K. Tgb. Nr. 434/44 g.Kdos. v. 4.11.44, SA F 43:1065

So again, no. As we have actual referenced values available we have no need to use the extremely unreliable guesswork in the infobox at all. Inserting such would only be misleading. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous here. I was not talking about guesswork, i am talking about the actual reports. During battle of Moscow OKW casualties reports had sometimes numbers smaller than reported by battalion commanders. Furthermore, soviet estimate is not the only other source. In "The German Northern Theater of Operations, 1940-1945" Earl F. Ziemke, who worked on US military history, he puts total number of casulaties at 22 236 men. H. P. Willmott and James F. Gebhardt put number at 9 000 . Russian historian Isayev puts number of only killed at 6500. Furthermore, as I have said, your finnish source doesnt put number of casualties at sea, and maybe in the air. And finally, it is not uncommon for such pages to give several sources. In Operation Bagration article, there are 5! different sources for casualties, even though Freiser gives "accureate" OKW numbers. You can argue why your source takes precedence, but you can not argue against presence of other sources. I have two proposals. Either we give a range 8000-30000 and list ALL sources I have mentioned yours. Or we list new data separetely, but still in the infobox, like in Bagration article. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ziemke (the only one i could verify on short notice) discusses losses suffered during the Nordlicht, which includes those caused by the Soviet offensive but is not limited to them. And he notes that term Nordlicht was used all the way until the troops reached Germany in May 1945. So what exactly does his number refer to? The losses suffered during the offensive? The losses suffered until the end of January? The losses suffered until the troops reached Germany? You can not compare two sets of values which have different scopes. Otherwise you are deliberately trying to mislead by knowingly comparing apples with oranges. If those other sources which you listed actually discuss the offensive and have German recorded losses then by all means use them, but do not include the Soviet estimates for casualties which you originally insisted upon. You can write the section as to what the Soviets believed but that is about it. Otherwise we would need to include all sort of fantasy values into the various infoboxes. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(I'm here from WP:3O). Is there existing consensus you could point to on whose numbers to use in the infobox? Could the disputed estimates be put in a note such as Less than half of the 8,263 overall casualties were killed or missing in action.[4] The Germans "escaped with the bulk of their forces intact"[5] The Russians, however, estimated far greater German losses, up to 20,000. [6]?

I see the point that Ziemke is overly broad regarding the timeframe (not just October), but I also see the point that the German number is only for ground troops and (possibly?) airforce, excluding naval aspects, while russians include them in their number.. It looks like the source for the losses suffered by the XIX Mountain Corps, Ahto, is citing a figure only for the corps, which appears to just be the XIX Mountain Corps, which in turn appears to just be ground troops. Looking at the text of the article, I see references to the Germans shifted the 163rd Division, is that part of the XIX Mountain Corps? Were there truly German airforce or naval forces at play, that could have suffered casualties? Leijurv (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

If some one wants to write a section of what the Soviets imagined that the Germans lost then by all means - i did not oppose that at all. And in fact i suggested that he should do exactly that. What i did say was that inserting almost certainly strongly biased claims & estimates of the losses of the opposing side - numbers which are not based on actual records - does not help with regards to the article. It will only work to deliberately introduce a bias. You do not see the Battle of Britain listing the British aircraft losses in the scale the Germans actually claimed and estimated do you? It is a difference between actual records and fantasy values. The exact same applies here. If the fantasy values are accepted here they should be included everywhere.

Most of the values listed seem to be roughly at 8000 - 9500 men on the German side except of course the Ziemke's values which may or may not refer to the same time period, and the Soviet claims and estimates of the German casualties which are more than 3 times as high as what the Germans reported. Even claiming that other units than the XIX Mountain Corps would have suffered the rest doesn't really work as the 20th Mountain Army reported (Ahto p. 296 - ref. Tät.Berichte IIa, IIb 1.7.-17.12.44, (Geb.) AOK 20, SA F 8:2.631) as its total losses in October 1944 to have been 12 537 men, these however include the losses all of its subordinate units - which means it includes the losses of suffered against the Soviets (XIX Mountain Corps) as well as those suffered against the Finns in the concurrent Lapland War where the active fighting started on the 1st of October 1944.

As to the other branches of service... They were in service but not in the scale required to make up the difference. There were some German aviation assets - however they were not used solely against the Soviets as they operated against the British as well as against the Finns as well. There were also some naval assets (one of the many attempts of sinking the battleship Tirpitz in northern Norway coincided with the operation) but again these were not used solely against the Soviets. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You are once again being disingenuous. There are numerous articles on Wikipedia which list different estimates next to casualty reports. Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive, Battle of the Dnieper, Battle of the Dukla Pass. "They were in service but not in the scale required to make up the difference." You dont even know their number and yet you make claims they are insignificant. Pure guessing. You have no reason to deny me listing Soviet and other estimates next to Finnish ones. F.Alexsandr (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Estimates should generally only be used in cases where the casualty numbers have not been readily available on one side or the other and even then the estimates should not be trusted. Once there is a valid number there is very little point in keeping estimates, especially estimates made by the opposing side which are likely to be heavily biased. As to the other arguments... Kriegsmarine strength in late 1944 was concentrated to the Baltic Sea. And there were no real notable engagements between naval forces during the offensive. Same goes for air forces. Luftflotte 5 had scarce few aircraft in the northern Norway. Even if we had their losses they could not be summarily added to the casualties listing, for one it would be WP:OR and second the forces were engaged with other fighting as well, not just with the Soviets. You can qualify if you like the German losses as the 'land forces' if that makes you feel better but it really makes no real difference. The 'Finnish' number is, as explained multiple times, not an estimate but instead a number of casualties from the German reports.

That being said, if you really insist upon your estimated values then write a new section in the article and insert it there. For the reasons mentioned before. To remind you infobox instructions Template:Infobox military conflict - it needs to conform with WP:VERIFY as well as with WP:NPOV. Use of estimates made by opponents in a conflict tends to violate that second one. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)