Jump to content

Talk:Operation Arctic Fox

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

Edits

[edit]

I've re-arranged this to make it read better, and I've added a bit of detail about the action. I was aiming to make the layout correspond to the other pages on this subject. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List

[edit]

I’ve removed this section:
“List of Panzer Abteilung 211 in Operation Arctic fox”
This looks like undue weight; Why do we have a list of every single tank on the German side, when the order of battle otherwise only has divisions? Was Pz Abt 211 particularly notable? Does it have a distinguished war record, or something? If so, it may merit its own article; otherwise this is just an indiscriminate collection of information. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(2 comments copied from User talk:217.140.254.122#Recent edits)
It is good list and there is more nowledge.--217.140.254.122 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it is in the wrong place. The better way to handle it is to create separate article about these armor detachments, where this kind of information would be right to the point.--Whiskey (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strength, casualties

[edit]

The following details have been given without a reference, and the source is suspect:
Soviet commander=Gen. Maxim Hartsenko
Axis strength=3 divisions: 45 000 , 83 tanks; casualties=6000 dead, 14 000 wounded, 400 lost, 21 tanks
Soviet strength=2 divisions: 28 000, 140 tanks; casualties=4000 dead, 7500 wounded, 750 lost, 50 tanks.
Can anyone verify them? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pz Abt 40

[edit]

This unit has been added repeatedly by an anonymous editor, without the requested citation.
Is there any evidence that this unit was involved? Or if it even existed? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the notice...

[edit]

Apologies - i missed the notice of the Guild of Copy Editors about not editing the page. So, my bad, sorry. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I did not realise that part of the troops' movement was by hip. Thanks for correcting this. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk)

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Arctic Fox/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 10:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Soviet Northern Front was split into two during the course of the operation, this should be mentioned.
  • I found the proper name of the Polyarny Divsion, however I do not see it mentioned in the main body of the article.
  • The Operation is known as Kandalaksha Operation in Russian sources shall it be included in the article?
  • Explain why did the Soviet Union attack Finland in the first place and how Germany joined in. There is plenty of info at Background of the Winter War
  • Expand the sections related to US supplies through Murmansk and the role of the Lend-Lease.
  • Finnish General Hjalmar Siilasvuo was suddenly not keen to continue the offensive, and instead ordered the perimeter cleared [why?]
  • I found a couple of Russian sources on the operation, I will try to incorporate them into the article.
  • More comments may follow up.--Catlemur (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review! I reworked and expanded the article quite a bit according to your suggestions. Below are my comments.

  • The Soviet Northern Front was split into two during the course of the operation, this should be mentioned.
  • I added it into the article with a bit more general infos on the Soviets.
  • I found the proper name of the Polyarny Divsion, however I do not see it mentioned in the main body of the article.
  • It is named as "Polyarny Divsion" in some sources, thats why I went with it. But I guess Polar Division may be the correct name indeed; -> Ueberschaer has a table with the order of battle and there its called Polar Division too.
  • The Operation is known as Kandalaksha Operation in Russian sources shall it be included in the article? Done
  • If it encompasses the whole operation then sure. I added it in the lead - if its correct this way.
  • I will remove it case I fail to find a source to support that name.
  • Explain why did the Soviet Union attack Finland in the first place and how Germany joined in. There is plenty of info at Background of the Winter War Done
  • I didnt wanted to go that deep into politics since this is only a sub-sub operation of the Barbarossa/Continuation war (see my reasoning on the talkpage of Arctic Fox above), but I expanded the background section considerably.
  • Expand the sections related to US supplies through Murmansk and the role of the Lend-Lease. Done
  • I expanded it a bit with and also added some figures how much and what was delivered to Murmank.
  • Finnish General Hjalmar Siilasvuo was suddenly not keen to continue the offensive, and instead ordered the perimeter cleared [why?] Done
  • I reworked the paragraph.
  • I found a couple of Russian sources on the operation, I will try to incorporate them into the article.

improvements

[edit]

I edited this article because the prose was leaden, repetitive, weighted down with redundancies like translations (that can be accessed by clicking on the link to the topic in question, where the translation should properly be, as this is English language wikipedia) and was, as admitted by one of the main contributors, written by someone whose first language is obviously not English. Additionally, I can not fathom why the "background" section is even included in the article, indeed, going back to the Finnish Civil War? What bearing does this have, in any way, on the subject matter of the article? Good advice from an old graduate advisor: it has to a LOT SHORTER or a LOT LONGER ... and we all know what the answer should be. And don't get me stated on the excessive descriptors and adjectives, with everything being "vital" or the Soviets mentioned in every instance, as if it hasn't already been made crystal clear they, and only them, are on the defensive.

Hey, can you tell me what is wrong with making something better and more readable? Give me one good reason? If you check the edits, I puzzled over this article of the better part of 2 hours freely giving my consideration and effort. Oh, and as I hope is clear, I took great pains to not impact adversely on the purpose and educational intent of the article. Honestly, I truly believe I improved it in these respects, making it more enjoyable and easier to read.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bias?

[edit]

The more I read this article, the more I detect an Axis bias, as if it was Germans who lost the battle, not the Russians who won it. And all the more so, as the lament is that it had a big impact on the war thru Lend Lease. But how could either side know how important Murmansk would be at the time? See:

Operation Arctic Fox was unable to meet its sophisticated goals

Sophisticated goals? Perhaps totally unrealistic goals, like much of the German hap hazard planning for Barbarossa.

On the other hand, Finnish units, especially the 6th Division of the III Finnish Corps, made good progress and inflicted heavy casualties on the Soviet forces

Oh those brave Finns, only rightfully defending their tiny nation ... they allied with the Nazis for crying out loud.

The failure of Arctic Fox had a significant impact on the course of the war

Did it? Did anybody realize this, or could they predict the future? The Germans had an especially bad track record here, for all their General Staff is praised.

but

The German High Command did not regard it as an important theatre

Perhaps the most important conclusion. The Germans, and Finns, screwed up, and didn't even know it. At least the Finns played their cards right and slipped out of the consequences of making Hitler their best friend, unlike Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania suffered ...

[edit]

Is some one claiming that there existed a state of war between USA and Nazi Germany at the time the campaign that the article is all about is discussing? Because that statement does not agree with facts. In other words the claim "aiding the Germans, whom were fighting an American ally" is factually wrong since by the time the offensive stopped because of the alleged US pressure the USA was not at war and were not allied with any one. Inserting a reference to a conversation that took place on the following year, i.e. 1942 - long after the operation had already ended, does not prove anything with regards to the US reasons for wanting the Finnish offensive to stall in late summer/early autumn of 1941. So that phrase needs to be reverted - unless of course some insists that causality can be violated that is. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not suggesting that a state of war existed between the USA and Nazi Germany in the second half of 1941, the first months of the Barbarossa campaign.
But, what I am suggesting is that the USSR was an ally, certainly in the broad sense of the word, with the USA as they were both clearly opposed to Hitler. I could find you many, many examples of this, but most germane to this issue is that almost immediately upon the June 22 attack the USA and GB provide lend lease aid to the USSR.
See: US deliveries to the Soviet Union and Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans
Now, up until the invasion, the USA had been broadly supportive of Finland in its struggle against USSR. But things changed pretty quickly and dramatically in a few years. The quote I provided, from mid 1942, is only INDICATIVE, as in an exemplar or indication, of the behind-the-scenes diplomatic pressure that must have put on Finland to ensure that they did not aid the Nazis, specifically in cutting the Murmansk railway, which would eventually transport roughly 25% of lend lease. I couldn't find anything more explicit from an earlier date, but ... just because USA was NOT at war with Germany is no reason to, quite simply, assume that they didn't have clear strategic geopolitical interests that included USSR winning, or not being totally overrun and defeated. And if this sounds fishy, I think it was Talleyrand, or was it Metternich, who said "hypocrisy is the lubricant that makes diplomacy work." Or something like that. In the end, the dates of declarations of war don't much matter here.
Now the reason why I brought all this up was this line from a previous version of the article, with NO CITATION:
The reason for this sudden change in Finnish behaviour was probably the result of diplomatic pressure by the United States.
Probably? Whoa, that is a bit of a stretch if it is unsubstantiated? Maybe? Could have? I bet? Gotta feeling? I figure? We should KNOW if this was the cause, and make no mistake, on the face of it it seems to be a pretty darn good reason and entirely intuitive, but ... if we can't find proof of it, because it was the stuff of back room diplomatic dealing, well, where are we then?
The problem with your argument is that it is your original research (see WP:OR) that USA would have been allied. Instead all sources (which are that matter) state that USA was neutral until the December 7, 1941. Lend-lease does not prove an alliance. Furthermore a quote from mid 1942 is irrelevant with regards to the events that came to the conclusion in the autumn of the previous year since between those two events USA did enter the war and became part of the Allies. To put it bluntly your opinion without an actual sources which proves it matters very little and doesn't belong to the wiki. If you considered the previously version as badly cited that is no reason to replace with OR.
And please do sign your talk page comments with ~~~~ - see WP:SIG - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why then do people assume, and I am thinking quite rightly here, that the US applied pressure on Finland? I have several books I'll check, but there is something here. And ... if you think that the USA was strictly neutral before Dec 7, well, you haven't read history or know of all of things they did to aid nations that they were later allied with, indeed, your insistence on this point is excessively disingenuous. Do I have to provide examples ....
Do not provide any examples - they really have no value what so ever. Just provide a source (or preferably multiple sources) which states that USA was allied prior to the Dec 7. Without that what you write is either WP:SYN or WP:OR - neither of which is allowed in wikipedia. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the quote, now from Weinberg's award winning history, which essentially says the same thing ... his footnotes are, of course, primary sources. I could describe them.


The quote in question is "Following these negotiations, the Finnish national parliament decided to sanction military action against the Soviet Union, but only if the Red Army attacked first. Otherwise, Finland was to remain strictly neutral". Just because you do not like it is not a reason to remove that text. That you make WP:SYN or WP:OR - as was that deduction of yours - that is not found from the sources is invalid in every possible manner. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is a simple little picture book so I added a bit more from it, the part about the Finns supporting the German "venture" (direct quote ... venture, eh? interesting way of putting the most titanic struggle in the history of humanity) and sanctioning military action (gee, I wonder why they did that? especially if they had every intention of staying neutral?) I think this gives much better context to the quote, and goes a little way to exposing the transparent duplicity of the Mannerheim and his war policy. Oh, I added a cite from the more even handed Keegan about the Sept 12 passage agreement, which was really the beginning of the end; once German troops had access to finland it was all over but for the dancing.

I added another quote for more context ... good quote too, I'll have to use it in other Finnish WWII articles on wiki.

Problem with the statement you provided is that the agreement didn't actually handle invading the USSR in any manner. It merely granted German troops rights to cross Finland - more on that on Transit of German troops through Finland and Sweden and Interim Peace. And i would really recommend that you remove reference to 1940s and invasion since that doesn't add up and it can be shown to be a rather dissenting opinion if you just bother reading history books that handle the topic. Since it would be preferable to reach an amicable solution i first ask it here - do read more here: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
And seriously - learn to use indents and also to sign your talk page posts. Read WP:INDENT && WP:SIG, not that difficult. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore - do keep the statements in accordance to the source used. The way you changed the phrasing does change its meaning. That is again against wiki's rules, see: WP:STICKTOSOURCE. You may not alter the meaning from the source - and it what your edits have done. So to avoid needless conflict i would recommend that you change that text so that it would be in accordance with the source. Key point being that unlike what you wrote the source makes it explicit that the parliament only agreed to military action in case the Soviets attacked first, what you inserted does not in any manner reflect this, which makes it OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for that link, I added it to the article, and now it is even more informative. Otherwise I think it reads simply fine! Do you have any problems with it? If you do perhaps you should explain, clearly and explicitly, what they are, because we are reading the same source and I do not see how any meaning has been altered so as to not represent the original source. I reread what I posted, which seems pretty darn straight forward, and I just do not see what you are going on about.

I already stated those.
i) The agreement made in 1940 had nothing to do with invading. Only with troop transit. If you insist on that what you wrote to the article you must provide word for word quote or preferably a link to the material where that is said. Even then it would still be just a fringe view since there exists wealth of sources (Nenye, Lunde etc.) which are quite clear that the agreement was not about invading (or you can even read the actual document online in Finnish if you so desire. So that part needs to go or in the odd case that you can show that the source you provided happens to state what you claim it does then you need to make it clear that it is a fringe view of that person which doesn't agree with either the actual document or other sources.
ii) What you wrote is in fact a lie. It goes against what is written in the referred source. You state that " Finnish national parliament sanctioned military action against the USSR but hoped to remain neutral" - which is not supported by the source. Source is explicitly clear that Finnish national parliament sanctioned military action against the USSR only if the USSR attacked first. Otherwise Finland would remain neutral. Your change to the text alters the meaning and the tone of the text significantly implying that Finnish government would have sanctioned military action against the USSR regardless - which means that what you wrote does not agree with what was written in the source and hence what you wrote is OR and that is not allowed in wikipedia.
iii) There was no such thing as 'Finn high command' - it is 'Finnish high command'. Which BTW didn't have any political power and could not make binding decisions with regards to the war in one way or the other.
- Wanderer602 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added another direct quote in the footnotes for even greater clarity. I just love Germany attack first but join after the USSR initiated hostilities part ...

i) from that wiki leak leak you shared: "The transit road through northern Finland had a significant symbolic value, but in transit volume it was of lesser significance until the run up to Operation Barbarossa, when the route was used to deploy five Wehrmacht divisions in northern Finland."

11) But they did have every intention of helping the Germans attack the USSR, which is exactly what they did during ARCTIC FOX, once the Germans have provoked the USSR by INVADING their WHOLE COUNTRY! See that quote I added from page 36. But ... to be fair I just added your favourite quote in the footnotes too.

iii) Hey, but that is what your book says. Changed the spelling for ya.

Which is translation to English from Finnish terms which were clear that Finland would not go to war unless the Soviet Union attacked it first. And the Finnish parliament with war opposing agrarians and social democrats holding the majority was certain to vote against war in any other case - Finnish parliamentary election, 1939.
i) Yet the agreement made in 1940 had nothing to do with an invasion. Symbolic value was what Finns wanted in 1940. They wanted German boots on the ground, even if just for marching through as long as some would have been there to prevent further Soviet aggression.
ii) That along with your opinion is irrelevant. What matters is what the sources say. That you insist on pressing on with your opinion and ideas of the matter are extremely strongly at odds with wikipedia's policies. Do read those through. If you want to express your opinion on something you need to pick some other place than wikipedia for that.
iii) Book only says that the high command offered its support - it doesn't say that Finnish high command's offer of support was worth anything. It likely supported the German venture but it really didn't matter since it had no power to actually decide.
- Wanderer602 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, now look who is interpreting things and offering his opinion ...

Everything I have added is the interest of better understanding this military operation.

I have added, at least, 4 direct attributable sources from academic books on the subject, and ... in the interest of fairness I have added every quote you have mentioned and changed spelling at your request.

Pal, I think you are the one with a chip (opinion) on your shoulder. I think you should relax and read the article, which I believe you will find is even better written now, and deals with the subject matter in an even handed way.

It ought to have been obvious already that it really doesn't matter what you think. You may not alter what the articles state. You may not imply that they state something else than what they were explicitly stating. In fact doing so and inserting your opinions to the articles is nothing else than original research which is banned in wikipedia - see WP:OR. You can't even make deductions based on two sources you happen to have since that would be synthesis - WP:SYN, also banned in wikipedia. So unless you intend to cut short your editing time in wikipedia i recommend that you change your approach. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing wikipedia for well over a decade and I hope you come to enjoy it as much as I have over these many years!

Have a nice day!


And the next phrase you insist on including. First of all. You can't use wikipedia as a source for wikipedia. So that part of your claim doesn't work. Second. Even the page you refer to makes it clear that it was the transit road (which was a result of the agreement) was crucial in supplying and deploying those divisions. That is not being disputed. However the current phrasing again refers to the agreement of 1940 which on the other hand did not have anything in it with regards to invasion or even of supporting divisions in Finland. And that is the problem with your argument. Your synthesis clearly implies that because of the agreement the divisions were able to be there. Yet that is not the case. At the very most you could say that the road which resulted from the agreement made the deployment of those divisions possible but you may not state or even imply that anything towards that would have been in the agreement since there wasn't anything in it about that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You state:

because of the agreement the divisions were able to be there.

and

the road which resulted from the agreement made the deployment of those divisions possible

Wow, I am just not seeing it. To me it works like this: treaty ... road ... divisions ... invasion. It is a straight line, and each and every bit of the chain is related to the next part.

I know you Finns are touchy about this stuff, but I really think you are splitting hairs on this one, or are perhaps starting to take it personally. I do not believe that what I have written is wrong, misleading, in bad faith or meant to insult. It is the truth. I have edited in several instances exactly as you have requested.

Man, you have to chill.

What you wrote still doesn't match with the sources so it doesn't belong to wikipedia. It is that simple. You deduce - without actual sources backing your WP:SYN type original research, that because the agreement the road was improved which was used in invasion therefore agreement and invasion are linked. Except unless you an actually provide a phrase from a source (mind you that wikipedia itself can not be used as a source) which proves that than what you wrote is just WP:OR and needs to be removed. You can not make claims or deductions that are not made in the sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be exact. If you can not show a passage from a source that states explicitly what you wrote then it is not the truth. Currently without supporting sources your changes amount to just misleading edits made in bad faith since you deliberately insert your own deductions as facts to the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just do not understand your convoluted logic.

Let me ask you: would the Nazis have been able to attack with 5 Wehrmacht divisions in northern Russia if they hadn't entered into the agreement with Finland? Now this answer is speculation, but the conclusion is that Germany would almost certainly not have been able to make that attack.

But we know that they did attack, and that their invasion in northern Russia was facilitated wholly by having Finland allow them to transit their territory and improve the very roads that they would use to invade.

And you are telling me this does not make sense?

Question for you: if the agreement to allow German military passage thru Finland was entered into by both parties without any consideration for moving large numbers of troops, especially in the case of a war with USSR, just when exactly was there a modification to the agreement, or new agreement for all I know, that specifically allowed the Nazis to transit Finnish territory to attack the USSR? (And it is beyond the realm of realistic to think the Finns didn't know that this would and eventually did happen, being to start a war.) If the original agreement of August 18 was entirely silent on the Nazis using Finnish territory and roads to attack USSR, well when did this change and how?

Now, I suspect there is not an answer to this question, because the Finnish policy was so opaque, by design and almost misinformation (back then news traveled much slower tho,) and that the only sensible answer, connecting the dots with a clear straight sensible black line, is that the August 18 agreement was intended to allow Finland's ally Nazi Germany attack USSR.

What you do not understand is that your personal opinion or your personal original research and synthesis, which the phrase you include is, have no place in wikipedia. Only material which can be found from sources - and wikipedia as such can not be used as a source for wikipedia. You are free to have your opinion and make your own deductions but neither of those have any place in the article in wikipedia. If you insist on including that phrase then do provide a source which states explicitly that it was the agreement which lead to that. That you commit fallacies such as appeals to emotions with comments like 'this does not make sense' is rather telling that you do not have sources supporting your statements.
Situation in the autumn of 1940 and the spring of 1941 were different. I would recommend you to read this if you can which is an article handling the very topic the discussion revolves around - it is in Finnish though so it might be too difficult for you. Regardless it makes it very clear that the original agreement handled only the transit of a very specific number of troops and was only later on starting from December 10 1940 expanded to allow transit of up to 400 soldiers (on leave, without weapons) per week from Finnish Baltic Sea ports to Norway and from Norway to Finnish Baltic Sea ports That is what the agreement of autumn of 1940 even in its expanded form was about. The German troops transfers starting from June 7 1941 were not covered by that agreement. The discussions which handled the June 1941 troop transfers (and that the Germans would cover the Northern Finland) were in 3-6 June 1941 (while it it can not be used a source you can still read of the matter from here Interim Peace). So they were not in any manner covered in the agreement of autumn 1940. Wanderer602 (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Arctic_Fox&oldid=1212543166"