Talk:Operation Arctic Fox

Edits

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)

List

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)

(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)

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)

Strength, casualties

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)

Pz Abt 40

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)

Missed the notice...

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)

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

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)

• 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
• 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)

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  Done

• I reworked the paragraph.

• I found a couple of Russian sources on the operation, I will try to incorporate them into the article.

• If there is something missing sure, but these sources should be uses cautiously, because there are still from the Soviet era pre 1991. Dead Mary (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• "The southern pincer of this attack was to be launched from the Salla region in Central Finland. Salla was one of the areas occupied during the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939." How can they launch an offensive from there if the Soviets were in control of the region?--Catlemur (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• I changed that sentence to make it less confusing. Dead Mary (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

improvements

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)

bias?

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 ...

Related to the recent revert of my 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)

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)

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 ....