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)