Talk:Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Strategic Offensive Operation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Soviet Losses

Where do those numbers come from? According to Krivosheev, the two fronts involved (Leningrad and Karelian) lost a combined 94,000 to all causes (KIA, MIA, medical). Check here. Andreas 12:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I used Ohto Manninen, Molotovin coctail, Hitlerin sateenvarjo, 1994 book, where he had collected his research articles. In this case, he has used Soviet Ministry of Defence archives and counted the numbers from day to day casualty reports and 10 day Army level casualty reports. I tried to use Krivosheev's numbers but those parts and strong elements not in... makes those unreliable in Finnish fronts. In addition as most of the troops on both sides were concentrated in Karelian Isthmus, it is unlikely that total losses there were only 30,000 when in Karelia they were almost 64,000, especially when in Ministry of Defence 10-day casualty reports indicate, that only 21.Army lost in a month 51,200 men during the main offensive.--Whiskey 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberating Red Army?

In the article it says "The result was a stalemate, even though Soviets liberated East Karelia". I hardly think they liberated anything... They just brought back the oppression and the killings...

Let's not make a political point of view here. The East Karelia was possessed by Soviet Union before the war, and it was occupied by Finnish troops. To drive occupying force away is generally called liberation. If one starts making judgements which liberations are really liberations and which are not, then we are in a bottomless swamp without any hope of neutral articles. --Whiskey 08:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
According to some Wikipedia policies such words as "Liberation" should be avoided and instead use neutral terms such as "battle of", "conquered" etc. --Pudeo (Talk) 12:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Whiskey, East Karelia was Soviet territory before the war. Article doesn't mention Vyborg beeing "liberated", since it was conquered by the Red Army.Woden 18:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bring up this old matter again but if east karelia was "liberated", shouldnt the term for Vyborgs faith rather be occupied than conquered? Or conquered and occupied? So Finns occupy and Soviets just "liberate and conquer, eh?"
Yes, soviets occupied Vyborg, for me it sounds much better. But they also conquered it, since they never left the city which is now a part of Russian territory. Woden 14:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

After reading article again, it says that Soviets liberated East Karelia and captured Vyborg. Now this seems for me the best wording over this matter. Woden 14:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No it was not liberation, lets not use political term. Capturing is a better term, it's neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.87.13 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Like Whiskey said before, and which i agreed, liberation means driving occupying force out from the territory previosly owned by the liberator. Finnish army occupated East Karelia, it never was part of Finland, and Soviet army liberated territory which belonged to soviets in the first place. I don't think its overtly political to say, that someone liberated something that had belonged to them at the beginning. For me, soviet army liberating seems NPOV, word capture is OK, but liberation gives the image that this territory was soviet territory before finnish occupation. Woden (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Would be nice to use words that are appropriate. Because this is a discussion on military forces, it would be useful to qualify what's what. Temporary capture of objectives or areas is not like long term occupation, permanent liberation or an even more permanent incorporation of the territory into a state. Liberation is not a politically charged word, but as Woody suggested, just a word that denotes reoccupation of territory that was an integral part of a state. The usage of "take" and retake" is not any more appropriate then "capture" because in English the first is more properly applied to possession of objects, and the later to possession of people (captives). In any case, armed forces always occupy positions, and surrender them by vacating. It seems to me "conquests" went out of fashion in the colonial era--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From the Soviet losses, again...

There seems to be contradicting information about the losses Soviet army suffered during the operation. Ilya Moshansky gives in Sturm Karelskogo Vala. Vyborgsko-Petrozavodskaja strategicheskaja nastupatelnaja operazija 10 ijuna - 9 avgusta 1944 goda. ("Vojennaja Letopis", BTV-MN, Moscow, 2005) the casualty numbers of 23,674 KIA and 72,701 WIA. The exactly same numbers exist in G.F. Krivoshejev's Grif sekretnosti snjat (Soviet Casualties and combat losses in the Twentieth century). I look right now in front of me a photocopy of the table from Krivoshejev's book (English translation), and there reads: "Leningrad Front, right wing (21st and 23rd Armies, 13th Air Army; 10.06-20.06.44)" in the next column, there is a number of formations, and it also is incomplete: "rifle divisions-15, fortified areas-2, ind.tank brigades-1" as in reality even in the given timeframe at least 22 rifle divisions (45, 63, 64 Guards RD, 178, 358, 372, 46, 90, 314, 72, 109, 286, 168, 265, 268, 13, 177, 92, 281, 381, 10, 142 RD), up to 4 tank brigades (30 Gurds, 1, 152, 220), at least 2 artillery divisions (5 Guards and 15), 32 AD artillery division, at least 3 pioneer brigades (17 Sturm, 20, 52) and other units participated in fighting at Karelian Isthmus.

So, the data in Krivoshejev's book and all other books which derive their numbers from Krivoshejev are incomplete. --Whiskey 07:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

STAVKA gave order to continue attack to Lake Saimaa and Priozesk at June 21, and finally at July 15 commander of the 21st Army general D.N. Gusev ordered troops to defensive. In is hardly believable that not a single soldier was killed or wounded during those three and half weeks when Red Army tried to fulfill it's order. Krivoshejev is truthful in his statistics that he doesn't even claim that his casualty numbers consist all casualties for the whole duration of the offensive, but I haven't read Moshansky's book so I don't know if he has the same caveat in his numbers.

The final conclusion is that Krivoshejev's numbers had to be modified by the casualties of the 21st, 23rd and 59th Armies from the time period of June 21-July 15. --Whiskey 14:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So if the casualties are deflated in Krivosheev's book, than how come the total number (450 thousand) is used in the article? And if the 450 thousand number is indeed correct, than perhaps the mistake could be somewhere else (ie. not in the casualties)? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The total number is the best available according the sources we have. The main discrepancy in casualties rise from the fact that Krivosheev cuts the operation already June 20, while the offensive continued up to July 15, when the last Soviet forces at the Isthmus were ordered to defensive. 25 days of offensive and not a single casualty counted to the numbers. And the given divisions were only those which were recognized at Karelian Isthmus, thus those at East Karelia are not counted here. --Whiskey (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
My guess would be that he cuts it where it "stopped" being a strategic (ie conducted by forces of several fronts) operation. So, like with Kursk and Zitadelle, we might be comparing different things. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, in fact it "started" being multi-front at June 20, when the Karelian front joined the offensive. Until then it had been solely Leningrad front thing. And it was only after June 20, maybe as late as July 1, when 59.Army joined 21. and 23. Army the offensive at the Isthmus.--Whiskey (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet forces karelia isthumus 1944

The forces of the soviet in this artical are way to low and miss some key elements from the russian army. Just dubble check with this artical in russian wiki(babelfish) and you can see they nummberd 29 divisions. The number of armred brigade is 4 not to with the 1 152 and 220 tank brigade and 30th Gd tank Ill also have other figures from Ohto Manninen in Finnish military journal nummber 17.--Posse72 11:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I changed ridicilous and obviously wrong number 5:6 to the more general "multiple times more men". There are many estimates, but the official figures given by Soviet army seem to lower than the estimates from other parties. We should compare the different estimates, but we need better sources. There is no point stating some arbitrary number as a fact when the fact is disputed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.87.13 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To survive is a direct quotation from Saaresalo's book. Also how Finns managed to deplete Soviet forces when retreating from East Karelia is established both in Platonov's book and in Jatkosodan historia. The numbers, most likely, are not correct because of the habit of different armies and historians to count different things to the total numbers, but they are all we have currently, and they are sourced in their respective places, but your "multiple times" is not sourced at all. If you like, you can put fact-tag to the places you don't think are sourced properly, but unless you have sources, please don't remove or change them altogether right away.--Whiskey (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Krivosheev states that the number of Soviet soldiers at the beginning of the operation was 451 500 (including 60 400 in the Baltic Fleet, Ladoga and Onega Flotillas), that were organized in 31 rifle divisions, 3 rifle brigades, 3 tank brigades and 4 UR's (~division sized garrisons of fortifications) http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_10_1.html#5_10_35. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I can't find any sources which refer to this action as the "Fourth Strategic Offensive". The closest thing to a name I can find is that the Finn's referred to it as "The Great Attack". If we can't get a source for FSO, I'd like to rename this article to either "The Great Attack" or "Soviet offensive against Finland (1944)". Oberiko (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In Soviet historiography this operation is known as Vyborg-Petrozavodsk strategic offensive operation, dated from June 10th to August 9th, 1944. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Several historians also refer to it as "The Karelian Offensive". Google book hits gives the following:
  • Fourth Strategic Offensive - 0
  • Karelian Offensive - 12
  • Vyborg-Petrozavodsk - 8
  • The Great Attack - ~8
Nothing overwhelming for any of them. I'm fine with renaming to "Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive". Oberiko (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the "Fourth" in the title referred to the offensive being the fourth of the so-called "Ten Stalin's strikes". Here's an English discussion on some of those. --Illythr (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but this is something that became known only in the late 50s, so can't have been the contemporary name for the operation. In any case, I do not suggest we rename all the ten operations as 1,2, 3, or 4 etc. ;O)
I hope to eventually do an article on these
If the Karelian Offensive can be sourced, we can include this as the Finnish name for it, but I would not want the "great" in there as it will seem over the top even if it was the largest combat operation in Scandinavia--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)