Talk:Baltic offensive/Archive 1

Archive 1

Okay, as requested on the Military History Project, I have started this article. I will get back to it and add to it over the coming weeks. Everybody else feel free to chip in. Andreas 08:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Baltic?

I don't believe there are any reliable source that refers to a battle called the "Battle of the Baltic" Martintg 21:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No reliable sources are needed any more, so it seems. Everything - be it legally flawless or proved with sources - can be succesfully disputed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Constanz (talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

The issue is the title. "The Battle of the Baltic" should really refer to the naval action during WW2, e.g. articles such as the Battle of the Atlantic refer to naval battles. There is even a book published that refers to it as a naval campaign, called "Battle of the Baltic: The Sea War 1939-1945" [1]. Some of the battles mentioned in the article were really a part of Operation Bagration, or the aftermath of the breaking of the Siege of Leningrad. There is an article refering to the naval campaign called Battle of the Baltic (1941) which should be renamed Battle of the Baltic (1939-1945) and this article should be deleted, since many other articles already cover the content of this article. Martintg 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the military operation of expelling the Nazi forces by the Red Army from the specific territory, eg. a specific military operation. Are you saying that this military operation is not article worthy? Or are you saying that this military operation article should be named differently? If so, how? For now, this looks like you a pursuing a WP:POINT campaign due to being disgruntled for not having things your way in a different article. Please clearly explain how the article on the military operation should be called in your opinion. --Irpen 23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made some suggestions above, I suggest you read them before making an ABF claim that I am somehow "disgruntled". Martintg 00:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I read them and I don't see any clear suggestions. I see WP:POINT only. Please be a little more clear on what is that you want. TIA, --Irpen 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

???. I thought my suggestion of renaming Battle of the Baltic (1941) as Battle of the Baltic (1939-1945) and deleting this article was pretty clear. Martintg 01:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I think this is a nonsense suggestion since there were two separate military operations: Nazi takeover and Soviet advance and each one is article worthy. But you are free to propose this article for WP:AFD. If the deletion proposal ends up rejected please accept my condolences. --Irpen 01:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think this is a "nonsense", perhaps someone could suggest an alternative title. The article Battle of the Baltic (1941) is a stub that explicitly refers to the naval campaign, not the Nazi takeover as you wrongly claim. The fact is the title "Battle of the Baltic" should properly refer to the naval campaign in the Baltic, not the territorial campaign in the Baltic region. That this article does not include battles in Finland, which was considered a Baltic country in the 1940's, indicates that the title of this article is inappropriate and is possibly a tendentious collection of events. I think it is incumbent on the editor of this article to provide source that the land battles outlined in the article are commonly known as the "Battle of the Baltic", so I respectfully ask you not to revert the tag until this is resolved. Martintg 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The title for an article devoted to an encyclopedic subject can be either an established name for the subject or a neutrally chosen descriptive name. If you think that the land battle is not article worthy, this is one thing. If you think it is just that the better name can be picked, it's another thing.

In the former case, try to propose the deletion. In the latter case, try to propose a better name. If you really don't know what is that you want, please think first and write second. --Irpen 02:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Battle of the Baltic" is the established name for the naval campaign. Perhaps "Operation ..." would be a better title, but given that this region was considered as the right flank in Operation Bagration and its aftermath, I would want evidence that this article discusses a real separate operation and not a tendentious collection of events from some other operations. Martintg 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be more clear. Are you saying that this article should be renamed to "Operation of what"? Or are you saying that this operation did not exist? What then existed? I can't discuss this with you until you intelligibly spell out your suggestion. You tagged the article, wrote a set of confusing statements and insist on the tag based on that. This is not a good faith approach.

You want the article deleted? Go WP:AFD. You want it renamed? Propose the new name. You want it split? Be specific where and how. While you just pose some vague objections, the tag is not justified. Judging from your behavior in a different conflict, it very much looks like WP:POINT. If this is not so, please present your suggestions in a clear and intelligible form instead of the vague "I don't like it". --Irpen 03:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought my objections were quite clear and reasonable, despite your apparent continued intent of painting this as something else. I'll restate it: "Battle of the Baltic" is the established name for the naval campaign. Since this region was considered as the right flank in Operation Bagration and its aftermath, I would want evidence that this article discusses a real separate operation and not a tendentious collection of events from some other operations. Perhaps the source verifying this article describing it as a separate operation will suggest a better "Operation ..." name. As it stands, "Battle of the Baltic" is not appropriate. Martintg 03:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is because you describe your objections in the vague form that I have trouble understanding you. So, you dislike the current name but what the better name should there be you happen to no know. Do I understand this correctly? --Irpen 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And you think the current name, which should properly refer to the naval campaign, is appropriate? In my view, this article really duplicates many aspects of Operation Bagration, with both articles claiming: "The result ... was a permanent loss of contact between Army Groups North and Centre, and the creation of the Courland Pocket". Are we talking about two separate operations here? But I am attempting to be fair minded about this, hence the suggestion of a rename. However, the reason I can't suggest anything beyond "Operation ..." is that I have not seen any source that refers to this as a separate operation. If you can provide a cite to such an operation, I will be glad to offer something more appropriate after I view the source if you like. Afterall, the names of articles on operations such as Operation Bagration, Operation Saturn and Operation Polar Star are all rooted in real operational names used by the allies at the time. So if this article describes a real operation, distinct from Operation Bagration, then it wouldn't be too difficult to cite an appropriate source that lists the name of the operation that could be used for a more appropriate title, would it? Martintg 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is the scope of the article. The campaign box states this operation occurred between September - November 1944, yet the text claims The Battle of the Baltic covers a number of smaller battles, including the campaign for Narva, comprising of the Battle for the Narva Bridgehead (1944) and the Battle of the Tannenbergstellung (1944). However these campaigns for Narva were between February - September, which is obviously outside the scope of the article. Checking the Oxford Companion to World War 2, this campaign only evolved into a separate operation after phase two of Bagration. This implies that this operation was quickly formed to exploit the breakthrough created by Bagration and attempt to stop the Germans escaping Estonia. Operations of Army Group North during the September-November period can be characterised as a tactical retreat into the Courland Pocket precipitated by the success of Bagration, therefore Soviet operations for this period should be seen as a consolidation in the aftermath of Bagration. For example, German troops had already left Tallinn a few days before the Soviets arrived. So for lack of an official operational title, perhaps Operation Bagration - consolidation may be suitable. Martintg 04:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, in most books, Operation Bagration stops in August 1944, and following operations are treated in a seperate way.

I agree that the title is maybe not the most fortunate, although Glantz, for instance, calls the whole thing "Drive to the Baltics". Trouble is, one has to find a common title, because the thing regroups a lot of operations (both before and after Bagration) and by definition there would be no common name, as each author uses a collective title as he sees fit.

But the most important thing is that an unreferenced title does not make it a POV one. POV has a very specific meaning, and this case does enter the scope of the policy. If you want to propose a better one, file a WP:RM request as it is specifically asked by WP policy. Until then, I'm removing the tag, (which incidentally, borders a WP:POINT violation because of another article...). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As you say, Bagration ended in August, so the article ought to cover the period after that, from September to November. It seems to group many unrelated events into one operation. By including operations in Narva which span from February to August, and then implying the defeat of the Nazis led to the formation Forest Brothers, seems to make this article border on a POV fork. The Forest Brothers concerns an insurgency that lasted over ten years, many members were either too young to have participated in WW2 or were veterans of the Finnish Army, and certainly none of the Lithuanian Forest Brothers fought on the German side. Hence I have replaced the tag. Martintg 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Grafik is correct exactly, this what I was saying all along. We can discuss the renaming to Drive to the Baltics (1944) or whatever other name (Martin pointedly refuses to propose a specific name). We can discuss the deletion (Marting pointedly refuses to submit the article for AfD as well) but the POV-title has a clear meaning. POVness of the title is not demonstrated by Martin in any way. Article is not called the Liberation of Baltic (although many WW2 sources, the western ones including, use the L-term for any operation where the Nazi forces where driven out, including from the E. Europe).

In any case, I would be open to the discussion on the title's neutrality should it have been "Liberation" or "invasion" or "occupation" or any other of the strong term. Such terms are not used. The title may not be the best possibly, but it is clearly neutrally phrased. I am removing the tag (as I see Martin reverted on the spot without explanation) and advise Martin to reread the WP:POINT guideline. --Irpen 19:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have provided an explanation above, so your reversion is unjustified. If the article strictly covers the September-November period, then there would be no objection. The issue is the neutrality of the subject matter. Reference to the Forest Brothers, which were formed well after the September-November period this article should cover, is an issue. I will delete this reference. Your brandishing of the WP:POINT club is an assumption of bad faith and really not helpful. Martintg 19:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no active local civilian resistance for any veteran to join until 1945, well after the period spanned by this article. The resistance was a consequence of Soviet policies in 1945, i.e. conscription, repression and deportation, not a consequence of the defeat on Nazi forces in September-November 1944. I will delete this paragraph, as its aim appears to be to tendentiously juxapose the defeat of Nazi forces and the insurgency against Soviet rule. If you revert this, I think am quite justified to tag the article POV. Martintg 22:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Irpen's claim that I pointedly refuse to propose a specific name is rather misleading. I clearly stated above that the name should reflect the operational name as used by the Allies at that time. So I suggested that it ought be called "Operation ..." and suggested that sources be consulted as to what "..." should be. The Oxford Companion to WW2 suggests that this operation was an evolution from the second phase of Bagration, so I suggested Operation Bagration - consolidation, but obviously that is not really suitable either.

However I think we can all atleast agree that Battle of the Baltic is more suitable for the naval action in the Baltic. Drive to the Baltics is also unsuitable, since the Soviets were already in the Baltics. I suggest we brainstorm a few titles here. Martintg 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Irpen's forfilment of my request for a source (D. Muriyev, Preparations, Conduct of 1944 Baltic Operation Described, Military History Journal), a more suitable name can be found. The text of the source formerly calls it "The Baltic Strategic Offensive Operation", so I suggest a suitable title would be Baltic Offensive. If that is acceptable, I propose the article Battle of the Baltic (1941) be also renamed Battle of the Baltic (1939-1945) so we can have an article about the sea war. Martintg 23:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps Operation Baltic Strategic Offensive would be less ambiguous. Martintg 00:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Baltic offensive (1944) (assuming we can have an article on 1941 German offensive in the same area) is another possibility. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems okay too. Do we need the date to disambugate the title? I have no objections to another article on the German offensive in 1941, but I thought Operation Barbarossa covered it. The Germans swept through Estonia to the outskirts of Leningrad in the period from September 1st to the 9th, is this worthy of a separate article? Martintg 19:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Baltic Operation (1944). This is more frequently used and a direct transsation of what it was called by Soviets at the time it was fulfilled (балтийская операция).

On a side note, at least no one is attacking anymore the article's right to exist. That's a giant step forward. --Irpen 19:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you did provide some cites. I know it is a direct translation from Russian, but is it appropriate in English? A quick Google search reveals 278 hits for "Baltic Offensive" [2] and 167 hits for "Baltic Operation" [3] Martintg 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On reflection "Baltic Operation" is okay with me, the number of hits compared to "Baltic Offensive" is fairly even, within the same order of magnitude. Afterall, it is the term the Soviets originally used, we should go with that. But do we need the date? Aren't dates only meant to disambiguate similar titled articles? If we all concur, will a simple move be sufficient, I don't think there are any linking issues and the move seems uncontroversial if we all agree. Martintg 21:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, date is helpful, but Mil-hist-project people are best to ask. I will check with them. --Irpen 21:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as it is clear that this article refers to the post-Bagration operation of September through to November. I disagree with Grafikm's view that this article should describe a collection of operations both before and after Bagration, on the grounds that there already exists articles covering pre-Bagration operations, and there is a gap in post-Bagration operations that this article will neatly fill. Martintg 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Baltic Operation" would indeed need be disambiguated, as there's a major military exercise that shares the name. Kirill Lokshin 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Baltic Operation is a POV name. Calling it Baltic Operation automatically places makes it read from the prespective of the Soviets. Just as the name Operation Barbarossa tends to put the initial stages of German invasion of the Soviet Union in a German perspective. It is better to put it back to the name it had Battle of the Baltic (1944). -- Philip Baird Shearer 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

However as some object to that name I am moving this article to "Baltic Offensive" from "Baltic Operation" as Offensive was the agreed name to use for Soviet Offensive Operations, See Talk:Prague Offensive --Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't watching this talk, so missed the conversation. However I'm fascinated to see that no one has looked at the Soviet history sources. The operation was not called the Baltic Offensive, but the Baltic Strategic Offensive Operation. Why? Because the Baltic Fleet, which was subordinated to the operation strategically was also an offensive participant, but at the operational level, so it was called Strategic to differentiate the overall operations from the naval operations, such as the Moonzund Amphibious Operation.

I would therefore propose the article be moved to the Baltic Strategic Offensive Operation because that will allow the inclusion of the

• Riga Offensive Operation 14 September 1944 - 24 October 1944
• Tallin Offensive Operation 17 September 1944 - 26 September 1944
• Moonzund Amphibious Operation 5 October 1944 - 22 October 1944
• Memel Offensive Operation 27 September 1944 - 24 November 1944

within it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already created the Moonzund Landing Operation - guess it depends how you want to translate десантная :) Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to rename the article to bring within it the four sub-operations. Offensives can have sub-components quite easily - Operation Overlord for example. I believe the Prague Offensive precedent is the right one here. Note the sub-ops within the text, as well as the full name according to Soviet official histories right up the top and in the infobox (actually I'll do that now). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Scope of article

The scope of the article is a bit unclear. The intro text seems to imply that it only covers the latter half of 1944, but the infobox states that it covers Jan-Nov 1944. The article itself also contains a lot of information about events occurring in early and mid 1944, contrary to the introduction.

Would it be reasonable to set the scope at Jan-Nov 1944? There doesn't seem to be an existing article covering the northern part of the Eastern Front in the early half of the year. There is an article on the Battle of Narva (1944) but that's just one part of the overall situation. -- Hongooi 07:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)