# Talk:Lapland War

The Soviets weren't maybe "supposed to" contribute, but they actually did in Operation Tanne Ost. So the Soviet Union is a combatant. (Or if we want to discuss wars that don't technically exist, maybe the Korea U.N. Police Action or Vietnam U.S. Advisory Operation...) --vuo (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That was the first battle of the war, and the Soviets and the Finns happened to fight the Germans in the same area. Apart from that one incident, the Finns took on the Germans alone, without Soviet air support or actually any kind of support. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Other war infoboxes include participants that contributed very little. While personally, I would generally prefer to leave those out, the precedence is to include them, usually with an explanation, such as "minor air support in Operation Tanne Ost only" or some such.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  18:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The only question is whether Tanne Ost was an overlap between two different wars. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Why?  Even if an "overlap", that just means it would be also included in additional infoboxes, not excluded from this one.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  19:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The point is that the Lapland War is separate from the Soviet "Great Patriotic War", but were fought in overlapping theatres. Finland and the Soviet Union happened to fight the Germans at the same time on a single occasion at the beginning of the war, and afterwards the Finns were completely on their own. Presenting the Soviet Union as a combatant will imply that the Soviets intervened in this conflict in support of Finland, which is inaccurate. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Please don't outdent for no reason; see WP:THREAD; thanks.
None of this is a reason for exclusion.  Things that happened by chance can still be noteworthy, like the Black Plague.  I agree that Russia should not be included as an equal combatant with Finland, per UNDUE.  But including them with an explanation of their limited, but actual, involvement is fine, per DUE.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  16:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Provided we include (only Operation Tanne Ost), I guess it's not harmful to the article. Though I still don't think the fact that the Finnish and Russian war threatres overlapped in a single instance makes the USSR a combatant in any way shape or form. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we're in agreement then.  My suggestion was something like minor air support in Operation Tanne Ost only, since their involvement in Tanne Ost was limited itself.  If there are no objections after a couple of days, I'll add the Russians back with that qualifying note added -- unless someone beats me to it.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  21:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Beat you to it? Challenge accepted ;) Cheers! --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks good!  Well, then all that's left is for me to...
out-outdent you! ;)  --A D Monroe III(talk)  15:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
A D Monroe III, Vuo, Mikrobølgeovn: Dear Sirs, I actually ended up phrasing the Soviet involvement into a note the following way during GAN: "The USSR provided air support in Operation Tanne Ost to Finland and crossed into Finnish soil while following the withdrawing Wehrmacht and during the Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive." IMO, it's a NPOV stance purely on facts and not commenting on whether the USSR was or was not actually/legally involved in the war. Manelolo (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This is against consensus.  Facts are they were involved, actually.  Yes, it was minor, but there's no POV stance to make on their involvement.  GAN doesn't justify this.   Discuss, please.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  19:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Open up to discussion again then (wee infobox debate)! It looks to me that the main friction point was if the USSR was a belligerent in the war or not. I don't really care about this simplistic view or if the USSR is included in the infobox at all. But the mentions of Soviet forces entering Finland and pursuing Germans cannot really be excluded from prose (even Finnish historiography talk about it openly in Lapland War-related material). So in that sense, "minor support in Tanne Ost only" is too close to cherrypicking if a reader happens to read the prose. I would go for either "USSR in infobox with mentions of involvement (i.e. the version I just amended to)" or "exclude USSR from infobox." I don't think even consensus can trump RS statements! Or in other words, one would have to find an RS stating that Soviet involvement was Tanne Ost only. Manelolo (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Meh scratch that, I'm personally quite happy as it is and better to focus energy on content creation (I reverted it to the consensus form earlier today). Cheerio! Manelolo (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"[T]he Finns who, unlike the Germans, always carried tents with them and did not require any existing shelter."
I know this is a very minor thing, but wrong is wrong.  It should be noted that the standard German gear did, in fact, include a tent in the form of the zeltbahn tent half.  This item was a poncho/camouflage/tent item all in one.  I doubt, however, that it was sufficient for the cold weather of the region while the Finn tents probably were better suited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.18.190 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC) 

Amended by deleting. Manelolo (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Year 2024,
['One man revealed Finland's secret plan for guerilla warfare (in 1944) 80 years ago - and it could have saved the country']. 
https://yle.fi/a/74-20119736
. Retrieved today. 80.67.37.2 (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)