This is an archive of past discussions about Siege of Leningrad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Spanish division was not representing the Spanish Government, and therefore its flag has no business being there even if they were Spanish speaking. Spain was not at war with the USSR.--mrg3105mrg310523:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagree The Spanish division was representing Franco. Here is the source (one of Many):
Source on the Spanish troops in the siege of Leningrad: Dirty Little Secrets of World War II. By Jame F. Dunningan and Albert A. Noft. Perennial, 2003.
After Franco's meeting with Hitler in France... Blue Division was a trick on the part of Franco, a way of getting the "hard-line" pro-war Spanish Fasciss and anti-Communists to serve Franco's way of acceding to German pressure for him to enter the war. This was accomplished with the help of Canaris who knew Franco since he was a German intelligence operative in Spain during WWI.Steveshelokhonov07:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see arguments for and against including the flag of Spain.
While Spain was officially non-belligerent they did represent the Spanish Government since they were sent by Franco and by 1940 he was head of state. But the Blue Division was under German command not Spanish.
And it was a major contribution - 47,000 Spanish soldiers served under German command on the Russian front, two of those years continuously in the line in the siege of Leningrad. There were 22,000 casualties, of which 4,500 were killed in action or died of wounds, disease, or frostbite. (from a good book on the subject Hitler's Spanish Legion: The Blue Division in Russia, Gerald R. Kleinfeld, Lewis A. Tambs, Southern Illinois University Press, 1979)
If instead of listing it like this: Spain it were included like this: Spanish Blue Division it would certainly be accurate without implying that Spain was officially at war.
The participation of Blue division should be explained in text, but it is not relevant enough to be added to the infobox, where it is guaranteed to raise more questions and confusion than giving answers to them.--Whiskey (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Finnish involvement in the siege of Leningrad
Hi Steven,
Would you mind providing quotes from the sources you used to justify inclusion of Finland as a siege participant?
The World War II. Desk Reference. Eisenhower Center Director Douglas Brinkley. Editor Mickael E. Haskey. Grand Central Press, Stonesong Press, HarperCollins, 2004. ISBN0-06-052651-3. Page 210.
The siege of Leningrad. By Alan Wykes. Ballantines Illustrated History of WWII, 3rd edition, 1972. Pages 9-21.
Scorched earth. Leningrad: Tragedy of a City. (pages 205 - 208) By Paul Carell. Schiffer Military History, 1994. ISBN: 0-88740-598-3<
The story of World War II. By Donald L. Miller. Simon Schuster, 2006. ISBN: 10: 0-74322718-2. Page 67
The Siege of Leningrad in World War II. By H.P. Willmott, Robin Cross, charles Messenger. Dorling Kindersley, 2004. ISBN:978-0-7566-2968-7
1. Britannica: "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII."[2]
2. "The Siege of Leningrad" a chapter in the book "World War II" By H.P. Willmott, Robin Cross, charles Messenger. Dorling Kindersley, 2004. ISBN:978-0-7566-2968-7
Page 152: "On Hitler's orders in September 1941 the German Army Group North and its Finnish allies had stopped on the outskirts of Leningrad, rather than become involved in a costly city battle... The Axis forces had begun to besiege the city, subjecting it to constant air and artillery bombardment. By October the population of 3,5 million had only enough food to last 20 days. Savage food rationing left five hundred thousand people with no entitlement, and people were driven to eat their pets and birds. By January 1942 the daily death toll had risen to five thousand. There were incidents of cannibalism. There was one loophole in the blockade. The large freshwater Lake Ladogafroze in November, a road was created over the ice that provided the last link in a 240 mile (380 km) route from beyond the German lines in Tikhvin." The map on page 152 shows full encirclement of Leningrad with Finnish army holding the northern perimeter, and Germans - the southern perimeter.
(not explicit)
3. The story of World War II. By Donald L. Miller. Simon Schuster, 2006. ISBN: 10: 0-74322718-2.
a) Page 67: "Leeb's armies were sweeping north to Leningrad, and within two months these armies, together with Finnish forces under Marshal Carl Mannerheim, the Finnish commander-in-chief, all but completed the encirclement of the city." (not explicit)
b) Page 68: Witness account by William Mandel, an American reporter in Russia, who was in besieged Leningrad.
c) Page 69: Witness account by Peter S. Popkov, Chairman of the city council during the siege of Leningrad.
4. Scorched earth. Leningrad: Tragedy of a City. Lake Ladoga. Between Volkhov and Shlisselburg. (pages 205 - 247) By Paul Carell. Schiffer Military History, 1994. ISBN: 0-88740-598-3
a) Anything that happened between the Polar Sea (Arctic Ocean) and Lake Ilmen after September 1941 concerned Leningrad. (p.205)
b) Hitler had accurate information about Leningrad. Finnish intelligence was particularly helpful in this respect. (p 208)
c) Map 22. For nine hundred days Leningrad was besieged by German and Finnish troops. (p. 209)
d) "In November 1941 another attempt was made to close the ring round the city by linking up with the Finns on the Svir." (pp. 209) (do you have any idea where Svir is in respect to Leningrad?!)
e) "Hitler pinned down the entire German Army on sentry duty to a single city., an important centre of war industry, and the naval base of the Baltic Fleet. He continued, as the Finnish Field-Marshal Mannerheim so well put it, to "drag this heavy rusksack along on his back right through the war." (quoted from Mannerheim's letter, pp. 209-210) (no mention of Finnish troops)
f) Hitler's plan to strangle and starve the city into submission had failed (1943). Finnish confidence in their German allies was shaken. Their military plans collapsed. Finnish Marshal carl Gustav Baron Mannerheim had planned, as soon as the beleaguered city fell, to switch his corps, which were bogged down along the Karelian isthmus encirclement front, over to attack against the Murmansk railway, the route by which the huge American supplies were arriving. The loss of this American aid would have put Russia in a difficult economic situation, and deprive ... of its offensive momentum. (p. 240) (Karellian Ishtmus!)
g) "On the western side the front of 4th SS Police Division and the Spanish Blue Division (250th Infantry Division) stood up to seven Soviet rifle divisions, and three armoured brigades." (P. 246) (Yes, but this was a Wehrmacht division)
h) "The Spanish battalions of 262nd, 263rd, and 269th Grenadier Regiments under the command of General Esteban-Infantes bore the attack of ... 33, 000 men supportte by about 60 t-34s, and 187 batteries of artillery. The Russians took Krasnyy Bor, but this cost them 11 thousand men killed. The Spaniards resisted stubbornly with daggers and hand grenades. Their extraordinary gallantry deserves to be recorded. The Blue Division lost 3,200 men. Their Fusilier Battalion lost 90 per cent of its strength. But the Spaniards held onto their strong-points, and thus protected the deep flank of Hilpert's group." (pp. 246-47) (They spoke Spanish, not were there because Spain was at war with USSR)
Additional source on the Spanish troops in the siege of Leningrad: Dirty Little Secrets of World War II. By Jame F. Dunningan and Albert A. Noft. Perennial, 2003.
"After Franco's meeting with Hitler in France... Blue Division was a trick on the part of Franco, a way of getting the "hard-line" pro-war Spanish Fascists and anti-Communists to serve Franco's way of acceding to German pressure for him to enter the war. This was accomplished with the help of Canaris who knew Franco since he was a German intelligence operative in Spain during WWI." (Even assuming this is a quote, it proves Spain was not at war with USSR)
5. The siege of Leningrad. By Alan Wykes. Ballantines Illustrated History of WWII, 3rd edition, 1972.
a) chapter titled: The attackers. Photographs of Mannerheim, Leeb, Bock, and Runstedt. (pp. 9-21)
b) 22 June 1941. "German troops attacked.... Similar attacks have also been made from Finnish territory." (pp.29-31) (full quote please, where did they attack?)
c) Map of the siege for Sept 25, 1941: Beloostrov and other northern suburbs of Leningrad are shown occupied by Finns. Southern suburbs Peterhof and Pushkin - occupied by Germans. (p 52)
(Beloostrov is at least 20km from Leningrad current suburbs!) The Finns had no artillery to even fire that far!
d) Hitler had no intention of feeding 3 million citizens even if they could be persuaded to throw themselves abjectly upon his mercy by surrendering. They were to be massacred or given, complete with their city, to Finland as a 'pour boire' for Finnish help in the Eastern campaign." (pp.62-64 with photos) (not explicit)
6. The World War II. Desk Reference. Eisenhower Center Director Douglas Brinkley. Editor Mickael E. Haskey. Grand Central Press, Stonesong Press, HarperCollins, 2004. ISBN0-06-052651-3. Page 210.
a) German forces advancing into Russia reached the outskirts of Leningrad in August 1941 and, supported by Finnish troops attacking from the north, began attack to capture the city. The Russians managed to halt the Axis advance by late September, and ... a siege lasted for approximately 900 days. (p. 210) (not explicit)
Much more facts are known to people who live in St. Petersburg, or been on locations of the siege: in St. Petersburg and suburbs, in museums, and destroyed palaces and mansions. Ilya Repin's home in Repino was vandalized at the time of Finnish presence, the art collection was looted, and the villa of artist Repin was burned to ashes. I was there many times, it is a popular museum now, but Repin's original art did not survive the siege. After the war, Finns donated some money for restoration of the main building, but the original art is still missing. Same story with the suburbs south of St. Petersburg: Germany sponsored re-construction of the Amber Room, but some major palaces, like the Ropsha palace and parks, are still in ruins. (Repino is even further the Beloostrov! Are you covering the entire Leningradskaya oblast'?!)
Too little is written in Wikipedia, the big picture of reality is there - in St. Petersburg, and many millions can see it with their own eyes. I just made a diligent effort to make Wikipedia better and closer to reality.
PS: I have 3 of the above mentioned books in my own library, and more. I also spent quite a few months studying the siege through English sources in UC and Cal State libraries here in CA. The picture in books is very narrow compared to the magnitude of the siege, the city of 3,5 million and also the populous upscale suburbs with palaces of the Tsars. You must see it to realize how little is said in all books. The norhtern suburbs of St. Petersburg were villas of intellectuals, artists, like Repin, writers, like Gorky, Chukovsky, Anna Akhmatova, and all those villas were burned down during the siege of Leningrad - northern suburbs were occupied by the Finnish army. They did not advance closer to the center of the city, because of resistance, but the Finns kept the perimeter blocking Leningrad from the north, that of course did not help the suffering survivors and victims who died there.
(stick to the question - did Finnish troops attack Leningrad?)
Alledged participation by Finland used as justification of occupying Finnish areas?
Should something be written about the obvius tendency and need by Russians to see Finns as part of the siege. And also the Soviet time history wanted to show Finns as agressors because Soviet Union (and thus later Russia) occupied Finnish cities like Terijoki (Zelenogorsk), Kuokkala (Repino), Viipuri (Vyborg). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.118.21 (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Facts from Encyclopedia Britannica: "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII."[3]. Also facts from Richard H. Bidlack, Ph.D, see his article "Leningrad, Siege of" in the World Book Encyclopedia, Chicago, 2002, vol.12, page 195.
No sources
Ok Steven, I have humoured you enough.
Firstly you are going to put the links for the military operations you deleted back. This is a major part of the Wikipedia policy to insert redlinks if they are warranted by context and will eventually lead to articles. If you do not do so, I will start an administrative action against your participation as an editor.
Secondly NOT ONE of the above sources contains a quote that explicitly suggests Finnish troops participated in the attacks on Leningrad. Every source I have shows the Finnish troops stopping at the 1939 line. They had no reason to attack Leningrad because blockade could not be relieved from the Northern approach to the city. Just so you know what a quote looks like, "by September that year German troops were on the outskirts of the city and had cut off communication with the rest of Soviet Union, while Finnish troops advanced across the Karelian Ishtmus from the north" (p.800, Leningrad, History, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Volume 10, 1981). I have bolded every of your quotes above.
Lastly, there is no source that Spain sent troops, or was at war with Soviet Union. The flag represents a nation, not the language troops who happen to be in the 250th Infantry division were speaking. For all intents and purposes the division was a Wehrmacht one. Therefore please remove the flag--mrg3105mrg310507:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing how the redlinks to operations were not restored, and the Finnish 'part' in the siege has not been editing, I will now ask for arbitration in regards to your persistence in denying editorial access to others--mrg3105mrg310501:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Editing the article
Hi Steven,
PLEASE replace links to the operations you have removed. Other people may want to write them if they see them as redlinked, but without those operations the siege is meaningless. If you do not, you will find me bringing this matter up as a dispute in the project and elsewhere. You have 24 hours. This is NOT your article, so you have to learn to live with other editors as hard as you may find it to accept this.--mrg3105mrg310501:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, can you help me to find explanation of a rather funny activity that started yesterday, exactly when I came back to editing the siege of Leningrad with more sources. Why other users were waiting for entire month since December, and now, in one day, so much hyperactivity, and, sadly, rather counterproductive. Looks like another "siege of information." How this may help all of us to make Wikipedia better?
As a matter of fact it has taken a long time to process a lot of information. You are only working on one article. I'm working on several hundred. I had added several of the operations to other articles, and would have added them anyway since I am working on the Army Group Nord now (the edit history is there if you don;t believe me). I have discussed you editorialship with the Project coordinator several weeks ago, but have been busy with other project tasks. Do you really think the world of Wiki revolves around your editing? I watch many articles, and when they come up I add what I can when I can and try to work out if the editor is able to contribute more--mrg3105mrg310507:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The correct source?
Steve, could you please specify the editors/authors, the correct publisher and/or publishing date for your source "Finland in the Second World War" Berghahn Books, 2006? The claims you stress it makes seems to be quite unbelievable: "Mannerheim opened secret negotiations first in Brussels, then in Moscow. [104]". --Whiskey (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I could find only one book by this title. However the interesting thing is that it has an interesting statement in it pertaining to the question on Finns attacking Leningrad, and also possibly explains how Mannerheim opened secret negotiations in Brussels.
"The Germans requested the Finns to join the operations against the city, but Mannerheim, in agreement with the government, rejected these proposals, appealing to the insufficient strength of his own forces. The reluctance of the Finns was determined partially by the desire to spare their own troops, but also by political circumspection. They though that the Russians would never forget it if they attacked the city on the Neva. Foreign Minister Witting reported to the American envoy that Finland had decided not to participate in the assault on Leningrad. Later during the siege of the city by the Germans, which was to last until January 1944, the Finns desisted from beleaguering the city even to the extent of refusing to lend artillery support. (p.95)
Finland In The Second World War: Between Germany and Russia, by Olli Vehvilainen (Author), Gerard McAlester (Translator), Palgrave Macmillan (2002), ISBN978-0333801499
Most likely Steve means that book, although the publisher and the date doesn't match.
Finns could have met an American envoy in Brussels After September 3, 1944 and signed an armistice on 19th September, 1944 in Moscow. The whole thing was secret from Hitler of course.--mrg3105mrg310513:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I said 'possible'. I am not well versed in Finnish overtures to the Allies, but I believe the negotiations started well before September. Probably a subject for an article elsewhere--mrg3105mrg310501:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Revamp
Divided the content into three main section
Military operations
Effect on the city
Aftermath
Much of the content was scattered all over the article, so collected in sections, and renamed sections for shorter and better expression
Moved the recovery and reconstruction timeline after 1945 to the city history article
Added quite a bit of detail, but the section of the alleged participation of Finland in the siege is yet to be edited. It turns out that Finland could only bomb the city since it had no guns capable of firing into the city for the forward positions. However I could not find any evidence that Finnish Air Force operated over the city.
Removed Italian and Spanish flags also from the box. Four Italian naval craft that operated for a few months do not deserve a flag, and neither does a Spanish speaking infantry division since Spain was not at war with USSR and they did not represent Spain even if sent with Franko's approval.
There was a lot of contextual and expression editing, and more needs to be done.
Neither the Soviet operations to relieve the city nor German operations to prevent this are described at all.
Bombardment was at times quite intense and coming from both artillery and Luftwaffe. Heavy artillery was also used. Some buildings were specifically targeted by Germans, some were obviously collateral damage. Germans used a captured Soviet map for fire registration and targeting, and places like schools were targeted because they were supposed to be used for military purposes by the Wehrmacht (and no doubt some were). The naval facilities came in for particular attention by the artillery. There is lots of online resources but all in Russian. I don't have an English source handy for the citation--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
List of books to read about the Siege of Leningrad. Summary of data on civilian and military casualties on all sides of the conflict
This is the first effort to make a summary of data on civilian and military casualties on all sides of the conflict. It took me a couple of months to read through several books while making notes for this article.
Here is the list of books to read about the Siege of Leningrad (with some quotations).
The siege of Leningrad. By Alan Wykes. Ballantines Illustrated History of WWII, 3rd edition, 1972.
Glantz, David. The Siege of Leningrad 1941–44: 900 Days of Terror. MBI Publishing. Osceola, WI: Zenith Press, 2001 (hardcover, ISBN0-7603-0941-8); Eastbourne, East Sussex, UK: Gardners Books, 2001 (hardcover, ISBN1-86227-124-0); London: Cassell, 2004 (paperback, ISBN0-304-36672-2).
Vehvvilainen, Olli . Translated by Gerard McAlister. Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia. Palgrave. 2002.
Kay, Alex J. Exploitation, Resettlement, Mass Murder. Political and Economic Planning for German Occupation Policy in the Soviet Union, 1940 - 1941. By Berghahn Books. New York, Oxford. 2006.
Carell, Paul (1994). Scorched Earth. Chapter Leningrad: Tragedy of a City. Schiffer Military History, pp. 205–240. ISBN0-88740-598-3.
Life and Death in Besieged Leningrad, 1941–44 (Studies in Russian and Eastern European History), edited by John Barber and Andrei Dzeniskevich. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005 (hardcover, ISBN1-4039-0142-2).
Higgins, Trumbull . Hitler and Russia. The Macmillan Company, (1966).
Fugate, Bryan I. Operation Barbarossa. Strategy and Tactics on the Eastern Front, 1941. 415 pages. Presidio Press (July 1984) ISBN-10: 0891411976, ISBN-13: 978-0891411970.
Winston S. Churchill. Memoires of the Second World War. An abridgment of the six volumes of The Second World War. By Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston. ISBN0-395-59968-7
Russia Besieged (World War II). By Bethel, Nicholas and the editors of Time-Life Books. Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books 1981. 4th Printing, Revised.
Writing the Siege of Leningrad. Women's diaries, Memories, and Documentary Prose. By Cynthia Simmons and Nina Perlina. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005. ISBN-13: 9780822958697
Authors, like Frygate and Higgins, are using military archives. It is interesting that for general public some archive sources are still unavailable, or undisclosed, like some of the Nazi Germany's data on casualties of the Army Group North in Barbarossa and later operations on the Eastern Front, including all operations and battles related to the siege of Leningrad.
German original: Paul Carell: Verbrannte Erde. Schlacht zwischen Wolga und Weichsel ("Scorched Earth: Russian-German War, 1943-1944"), 1964, Ullstein Taschenbuchvlg.(1987), ISBN978-3548330235
Casualties of the Army Group North were not disclosed by the Germans, just as well as the Red Army and civilian deaths were diminished by the Soviet propaganda.
German Army Group North had 760,000 troops in 1941, and under 640,000 in 1943 according to David Glantz[1] and other sources. However, that does not mean that simple extraction showing 120,000 are accurate reflection of German losses, the real losses were different because of additional reserves and recruitment in Germany and other occupied parts of Europe was ordered by Hitler, so every year, in 1941, 1942, 1943, and even in 1944 and 1945 more youth were sent to armies upon Hitler's orders, including the Army Group North. Rotation data was secret too, just like the data on casualties.
However, the current numbers of the Wehrmacht casualties may stay in the template, until a more accurate data with solid sources becomes available.
I reversed a recent deletion, because it was based only on the fact that the Russian and German articles do not have data, and that is not a good reason for deletions in the English article.
Finland had about 100 thousand casualties on the occupied territories west, north and east of Leningrad. The description of Finnish casualties according to the book Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia. Palgrave. 2002. (pp. 121-98 25,500 combat casualties (1941-42), 75,000 wounded [2] Other sources have information that Mannerheim was pressured by anti-war groups in Finland because the small country became very sensitive to casualties and losses on the Russian front nearing 100 thousand - a very big percentage to 3,7 mil population of Finland. [3]
And you are counting all Finnish casualties. If we go to that, why don't we add also Army Group Center casualties here, as they were about as close as Finns in many locations to Leningrad? Oh, and naturally one should also add all those Soviet casualties which happened on the road to Leningrad but not only those Soviets suffered inside the city itself!
Well, this will be an interesting decision. What do we count to the casualties? You should take into account that what we decide here should be in line with other similar kind of activities.
If we take into account the casualties inflicted during the offensive which led to the siege, then how far do we take those casualties? A few cases to take into consideration are the siege of Sevastopol, siege of Brest-Litovsk, siege of Tobruk, siege of Tenochtitlan which all had operations before the siege, but are their casualties and participated personnel counted to the siege? Currently they are not in the given cases.
What I propose, is that only those casualties which are related to the direct assault of the city, closing the siege and relieving the siege including the medical cases suffered during the siege by besiegers and besieged shall be counted. --Whiskey (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Finnish forces in the siege of Leningrad did not have far-range artillery for bombardment from the distance of 30-33 km from the Hermitage
Indeed, the battles for northern suburbs of Leningrad/St. Petersburg, such as Sestroretsk and Beloostrov were on and off during August, September, October, and November of 1941. Finnish forces met resistance from 23rd Army and could not approach closer than 30 - 33 km to Hermitage and the central Leningrad. In December 1941 Churchill wrote to Mannerheim demandingthat Finnish armies should stop, but the Finnish Government expelled all British diplomats from Helsinki in December, and Britain declared war on Finland, then Canada and other Commonwealth members declared war on Finland too. Finns had to stop, still they held the northern perimeter of the siege together with the Nazi Germany for 2,5 years and continued the blockade of Leningrad in the Gulf of Finland [4]
Here is more form the book Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia. By Olli Vehvvilainen. Translated by Gerard McAlister. Palgrave, 2002.
Page 89. One day before the Operation Barbarossa began, president Ryti stated to a parlimentary delegation... "If a war now breaks between Germany and Russia it could be to the advantage of the whole world."
Pages 98 - 101. Finnish forces crossed the line of Finland's 1939 border, and occupied Russian territories (east of Leningrad).
Page 100. Churchill appealed to Mannerheim in a personal letter: Surely your troops advanced far enough for security during the war and could now halt and give leave. (Note: Finns did not leave, but blocked the norhtern railroad and crossed the Svir River trying to connect with Germans to form the larger "second circle" around Leningrad. At the same time Finland expelled all British diplomats from Helsinki)
Page 100. On 6 December, Great Britain declared war on Finland. This was followed by declaration of war from Canada, Australia, India and New Zealand.
Page 104. ..plans drawn up in the Finnish Headquarters in summer 1941, it was the task of the occupation authorities of eastern Karelia to prepare the region for permanent integration with Finland.
Page 105. Russian place names were replaced with Finnish ones. The population was segregated into 'nationals' and 'non-nationals'... and the latter were to be deported
Page 107. ... the fate of prisoners of war was even more horrible. In 1941 over 65,000 soviet soldiers had been taken prisoner by the Finns. ... during the first winter, over 10,000 prisoners died of hunger and disease in the overcrouded camps. all in all, over 18,700 men died ... while in captivity in Finland.
Page 108. As hopes of a German victory evaporated, so also public references to a "greater Finland" wained.... in June 1944, ..a massive offensive by the Red Army forced the Finns to withdraw from the area (Eastern Karelia, north-east of Leningrad). Then the dream of a Greater Finland was finally buried.
Page 109. For two-and-a-half years the Finnish Army occupied the positions it had captured in autumn 1941 in Eastern Karelia and north of Leningrad.
Page 135. Finns continued to hold the positions on the Soviet territory that they had occupied for two-and-a-half years. On the Svir River the Finnish front reached deep into the east, and in the Karelian Isthmus it was only 20 km from Leningrad. Moreover, the Finnish and German armed forces were together blockading the Soviet Navy in the Gulf of Finland.
Other sources that I've studied so far show that Churchill's pressure on Mannerheim to stop attacking Leningrad and its supply lines on the railroads to northern seaports was probably one of the very few explicit requests addressed directly to the enemy. Britain declared war with Finland, because Mannerheim ignored most of Churchill's plea, and crossed all border lines in efforts to build "Greater Finland" with the help from Hitler.
Casualties of the Leningrad Front, Volkhov Front, and Northwestern Front
The Leningrad Front suffered 390,794 casualties, including 88,745 killed or missing.
The Volkhov Front suffered 321,404 casualties, including 77,904 dead or missing.
The Northwestern Front suffered 335,451 casualties, including 88,798 killed or missing.
The Baltic Fleet had about 89,000 to 100,000 personnel in the Gulf of Finland, Leningrad, Oranienbaum and Kronstadt. However. I could not find exact numbers and sources about the Navy.
Source: Pages 179-180, 194. Glantz, David. The Siege of Leningrad 1941–44: 900 Days of Terror. MBI Publishing. Osceola, WI: Zenith Press, 2001 (hardcover, ISBN0-7603-0941-8); Eastbourne, East Sussex, UK: Gardners Books, 2001 (hardcover, ISBN1-86227-124-0); London: Cassell, 2004 (paperback, ISBN0-304-36672-2).
Leningrad's civilian deaths were diminished by the Soviet propaganda
Propaganda was ruthless during WWII, especially regarding such a high profile battle as was the Siege of Leningrad. Unreporting deaths was part of Stalin's policy. That concerned both military and civilian deaths. The Nazi propaganda did exactly the same.
Summary of military casualties in all operations related to the siege of Leningrad from 1941 to 1944 by David Glantz looks realistic. Grand total: 1 million 755 thousand, of which total irrevocable were 467,525 (combat deaths). (p. 220, Glantz, David. The Siege of Leningrad 1941–44: 900 Days of Terror. MBI Publishing. Osceola, WI: Zenith Press, 2001 (hardcover, ISBN0-7603-0941-8); Eastbourne, East Sussex, UK: Gardners Books, 2001 (hardcover, ISBN1-86227-124-0); London: Cassell, 2004 (paperback, ISBN0-304-36672-2))
Civilian casualties include about 300 - 400 thousand refugees from Latvia, Estonia, Pskov and Novgorod provinces, and occupied parts of the Leningrad province who perished on the road trying to escape. Plus 650 thousand officially reported civilian deaths in Leningrad city. Plus about 300 thousand unreported Leningrad deaths due to use of their food ration cards by other survivors.
Germans took about 250 thousand civilians from the province of Leningrad (oblast) to concentration camps (David Glantz). Finns took about 65 thousand prisoners to concentration camps near Petrozavodsk and Svir River. Chances of survival were better in the Finnish concentration camps, than in German camps.[5][6]
Population of Leningrad with suburbs and vicinity in 1941 and 1943
Leningrad and the Leningrad oblast had 6 million 432 thousand people in the 1939 census.[7]
Of that population, about 3,5 million people lived in Leningrad with suburbs and vicinity, including such towns outside Leningrad like Peterhof, Ropsha, Gatchina, Detskoe Selo/Pushkin, Pavlovsk, Kolpino, Pavlovo, Mga, Vyritsa, and more places south of the city, and Zelenogorsk, Komarovo, Repino, Solnechnoye, Beloostrov, Dyuny, Sestroretsk and other suburbs north of Leningrad. All the above mentioned suburbs were occupied by the German and Finnish forces with instructions by Hitler's "Directive No. 1601" ordering "St. Petersburg must be erased from the face of the Earth" and "we have no interest in saving lives of civilian population."[8]
600 to 700 thousand survivors and military were alive inside the siege perimeter in December 1943. (David Glantz, and many other sources) That was the lowest population of Leningrad/St. Petersburg with suburbs ever in the last 150 years.
Civilian population dropped from about 3,5 million down to 600 - 700 thousand, so about 2,8-2,9 million people from Leningrad and vicinity were gone. About 1,3 to 1,5 million managed to escape by foot or with evacuation. The rest died in Leningrad, or on the road trying to escape. Sources give various numbers of civilian deaths, usually around 1 million to 1,3 million, while the official Soviet propaganda report of 600 thousand civilian deaths is now recognized by many as disinformation forged by the Stalin's regime.
Steve, why did you change towns to suburbs? Do you have a source that confirms these as being Leningrad suburbs? Most were not, and it says so on 1942 Soviet maps.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Steve, you make very little sense. It is quite unlikely that Zelenogorsk, Komarovo, Repino and Solnechnoye were included in Soviet 1939 census, as they were Finnish towns Terijoki, Kellomäki, Kuokkala and Ollila at that time. Naturally they were included to Finnish census, but that unlikely makes them suburbs of Leningrad. Also, you seem to have very interesting information considering chains of command, as Finnish units were instructed by Hitler. I bet historians would be very interested about your source for this kind of scoop. --Whiskey (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
2,5 years of the siege ruined the suburbs (towns and villages) of Leningrad that were integral part of the greater Leningrad and vicinity
The Gatchina aviation and motor industry was also partially evacuated, but the historic airfield, one of the first airfields in the world, was occupied by the Nazis who also looted the Gatchina palace, then destroyed it, as well as hundreds of other historic buildings, palaces, mansions and landmarks. The Nabokov's family villa and their other homes in Vyra and Rozhdestveno were looted and destroyed. The Repin's mansion was a national museum since his death in 1930, but in 1944, after the Finnish forces left Repino it was found in ruins, and hundreds of valuable paintings were looted. Now a replicated building is a UNESCOWorld Heritage Site and serves as Repin museum, but the original art is still missing.
Maybe. Or it was an attempt to answer my criticism? Or not. Anyway, it seems he is back to his old tricks, so I'm losing my trust to his claims quite fast. I wonder if he is really a troll, but he really writes too much for a typical one. But I really wonder why he continues nurturing blatant falsehoods in the text which can be found out simply by clicking the link to Repin in this particular case. It makes me wonder his other claims, which are harder to check...--Whiskey (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No, Steve is not a troll, but in fact someone who feels very deeply for the subject of the article, but does not realise tee article is intended for reference and not a memorial to the event. The sources (some) are readily available from this list--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Feeling deeply is not an excuse for not using one's brains. Steve has much to contribute this article if he just could stick to the facts and leave unsupported claims and extrapolations out. And if he just could do a little bit double checking to his facts. --Whiskey (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
However, I may have to eat my words! According to this Districts of Saint Petersburg the St Petersburg is much larger. If indeed there was not much change in administrative boundaries since 1940, then Steve could be right and technically many small towns and villages expanded 'suburbs" much further then the actual metropolitan suburbs--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
At least according the article about Leningrad Oblast the number of suburbs were excluded from oblast and incorporated to the city after the WWII. But I'm no way any specialist about Soviet/Russian communal admistration... --Whiskey (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And according the article in Russian Wikipedia the towns of former Finnsh area were incorporated to Leningrad at October 1946. --Whiskey (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
If Repin's mansion was a national museum from 1930, then it was a Finnish museum. Repin's mansion is located in old Finland (1917-1940,1941-1944). The town called Kuokkala never had a Russian name before war. Later all the Finnish names in Leningrad oblast were replaced by Russian names and Kuokkala became Repino. Also it's very unlikely that there were any paintings left 1944 in the mansion, as Finns had to retreat from the town in November 1939 as Red Army invaded Finland. Finns also had a policy to burn ALL houses while retreating 1939 to not to leave any place for Red Army to live in. Even museums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.118.21 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Finns occupied the town and other suburbs north of Leningrad during the siege in 1941 - 1944. Then Finns burned down the Repin's museum just before their retreat under the attacks of the 23 Army. As Repin was deceased in 1930, it was Repin's son, Yuri Repin [4], who was the keeper of the museum and witnessed the destruction of Repin's art and the building.
Old Finland was part of the Old Russia before 1917.
Reporting vandalism on this discussion page
Revision as of 08:45, 13 March 2008 (edit) (undo) mrg3105 (comms) deleted most paragraphs of the original message
Revision as of 23:47, 14 March 2008 (edit) (undo) Whiskey (talk) again deleted most paragraphs of the original message
Users not willing to contribute to constructive discussion, please stop being destructive.
This is not the first time some users make changes and deletions in other users' messages.
This may cause confusion for others who may be interested in making this article better.
Every case of such vandalism stays on record'
Original messages for discussion are restored below this line with updates
And I did it again.
First: This is a talk page, not an article. The purpose of talk page is for solving problems found in the article, not providing a totally new article.
Second: You continue creating new headlines instead of using existing ones for solving(?) problems. I, and it seems others too, have problem to follow your thoughts as we don't know if you are answering someone's question or creating a totally new discussion. Which leads to
Third: Please answer the questions which have been presented to you. If you don't answer them, or even worse: if your answer is too confusing and contains totally unrelated items, it is impossible to reach solution you are satisfied with as others do not understand what you are trying to say. Right now you are stating something and when others comment your messages, you don't reply their comments. --Whiskey (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Article cleanup
This article needs serious cleanup. Currently the Finnish section is overblown and there are almost nothing about the military forces and fought battles. Also, the scope of the article falters, as there are numerous references to the happenings far away and/or not related to the siege itself. The civilian parts of the article should be moved to the separate article I created. If there isn't overwhelming opposition I'll start doing it shortly. --Whiskey (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are you changing Wikipedia rules from a simple majority to "Overwhelming opposition?"
If waiting almost three months is hurry, then what is not? It has been proposed (and not by me) already at December that the article should be divided. The article was already 80kB long, and missing practically all military stuff. If you think my view presents "overwhelming opposition" then you are free to arrange a poll in the article, where we could decide what is the general opinion. --Whiskey (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Knowledge of history is not gonna be changed by your "poll" but any serious reader can see your agenda. Poor Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.33.54 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Splitting articles is Wikipedia SOP in cases when they become too large. It enables editors to add more information to the issue and in a form more readable to our readers than otherwise possible. Another option is to start removing contents from the article, and I don't mean non-related contents but relevant issues. Do you consider it then better? I have never seen anybody complaining about splitting the article before.--Whiskey (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
And if "everything between Arctic Ocean and Lake Ilmen" were included into this article, then this article would become so crowded that no-one could read it, meaning no-one would also read about the civilian suffering at Leningrad. That means we have to decide what are relevant for this article so it doesn't become either unbalanced or too big. You are free to see any kind of hidden agendas here you like. --Whiskey (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
WHISKEY ! Be mindful about other users and editors. Their contributions are well referenced. You made unjustified deletions of many facts, names, places, events. Why are you doing this?130.166.33.54 (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately they are not well referenced. With your revert you removed several source inquiries, corrections which made article following the given sources, and incorporated numerous unsourced claims. Also the properly sourced claims are still maintained in the civilian suffering article timeline. --Whiskey (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep all facts about Finnish forces in the siege of Leningrad. Special:Contributions/130.166.33.54|130.166.33.54]] (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Naturally, yes. I keep all the facts about Finnish forces which are relevant to the article. I have only removed facts which are irrelevant considering the siege. For example, how do you consider the fact that Finnish general mobilisation started at June 17? How is it relevant to the article about the siege, which will start two and half months later? If we make that the yardstick to the relevancy we want in this article, I have quickly counting about 14 articles as large as pre-splitted article (and numerous smaller ones) which should be included to this article. --Whiskey (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a cleanup, but twisting facts if history to Whiskey's POV. Reducing the role of Finland and collaboration between Finland ans Germany - is blatant POV. Discussion needs to be done before any deletions and/or reduction is agreed upon by majority of users.130.166.33.54 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
All historians, be it Soviet, German, English, Russian, American, French, Swedish and even Finnish ones, agree that Nazi Germany was the main player in the siege. The current article doesn't reflect their view. It misses numbers of their major actions, forces, policies etc. while description of Finnish part is much more detailed to the extent it starts to clutter the article: currently more sentences are used for Finns than for Germans, clearly twisting the historical picture all historians have agreed. --Whiskey (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Discussion: Finnish forces in the siege of Leningrad and related operations in collaboration with the Nazi Germany
Keep all facts about Finnish forces, their preparations, intelligence, collaboration with Germans in several operations during the years of the siege of Leningrad.(1) It is documented by many sources that Hitler's support for "Greater Finland" was well planned, and he offered to "give Leningrad to the Finns" in exchange for their help in the siege of Leningrad.(2) Hitler's offer was accepted by the Finnish leaders, they had several meetings with Hitler and his generals for that reason.(3) Finns were holding their perimeter in the siege of Leningrad for more than two years.(4) Keep all other referenced facts, names, events, places. 130.166.33.54 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(1): No. This is not an article about Continuation War or Eastern Front but this article is just for a small part of them, namely for the Siege of Leningrad. The facts unrelated to the siege should not be in the article.
(2): No, Hitler never thought to give Leningrad to the Finns, he just mused about giving the land to the Finns, without the wealth of the city. And Hitler's musings were not for Finnish help on the siege but for Finnish participation to the Soviet-German war.
(3): I hope you can provide sources to your claim about the meetings, as it has not been supported by any major historian who had written about the siege.
And you haven't answered my question about how is the fact that Finns started general mobilisation June 17 relevant to the article about the Siege of Leningrad? --Whiskey (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Map: Siege of Leningrad
Maps are available in many books and atlases. A detailed and accurate map for the siege of Leningrad shows a clear picture - Finns were holding the perimeter in the northern suburbs of Leningrad, while Germans were holding the southern suburbs. Blockade from the Baltic Sea was done by both Finns and Germans, while blockade on the Lake Ladoga was on and off in 1941 and 1942 in several attempted Finnish-German operations.130.166.33.54 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The detailed and accurate maps also show the Finnish-Soviet border of 1920 with the salients of Beloostrov and Kirjasalo, which makes it very clear to the casual reader why Finns were there. I suppose you have some sources about your claim for several attempts, as I'm only familiar with Naval Detachment K. --Whiskey (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Finnish and German forces blocked all railroads to besieged Leningrad causing more civilian deaths
1.Finnish forces blocked railroads west, north and east of Leningrad, so the Finns disrupted communications with the seaports of Archangel and Murmansk.
2.Germans blocked railroads south and south-eastt of Leningraad, so the Germans severed connections with Moscow and Novgorod.
Finnish and German navy together blocked communication between Leningrad and Kronstadt
This was a joint operation by the Finnish and German navy. Blockade was established in the summer of 1941 by dropping thousands of surface mines, as well as deepwater mines near the seaport of Leningrad. Additional blockade with mines was established around the isle of Kronstadt, the main Russian navy base 30 miles west of Leningrad. The supply of surface mines and deepwater mines was continuously provided by the Finnish and German navy regiments which established bases at Zelenogorsk and Sestroretsk.130.166.33.54 (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Resistance was part of the battle of Leningrad. Civilian participation shall stay as integral part of the siege
Resistance and mobilization of the civilian population in Leningrad was integral part of the battle that lasted 900 days, according to many books. Resistance in Leningrad and province can be compared to the resistance in Paris. Thanks to the civilian resistance Leningrad was not entirely occupied, only the suburban areas were taken by the Finns and Germans. German and Finnish forces were stopped because of selfless civilian resistance. Men were defending the big city, while women and children were evacuated, so the evacuation must be reflected in the article. Keep the civilian resistance and keep the story of evacuation as integral parts of the siege of Leningrad.
Please, let me repeat myself couple of headings before:
First: This is a talk page, not an article. The purpose of talk page is for solving problems found in the article, not providing a totally new article.
Second: You continue creating new headlines instead of using existing ones for solving(?) problems. I, and it seems others too, have problem to follow your thoughts as we don't know if you are answering someone's question or creating a totally new discussion. Which leads to
Third: Please answer the questions which have been presented to you. If you don't answer them, or even worse: if your answer is too confusing and contains totally unrelated items, it is impossible to reach solution you are satisfied with as others do not understand what you are trying to say. Right now you are stating something and when others comment your messages, you don't reply their comments.
You are still continuing the pattern. And you have not responded to the question how the fact that Finns started general mobilisation at June 17 is relevant in this article? --Whiskey (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You created a heading with the "Discussion" in it. Are you now going to abandon it altogether? Do you comment my reply to your thesis? Are your definition of "discussion" such that you only state your thesis and then abandon it? Wikipedia is a communal project, we have to do it together. And it means we have to be able to communicate with each other to solve our differences. But you have abandoned every attempt to communicate! Only in one heading you have answered me at all! You could ask Mikkalai and Ghirlandajo that I could be persuaded to release my stand, but like they did, it has to be based on sourced facts right on the issue. --Whiskey (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Revamp(2)
I'd like to arrange military operations chronologically, namely
Preparations; Defensive preparations before the war up until around mid-July, when it became likely that German forces could capture or besiege the city.
1941 Defensive: from mid-July to German capture of Tikhvin.
November 1941-December 1943: Soviet relief attempts.
Our friend 130.166.33.54 claims that his version is better referenced. Let's have a look. The first reference in the text part, in chapter "Overview" is for sentence Capturing Leningrad was motivated by its status as the former capital of Russia, the main base of the Russian and Soviet Baltic Fleet, its political and military importance, the cultural wealth, and economic potential. and it's source is claimed to be Paul Carell's "Scorched Earth" p.205-206. If we manage to forget it's horrible structure (two specific reasons first, then four general reasons, first two being subset of the latter...), and we look into the Carell's book, we found that in reality he doesn't even mention motivation for the capture in this book. He simply describes the city and it's values and importance, but he doesn't mention with a single word what was the motivation for Hitler to choose Leningrad as a target. In fact, he does mention the motivation in his first book, "Barbarossa", and it can be shortened as Hitler's strategic goal for capturing Leningrad was motivated by its political status as the former capital of Russia and the symbolic capital of the Russian Revolution, the military importance as a main base of the Soviet Baltic Fleet and its industrial strength with numerous arms factories. Notice that no mention about culture or economic potential.
This is not by far the only case when sources are twisted. With the shaggy usage of references (no page numbers!) this article is hardly even decently referenced. I had pointed the most obvious occasions where his version lacks in referencing, but he has responded by removing {{fact}}s from his text. --Whiskey (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Removing fact tags without providing the source requested is a violation of policy so he should just be reverted. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Carell's book, Scorched earth, (English edition, see second paragraph on page 205) -- "Capturing Leningrad was motivated by its status as the former capital of Russia, the main base of the Russian and Soviet Baltic Fleet, its political and military importance, the cultural wealth, and economic potential." The words motivated and wealth are used here to simplify English translation from the original German text. Pages 205, 207-209, 212 - 240 provide many facts about German and Finnish besieging operations. Same facts are presented with a variety of nuances in the 2002 English edition of "Finland in the Second World War" and in other sources. Denial of facts and sources may lead to ignoring some users who are in denial. 130.166.33.54 (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful! Now we are progressing! My copy is 1967 translation, so there seems to be some differencies. On the other hand, Paul Carell contrdicts himself in "Unternehmen Barbarossa. Der Marsch nach Rußland (Hitler moves East)" where I captured my version. We are both using Carell as a source, but his different books, and still manage to fight along. I guess it is time to check other sources, what they say... --Whiskey (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Then, another question: Why are you changing the items I've added to something which is not supported by the sources? For example, for alleged November 1941 Finnish offensive, I've written that casualty statistics do not indicate any excess casualties at that time. You have changed it so that statistics don't indicate any casualties. Also, a little bit later I wrote that Soviets captured 'Munakukkula' hill 1km west of Lake Lempaala, but you changed it so that they captured Lembolovo (Lempaala in Finnish) which is a village/small town? --Whiskey (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
All students here are lol about users in denial. We've been comparing your edits with original books here at the library -- no wonder now why Wikipedia is such a mess. 130.166.33.54 (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
She's right. Be patient with the Finns; English is their second language, or third, you know, learning curve, beer, exams... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.33.54 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Good! If you all are comparing my writings to the books, maybe you together can finally cite your sources for your claims with a page numbers.--Whiskey (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit-warring
I have protected the article for 24 hours. The edit-warring must stop. If editing disputes continue, the article will be protected again, for longer. In the meantime:
Editors ignoring core policies will be blocked from editing.
Editors should discuss changes and seek consensus here before implementing them.
Also, editors should use edit summaries in future. (Go to "My preferences", then "Editing" and click on the box next to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" to be reminded to leave an edit sumary before saving.)
Concerning the edit-warring and personal attacks in edit summaries and #Better Referenced version, really?, FYI, dear 130.166.xx.xx, uninvolved administrators wandering around and others, there has been an interesting decision of ArbCom: Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given an official notice of it with a link to this decision.
I am not entirely happy with this, but I think some action is in order here now. Be careful. Think about it. Now think again. Colchicum (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Content dispute Third opinion
I'm repsonding to the request for a third opinion. It looks like someone has already started by laying out the issue for me below. It would be great if the other party would do the same. I'll read through the discussion above. These things ussually work out well. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is already long, and it is still missing almost all of the military stuff related to the siege. The article should be splitted to two articles, where one concentrates to the military side of the siege, and another to the civilian side.
The article is full of unreferenced claims, referenced claims taken out of their context, referenced claims not relevant in this article and claims where the text in the article totally misquotes the given source.
The article puts undue weight to Finland and Finnish actions. All general works about the siege (Glantz, Salisbury, Clark,...) be it English or Russian/Soviet ones concentrates to the Germans, and only 2-3 pages/book are written about the Finnish forces. Only works of N.Baryshnikov (Finland and the Siege of Leningrad 1941-44 (2003)) and H.Seppälä (Battle for Leningrad and Finland (1969)) concentrates more to the Finnish participation (surprise!). --Whiskey (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Taking civilian resistance out of the whole picture is wrong. Civilians in Leningrad and suburbs took the hardest blow and remained the main force in the battle, including women and children. 1,4 million were decorated for the Siege of Leningrad. The civilian resistance in besieged Leningrad and suburbs during WWII is comparable (millions of civilian fighters in Leningrad) to French resistance and other resistance movements. The main article must have a good portion dedicated to civilian defenders, and also a stand alone bigger article on the subject of civilian resistance in Leningrad during WWII from 1939 to 1945.
Leningrad was targeted by both dictators -- Hitler and Stalin, just read more books. Stalin continued destruction of Leningrad by cutting resources and extermiation of leaders and heroes of the siege.
Finnish forces besieged Leningrad from the north (see maps). Finnish nation was split, at the beginning the majority of Finns supported their president Ryti who shared the Hitler's plan of building the "Greater Finland" after destruction of Leningrad and vicinity and extermination of civilian population in and around Leningrad. (see Finland in the Second World War, Palgrave, 2002, and other sources). When Hitler's plan Barbarossa failed, the Finnish society gradually shifted from siding with Hitler to siding with Stalin, because Finland was too small and weak to stand alone. The siege of Leningrad ended in 1944, and the Germans were pushed back from Leningrad, then the Finns lost all German support and chose to join the Soviet side of the war to kill Germans whom the Finns hosted for several years from 1940 to 1944. This, sadly, is the most painful and shameful part of the Finnish history, but denial of history is even more shameful. Masking parts of the big picture as 'Winter war' and 'Continuation war' is similar to Communist propaganda -- those were just pieces of a bigger picture in WWII around Leningrad. The city of St. Petersburg/Leningrad with its wealth of the Tsar's palaces and strategic location - was the higly desired prize for the Finns, but too big to swallow. After the war, Ryti was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his collaboration with Hitler and disastrous plan of "Greater Finland."
Just few comments: 1)The majority of Finns supported return of areas ceded to Soviet Union at the end of the Winter War. 2)The claim that Ryti supported extermination of population in Leningrad cannot be verified from sources. 3)Finns didn't side with Stalin. 4)The Lappland war was a price Finns had to pay to get peace with Stalin, not that Finns wanted to fight Germans but because of Soviet demands. --Whiskey (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Pictures of civilian survivors and the list of witnesses must be included in the main articles. These are important facts of the siege of Leningrad; do not separate civilian survivors and witnesses form the main article.
Wow, the Winter War and Continuation War as small parts of the Siege of Leningrad – this is something rather interesting. What about sources for such an exceptional claim? While I agree that taking civilian resistance out of the whole picture is wrong, the rest is total BS. The Siege of Leningrad is important, but it is not the center of the world, and Wikipedia is not a monument to it. Colchicum (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
ARE YOU READING this aticle BEFORE MAKING YOUR DECISIONS TO REVERT GOOD EDITS?
You reverted edits to article Siege of Leningrad and threatened users (our university students) who improved the article with the data and academic sources from our university library.
Here is what some users did:
Revision as of 00:00, 23 May 2008 by User:Xp54321 and of 23:32, 22 May 2008 by User:RyanLupin reverted prior edits by 130.166.33.54 and caused duplication of image and a fragment of timeline for the year 1942 in the wrong part of the article. This image and paragraph is already in the timeline section of the article. As a result of your edit the article size was inflated because of this useless duplication. Please READ THE ARTICLE and think BEFORE YOU ACT. Your action caused this portion af the article appear TWICE, see here [5]
Below this line is the duplication of image and text caused by your mistake.
=== 1942 ===
[[Image:Medal Defense of Leningrad.jpg|110px|right|thumb|c1,496,000 Soviet personnel were awarded the medal for the defence of Leningrad from 22nd December 1942.]]
*'''January 7 - April 30:''' [[Lyuban Offensive Operation]], failed Soviet relief attempt resulting encirclement and destruction of the 2nd Shock Army.
*'''January–December:''' [[Nevsky Pyatachok]] battle attempting to break the siege. 300 thousand men are killed within an area of 1 km at Nevsky Pyatachok.{{Fact|date=March 2008}}
*'''April 4 - April 30:''' [[Operation Eis Stoß|Operation Eis Stoß (Ice impact)]] Luftwaffe unsuccessfully tries to sink Baltic fleet stuck in the ice at Leningrad.<ref>{{cite web | first = AI | last = Bernstein | coauthors = Бернштейн, АИ | title = Notes of aviation engineer (Аэростаты над Ленинградом. Записки инженера - воздухоплавателя. Химия и Жизнь №5) | language = Russian | url = http://xarhive.narod.ru/Online/hist/anl.html | year = 1983 | pages = с. 8–16}}</ref>
*'''August 14 – October 27 :''' International [[Naval Detachment K]] consisting boats from Finland, Germany and Italy, under the Finnish operative command has clashes against [[Road of Life|Leningrad supply route]] on southern Ladoga.<ref>{{Harvnb|Juutilainen|2005|pp=662-672}}</ref><ref name = "Ekman" /><ref>{{Harvnb|Baryshnikov|2003|}}</ref>
*'''June–September:''' Newer heavy artillery is stationed 10–28 km from the city and bombards Leningrad with 800 kg shells. The Nazis make special maps of Leningrad for artillery bombardments targeting the city infrastructure, businesses, transportation, schools, and hospitals.
*'''August 19 - October 15:''' [[Sinyavin offensive operation]] Soviet failed relief attempt, but it managed to thwart German preparations for [[Operation Nordlicht]], which was cancelled.<ref>{{Harvnb|Glantz|2001|pp=167-173}}</ref>
Your edit was wrong.This image and the 1942 paragraph is already in the timeline section.
We have to undo the damage done by your actions in order to keep improving the quality of this article and ultimately the quality of Wikipedia.
Please be thoughtful and read the entire article BEFORE EDITING.
The above mentioned users, User talk:Xp54321 and User:RyanLupin did not have the decency to correct their own mistakes, instead they deleted our messages from their talk pages. We respect your contribution to this and other articles. If you understand that you made an honest mistake deleting our edits, we can move on and continue working together on this and other articles. 130.166.33.54 (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Please be careful with sources
User:130.166.33.54 wrote:
German and Finnish armies destroyed 3200 residential buildings, 9000 wooden houses (burned), 840 factories and plants in Leningrad and suburbs.<ref>Siege of 1941-1944. [http://www.encspb.ru/en/article.php?kod=2804035086]</ref>
Could you please be more careful with your sources. The referenced source says: 1)The siege was German operation, 2)9000 wooden houses were dismantled and used as fuel by Soviet authorities, 3)No mention about the suburbs.
I reverted you again, User:130.166.33.54. One of the main reasons why I continue doing it is your handling of sources: You don't provide sources to your claims or the souces you state do not say what you claim they say. If you are willing to co-operate, I can go through the your version of the article and point out the places where sources are missing or where they are misinterpreted, so you can fix them.
If you are not willing to co-operate, I don't see why I should waste my energies to the useless work. --Whiskey (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to my promise, I did some quick source inquiring to the article to illustrate the workload which lies ahead. Those are only inquiries about the facts on text, not about those which had been omitted altogether or which are unnecessarily included to the article. But anyway, I guess 130.166.33.54 will discard them all when he does his revert later... --Whiskey (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I expected, User:130.166.33.54 removed the source inquiries from the article. I do NOT (and did NOT) want to use this as a trap against him/her/them, but I do believe it was a honest mistake from his/her part due to our general differencies. I hope that with raising this point here, again, will result him/her/them checking the inquiries properly, or at least commenting them. --Whiskey (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Our library jus received a copy of his book, "City of Thieves." It is based on biography of the author's grandfather and the story of his survival in Leningrad under the siege.[6]David Benioff mentioned in his several interviews that another crucial book was Kaputt, by Curzio Malaparte. Malaparte wrote several books while he was stationed as military correspondent with the Finnish Army during the siege of Leningrad. Malaparte was a correspondent for Corriere della Sera on assignement with the Finnish Army in the northern suburbs of Leningrad, namely in Zelenogorsk from March through November, 1942, and then from the April through July 25, 1943. Malaparte's second book, Volga Rises in Europe, has a large chapter describing the siege of Leningrad from the Finnish side during the years 1942-1943. As a military correspondent who spent many months with the Finnish Army during the siege of Leningrad, Malaparte made a record of rarely seen facts that should be studied seriously.130.166.33.54 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Terijoki was not part of Leningrad at 1940s. It was Finnish city till 1939, it was Finnish territory before Winter War. Just wanted to say that it hardly was suburban area of Leningrad at that time. 91.17.205.185 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It was and still is a northern suburb of St. Petersburg since the 1700s, when Peter the Great approved the suburban territory for sale to public, while the southern suburbs were mainly taken by numerous palaces and parks of the Tsars, Grand Dukes and Princes, and other nobility. Norhtern suburbs are traditionally populated by notable Russian writers, actors, producers and artists, such as Fyodor Shalyapin, Maxim Gorky, Korney Chukovsky, Andrey Bely, Osip Brik, every summer the citizens of St. Petersburg did and still do parties there. Other notable Russians, such as the world chess champion Mikhail Botvinnik was born there. Tens of thousands of Russians had, and still have their dachas and summer cottages in this and other neighboring suburbs of St. Petersburg-Leningrad. This and other suburbs were under Finnish-German occupation until the end of the Siege of Leningrad.
English Composition
I have found that in the later stages of this article the English has become quite ragged, to the extent that ambiguities prevent meanings from being clearly understood. I am cleaning it up, from the point of view of both grammar and composition. This will take more than just one attempt, but the outcome will be that the English will flow more easily and will not cause so many misunderstandings. JHB (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
English clean-up completed 10.30 (British Summer Time) 22.7.8 subject to calm and leisurely read through in the next few days. --JHB (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Cannibalism
Not a signel word about cannibalism is in this article, although it appeared frequently during the siege and femine. Can somebody add it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.121.88 (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently the operations considering the siege of Leningrad are red-linked (with the exception of Vyborg-Petrozavosk operation), but is there any other reasons to remove them from the timeline? I consider them important in timeline type structures, as they indicate phases of higher activity and militarily important ocacsions in a suitably high level of abstraction usable in this kind of article. (BTW, the larger font idea for introduction paragraph was a good one. Should be considered more widely.) --Whiskey (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I did a long, long reply to your above note this evening, then I lost it in the preview stage. I wll have another go tomorrow evening. But meanwhile I will be continuing with the timeline clean-up tomorrow morning. I have to do the real work in the mornings, because the brain waves are better then. Never fear - there are good reasonns why I am doing what I am doing. --JHB (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
EUREKA! I've recovered it. Read on.......
Yes there are other reasons; and they are to do with the extent and speed of comprehension by the lay reader (like me). Additionally, a timeline by its very nature relies on consistency in both its layout and its type of content, so that the reader can quickly grasp what type of framework he is looking at and what type of information he can expect to see against each dateline.
The way this timeline seems to have developed is that nearly all items are supported on a present indicative finite verb, although some just do no more than refer to an event. Thus in 1941 successive indications are (starting from the top): intends, begins, sends, starts, is stopped, visits, attack(s), target(s), orders etc., etc. It is in the reader's interest (which must come first) that this be maintained as much as possible, because if it isn't it makes for difficult reading and therefore slower and more difficult comprehension. And that's just the start. The same principle applies to the need for instant recognition of what entity or which event is being referred to. Thus, things like "Leningrad commander", "Army Group North" and "Finnish forces" pose no problem - but "OKW", "OKH", "Krasnoye Selo-Ropshin" and "Staraya Russa-Novorzhev" do pose problems (particularly in cases where a red link is useless for finding out). It's no good simply saying they were offensive operations (for example): there needs to be a better comprehension than that, and there needs to be a knowledge of the particular significance of these things, otherwise there is no point in having them in a timeline.
Remember that visitors are almost always going to be non-experts, and they are mostly going to be in a hurry. They want to encounter as few incomprehensible or vague entities as possible, and they do not want to be burdened with fine points of detail that concern only academic experts. In a timeline particularly they want short, sharp, points offering instant comprehension that can quickly be dated and provide them with the wherewithal to digest the content and flow of the whole article more easily. Above all you must stop the visitor from ever having to exclaim, "What the hell is that?"
If you look at the five-line bunch of data under Jan 14 to Mar 1, 1944 - I submit that is a classic example for making an average visitor think, "What the hell is all that?" You say in your note, "I consider them important .............. as they indicate phases of higher activity and militarily important.........." - but you are not the average visitor we are catering for, Mr Whiskey. You are an in-depth expert. As such you will see issues and significance in the way of historical detail that will be lost upon a schoolteacher and young pupil doing his/her best to learn about the seige within the constraints operating in their lives. We must do better. We must elucidate as fully as is practically possible, for their sakes; or don't mention such things at all. Things must flow, or you will lose your reader.
Whiskey,
I've not quite finished with 1941 yet. I keep seeing opportunities for compact informative refinements that enhance understanding without compromising veracity or brevity. Although it is not always possible it is preferable for dateline comments to be restricted to just one line; and at the same time if space is still available in that line after the base note, it does no harm to use it up by adding short explanatory or elucidatory matter.
I've had another look at the redlinked stuff I took out recently and my views are:-
the "Leningrad strategic defensive operation" note is somewhat misleading as it stands at present. Is it supposed to be a heading for what follows? Is it self-contained? How can it say AGN encircled Leningrad, when elsewhere the article states that Leningrad was never completely surrounded?
So also is the subsequent list of a mixture of both defensive and offensive operations, which contains no other info to guide the reader toward understanding how the operations fit in and what their significance is. Moreover, the individual operational start dates are not all contained within the month dateline in which they have been placed. I still think they should be left out until we can find a much better and understandable way of presenting them.
My feeling was instinctively that they were all leading to some confusion, and they were best taken out. That is not to say they should never be in, but we have to put them in more cleverly - so that when we see them again they do not cause the reader to stop and struggle to follow the thread.
Later on today (and without necessarily adding to this note) I may attempt a better presentation. You can then let me know (a) if my understanding of the data is correct, and (b) if you approve of the method of showing it.
However, 1941 is getting quite long. How long can it get?
^Page174-180, 194. Glantz, David. The Siege of Leningrad 1941–44: 900 Days of Terror. MBI Publishing. Osceola, WI: Zenith Press, 2001 (hardcover, ISBN0-7603-0941-8); Eastbourne, East Sussex, UK: Gardners Books, 2001 (hardcover, ISBN1-86227-124-0); London: Cassell, 2004 (paperback, ISBN0-304-36672-2).
^Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia. Palgrave. 2002. (pp. 121-98)
^Dirty Little Secrets of World War II. By Jame F. Dunningan and Albert A. Noft. Perennial, 2003.
^pages 109, 135. Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia. Palgrave. 2002.
^Exploitation, Resettlement, Mass Murder. Political and Economic Planning for German Occupation Policy in the Soviet Union, 1940 - 1941. By Alex J. Kay Berghahn Books. New York, Oxford. 2006.
^Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia. By Olli Vehvvilainen. Translated by Gerard McAlister. Palgrave, 2002
Spain it were included like this: 
