Talk:Siege of Leningrad/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


Do not change referenced text or sources

Anonymous editors User:12.34.80.73, User:130.166.34.165 and User:137.159.37.226. Please do not remove source inquiries or clarification requests for dubious statements unless you provide sources or clarify dubious parts in the talk page. Also, please do not change sourced information unless you have better sources for your version.

Such actions are hard to consider constructive and could result WP:AIV. --Whiskey (talk) 00:21 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Glantz and numbers

The strength figures Glantz gives in his book are restricted to the forces which took part into the certain offensives and do not include those in supporting role or in passive areas, so they are i)missing some formations, ii)restricted to the certain dates. Also, I couldn't find the given numbers from the page 220 of the book. I couldn't find them in the book even as I skimmed it 50 pages forward and backwards at all. Maybe somebody else could check that also, if those just slipped my eyes?

Also, the given Soviet casualty figure is only the casualties of Leningrad front. As Leningrad front was created at August 23, 1941, the casualties do not include the hardest fighting in Luga-Kingisepp-line. Also missing are heavy casualties Volkhov front suffered in it's numerous attempts to relieve the siege. --Whiskey (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your activity shows that you do not read books by Glantz, Carell, Clark, Bidlack, Encyclopedia Britannica, or World Book, other sources in English, because if you actually ever studied your edits would be accurate and compliant with the books and sources mentioned. In fact your edits are a typical example of an ORIGINAL RESEARCH and PERSONAL OPINION by Whiskey (talk), or whoever is hiding under this mask.

Original research (2)

Whiskey (talk) insists that only Nikolai Baryshnikov says that Finnish army took part in the Siege. By doing this repeatedly Whiskey keeps pushing Wikipedia in conflict with Encyclopedia Britannica's fact: "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [5]

Also Whiskey (talk) is pushing another generalization that 'Almost all historians regard the siege as a German operation and do not consider that the Finns effectively participated in the siege'. But time and again Whiskey's original research is conflicting with Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, books by Bidlack, Carell, Clark, and other academic sources from which many citations are represented in the article and in discussion above.

Fact from Encyclopedia Britannica "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [6] has never been disputed by serious sources. In fact academic works by Bidlack, Carell, Clark, Vehvilanen, and Nikolai Baryshnikov provide readers with maps and facts that Finnish army together with the Nazi Germany participated in the Siege of Leningrad. But Whiskey (talk) is pushing original research insisting that only Baryshnikov supports the view that active Finnish participation occurred. How about Britannica, World Book, books by Bidlack, Carell, Clark, Vehvilanen and other academic sources?

Such passages as "Controversy over Finnish participation" and "Only Nikolai Baryshnikov ... " are original research conflicting with Encyclopedia Britannica and other academic sources. Original research and personal opinion by Whiskey (talk) has no real bearing at all and must be deleted, as was mentioned by other users.

Thus personal opinion by Whiskey (talk) is deleted according to prior discussion and "original research" guidelines.

Nobody wants Wikipedia contradicting with facts from Encyclopedia Britannica: "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [7]130.166.34.165 (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Wikipedia should not contradict with Encyclopedia Britannica. Original research and personal opinion by Whiskey (talk) has no real bearing at all and must be deleted, as was mentioned by other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.80.73 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, nobody I know in Finland disputes full Finnish participation in the siege of Leningrad as a "co-belligerent" in what they called the "Continuation War": the spin was that its purpose was only to secure recovery of territory lost in the Winter War -- and not to help take down Stalin and the USSR, a move which would have been politically disastrous domestically because of the Finnish Civil War between Red and White: there were too many Finns who had strong Red sympathies and considered Marshal Mannerheim a despicable butcher.

The culturally sensitive issue is that, in Finnish culture, the spoken word is as good as a written contract and when Mannerheim had to extricate Finland from its status of Germany's "co-belligerent" in order to avoid full-blown Soviet occupation in 1945, Stalin agreed on condition that Finnish forces expelled all German forces from Finnish territory. Among other things, this involved the Finnish soldiers in one barracks getting up a little earlier in the morning than their German beer buddies in the next-door barracks and gunning them down to a man. This broken word has been hard for Finns to digest: it's not in their nature and they've been keen to live it down.

By the way, Finland paid off its war debts to the USSR ahead of schedule and the Soviets withdrew their units from two strategic positions it was agreed they would occupy until payment in full.

Somewhat amusingly, as the Finns were waiting for the Soviet war reparations delegation to arrive in Helsinki, they were wondering how many steres of wood the USSR would demand and calculating how much they could provide. On arrival, however, the Soviets presented a laundry list of manufactured goods ranging from motor vehicles to industrial equipment. At the time, Finland was a rural economy but Stalin realized it could count on help from the West, which quickly decided to facilitate industrialization of another "bulwark against Communism". By the 1980s Finland was even producing offshore oil platforms and icebreakers, not to mention Nokia. --Arthur Borges 14:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs)

Introduction (2)

Introduction should not contradict with Encyclopedia Britannica "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII. The siege actually lasted 872 days." [8]130.166.34.165 (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is a good source. Wikipedia should not contradict with Britannica.
Tell you the truth, Britannica is contradicted by many of my own sources, notably:
  • Cawthorne, Nigel (2005) Victory in World War II states that the siege lasted 900 days
  • Kennedy, David M. (Editor) (2007). The Library of Congress World War II Companion puts the siege at 900 days
  • Read, Anthony & Fisher, David (1992). The Fall of Berlin also puts it at 900 days
  • Boyle, David (1998). World War II in Photographs - 900 days
  • Bauer, Lt-Col. Eddy [1966] (1979). The History of World War II - 900 days.

Britannica is not considered RS when compared to academic literature. Cam (Chat) 01:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that EB is not a good source by default, I myself had a prolonged disputes with other editors on that account. However, in that concrete case it is correct. The Russian federal law (13 March 1995. N 32-ФЗ) established that 27 January 1944 was the day when the siege was ended. The siege started on 8 September, 1941 (source 44 in the current version). It is easy to calculate that the number of 872 is based on those two dates. (I think doing a simple arithmetic calculations doesn't fit OR criteria...:))--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Finnish army helping Germans (2)

The Finnish forces were stopped by the 23rd Army under Marshal Govorov as they crossed the old Soviet-Finnish border on the Karelian Isthmus.

The Finnish attacks repeated several times during September-December of 1941 upon German pleas for attacks on Leningrad.

This caused Britain to declare war on Finland on December 6, 1941. ref Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia. By Olli Vehvvilainen. English translation by Gerard McAlister. Palgrave, 2002, pages 100, 101, 104.

The Finns temporarily took, but failed to keep Beloostrov, they also advanced further south from the River Svir in the occupied East Karelia, but failed to establish the second circle of siege in conjunction with Germans.

1. Facts of active Finnish participation in Siege of Leningrad in the book "Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia." By Olli Vehvilainen. English translation by Gerard McAlister. Palgrave, 2002. (the book is available in libraries)

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 north and 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 railroad connecting Leningrad with Murmansk 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. Hitler proposed a Finnish border which would run from the White Sea to the Svir River and the Neva River. Hitler's proposal was supported by Ryti who announced in the Finnish Parliament the plan of conquering more lands in the east for the Greater Finland.

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 as part of the plan for the Greater 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.

2. Fact from Encyclopedia Britannica "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [9]

Please be diligent! Please be wise! Grow to the task. Do not rush to argument without reading the books from the list of sources diligently page by page.

Nobody wants Wikipedia contradicting with facts from Encyclopedia Britannica: "...prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII." [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.80.73 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 8 February 2009

Please stop spamming this page by simply cutting and pasting the long list of page numbers above. I have removed the older ones to keep this page manageable. If you continue to spam, you will be blocked. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, I disagree with the following statement: "Nobody wants Wikipedia contradicting with facts from Encyclopedia Britannica". I know several examples when EB is wrong. However, Finnish participation in the siege is the fact that is hard to question. For instance, in his article "Hitler's Late Summer Pause in 1941" (Military Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp. 187-191, Published by: Society for Military History) Prof. Alan F. Wilt (Iowa State University) writes that the plans of Army Group North was to "draw the noose around the beleaguered city. Among the formations which participated were two divisions from Schmidt's Corps and several other divisions located east of Leningrad; the bulk of Army Group Nofth, including Erich Hoepner's Panzer Group 4, to the south; and Finnish troops to the north. But even though they were able to cut off the rail links into the city and reach Neva River, they were never able of envelop Leningrad completely." He continued: "By 24 September, it (the Schmidt's corps -P.S.) became so decimated that it was forced on the defensive without ever reaching the Finns, who now refused to push any farther south." In other words, the Finns didn't move farther south because of German plans' failure, not due to the Finnish unwillingness to help Germans.
And, finally, I probably missed something, or I have some problems with geography, but I cannot understand the following: if the northern sector of the encirclement ring was formed by the Finnish troops, how can anyone claim that the Finns didn't participate in the siedge?
Of course, the Finns refused to participate in the siege officially. For instance, on the page 103-104 of his book (The Nordic Way: A Path to Baltic Equilibrium. Published by Howells House, 1993.ISBN 0929590120, 9780929590127), Edward L. Killham writes: "The Finnish government subsequently made it very clear that it had no interest in pushing on beyond the 1939 borders and, in accordance with Mannerheim's advise, it refused to participate in the German siege of Leningrad." However, on the page 104 he continued: "Nonetheless, the Finns did make a contribution to the German military campaign. For example, they fulfilled a Hitler's Barbarossa directive by cutting a main line of the Murmansk railway at Petrozavodsk." Glantz (The Siege of Leningrad, 1941-1944: 900 Days of Terror By David M. Glantz Edition: illustrated Published by Zenith Imprint, 2001 ISBN 0760309418, 9780760309414. p.137) writes that Operation Iskra helped to eliminate the possibility "of a German-Finnish link-up" and, therefore, closure of the encirclement ring around Leningrad. Therefore, since autumn of 1941 (Wilt's article) till Iskra such a danger existed. Therefore, despite their declarations, the Finns effectivelly did participate in the siedge, although their contribution was not decisive. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is quite clear, that by simply being there Finns were providing the northern section of the siege perimeter, and I do consider that the article presented it properly before this edit war. Wilt is not entirely correct, as it was planned that Finns and Germans would meet at Svir, and Finns crossing the river has already moved Finns further as intended. There was, thought, a German 163rd division (Engelbrecht) with Finns at Svir and it was intended that it would make the final push to meet Schmidt's corps. At Karelian Isthmus Jodl himself tried to persuade Mannerheim to continue attack towards Leningrad. Mannerheim categorially refused any attack to the city and only offered an attack to move frontline at Beloostrov 1-2 km forwards; Mannerheim's offer was greeted in Army Group North's HQ with declarations of "Finnish treason". Soviets noticed this Finnish lessening pressure starting from September 1, and already at September 5 they were able to transfer two divisions from Finnish front to south, against Germans. Anyway, it seems that also you don't consider Finns participating actively to the siege. --Whiskey (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact the Finnish army participatied actively in the siege of Leningrad together with Germans. Finnish forces were part of Hitler's plan Barbarossa. Finns helped the Germans to complete and keep the encirlement of Leningrad during 1941 - 1944, and were active in cutting supply routes in and out of the city in many battles around besieged Leningrad.

Army locations

As you check 7th Army (Soviet Union) and 14th Army (Soviet Union) you'll see they were never in the Leningrad, as 7th Army was defending the area between Lake Ladoga and Lake Onega and 14th Army was located between Lake Onega and Murmansk.--Whiskey (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hitler and Mannerheim had two meetings in 1942, one in Finland, and one in Germany

Hitler and Mannerheim had two meetings in 1942, one in Finland, and one in Germany.

Hitler with Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel (the Chief of the Armed Forces High Command) and the Reich Press Chief Dietrich flew to Finland for meetings with the Finnish president Ryti and Mannerheim in June 1942, see video [11] Notice how Mannerheim greeted Hitler by saluting him several times. 'I noticed no such thing. I notice Hitler giving long birthday greeting to Mannerheim holding mannerheims hand, then Mannerheim shakes the hand, releases that hand and makes a short military salute. Later Hitler is already gone and Mannerheim salutes other people coming behind Hitler.' 'Did you know that Hitler was already flying to Finland, when Germans told about it to Finns? And the "several meetings" between Hitler and Mannerheim were this surprise visit by Hitler and the return visit by Mannerheim, when Hitler had his birthday. These two and nothing else.' Later Mannerheim paid a visit to Hitler's Headquarters in Germany. There Mannerheim had meeetings with Adolf Hitler, Chief of Staff Halder, Grand Admiral Rader, and Reichsfuhrer-SS Himmler and their staff. Then Mannerheim went to the Headquarters of the Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering, see video [12]

On both videos Mannerheim and his Finnish generals can be seen talking with Hitler and German generals, and also studying military maps together. Discussions were top secret, so a Finnish reporter taped only 20 minutes of conversation, then the taperecorder was stopped by a German security officer. Out of two days and many hours of Hitler - Mannerheim meetings, we have a few minutes of "edited" videos and 20 minutes of "interrupted" radio recording. But there were several more hours of high level discussions, there was much more talking that was not recorded!130.166.34.165 (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In this video Mannerheim, Hitler, Himmler and Goering are looking at several miltary maps, including the map of Leningrad area.[13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.34.165 (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
To my opinion, these videos are primary sources. Working with primary sources, especially drawing a conclusions from them, may fit WP:OR criteria. If you have reliable secondary sources telling about collaboration between Hitler and Mannerheim, feel free to introduce them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Here [14] are several facts:
  • Mannerheim's own words on Hitler's visit to Finland : "While the rest of us enjoyed the good but simple dishes, Hitler ate his vegetarian meal washed down with tea and water."
  • On Mannerheim's second meeting with Hitler : "On his own visit to Germany Mannerheim again met Hitler and was entertained by Reichsmarshal Göring at his shooting box."
  • On Mannerheim's meeting with another dictator : "In the autumn of 1945, Mannerheim traveled to Portugal, where he met Dr. Salazar, the Portuguese dictator"
  • On Mannerheim's alterations to his own biography : "in 1946, Mannerheim moved to Switzerland, where he lived mainly at the Valmont sanatorium in Montreaux. He devoted the last years of his life to writing his memoirs. Mannerheim narrated periods of his life to his assistants, among them General Heinrichs and Colonel Paasonen, who wrote the text for the future book. Mannerheim also revised the manuscript and sometimes made considerable alterations."

Alterations and "edits" were made by Mannerheim and his assistants, as a political "cleaning" and "spinning" of negative and unpleasant facts. The facts are : Besides his several meetings with Hitler, Mannerheim also had meetings with Mussolini and leaders of the National Fascist Party. Mannerheim accomodated Italian and German military intelligence in the Finnish Army positions near Leningrad during 1941 - 1944. Curzio Malaparte mentioned Mannerheim in his book. 130.166.34.165 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mannerheim maintained a detailed diary in Swedish (his native language since birth, he even used a Finnish interpreter to communicate with the Finns). His diary was in Swedish for security reasons. After Mannerheim's death in Switzerland, in 1953, his archive was immediately taken to Stockholm and classified. British and American publications, as well, as Finnish language literature about Mannerheim has been "edited" to spin him as a "noble" and "heroic" statesman. In reality he lived with three women, while completely ignoring his wife and two daughters, one of his daughters became a nun and died in terrible poverty in Paris without even money for a funeral. As far as Hitler - Mannerheim documents and records : dig the Nazi archives and Swedish archives in Stockholm.130.166.34.165 (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I already answered on the Mannerheim page that his information is nothing that historians already doesn't know and some of it was false. Just to state that his memorials were writen by Mannerheim himself and published after his death. This guy tries to state that there is somekind of diary that Mannerheim has done and it somehow ended up in Stockholm. First if thats true then it should be immidiatly given back to Finland and given to historians to read as in those words it was stolen as everything he own or wrote is property of Mannerheim Museum. The publications aren't anyway edited to make him look something else. His memorials were published as they were. Also have you even read the books atleast the book that I have on my hands states that he had quite many women before he died and its not covered up in anyway. Also you stating that he didn't care about his daugthers is a lie as he wrote to both of them frequently and the letters are still in the Mannerheim Museum. The daughters even escaped from french boarding school their mother had put them into to Finland. This happened when Mannerheim was in Russian army in Poland just before WWI. Also in this same book its stated that the decision of turning to catholic faith and joining the english monastary was Anastasie's own choice that Mannerheim supported, but as her health was never the best she eventually left the monastery. Also its odd that if Mannerheim didn't care about the daughters then why did he paid their living and travel feeds sometimes even getting himself to dept because of it. Also you seem to have totally false information about his daughter as you claim that Anastasie the one who was once a nun died in Paris. It was Sophie who died in Paris and for the fact Mannerheim was devastated when he learned that her daughter hadn't told him how she was living when he visited her after he resigned as president of Finland. The choice of living was her choice not Mannerheim's and he did meet both daughters several times before his death. There hasn't been anything worth mentioning in any documents that the old Nazi or swedish documents otherwise they would have been mentioned alreaydy. Also the book I took the information from has taken information from various sources even from the former Nazi Germany and other records. It also contains information from several literacy sorces like books writen by German officers and others. To be blunt that book is the most accurate description of Mannerheim there is and claiming that its edited as its published in Finland could be taken as an insult. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a short and "polished" bio of Mannerheim, briefly describing his service to the Russian Czar, his failed marriage to a rich Russian lady, then his several meetings with Hitler, and his exchange of letters with Churchill, and finally his escape to Switzerland where he kept all his money during and after WWII. Interesting man. See [15]

Mannerheim with Hitler and other dictators

Here [16] are several facts:

  • Mannerheim's own words on Hitler's visit to Finland : "While the rest of us enjoyed the good but simple dishes, Hitler ate his vegetarian meal washed down with tea and water."
  • On Mannerheim's second meeting with Hitler : "On his own visit to Germany Mannerheim again met Hitler and was entertained by Reichsmarshal Göring at his shooting box."
  • On Mannerheim's meeting with another dictator : "In the autumn of 1945, Mannerheim traveled to Portugal, where he met Dr. Salazar, the Portuguese dictator"
  • On Mannerheim's alterations to his own biography : "in 1946, Mannerheim moved to Switzerland, where he lived mainly at the Valmont sanatorium in Montreaux. He devoted the last years of his life to writing his memoirs. Mannerheim narrated periods of his life to his assistants, among them General Heinrichs and Colonel Paasonen, who wrote the text for the future book. Mannerheim also revised the manuscript and sometimes made considerable alterations."

Alterations and "edits" were made by Mannerheim and his assistants, as a political "cleaning" and "spinning" of negative and unpleasant facts. The facts are : Besides his several meetings with Hitler and top Nazi leaders, Mannerheim also had meetings with Mussolini and leaders of the National Fascist Party. Mannerheim accomodated Italian and German military intelligence in the Finnish Army positions near Leningrad during 1941 - 1944. Curzio Malaparte mentioned Mannerheim in his book.

It really seems that you have something against Mannerheim and claim with some halfass proof that he was somekind of Nazi lover. In short only reason why he worked with them was because they were allies in a war. He didn't have a choice in the matter and as he was experienced diplomat he didn't make his feelings clear to them as Finland needed their help against the Soviet forces. Also adding to this that Mannerheim was a aristocrat he quite frankly was supporter of the Tsar and so hated the whole Soviet system. His disgust against the Soviets were well known. That for example was the reason he came to Finland and fought in the Civil War on the side of the whites againts the reds. Also I don't see how some official diplomatic visits to Axis countries make him supporter of their ideology. In reality that claim would make every diplomat who visited Hitler or Mussolini a Nazi. Also he never was a powerhungry man like Mussolini or Hitler he only was President for a short while to make sure Finland was safe and then resigned. He was a military officer and a good one in that.
Also your additions and changes in his memorials were done because of Soviet Union was in control of Finnish publications and nothing that had anti Soviet text in it weren't published. As all the people know that Mannerheim hated Soviets his memorials had many places where it had anti Soviet text. Mannerheim himself edited the text so that Finland didn't have to pay of something he himself wrote. So he changed the text so that there were fewer anti Soviet text in it. If he would have not done this the book would have not been able to be published at all. You claimed that he edited it because it had some pro-nazi stuff in it is wrong as it was edited of that reason I stated above. This is known because Mannerheim himself told this before his death. So your "facts" or so you call them are your own opinions that aren't anyway suported in real facts so stop trying to smear his reputation with halfass claims that can be done of anyone as you don't have any proof of this just your claim. Also if you really think that every book comes out as it was first writen makes you quite stupid as every book is edited several times and even changed before its published so in reality every book is "inaccurate" in your opinion. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hitler and Mannerheim designed the German-Finnish collaboration in the siege of Leningrad

Here are four more sources on German-Finnish collaboration in the siege of Leningrad :

  • In planning Barbarossa Hitler saw a way of offering the Finns a chance to gain lands and also play a role in the assault. In May 1941 the Finns (Mannerheim) agreed to the plan, and on July 1 a major Finnish attack drove back the Soviet troops north of Lake Ladoga, then they cut the Leningrad railway in September. (from The drive to Leningrad, a chapter in The world at arms. The Reader's Digest, 1989, page 110)
  • "After Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, Mannerheim allowed the Germans to use Finland as a base from which to attack Leningrad" (from Dictionary of 20th century European history. Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. London Chicago, 1997, page 156)
  • "The Germans and Finns closed off all access, except for a narrow lifeline over the frozen lake Ladoga." (from Leningrad under Siege. New Groiler Encyclopedia of WWII. 2001. Vol-5, page 56)
  • Hitler's directive : "Leningrad would have to be destroyed and the whole area between Lake Ladoga and the Baltic coast occupied before the end of September in order to release Finnish troops for an operation against the Murmansk railway." (from Oxford companion to World War II, Leningrad, siege of, page 685, right column.)137.159.37.226 (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
IMHO these videos are great documents on Hitler - Mannerheim partnership. Hitler with Wilhelm Keitel in Finland withRyti and Mannerheim in June 1942 [17] where Mannerheim saluted to Hitler. Then Mannerheim went to Germany for his second meeting with Hitler at the fuhrer's HQ. In Germany Mannerheim also had meetings with Reichsfuhrer-SS Himmler and Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering [18] and they had military discussions over several maps. Watching both videos is an eye opening experience, and good education too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.37.226 (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
In reality this just proofs that you have personal feelings against Mannerheim as you try so hard to proof him to somekind of Hitler worshipper when in reality he despiced Hitler. Why in the world would General of his own right would think that a corporal that used force to get himself to power to be something great. There is several witnesess that have stated how Mannerheim really felt of Hitler. As when Hitler decided that he himself invites himself to Mannerheim's birthday Mannerheim was seen to get really upset of this news. Why would your nazi loving Mannerheim be angry of Hitler coming to his birthday? Mannerheim didn't like him at all but as he was an ally he had to tolarate him. Sorry to be this blunt but you seem to live in somekind of fantasy world where you think you have all the answers and you are the expert in how Mannerheim acted/felt. You don't seem to know anything about human behaviour and really think that how people act on the outside really shows how they feel in the inside. I have seen several films of Mannerheim meeting Hitler and many parts of the film you can see how Mannerheim's face changes when Hitler turns his back to him. He didn't like the man as he saw Hitler as lousy corporal who thought he was something great. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder...

...Why Baryshnikov is considered ultimate, non-questionable, best ever, source when he states something negative about Finns, but if he says something positive, it is considered as non-reliable, original research? --Whiskey (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Bidlack, PhD in Russian history writes about 1,7 million casualties (on the Soviet side alone)

I am now reading academic works by Richard Bidlack, PhD [19], historian and researcher of Russian history. He recently published this book,

Siege of Leningrad Hardcover: 400 pages Publisher: Yale University Press (September 28, 2007) Language: English ISBN-10: 0300110294 ISBN-13: 978-0300110296

The book is sold out. But you can read the brief article by the same professor, Richard Bidlack, titled Leningrad, Siege of, World Book Encyclopedia, 2002, Chicago, page 195.

The Soviet side alone suffered 1,7 million casualties according to Bidlack, Richard, see Leningrad, Siege of, World Book Encyclopedia, 2002, Chicago, page 195.

I am holding the book in my hands now, it's the Vol 12 of World Book Encyclopedia, 2002, Chicago, page 195.

The book says on page 195 "The blockade of Leningrad by German and Finnish troops ... lasted 872 days from September 1941 to January 1944." Then "The enemy failed to capture the city. Leningrad's defense was a critical event in the war. Had the city fallen, the Germans could have exerted more pressure on the Soviet capital, Moscow, and possibly conquered it."

Please read Leningrad, Siege of, in the World Book Encyclopedia, 2002, Chicago, page 195. You can find this encyclopedia at any school, or university library.

130.166.34.165 (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The part about "From Septemter 41 to February 44", as well as "The enemy failed..." is already in the article. The only new thing here seems to be a higher death toll, which seems to exceed the current maximum. What do you wish to add from the book? --Illythr (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Bidlack's figures are not necessarily contradicting the current ones, as existing figures consist only military losses from Leningrad Front. Volkhov front suffered very heavy casualties in the attempts to relieve the siege. Also, it is also possible, that those figures include some casualties from the battles before the siege started, for example from the battles in the Luga line. --Whiskey (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
And once again: how the casualties are defined? KIA? MIA? POW? WIA? Hospitalized? --Whiskey (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Good question: how the casualties are defined? KIA? MIA? POW? WIA? Hospitalized? EVACUATED? IMPRISONED TO DEATH? HELD IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS? (on either side). Zhukov ordered to kill anyone retreating from the front, so thousands were killed, but these casualties were not registered anywhere at all. Evacuation was a grey area too. 130.166.34.165 (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately that question is yours to answer, as you provided the source and the figures. That is why I like Glantz' book, as he provides a distribution of casualties in permanent (KIA, POW) and temporary, following the distinction already presented by Krivosheev. Glantz also provides a figure of civilian deaths during the evacuations, which was also presented the previous version of the article. --Whiskey (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Consider several sources, not only three books by Glantz on the Siege of Leningrad. Glantz changed his numbers several times in different editions of his books. His latest number is four million causalties on the Soviet side during the siege of Leningrad! Glantz is only 69, so he has enough time to make more updates. Wikipedians may benefit from reading book by other academic authors about the siege of Leningrad, such as Richard Bidlack [20] and [21] and [22] and other sources.

Dubious

I market that sentence to dubious, as neither Mannerheim in his memoirs or Markku Ruotsila in his book Churchill and Finland [23] mention such a passage in their handling of letter exchange between Mannerheim and Churchill during the Autumn 1941. On the other hand, the message exchange between United States State Department and Finnish Foreign Ministry contained messages concerning warnings against Finns to cut Murmansk railroad.--Whiskey (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Serious

Churchill wrote to Mannerheim "It would be most painful to the many friends of your country in England if Finland found herself in the dock with the guilty and defeated Nazis."

Mannrheim answered to Churchill on December 2, 1941: "I would regret if these operations, carried out in order to safeguard Finland, would bring my country into a conflict with England, and I will be deeply grieved if you will consider yourself forced to declare war upon Finland."

On December 6 Finland expelled all British citizens. Mannerheim continued helping Hitler and ignored the warning from Churchill. Then Britain, Canada, India, Australia and other allies declared war on Finland.

Churchill's letter and Mannerheim's reply are quoted here [24]

In fact Britain and Dominoes declared war to Finland at December 6, and using normal diplomatic behaviour, all diplomatic personnel left the country. There were some British citizens who have stayed in Finland after the end of the Winter War, and Finland allowed them to leave country to Sweden instead of following normal procedure where enemy citizens were interned to the camps as happened to the Finnish citizens in Britain or Germans and Italians in US.
And it seems we agree that there is no sources to support the claim presented in the article, so I'll remove it. --Whiskey (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Whiskey is wrong. Please read this letter by Churchill, and then a reply by Mannerheim [25]. Then read pages 89, 98, 99, 100, 101 - 109 in "Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia." By Olli Vehvilainen. English translation by Gerard McAlister. Palgrave, 2002. (the book is available in libraries, but Whiskey misquoted the book several times already) Also see discussion above.

I've read them. There is NO mention about Murmansk railroad in them. There is NO mention about arctic convoys in them. There is NO mention about UK/US supplies in them. So what you have included is your original research and should be removed. --Whiskey (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Whiskey is wrong again and playing deceptive tactics with Wikipedia. Finnish blockade of Murmansk-Leningrad railroad in 1941 was the reason Churchill sent his letter with serious warning to Mannreheim.

Churchill wrote to Mannerheim "It would be most painful to the many friends of your country in England if Finland found herself in the dock with the guilty and defeated Nazis."

But Mannerheim refused to comply with Churchill's letter, and replied negative on Dec. 2, 1941. So the Finnish leadership clinged to Hitler, continued helping the Nazis in Siege of Leningrad for two more years, and thus caused more harm and death for all sides. Parts of Churchill's letter and Mannerheim's answer are shown and discussed on pages 98, 99, 100, 101 - 109 in the book "Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia." By Olli Vehvilainen. English translation by Gerard McAlister. Palgrave, 2002. (the book is available in libraries, and user Whiskey misquoted the book several times before)

You are not accurate here: Excerpts of Churchill's letter was shown and discussed only at page 100. Mannerheim's answer was not excerpted at all. And in the Churchill's excerpt there is no mention about Murmansk railroad or Lend-Lease supplies. --Whiskey (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional source on Hitler's directive : "Leningrad would have to be destroyed and the whole area between Lake Ladoga and the Baltic coast occupied before the end of September in order to release Finnish troops for an operation against the Murmansk railway." (from Oxford companion to World War II, Leningrad, siege of, page 685, right column.) Also see discussion

Whiskey is wrong about Murmansk railroad. Many sources (Clark, Bidlack, Glantz, Carell, Oxford on WWII) mention the Finnish attack on Murmansk railroad.

Bidlack [26] and Glantz [27] are constantly updating their books about the Siege of Leningrad

Bidlack is evolving as a careful and reliable scholar. He actually worked in Russian and European military archives (Glantz never was in Leningrad, Russia), and his works are solid. His publication in 2000 looks narrowly at civilians in Leningrad. In his later publications Bidlack described the coordinated German - Finnish siege of Leningrad. His 2003 online publication shows the total number of casualties in besieged Leningrad (the Soviet side only) at two million; our library has this book: The People's War [28]

On pages 94 and 105 Bidlack writes about the death toll among civilians remaining in Leningrad during the first winter of the siege as 800,000 to 1,000,000, that was in the first six months of the siege from October 1941 through March 1942. He later made updates to his own calculations that the daeth toll in the first winter of 1941-42 was 45% to 55% of remaining population of two million (not including unregistered refugees) by the end.

At the same time a massive evacuation was going on: in 1941 over 700,000, and in 1942 another 400,000 civilians were evacuated officially (and more people fled Leningrad unofficially), with industries and on their own. Also there were additional hundreds of thousands of unregistered refugees who fled from advancing Germans and Finns, and came to Leningrad for shelter and food. These refugees were doomed casualties left completely ignored and unregistered by either side of the battle. Bidlack mentioned these additional causlties in his several works. Academic work by Bidlack has been sponsored by the US government. He also mentioned several historians who helped his work with documents and archives in Russia and Europe. His 2007 book was scheduled for second edition in 2008, but most likely shall come out in 2009 with updates and corrections.

Bidlack praised the bigger version of Glantz's work: The Battle for Leningrad, 1941-1944. By David M. Glantz. In this updated edition using a recent Russian study based on Soviet military archival materials, Glantz calculates that there were close to four million Soviet military casualties in and around Leningrad. The duration of the siege is clearly marked as 900 days from 1941 to 1944. Glantz concluded that Stalin falied to provide enough forces, so lifting of the siege failed in 1943, and even the temporary road was frequently blocked and destroyed by artillery fire and aeriel attacks. Glantz also provides diagrams and maps showing the encirclement of Leningrad by German and Finnish forces. However, the maps in Glantz's book are inferior to the maps in the Atlas of WWII from the US West Point Military Academy.

For Bidlack's online article on Siege of Leningrad see [29]. For the review of the Glantz's bigger edition, The Battle for Leningrad, 1941-1944. By David M. Glantz, see[30]. But most importantly enjoy the reading of actual books.137.159.37.226 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Bidlack and Glantz still differ in their stats, but eventually it becomes better in their updated editions. Bidlack looks more careful with his 2 millions, compared to Glantz's four millions. Russian propaganda obviously downplayed casualties in Leningrad for the years 1941, 1942, 1943, and 1944, because Stalin ordered to classify the frightening high numbers of dead, and Hitler did just the same. The sides were misinforming each other. But eventually all facts and documents become open for further updates and publications. The truth is coming out anyway. Thanks to Bidlack, Glantz and other people we are inching towards the truth.130.166.34.165 (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't claim Glantz is infallible in his numbers, as I have myself provided some material contradicting Glantz's numbers, but I have had better sources than he had (namely corps level casualty lists...). But in this case I fear you are mixing two different cases: The casualties in Leningrad during the siege and the casualties from the fighting around the city. The casualty figures of Leningrad Front and the civilians in the city come from the same sources to Glantz and Bidlack, and they have been given in the article and it is unlikely that they have been changed in between. But if we take into the account the fighting around the city, then the total number of military and civilian deaths rise close to 2 million, as given by Bidlack. For example the fighting around Luga produced almost 100,000 KIA/MIA/POW to NW Front, or Ljuban offensive cost also 100,000 KIA/MIA/POW to Volkhov Front or the Destruction of the 2nd Shock Army cost 50,000 KIA/MIA/POW and so on... I don't have Glantz's later book, but if he counts WIA/Medicals to the total casualties, then the sum is close to 4 million casualties to Soviets, from Demjansk to Barents Sea. --Whiskey (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Glantz is constantly learning new and old facts from all archive documents, he reads first, then he updates his books. That's how wikipedians should learn to read and thins and then edit130.166.34.165 (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC).
It is that we HAVE TO USE referenced sources. We CANNOT do original research. We CANNOT put here something someone MIGHT publish someday. Please, this discussion started so promising... Could we please continue discussing about issues and leave out personal attacks and generalized thoughts, irrelevant to the issues we are handling? --Whiskey (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Deceptive statements again. Whiskey (talk) again pushed original research and made destructive edits based on false claims. See discussion above and below, and read sources, then Whiskey's original research shall become apparent. Users who do not read sources may be misguided by Whiskey's original research. By allowing such original research Wikipedia is being again pushed on the collision course with thrue facts. Nobody want this to happen.

Original research and destructive edits by Whiskey (talk) again in both the beginning and ENDING of the article

Again Whiskey (talk) made destructive edits based on false claim that only Nikolai Baryshnikov says that Finnish army took part in the Siege. Whiskey made up original research about "Controversy over Finnish participation" and keeps pushing personal opinion in the article. By doing this repeatedly Whiskey makes Wikipedia contradicting with Encyclopedia Britannica "(Sept. 8, 1941 - Jan. 27, 1944) prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII. The siege actually lasted 872 days." [31]

Also Whiskey (talk) is pushing more original research that 'Almost all historians regard the siege as a German operation and do not consider that the Finns effectively participated in the siege'. Again Whiskey's original research is conflicting with Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, works by Bidlack [32], Glantz [33], Carell, Clark, and other sources from which many quotations are shown in discussion above.

Fact from Encyclopedia Britannica "(Sept. 8, 1941 - Jan. 27, 1944) prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII. The siege actually lasted 872 days." [34] has never been disputed by serious sources. In fact academic works by Bidlack, Carell, Clark, Vehvilainen, have facts that Finnish army under Mannerheim and Hitler's Nazi Germany joined their efforts in the Siege of Leningrad. But Whiskey (talk) is pushing original research insisting that only Baryshnikov supports the view that active Finnish participation occurred. How about Britannica, World Book, books by Bidlack, Carell, Clark, Vehvilainen and other sources?

Whiskey is misquoting sources about Finnish blockade of Murmansk-Leningrad railroad in 1941-1944. Finnish blockade of Murmansk-Leningrad railroad in 1941 was the reason why Churchill sent a written warning to Mannreheim, but Mannerheim in his reply of December 2, 1941 refused to comply with Churchill's warning and continued helping Hitler, then Britain, Canada, Australia and India declared war on Finland on December 6, 1941. Churchill was proven right, and Mannerheim was wrong, the Finnish leadership clinged to Hitler and thus caused more harm and death for all sides. Parts of Churchill's letter and Mannerheim's answer are quoted and discussed on pages 98, 99, 100, 101 - 109 in the book "Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia." By Olli Vehvilainen. English translation by Gerard McAlister. Palgrave, 2002. (the book is available in libraries, and user Whiskey already misquoted the book several times before)

In the ENDING of the article Whiskey added "Controversy over Finnish participation" and "Only Nikolai Baryshnikov ... " which is original research and personal opinion by Whiskey and must be deleted, as was mentioned by other users in prior discussion.

Once again several lines of personal opinion by Whiskey in the beginning and in the ending of the article are deleted according to "original research" guidelines. I win

Nobody wants Wikipedia contradicting with these verified facts from Encyclopedia Britannica "(Sept. 8, 1941 - Jan. 27, 1944) prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII. The siege actually lasted 872 days." [35]130.166.34.165 (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it has come to this, but I'm only quoting Baryshnikov from his book. If we consider him unreliable source, there is going to be plethora of changes in this article, almost all from the versions you like to see in the article.
You are also heavily unbalancing the article, as now almost half of it handles Finns. For example in the Galntz's book Finns are mentioned in nine pages (of which two handled the Winter War) from the total of over 300 pages. Similar ratio can be found in any other book handling the Siege. So even the version I suggest is heavily unbalanced and needs work to fix it, and your's even more.--Whiskey (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Balanced editing comes from reading all sources:

  • newer works by Bidlack[36] and Glantz revealing many new facts about coordinated efforts by German and Finnish forces in the Siege of Leningrad"[37]
  • classic facts from Britannica: (Sept. 8, 1941 - Jan. 27, 1944) prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII. The siege actually lasted 872 days." [38]

Edit warring

User:Whiskey and User:130.166.34.165 please stop edit warring. Please use the dispute resolution processes to resolve your dispute. Nick-D (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is getting absolutely ridiculous guys. If this persists, I will semi-protect the page, and I am not afraid to apply the hammer. Cam (Chat) 02:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute resolution

Large content dispute about everything, from single statements/numbers to the focus and structure of the article.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
Anonymous editor tries to get rid of "Controversy of the Finnish participation"-chapter, although it's main claim ("Finland wasn't active participant in the siege") is sourced from the book of Baryshnikov.
He also tries to add name list to the end of article, although there is a much more suitable place to that list in the article Effect of the Siege of Leningrad on the city.
His edits unbalance the article heavily from the mainstream research, as his version has Finns in approximately half of the text, while in typical sources Finns are only passingly mentioned (for example, at Glantz's book Finns are mentioned in 9 pages from the total of over 300).
He is removing source inquiries from the text without providing any clarification or additional sources.
He is changing sourced statements to say something which is not supported by the sources (Minisubmarines on Lake Ladoga, one barge->barges of food, Iskra opened temporary connection to the city, location of the 14th and 7th armies, "Jodl fails to persuade Finns to continue offensive against Leningrad" -> (Jodl)"...persuades the Finns to continue offensive against Leningrad"...) --Whiskey (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research by User:Whiskey is not supported by encyclopedias and academic works by Clark, by Glantz, by Carell, and by Bidlack [39], historian and researcher of Russian history.

Examples of original research by User:Whiskey in the beginning of the article:

  • The Siege of Leningrad... was an unsuccessful military operation by the Axis powers to capture Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg) during World War II. The siege lasted from 9 September 1941, to 18 January 1943(writes User:Whiskey)

True fact: (Sept. 8, 1941 - Jan. 27, 1944) prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces during WWII. The siege actually lasted 872 days." [40]

  • Wiskey's personal opinion - the word "unsuccessful" - has a biased tone. What would be "successful siege of Leningrad" according to Whiskey - all 3 million civilians killed? But that's what Hitler ordered! IMHO the word "prolonged" is better than "unsuccessful."
  • Wiskey's other mistake "The siege lasted from 9 September 1941, to 18 January 1943" - The true fact is that the siege ended in January 1944, and lasted 872 days, these facts are in all classic books and encyclopedias[41]
  • Wiskey is using data from outdated sources for casualties on the Soviet side. Glantz himself keeps updating all data in his latest editions. Bidlack and Glantz still differ in their stats, but eventually it becomes better in their updated editions. Bidlack has 2 million Soviet casualties, compared to Glantz's four million Soviet casualties.[42]
  • Whiskey writes that the siege "was the second most costly in terms casualties." This is original research.
  • More original research by Whiskey: "only Baryshnikov supports the view that active Finnish participation occurred." How about Britannica[43], World Book, books by Bidlack[44], Glantz[45], Carell, Clark, Vehvilainen (see pages 98, 99, 100, 101 - 109 in the book "Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia." By Olli Vehvilainen. English translation by Gerard McAlister. Palgrave, 2002.) Many more sources describe German-Finnish siege of Leningrad, for example:

The Germans and Finns closed off all access, except for a narrow lifeline over the frozen lake Ladoga. (see "Leningrad under Siege." New Groiler Encyclopedia of WWII. 2001. Vol-5, page 56, also see "World War II" By H.P. Willmott, Robin Cross, charles Messenger. Dorling Kindersley, 2004. ISBN:978-0-7566-2968-7, Page 152)

In the ENDING of the article Whiskey pushed personal opinion again and made up a paragraph on "Controversy over Finnish participation" - this is all original research by Whiskey.

The truth is: there is no controversy. Sources describe the prolonged siege of Leningrad by German and Finnish armed forces (see Britannica[46]), or "Coordinated German and Finnish offensive on Leningrad" - see Bidlack and Glantz[47], and also read books by Bidlack, Carell, Clark, Vehvilainen.

The list of "Notable survivors of the siege" makes logical ending for the article. Replacing this list with passages on "Controversy over Finnish..." looks like a ploy to destroy integrity of the article.

Edit warring is caused by User:Whiskey's pushing of original research and personal opinion. Other users removed Whiskey's POV many times, but now is time to apply the hammer offered by Cam (Chat) This may be the best remedy against original research and personal opinion by User:Whiskey. See discussion above, and read sources, then Whiskey's original research shall become apparent.

Whiskey's original research about "Controversy over Finnish participation" and Whiskey's wrong dates of the siege and other incorrect data simply does not belong in Wikipedia. 130.166.34.165 (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    • Richard Bidlack, PhD., wrote in his article on Answers.com "For 872 days during World War II, German and Finnish armies besieged Leningrad, the Soviet Union's second largest city and important center for armaments production. According to recent estimates, close to two million Soviet citizens died in Leningrad or along nearby military fronts between 1941 and 1944." [48]
    • Claims Conference announced that in 2008, after 7 years of talks, the German government agreed to distribute a one-time payment (2,556 euros/person) to some of the Jewish survivors of the siege of Leningrad. The agreement, involving about 6,000 persons, marks the first time that the persecution of Jews who lived through the 900-day siege of Leningrad has been recognized by Germany. Other survivors of the siege are next to be compensated. How about responsibilities of other countries who helped Hitler's Germany?130.166.34.165 (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
What about Soviets giving Finland's land back that they took by force in a war they themself started or paying the land owners whos land they stole. This guys view of the war is biased towards the Soviets and he keeps putting his own personal opinions to the fray all the time. He keeps making halfass statements of Mannerheim's involment of many things that have no historical baring and even when historical information cancels his statement. This guy things his opinion is the right one and gives his proof as some videos that doesn't really tell anything about the event anyway. He keeps claiming about documents that doesn't even exits for example diary of Mannerheim. Then he keeps claiming that Finnish history books are falsefied and still claims that the they can't be trusted. Still almost all of the info on this bio is also included in history books that I have read in Finland. Then he claims that many russian books are more accurate when in reality in many of those they still try to claim that Finland started the first war when in reality it was Soviet by firing their own border station with artillery. In reality I would really check his edits as he seems to have his personal opinions in the fray too and not just Wiskey. I just wanted to say this as I myself think that this 130.166.34.165 is stating false information several times already and still keeps saying his personal opinions as facts. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments

Whiskey's definition of the dates of the siege are correct in one sense since he considers it to be the period when Leningrad was totally cut off by land. A broader definition is used by Bidlack and the other sources cited, where the siege is dated to the 1944 offensive that forced the Germans to entirely retreat from the vicinity of Leningrad. A simple sentence explaining the two definitions would resolve that issue, I think.

The actual Finnish role in the siege was pretty minimal, from my own knowledge. They advanced north of Leningrad as the Soviet 23rd Army retreated, but never really attacked the Soviet forces north of Leningrad at all. They did launch an offensive down the Karelian Isthmus that had the indirect effect of cutting the Leningrad-Murmansk railroad. They never made much of an effort to cut the supplies coming over Lake Ladoga, not least because the Soviets had stronger naval forces in the Lake, but they did allow the Germans and Italians to attempt to do so on their own. So, I think that it's fair to say that they were prepared to exploit Soviet weaknesses, but were unwilling to risk serious casualties of their own in doing so. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment from EyeSerene Firstly, I think we have to lose the accusations of bad-faith editing; these are unhelpful and are only prolonging the dispute and entrenching positions. Secondly, it's clear from the above that some sources disagree. What we should do in such cases is not pick a side, but instead include in the article all relevant and significant viewpoints. For example, if source A says the siege lasted 900 days, and source B says 872 days, we report both as neutrally and factually as we can. If we can source it, we can also explain why there are different numbers, but what we can't do is say one figure is better than the other, or one is right and the other is wrong. Remember, we deal with "verifiability, not truth" ;) On a (minor) general note, encyclopedias are unsuitable as sources and shouldn't really be cited for anything. EyeSerenetalk 08:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment from Paul Siebert
Re: "I think that it's fair to say that they were prepared to exploit .... weaknesses, but were unwilling to risk serious casualties of their own in doing so". Interestingly, the same words are frequently used to describe the Soviet participation in the invasion of Poland. However, in that concrete case the argument is used to support the idea that the invasion was joint, at least, partially (see, for instance, Invasion of Poland (1939)).
Re: "if source A says the siege lasted 900 days, and source B says 872 days, we report both as neutrally and factually as we can." Obviously, there is no contradiction, because the second source gives the exact number of days, whereas the first one rounds the number to the hundred. However, it is generally agreed that the siege ended after it had been completely lifted in January 1944, therefore, the User:Whiskey's claim is quite different: the siege ended with its partial relief in 1943. Majority sources disagree with that statement. See, for instance,
1. André Corvisier, John Childs, Chris Turner "A dictionary of military history and the art of war."Edition: 2,Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 1994 ISBN 0631168486, p. 454.
2. Douglas Brinkley, David Rubel. "World War II: the Axis assault, 1939-1942" Published by Macmillan, 2003 ISBN 0805072462, p. 223
3. In his book "The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad" (Da Capo Press, 2003 ISBN 0306812983) Harrison E. Salisbury noted (p. 550) that although the blockade was partially lifted after 506 days the siege continued for one more year.
4. Spencer Tucker, Priscilla Mary Roberts "Encyclopedia of World War II: a political, social and military history" ABC-CLIO, 2004 ISBN 1576079996. P. 877.
5. Marshall Cavendish Corporation "History of World War II" Marshall Cavendish, 2004ISBN 076147482X, p. 584
Etc.
Re: "encyclopedias are unsuitable as sources and shouldn't really be cited for anything". Incorrect. WP:PSTS states:"Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others." WP:SOURCES state:"Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." Therefore, in that concrete case, there is no reason to claim that EB is unreliable (although it does not make it reliable by definition).
In summary, I am inclined to think that the anonymous editor is right.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
You can take my comment for what it is ;) However re your last, from WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion (my emphasis)." This is a relatively minor point, but it's what's been happening above to some extent, and I'm afraid it doesn't fly; if there are suitable secondary sources, these should be given preference (and no sources are in any event a bludgeon for 'winning' disputes). EyeSerenetalk 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Good. One minor comment on your minor comment. WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is a guidelile, whereas I refer to the policy page. Policy always takes precedence over guidelines.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Ahem. Before the discussion gets totally sidelined, I'd like to point out that in the version I support (the current one) the text after the anon's quote continues:"The total lifting of the siege occurred on 27 January 1944, 872 days after it began." --Whiskey (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. However, before that you write "The siege lasted from 9 September 1941, to 18 January 1943, when a narrow land corridor to the city was established by the Soviets." In other words, according to you, the end of the siege was 18 January 1943. This statement is controversial, and, although the very fact is correct, it belongs to the article, not to the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
From the traditional definition of siege, it really ended when Soviets opened the corridor to the city, but the hardships of the city didn't end before the total lifting happened. As it is recognized by f.ex. Salisbury or Glantz, Operation Spark was a major turn in the siege. But I do recognize my handling of English language is far from perfect so how about: "The siege started at 9 September 1941, when the last land connection to the city was severed. Although Soviets managed to open narrow land corridor to the city at 18 January 1943, the total lifting of the siege happened at 27 January 1944, 872 days after it began." --Whiskey (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Your arguments are reasonable, however, we cannot present our conclusions in WP articles. Since majority sources state that the siege lasted roughly 900 days, it must be stated in the lede. Your last version is good.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sinyavin

Hey fellows,

Since searching for the Sinyavin Offensive redirects to this page, shouldn't there be a little more info on it? Granted, it wasn't an operation of paramount importance, but I haven't been able to find more than two brief mentions of it in the entire article. The Big Eye (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Different world were living?

How about putting the Finnish participation down on the page and mentioning that its debated? Now it makes it seems its fact accepted by most historians, even though it really just comes from Nikolai Barysnikov. In my opinoin the book is pretty biased, especially about Winter War. Wikipedia should be neutral. And there are hundreds of books published after war that state completely opposite. I didnt even know there was any debate. So we shouldnt completely change the site just because of historian. Or by few historians who havent done research but refer to Barysnikov (Miller).

- PEMM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.48.184 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Spanish participation

Please stop adding Spain as combatant in the siege. Spain was _not_ involved in World War II. The unit which participated in the Siege of Leningrad was the 250. infantry division which was a _german_ Wehrmacht unit and not more. Of course the unit consisted of spanish volunteers, but that dont matters for the battlebox. Within the Wehrmacht and the SS were volunteers from all over the World, dutch, french, danish, estonian, and so on, even a brigade of India volunteers was there, but we never used the flag of the country the volunteers were from. And also please dont add Emilio Esteban Infantes as commander. He is only a divisional commander and so not from greater importance. In 1940 he wasnt even in command of the unit (Agustín Muñoz Grandes was) until the end of 1942 when the unit was fighting at Stalingrad... StoneProphet (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

casualties and strenghts

We really need some good reliable numbers for strenghts and casualties for the _whole_ 4 years lasting siege. StoneProphet (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I inserted Krivosheev's casualties. In soviet archives, the operation is divided in two: defence and lifting of the siege. I added the corresponding irrecoverable, medical and total losses as given at http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_10_1.html#5_10_33. Since Krivosheev is considered the most authoritative source on soviet casualties and is used in most other articles on wikipedia, I think it should be used here as well. If you have any sugesstions about other authors, lets hear them, but you will have to prove that author you suggest is better than Krivosheev (good luck). I also deleted the casualties that were there before (someone really went ape on the soviet casualties, posted something like 2 million total, which is, as any sane person with even limited knowledge of WW2 realizes, completely unrealistic). These were the casualties that were there before (before someone posted the 2 million nonsense, that is).--99.231.50.255 (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.
Pavel, if you read your source more carefully, you note that it consist only a small timeframe of the siege. Even with Krivosheev's front related tables it is difficult to count, as some fronts operated only a short time in an operations related to the siege. That's why we should use Glantz, who has done that counting already. --Whiskey (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

...it was the third most costly in terms of casualties.

This statement seems to be attributed to the ref 9. However, I couldn't find such information there. If this conclusion has been drawn from the List of battles by casualties article (btw. it is unclear how such a conclusion has been drawn) then it is OR. I am waiting for comments for one week before I delete this statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" over Finnish participation

Almost all historians regard the siege as a German operation and do not consider that the Finns effectively participated in the siege.[69] Only Nikolai Baryshnikov has been a strong supporter of the view that active Finnish participation occurred. The main issues which count in favour of the former view are: (a) the Finns stayed at the pre-winter war border at the Karelian Isthmus, despite German wishes and requests, and (b) they ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Suurin_Suomi.PNG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Finnish_areas_ceded_in_1940.png

These pictures prove that (a) is a lie. Authors, burn in hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.20.136 (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You do know how Karelian Isthmus is defined? --Whiskey (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it really worth debating someone who ends their comment by telling the rest of us to "burn in hell"? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Generally, no. Sometimes I have a mental disorder called "optimism" which makes me comment this kind of things...--Whiskey (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Box Insert

There's a box insert that speaks of "allied" Finnish troops. I don't know how to change that but it should read "co-belligerent" Finns.

The distinction is doubtless a fine one, entirely lost on the defenders of Leningrad but Finns have always made a point of it.--Arthur Borges 13:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs)

Incomplete information in the article

There are a number of important names missing from the Russian side. Andrei A. Zhdanov was one of the main political leaders of the Leningrad Front throughout the blockade and siege. Political Chief of Leningrad/ Colonel, later Lt. General, B. V. Bychevsky was the head of all Engineers in Leningrad throughout the blockade and is thought by many to be one of the main reasons the Germans never made it all the way into the city. Then there's Beria, who's intrigues helped the German cause greatly. And a number of generals who's stupidity and incompetence exacerbated the problem. And the names of everyone involved in creating and maintaining the ice road over Lake Ladoga, at the upper levels is glossed over. Vsevelod Kochetov, a writer and poet is responsible in large part for helping to maintain the morale of the soldiers protecting Leningrad and the people of Leningrad. Dmitri V. Pavlov was almost single-handedly responsible for taking the required measures to ensure that the Leningraders had at least the bare minimums of food to survive. I tried to edit yesterday and add some of these very important names, but the system seems to only like having the names of 3 people. And Govorov didn't show up until almost the end of 1941. Peter S. Popkov was the mayor of Leningrad throughout the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.225.29 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Kosygin was in besieged Leningrad during the end of 1941 and from January to July of 1942. Kosygin was responsible for maintaining the Road of Life and evacuation of civilians during 1941 and 1942.

Ambiguous, 400,000 at evacuations

642,000 during the siege, 400,000 at evacuations. Does it mean 400,000 people died during evacuations or simply 400,000 evacuated from the city? --Tricia Takanawa (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand it either. --Kanakukk (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC).
1,5 million civilians were evacuated and 400 thousand of them died or killed by artillery and aerial bombings during the evacuation.
A bigger number is very likely, because Stalin banned all information about casualties.

Casualties

The current casualties of 332,059 for the red Army ist far too low. This number seems be taken somehow from Krivosheev. The problem is, that those numbers do neither cover the whole timeframe of the siege nor all participated units. Krivosheev gives for the "Leningrad Defense (10 July-30 Sept. 41)" total casualties at 344,926 and for the "Leningrad Offensive (Dec. 42-30 Jan. 43)" 115,082 overall casualties. He also gives 48,901 casualties for the "Tikhvin Offensive (10 Nov. -30 Dec. 41)", 308,367 for the "Liuban' Offensive (7 Jan. -30 April 42)", 94,751 for "Liuban' Relief (13 May-10 July 42)" 113,674 for the "Siniavinsk Offensive (19 Aug.-10 Oct. 42)" and 313,953 for the "Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive (14 Jan. -1 April 44)". Its obvious that with covering only a limited timespan of the whole siege and only aiming at several specific operations during the siege, these numbers are not adequate enough for overall casualties of the siege, especially since it is like a puzzle to determine which of those belong to the siege and which not and how to add them up. So i reinserted Glantz number of 3 million casualties, because his number covers the whole period. Krivosheevs numbers also dont seem to contradict with Glantz estimation, so i think Glantz is reliable for this (Glantz anyway refers to Krivosheev very often, so he is probably quite aware of Krivosheev numbers for the Leningrad siege). StoneProphet (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is digit (2,017,881 killed, captured or missing) not about September 8, 1941 - January 27, 1944, and not only for Leningrad. Inside the ring fought part of Leningrad Front and Baltic Fleet. During all time (22.06.1941-09.05.1945) and differently territory they loose 55890 + 467525 = 523415 killed, captured or missing (by Krivosheev).--Germash19 (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
2,017,881 was wrong, someone changed the number. Its 1,017,881, thats what Glantz gives. This number of course is for the whole campaign and not only for the units inside the perimeter. StoneProphet (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Russians and Finns are now opening some archives on casualties (military and civilian) and the numbers are going up. References to Soviet data from 1946 - 1953 are unreliable data, mostly due to Stalin's propaganda trying to diminish the scale of Leningrad. Glantz made this mistake too. Today the St. Peterburg cityhall recognized the death of over 1.700.000 civilians during the siege of Leningrad.

Finns 'November offensive of 1941'

As the Soviet reports indicated that event took place on the coastal sector i checked the archived war diaries of the Finnish 12th D which was responsible for the coastal sector at that time.

http://digi.narc.fi/digi/view.ka?kuid=3494933

The events of the 'offensive'.. On Nov 1.. Finnish artillery takes out Soviet munitions dump with the help of intel from defectors. On Nov 2... Finnish patrol sneaks to Soviet lines and takes out Soviet company command bunker ( killing 10 and capturing 2 men ). Later on Nov 2 Soviets assault the bunker which Finns already abandoned. Finnish fire from old positions repulsed Soviets. Same repeated on Nov 3, and Nov 4. If you choose to call a patrol raid which took out a bunker an offensive then, sure there was an offensive. But according to any rational scale there was no such thing.. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the "offensive" made up by the Soviet propaganda to incriminate Finland should not have a place in this article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Finnish offensive included attacks on northern suburbs of Leningrad and attacks across the Svir river - there the Finnish forces advanced as far as the town of Oshta in Vologda oblast - THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF FINNISH MEN BURIED AT THE OSHTA CEMETERY. See about Finnish October and November 1941 offensives and how the Finnish tanks and troops occupied part of Vologda province in the fall of 1941 [49]
See also how Mannerheim attacked to encircle Lake Ladoga east of Leningrad and south of Svir river - On October 1, 1941, Mannerheim ordered five Finnish brigades supported by tanks to cross the Svir river. On October 7, 1941 the Finnish forces reached the town of Oshta in Vologda province. On October 18, the Finnish forces advanced further to Koromyslovo and continued fighting until December 15, 1941. Then exhausted Russians retreated Eastwards, but resumed resistance in April 1942. However, the Finnish Army controlled this part of Vologda province until June of 1944. [50]
Fighting that took place elsewhere than on the Karelian Isthmus is largely irrelevant to the Siege of Leningrad. In Karelian Isthmus Finnish offensive stopped on early September 1941 and on Eastern Karelia on December 8. Finnic graves in the areas around St. Petersburg should not be a surprise since the land was ethnically primarily Finnic (with the exception of the city of St. Petersburg) until early 20th century. However none of this is relevant with regards to Siege of Leningrad. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Famous survivors of the siege of Leningrad [51]

User:Drmies stated that this list is probably acceptable.

  • Drmies wants to point out that he is not an expert in this field, and that unverified entries (that is, entries without articles) are usually not OK. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the list is already in the linked article of Effect_of_the_Siege_of_Leningrad_on_the_city --Whiskey (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Editors who pushed these facts out of the main article are simply showing their hidden agenda - to degrade the main article by cutting it into smaller pieces. This agenda is apparently designed to manipulate readers into belief that the siege of Leningrad was not so terrible, and the Finnish army did not kill civilians, or did not contribute to starving millions of unarmed people to death following Hitler's order. Yes, Finnish military followed Hitler's order and kept the siege pperimeter for two years - thus blocking British, Canadian and American convoys before they could reach those starving civilians in the besieged Leningrad (St. Petersburg). Shameful editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.34.165 (talk)

Article reorganization

I'm doing some reorganization of the article, so all feedback is welcome. First, I'll increase the background section to include all things up to the Luga-line battles, update the OOB to the breakthrough of the Luga-line and move to the establishing the siege everything from the breaking the Luga-line to the recall of the 4th Panzer. Comments? --Whiskey (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Restoring facts that were improperly depeted and deleting nonsence from the lede and the rest of the article

Improving the article and showing the BIGGER PICTURE for all to see. This article is about the very long and very deadly battle that lasted over two years and resulted in many casualties, and changed history for Finland, for Germany and for Russia, and other European nations as well. 130.166.34.165 (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Article degradation by Whiskey and other users to cover up Nazi and Finnish war crimes

Article degradation has been done under the guise of "editing" and "reorganization" - these are destructive tactics by Whiskey and other users to cover up the WWII war crimes committed by the Nazi Germany and Finnish military forces together.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.34.165 (talk)

The full truth is not shown in this wikipedia article. The truth is in archives and libraries: there are serious sources, photos, letters, documents, diaries, memoirs, books, operational maps of the Siege of Leningrad and even documentary films made during the siege by American, Russian, and British photographers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.34.165 (talk)
The Nazi Germany under Hitler with Finland under Ryti and Mannerheim all together committed terrible war crimes against millions of civilians in Leningrad (St. Petersburg). For those crimes the Finnish president Ryti and several other Finnish leaders were tried and sentenced to prison terms. Mannerheim was saved by Stalin from Nurembrg trials in exchange for 12% of the Finnish territory North of Leningrad (St. Petersburg). This result of the siege of Leningrad must be reflected in the article. By deleting the full truth, Whiskey and their Finnish co-belligerent editors are degrading Wikipedia, their manipulations and hidden agendas are simply destructive. Serious students and scholars, as well, as anyone seeking full truth may find it elsewhere, but not in Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.34.165 (talk)
Nice to have you back, too. --Whiskey (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the IP could provide some WP:RELIABLE sources. Also, conform with WP:CIV and stop haranguing other editors. (Hohum @) 14:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Axis casualties

What were Axis casualties during the siege? Also, Italy is listed in the Infobox, but not in the Order of Battle. Sunil060902 (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Estonian and Finnish sources count Axis casualties during the siege and related operations in the battles around Leningrad 500 - 700 thousand killed or MIA. Most of those were German losses, while Finnish losses were about 125 thousand. It is much harder to find open data on Italian, Spanish, Swedish and other men killed in the battle of Leningrad, although those nations contributed to the siege by sending several thousand armed men form each country.--??????

Finnish casualties during the Continuation War were in fact only 63,204.--Special:Contributions/80.221.248.112 15:19, 21 May 2012‎

New photos

RIA Novosti donated 100 new photos to Commons. [52] They would be great in this article, but make sure you only use the ones from the siege. [53] USchick (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes in maps

Someone good at pixel editing please address error on map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/German_advance_into_USSR.png/300px-German_advance_into_USSR.png in which 'Ladoga' is misspelled 'Lagoda'. Don't know if there are others, but that one jumped out in visual inspection. Pinkpedaller (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

U.K. vs U.S. spelling

This article contains both U.K. and U.S. spelling, (e.g. 'defence' and 'defense' occurred in the same paragraph). As the earliest version of this article was written using U.K. English, I propose that this be used for consistency. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Since there seem to be no objections, I will go ahead with the proposed spelling changes. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Casualty count vs battles of Berlin, Stalingrad

Not a military scholar here, but the comment "it was the third most costly in terms of casualties, after the World War II battles of Berlin and Stalingrad" doesn't seem to match the info boxes. From the articles:

Leningrad: 3.4M casualties, soviet military numbers only, no german numbers
Stalingrad: 2M casualties, combined soviet and german military numbers
Berlin: 1.2M casualties, combined soviet and german military numbers

From the numbers it seems that even before factoring in civilian casualties (or even the casualties for one entire side), Leningrad had more casualties than the other two combined, so I'm not sure why it's listed as less costly. What am I missing? -59.167.194.48 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not missing the truth. Your numbers are correct! The problem with this article is that several Finnish users are constantly degrading it by making manipulative edits, by deleting ugly facts about Finnish cooperation with Hitler during the siege of Leningrad, by pushing their agenda to diminish civilian casualties, so Finland and Nazi Germany won't look so bad... This is very, very ugly! Wikipedia is being used to cover the most horrible crimes against millions of unarmed civilians during the two-year long siege of Leningrad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.34.165 (talk • contribs)
Yes, the casualty count mentioned above is compliant with the most recent data on WWII. 130.166.33.148 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

outrageous background - egregious over-sight

What is outrageous in our article on the seige is that the "background" neglects to mention the Soviet invasion of Finland of 1939 and the Finns horrific losses and their heroism. There is not even a hint that the Soviets had ever even posed a threat!

The German article at de.wikipedia.org is must clearer.

Our article on the city of St Petersburg claims Finland as "co-belligerant"

We claim here that Finland was a threat to the city contrary to the facts - unless defending their 1939 border can be termed a threat.

The rhetoric of the Finnish right-wing is one thing: the military fact is another - and history should be more about the facts on the ground that the rhetoric in the air. G. Robert Shiplett 15:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Finland was co-belligerent, that's a fact. I can't see the part saying Finland was a threat to the city. You're welcome to add the bit on the Winter War, though. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Finland was a constant threat to the city since it was made independent by Lenin, because after moving the government to Moscow Kremlin, the communists abandoned St. Petersburg (then called Petrograd) and made it vulnerable. This weakness caused predatory efforts from many, even Mannerheim was arguing with the Russian White Guards, such as Udenich and Kolchak about attacking the city of St. Petersburg in 1918 - 1919 in order to take it, or to destroy it. But at that time, Mannerheim also brutally killed hundreds of Finnish workers in Tampere, causing himself a political suicide - he lost the Finnish elections and became powerless for the next several years. He only gained enough local and international power after he befriended Goering and other Nazi leaders during the 1930s. Mannerheim and Ruti both supported the expansion into Russian territories to make the Greater Finland thus making Leningrad/ St. Petersburg a prime military target.

It was actually Mannerheim's other actions (ie. going against government pro-German stance etc. as well as not being seen as a person whom all could support) which cost him the elections. Actions at Tampere were part of Finnish Civil War taken against people who had attempted to overthrow democratically elected government, nothing else to it. Mannerheims main contacts were with the British and the French, even until 1941 he and Ryti (not Ruti) were both pro-British. Leningrad was not Finnish target at any point, the Karelian lands (Olonets & White Karelia) however were amongst those who subscribed the Greater Finland ideals however they were never at power. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Mannerheim was ethnic German, so his connections with the Nazis, Hitler, Goering, and others were natural. His tactical manuevering was to avoid straight attacks to save manpower for the future operations. That's wghy he was assisting the Nazi Germany, while saving his own forces for future occupation of Northern Russia and building Greater Finland after WW2.
Please check your information, Mannerheim was not ethnic German, he was actually ethnic Finn (Swedish-Finn) with German derived family name (family moved to Sweden in 17th century). As for the rest, your opinions are not valid reasons for making edits or determinations to articles. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The most costly

I don't see what is the big deal here. There was a misunderstanding in the infobox which was removed. The casualties figures dropped below the ones of Stalingrad and Berlin accordingly. I don't think we can have a claim of "the most" only based on news flashes and with no figures nor analyses to support that claim. If there is a party of editors interested in keeping the superlative, they better present figures and research to support that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As you see, tehr reference you provide is an original research - the made up table of casualties' numbers. I think it should be deleted.Rubikonchik (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The reference is Сведения городской комиссии по установлению и расследованию злодеяний немецко-фашистских захватчиков и их сообщников о числе погибшего в Ленинграде населения ЦГА СПб, Ф.8357. Оп.6. Д. 1108 Л. 46-47 . No way you are going to delete it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There are Wikipedia rules and there are personal opinions and threats. Please, make sure you draw a clear line there and revisit WP:NPA.Rubikonchik (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Jaan, please at the very least translate the reference, or provide background. Be advised, all of you, a number of administrators are now watching this page and are not impressed by some of the juvenile antics that have been ongoing. Take some time, cool down, AGF, and then return to the debate. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why are you requesting a translation of the reference from me. I am not the editor who inserted the reference nor am I pushing its content. At least until now, there has been no debate about the casualties numbers per se but the use of the superlative "most costly in terms of casualties". A brief look at the article and talk page history would tell you that there were concerns raised on the talk page Talk:Siege of Leningrad#Ambiguous, 400,000 at evacuations about the ambiguity of the casualties numbers. On 27 July the casualties numbers were changed. On 3 August, I changed the casualties number of the Siege in the List_of_battles_by_casualties article to match the current figure in the Siege of Leningrad article. As the new figure rendered the "most costly in terms of casualties" claim false in terms of the List of battles, I altered the relevant statement in the lead. For reasons still obscure to me, Rubikonchik reverted the edit. After I explained my edit, she blamed the reference in "an original research" and threatened to delete it, and fulfilled her threat by opening Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by casualties. My reaction was "No way you are going to delete it." By now, as you can see in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by casualties, a dozen of editors have reacted in exactly the same maner. I still have no clue on what the big reverting and article deleting fuss is about. It is common sense that if we have a numerical list of battles by casualties with Siege of Leningrad at the third spot, its article cannot feature a claim of "most costly in terms of casualties". Either we find a source which actually features a higher casualties number or we avoid the superlative of such dubious nature. Neither do I understand what exactly does Buckshot06 accuse me of. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Leningrad: 3.4M casualties, soviet military numbers, while german numbers are below 500,000, and Finnish numbers are 125,000.
Stalingrad: 2M casualties, combined soviet and german military numbers
Berlin: 1.2M casualties, combined soviet and german military numbers
Could you tell where you come up with the number of 125,000 Finns? - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Finnish military casualties - 125 thousand as mentioned in some German, Finnish and Estonian sources. ( open sources) Military archives are disallowed, especially any info about the German and Finnish SS, and Finnish concentration camps north of Leningrad. That information is still classified in Finland. 130.166.34.165 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Finnish losses are openly listed and Finnish archives are accessible. So once again, what are your sources? Please provide them. Also none of the related information remains classified or confidential. Information regarding camps was released already in 1970s (as per law, 25 year secrecy for such documents). - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

GERMAN and FINNISH troops TOGETHER made the siege of Leningrad

1. Facts that GERMAN and FINNISH troops TOGETHER held the siege of Leningrad are plentiful in books by many historians, such as Richard Bidlack ('The Siege of Leningrad by Mr. Richard Bidlack, Nikita Lomagin.' Hardcover 9780300110296), Finnish historians Paavo Rintala (Rintala, Paavo. Leningrader Schicksalssymphonie : Bericht über d. von d. Deutschen und Finnen in d. Jahren 1941 - 1943 belagerte Stadt und ihre Einwohner. Rostock, 1970.) and Johan Bäckman, although some Finnish nationalists do not like these historians and their academic works.

2. Besides the above mentioned American, British and Finnish sources, Finnish military involvement in the siege is proven by Russian historians (Books by Baryshnikov are already sourced in the article).

3. Introduction must not contradict the facts already stated in the template and well documented by many Finnish, Russian, American and British sources.

4. Wikipedia should not be contradicting facts of history. But, it looks like some editors are using Wikipedia to spin and cover up the most ugly facts of WW2 : about GERMAN and FINNISH cooperation in massive genocide during the siege of Leningrad, when over a million civilians died while GERMAN and FINNISH troops surrounded the city and its suburbs.

Here is the true and correct introduction, that we insist upon, because it is also supported by other encyclopedias (Britannica, World Book, Americana, and more).

− The Siege of Leningrad, also known as the Leningrad Blockade (Russian: блокада Ленинграда, transliteration: blokada Leningrada) was a prolonged military operation by German and Finnish forces.[1] The siege started on 8 September 1941, when the last land connection to the city was severed. Lifting of the siege took place on 27 January 1944, 872 days after it began. With over two million military casualties and over one million civilians died of famine, it was the most costly in terms of casualties.[2]

Some historians categorize the siege of Leningrad as genocide, a "racially motivated starvation policy" that was an integral part of the unprecedented German war of extermination against populations of the Soviet Union generally.[3][4]

Finnish participation is never denied in the article so i fail to see what exactly you are complaining about. Fact remains that Finns did not actively take part in it and in 1941 even stopped in pre-1940 border (on the Karelian Isthmus) because they reached their targets. For most practical purposes Soviets had the same area they had before 1939 when they started unprovoked war of an aggression against Finland. What exactly proofs you have about Finnish participation to the siege apart from passively manning the trench line to the north of the city (so far you have not presented any)?
Further notes, besieging was not illegal means of warfare at the time. It can be speculated that Germans would have preferred to starve the city out but as the defender did not even try to surrender there is nothing to validate the speculation - and as it happens it 'demotes' the civilian losses from intentional to collateral damage.
There does not appear to be anything in the introduction that would contradict with the infobox. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Badly sourced additions.

IP user 130.166.34.165 / 12.34.80.73 is repeatedly reverting and re-including poorly sourced (links to pictures) text. They also revert my tidying of broken references, page number tags, and removal of an unusable source - an enyclopedia. I urge them to engage on the talk page and seek consensus instead of continuing their current behaviour. (Hohum @) 03:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite being removed repeatedly by four or five editors, the Mannerheim passages have been added again. 12.34.80.73, please self revert this. It is clearly against consensus to keep re-including it. It is likely a breach of WP:3RR which can lead to blocks. (Hohum @) 04:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind the blocks, the material that is not directly linked to the Siege will not stay on this article for long. The Finnish Defence Forces stayed on a straightened line on its pre-war border. Significant designs and actions beyond that are already described in the article, and are welcome here, general remarks on Finnish-German relations are not. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The Nazi Germany under Hitler with Finland under Ryti and Mannerheim all together committed terrible war crimes against millions of civilians in Leningrad (St. Petersburg). For those crimes the Finnish president Ryti and several other Finnish leaders were tried and sentenced to prison terms. Mannerheim was saved by Stalin from Nurembrg trials in exchange for 12% of the Finnish territory North of Leningrad (St. Petersburg). This result of the siege of Leningrad must be reflected in the article. By deleting the full truth, Whiskey, user talk and their Finnish co-belligerent editors are degrading Wikipedia, their manipulations and hidden agendas are simply destructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.34.165 (talk)
None of the Finnish leadership were convicted because of what took place at Leningrad during the war. Feel free to check war-responsibility trials in Finland. Indictment concerned solely about 'crime against peace' which in other words means taking part to a war. Furthermore those trials were not international nor did they have support of the allies (UK publicly stated that it did not want to pursue Finnish leadership for the crimes). Mannerheim was never threatened with Nuremberg and the land was ceded long before any kind of list or even an understanding that Soviets insisted that anyone needed to convicted from anything existed - nor is there any kind of link between the two events (border in the south after the 1944 was the same as it had been in 1940). - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreing with the anonymous above. Those like Jaan that fights to cover up the finish co-operation with the germans are pathetic semi-fasicsts. They are the same persons that feel that the word "civil-war" is wrong about the finnish civil war... The question should be - did the finns made any effort to 1) Assist evacuation of the starving city? 2) Assist germans in stoping supply to the town. I agree that the finns didn´t take part of the military attac to the city. That was deacent, but the main issue for me is did the finns support the blocade in any way? I think they did, and they are in that case part of the crime. If they didn´t give me facts about it. It sounds strange to me that the finnish army (where most of the officers, like Mannerheim had been on the white side in the civil war) - not willingly would support the germans. --Växelhäxan (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem is for that is that by WW II standards siege was a perfectly legal form of warfare. No requirements existed for the besieger to provide any kind of provisions for the civilians in a besieged city if the city was defended (and Leningrad was). It was the responsibility of the besieged to take care of them, or alternatively to surrender - in which case the responsibility would have befallen to the besieger. Given that the Leningrad was a hostile city why would Finns have assisted on the evacuation? Same goes with stopping the supplies to the city - it was not any kind of a crime or even an issue by the standards of the time. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Civilian casualities during siege

I just finished Anna Reid's 2011 book, "Leningrad: Tragedy of a City Under Siege 1941-44", and I wonder if the civilian casuality number, 642,000, should be adjusted. Reid says the numbers cited by the Soviet government at Nuremburg is 649,000 (632,252 from starvation and associated illnesses and 16,747 from bombing and shelling). However Leningrad's Burial Trust, the government agency responsible for cemeteries, show it disposing of 460,000 bodies in the 14 months from beginning of Nov 1941. Adding 228,263 buried by the civil defense organisation, the total would be 688,263.

According to Reid, "This 650,000-690,000 range for the death toll is, however, certainly a substantial under-estimate", because many siege deaths were never registered.

Calculating from the top down, i.e. the population of the city pre-invasion including newly arrived refugees, assuming all absences not accounted for, are from starvation or bombing, gives an estimate no less than 800,000.

Given that the number is almost certainly greater than the currently quoted 642,000, I propose revising it to 688,263 based on the above. This is probably closer to the actual total without inflating it based on assumptions (as would be the case with 800,000) Anyone have any concerns? Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Soviets managed to evacuate a lot of people from Leningrad even before the siege was established, and after the first disasterous winter all unneeded population was evacuated from the city. Unfortunately, even then some evacuated Leningradians perished due to general malnutrion and lack of medical facilities elsewhere in Soviet Union. --Whiskey (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Supplying the defenders via Lake Ladoga

The article states the the defenders were supplied via Lake Ladoga. Most sources I've read also say this (most recently Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder). However, it appears from various maps I've looked at the Lake Ladoga is about 40km away from Leningrad. Lake Ladoga does not appear on this satellite image of Saint Petersburg (used in the Saint Petersburg article). So how was resupply accomplished via a lake that does not make contact with Leningrad and was in fact 10s of kilometers away?--Wikimedes (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Glad you fixed the spelling since I originally attempted to answer this. Briefly, there was a corridor of land between Leningrad and Lake Ladoga which was not occupied either by Finns or Germans (the latter held about 8km south of the outskirts of Leningrad and Kolpino, then continuing south of the River Neva which flows out of Lake Ladoga; the Finns were more like 40km away from Leningrad at closest). Alfietucker (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
p.s. I see that "Lake Lagoda" is on the small map: is there someone who can fix that typo?? Alfietucker (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Would it be useful to add mention of this to the section on the Encirclement of Leningrad? E.g. "On 8 September, the last land connection to the besieged city was severed when the Germans reached Lake Ladoga at Orekhovets, though a corridor of land between Lake Ladoga and Leningrad was not occupied by axis forces." (new text in italics) Then in the section on Supplying the defenders: "This route was effected over the southern part of Lake Ladoga and the unoccupied land between Lake Lagoda and Leningrad. Transport across Lake Ladoga was achieved by means of watercraft during the warmer months and land vehicles driven over thick ice in winter."
Sorry about the spelling mixup. I put a note on the map's Wikipedia talk page requesting that the spelling be corrected on the map.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Good suggestion re adding text - now done with minor amendments. Alfietucker (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks again.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
A map which might clarify the issue: map. What i mean that description that a land corridor would have been left unoccupied is rather misleading since the Germans did cut the sole remaining land route from the city. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you quite understand the point being made, which is clear enough from the map you've given a link to: Lake Ladoga is not right next to Leningrad, but there's a corridor of land unoccupied by either German or Finnish forces from Lake Ladoga to the city across which supplies, once they had got across the Lake, could be sent. Certainly it was a long and dangerous route, but there it was. (btw, it would be great if an English-language version of this map could be prepared for the article. Is there a way to get this done?) Alfietucker (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, the area immediately surrounding the city is usually included to the 'besieged Leningrad' without further clarification. Perhaps that (separation between the city of Leningrad and the besieged area) could be made clearer in the article instead? That is because after the Soviet operation Iskra/Spark the situation did change so that there did exists a genuine land route to the city from the rest of the Soviet Union. It just seems to me that references to land connection like suggested might lead to misunderstandings. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This, I think, has already been clarified by these two edits: here and here, which I made following the comments by Wikimedes. Alfietucker (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Well... What i perceive as the problem is that the lead for example states: "The siege started on 8 September 1941, when the last land connection to the city was severed. Although the Soviets managed to open a narrow land corridor to the city on 18 January 1943, lifting of the siege took place on 27 January 1944, 872 days after it began." Now we have two different land corridors and the reader is left with the task of determining which one is being discussed. Hence it would seem to be better in my opinion to clarify earlier on that the besieged area included not only the city but also the land connection to the shores of the Lake Ladoga instead of referring to it on a later stage. Or alternatively refer to the besieged area instead of just the city. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
A fair point. When I've a bit more time - unless another editor gets in there first - I'll try to fix/clarify this possible point of confusion. Alfietucker (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the map. While an English translation of the map would be preferable, (as would a key identifying railroads, a scale of kilometers, etc.) most of the German on the map is very close to English and should be identifiable to most English speakers (except Heeresgruppe Nord, and a reader can probably figure out that that's part of the German Army).--Wikimedes (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Major error in the article: the decision to lay siege

This article contains a major factual error and needs to be revised. The introduction states that the siege "resulted from the failure ... to capture Leningrad". This is incorrect, to which anyone who has read Ganzenmüller's work can testify. The Barbarossa plan foresaw the conquering (Besetzung) of Leningrad, but this changed as the war got underway. On 8 July, Franz Halder noted Hitler's "firm decision" to level Leningrad and Moscow with the ground so that the Germans would not have to feed the civilian population. What would happen to the civ.pop. was still unclear at this point. What was increasingly clear was that there would be no occupation of the city, only encirclement. Franz Halder's war diary does not speak of any "Besetzung" in July/August/September 1941. The OKW war diary likewise: on 17 July, for instance, it notes that Leningrad shall be "encircled", and Hitler's Weisung No 34 of 30 July holds that the goal in the northern direction is to "encircle Leningrad and make connection with the Finnish army". The central documents from July-August-September onwards, as J. Ganzenmüller shows in his book, all speak of encirclement and destruction, not conquering and occupation. The documents show that the decision in principle to lay siege to the city was made before German troops even reached as far as the Neva.

Heres is but one of the many interesting documents showing this:

"Ist Petersburg einmal eingeschlossen, so geht sein [Hitlers] Plan dahin, die Versorgung dieser Stadt durch die Luftwaffe und die Artillerie zerschlagen zu lassen. Von dieser Stadt wird wahrscheinlich nicht viel übrigblieben." ("When/if Petersburg is encircled, Hitler's plan is to break the supplies of this city by way of Luftwaffe and the artillery. Little will probably be left of this city."

Joseph Goebbels, diary entry of 19 august. Joseph Goebbels, Tagebücher, Teil II, Bd. 1: Juli-

September, 1941, in Elke Fröhlich, red., Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, (München: Saur, 1996), p. 261.

As is well known, the German leadership issued orders in late September to the effect that Leningrad's capitulation would not be accepted. At this point, the strategy had turned genocidal. The shift to genocide was gradual, but the genocidal fantasies were present early on: according to Halder's war diary (8 July), Hitler mused about a "Volkskatastrophe" (people's catastrophe) befalling Leningrad and Moscow. On 12 July, Goebbbels followed suit: «One can neither say what will become of this gigantic mass of millions in the near future. I see a catastrophe come up the dimensions of which are yet completely unforeseeable.» [5]

The erroneous claim that the siege followed a failed attempt to conquer the city should be corrected. The introduction should in my opinion definitely allude to the genocidal nature of the German siege strategy. It could contain something like what the German version says: "Der beabsichtigte Verzicht auf eine Einnahme der Stadt durch die deutschen Truppen, mit dem Ziel, die Leningrader Bevölkerung systematisch verhungern zu lassen, war eines der eklatantesten Kriegsverbrechen der deutschen Wehrmacht während des Krieges gegen die Sowjetunion." (My stilted translation: "The purposeful abandonment of a conquering of the city by German troops, with the goal of systematically letting Leningrad's population starve to death, was one of the most striking war crimes of the German Wehrmacht during the war against the Soviet Union.")

--due 16:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs)

Since Soviets did not attempt to surrender the issue you mentioned is a moot point. Claimed intent to do something is not the same as act of doing something. Had they done so and had Germans still left civilians to die then it would have been a war crime. Siege (in all its cruelty) was a legitimate form of warfare at the time. Also it is highly misleading to state as a blanket statement that Germans would have 'purposefully abandoned' capturing the city, see Nordlicht operation as an example. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The point is far from moot. Ganzenmüller documented in his book that the order to halt met with confusion among soldiers on the ground, who could practically see the center of the town through their binoculars around Uritsk and Krasnogvardeisk. [Edit:] So the halt order was apparently given at a time when the road to Leningrad seemed to lay open. I have not seen that anyone has challenged Ganzenmüller's basic findings here. Please provide documentation if there is something I have overlooked. If not, the article should be rewritten to reflect the current historiography. due 23:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs)
Wanderer602 wrote: "Siege (in all its cruelty) was a legitimate form of warfare at the time." Indeed, but this is a disingenuous statement. After all, the objective of siege warfare is to bring about capitulation, not to annihilate the civilian inhabitants by starvation, which is what the German objective of the siege of Leningrad demonstrably (e.g. Ganzenmüller) was. A capitulation of the city was not desired. Not only was it not to be requested, it was not to be accepted even if offered. Of course, it's a hypothetical and counterfactual question what would happen if an announcement of surrender had in fact come. The Soviets continued to resist, and maybe this saved them from an even worse fate (or maybe not--it's impossible to know). But that a criminal, genocidal *policy* took shape and came into place and existed, can hardly be denied. --due 00:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs)
That still does not answer why Germans had clear plans for capturing the city already in 1942 (for example Operation Nordlicht (1942)). Furthermore since Soviets did not even try to surrender the German actions or perceived crimes in case of such an eventuality remain nothing but speculation (ie. not to the lead/intro section) - as it did not take place. There is a separate section in the article describing 'German plans', if anywhere the text you described could be added there. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting note you have brought up. Of course it takes time for the truth to come out, and our knowledge of history changes over time. Ganzenmüller's work is very recent... and is there an English translation? It may take a while before more people can read and understand his important contributions to knowledge of the time. As it is, the article does allude to studies by some historians findings regarding Hitler's intent to murder the civilian population of the city... as time goes on I've no doubt we will find more information, especially considering Himmler's plans for "the East". . . of course as with any history we may find patience and carefulness to be our allies.... I would imagine that in the long run, someone might even write an entire article on Hitler's genocide against... the east, Slavs, Russian, or whatever name they find in the historical references.... there is still so much we don't understand or that remains hidden. Decora (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Orekhovets/Schlisselburg

On a separate note, was Schlisselburg called Orekhovets at the time or in the sources used in the article?--Wikimedes (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Shlisselburg is a fortress town, whereas Osinovets is just a small village, further up the western shore of Lake Ladoga - not marked on the German-language map, except the black and white line running from Leningrad to the Lake ends where Osinovets is located. Alfietucker (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for that dim answer. The answer you're looking for, I believe is yes - Shlisselburg is what the town was called at that time. (My apologies - for some reason my speed-reading made me think I'd read Osinovets rather than Orekhovets!!). Alfietucker (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Since it was called Schlisselburg then as well as now, I removed Orekhovets (which redirects to Schlisselburg anyway). I have no objection to mentioning Orekhovets (and indeed know little about it) if it would be useful to some readers.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Volunteers helping the Nazis in the siege of Leningrad

During the siege of Leningrad, in 1942 and 1943, thousands of volunteers from Sweden, Estonia, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, and even from Britain joined the Finnish-German attack on Leningrad. Leningrad's wealth attracted many, so the Nazis formed a special 11.SS Freiwilliegen Division NORDLAND. During 1943, the division was trained by the Wrhmacht. In January 1944, Division Nordland was attached to Army Group North in attempt to prevent breaking of the siege of Leningrad. [54] From January to August 1944 Division Nordland retreated from Leningrad to Narva, making 150 km, and losing thousands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.80.73 (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how that site is a WP:RELIABLE source. (Hohum @) 03:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish Blue Division served with distinction at Lenningrad. If Poles and Czechs are listed on the British side at the Battle of Britain it seems inconsistant not to have the Spanish included here.Zoltan'smaster (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Winston Churchill entry in timeline

In the Siege of Leningrad#1941 section of the timeline, there's an entry for December, reading, "December: Winston Churchill wrote in his diary 'Leningrad is encircled, but not taken." Is this really relevant to the article? The entries for Hitler's statements seem more relevant, since they would have affected how the German Army would have conducted its offensive, but the entry for Churchill just seems to be a distraction, especially because it was a private diary entry, not a public statement that he made. Quanticle (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Cannibalism

Since hundreds of people were arrested for cannibalism, why say that there is no evidence of it occurring? Why suggest that the NKVD reports of cannibalism cannot be relied upon, because "the Leningrad detachment was too small to completely administer a city of millions"? A couple of thousand secret police should have been enough to determine what was going on.122.59.167.152 (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree the wording seems to imply that reports of cannibalism cannot be relied upon due to police under-staffing, yet there were more than two thousand documented arrests and hundreds of executions. It cites Reid, but she makes no such argument and says that reports were anecdotal until 2004. Reid goes into detail about the difficulty police and psychiatrists had in determining whether cannibals were responsible for their actions, distinctions between murder and "corpse-eating", and circumstances affecting sentencing. Also, "after all birds, rats, and pets had been eaten by survivors" is a strange lead-in. Ian (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Monument to the 'Road of Life'

The monument section is confusing and needs citations. There seem to be two monuments involving a broken ring. One, called the "Monument to the Heroic Defenders of Leningrad", is in a roundabout containing an obelisk (though not the Leningrad Hero City Obelisk) and bronze ring with the noted inscription [55]. Another is made out of stone and commemorates the Road of Life [56]. The section seems to conflate the two. Ian (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think, this should be added to the main article

In the name of the people of the United States of America, I present this scroll to the City of Leningrad as memorial to its gallant soldiers and to its loyal men, women and children who, isolated from the rest of their nation by the invader and despite constant bombardment and untold sufferings from cold, hunger and sickness, successfully defended their beloved city throughout the critical period September 8, 1941 to January 18, 1943, and thus symbolized the undaunted spirit of the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and of all the nations of the world resisting forces of aggression.

May 17th 1944
Franklin D. Roosevelt

You can also check out this one: http://blokada.otrok.ru/img/gramota.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:73:8F01:7301:91FD:FF2B:1510:C631 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory

Could we write 'pyrrhic Soviet victory' rather than just 'Soviet victory'. They did lose over 3,000,000 troops in this battle... UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory implies that, though the operational goals were attained, strategically the balance shifted towards the loser. This was not the case. And generally, war is not a soccer match with equal teams, so your argument seems to be baseless. Barmaglyak (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Siege of Leningrad + The Siege of Leningrad, was a prolonged military operation by German and Finnish forces.Siege of Leningrad [1]
  2. ^ The Siege of Leningrad, 1941 - 1944
  3. ^ Ganzenmüller 2005, pp. 17, 20
  4. ^ Barber 2005
  5. ^ http://www.zeit.de/2004/04/A-Belagerung_L/komplettansicht

Order of axis in the infobox

In my opinion, Finnish contribution to the Siege of Leningrad was far more important than that of Italy. Frankly, all Italy did is send several tiny boats to help patrol lake Ladoga, while Finland has taken Vyborg and Petrozavodsk from USSR, basically blocking the city from the north. How could one challenge this and claim that the several tiny boats were more important is beyond my comprehension, but please do not hesitate to enlighten me. Barmaglyak (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Standing on one's border passively is not blocking. Controlling Petrozavodsk played no role in the siege as it did not cut Leningrad off from anywhere. You could just as well list Sweden as a participant in the siege for 'blocking' a part of the Baltic Sea. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The only problem is that Finland didn't stand passively on it's post-Winter war border, but did advance, cutting Leningrad off from the north and north-east. If the Finnish government didn't not side with Germany and hadn't joined their war of aggression, it would've been possible to supply Leningrad from the north, around Lake Ladoga. Why Finland joined Germany is irrelevant, that some of those lands Finland occupied in 1941 had been under Finnish control just a couple years ago is also irrelevant. Your argument about Sweden was a joke, right? I mean, it's laughable, lugupeetud kolleeg. It wasn't Sweden, but Germany and Finland that blocked Baltic Sea access to Leningrad, with minefields, navy and aviation. And not like Finnish participation in the siege is a controversial issue, there are quite a few Finnish historians who share the view that Finland is in part responsible for the tragedy that occurred. Barmaglyak (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
They stood passively on the pre-Winter War borders on the Karelian Isthmus roughly. And the Winter War is directly related to the Finnish participation to the WW II so it is not irrelevant even in the sense of the siege. Soviets themselves precipitated the situation by launching an unprovoked war of an aggression against Finland in 1939 and then by continuing hostile acts (like deliberately shooting down Finnish passenger aircraft in 1940) and diplomacy towards Finland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
What is being debated is whether or not the Finnish contribution to the siege was greater than that of the several Italian patrol boats on Lake Ladoga. To me the answer is beyond obvious, but since it somehow stirs controversy, here we are. Yes, the Finns did not advance on Soviet fortifications under Leningrad, though it's very likely they would've if Germany managed to storm the city. But do you really think, that leaving those few tens of kilometers in Soviet hands somehow changed everything completely in terms of the fate of Leningrad's civilian population? The city was effectively cut off from the north and north-east, thanks to Finnish attacks. So it appears that the answer to the question is "Yes, Finland did more, than Italy". As for your arguments about the political situation, they seem to address a different question (WHY Finland was there?), but that's not being debated. Barmaglyak (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The passive front and those few tens of kilometers were the reason why the city could still be resupplied at all - so it is rather important. And those Finnish attacks largely took place just because of the Soviet attacks against the Finns in 1939-40 - so that part is clearly related to the discussion regardless of your opinion. You should however notice that only you have kept arguing about the order and trying to in some manner be quantitative about it. While others have largely just pointed out flaws in your arguments. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
You are right, of course if the Finns managed to link up with Germans east of Leningrad, it would've been worse. But if Finland remained neutral and didn't cut the rail link via Petrozavodsk and Sortavala with their offensive, perhaps those 640 000 civilians wouldn't perish at all. So in my opinion it's very hard to argue that Finland was not partly to blame for the tragedy.
I am trying to establish, whether or not the killing took place [did Finland help starve those civilians], not whether it was self-defense, cold-blooded murder or anything in between [were Finnish attacks justified]. You seem to be slipping beside this nuance. I actually agree with you that the Soviet agression in the Winter War greatly increased the chance of Finland joining the nazis in their attack east.
As for quantative approach - in this particular article the order of participants in the infobox seems to be based on their relative importance, and that is more or less measured in numbers, wouldn't you agree? I understand that if the difference between the participants was less pronounced it would be hard to rank them in such matter, but here it is rather straight-forward. Not gonna repeat my "tiny boats" rant again.
And lastly, just because you make generalized statements about "others pointing out flaws in my arguments", doesn't nessessarily imply there is even a grain of salt to it. Honestly, I feel that the reasonable questions that I've raised over something that seemed so simple are met with lack of understanding and downright demagougery. You know, when I say "it appears that the Finns helped starve those civilians" and the reply is a whiney "But they unprovockedly attacked us not long ago/We could've done more, but we didn't (for some unknown, but noble reason)", it just further proves my point.Barmaglyak (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Conquest of Petrozavodsk had neither the purpose or the effect of cutting off Leningrad. The city was still connected to the Arctic Convoys so that argument is irrelevant. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Finland's role is clearly more important than Italy's; see for example Finland's War of Choice: The Troubled German-Finnish Coalition in World War II, about pre-Barbarossa discussions between Finland and Germany in re: Leningrad. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC) As the thread 'clearly' shows there is nothing clear about the importance of Finland's role. Pre-Barbarossa discussions had no bearing on the actual siege. Hitler and Stalin had not only pre-Barbarossa discussions but pre-Barbarossa cooperation (Poland). We all know that amounted to nothing in less than a year. Importance should be judged upon actions, and Finland have few actions to report here. ---Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Spain

That said, I feel that the Spanish Blue Division could be removed from the infobox. The division itself was not a "belligerent"; the unit was under the control of the German 16th Army. Would there be any objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Full support. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Support - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Me too Barmaglyak (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Barmaglyak... According to the rules of warfare as they existed at the time siege was a perfectly legitimate form of warfare. And it was the task of the defender to take care of the civilians in the besieged area. So if you seek to lay the 'blame for the tragedy' you really need to ask first if the Soviets tried to surrendered - which is really the only way the besiegers (any of them) would have ended up having the responsibility (or the 'blame').
Besides there was a pretty clear and easy way for Finland to remain neutral. All that was required was that Soviets would not have launched an unprovoked war of an aggression against Finland in 1939. Finnish parliament - who in the end could decide on war - was actually left-wing & centrist dominated (both which opposed war). It could not have happened without the Winter War. The cruel irony is that had the Soviets not invaded the Soviets civilians could certainly have been safely evacuated via Finland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I agree with most of the above. I don't think that Finnish participation in the siege was a war crime. I don't think that attacking Finland in Winter War was a good strategy for the safety of Leningrad. It's not impossible (but open to debate) that Finland would somehow manage to remain neutral (or resist German occupation) in the German-Soviet War, if the Winter War didn't occur, thus protecting Leningrad from the north (instead of cutting it's railroad connections like in real world). And perhaps if Leningrad did surrender to the nazis and their "co-belligerents", less Leningraders would die (but that's also open to debate).
But all this is in no objection with simple facts, that the city was besieged and cut-off from the Soviet transport network by the German and Finnish armies, with the Finnish army in particular cutting the railroad north of Lake Ladoga, and that the said siege is notorious for deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians as direct consequence of the aforementioned actions. It's hard not to call that a tragedy, but obviously I'm not pushing for weasel words in the article itself. All meanwhile the several tiny Italian boats also did their tiny bit of besieging, but definitely less than the Finns.
Oh, and by blame I meant something simple and direct. Like, I wouldn't be saying that 939 Finnish civilians died because Finland refused to give Vyborg to USSR, I'd be saying they were killed by Soviet bombs. Facts, not interpretations. Barmaglyak (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Soviet Army Numbers and Casualties don't line up

How is the Soviet army size is 930,000, yet the casualties are 3.5 million? And don't say that's including civilians, because in the same box civilians are separated at about 1 million total.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The 930 000 number is probably the forces available at the beginning of the siege, not the overall number of participants. Barmaglyak (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, but shouldn't the article be amended to include the total number of soldiers that fought, and not just the initial ones?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
If you have such information, don't hesitate to edit the infobox accordingly. Barmaglyak (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

German and Finnish forces

Introduction must not contradict facts that are stated in the template. Here they are.

The Siege of Leningrad, also known as the Leningrad Blockade (Russian: блокада Ленинграда, transliteration: blokada Leningrada) was a prolonged military operation by German and Finnish forces.[1][2][3] The siege started on 8 September 1941, when the last land connection to the city was severed. Lifting of the siege took place on 27 January 1944, 872 days after it began. Over two million military casualties and over one million civilians died of famine, it was the most costly in terms of casualties.[4]

Some historians categorize the siege of Leningrad as genocide, a "racially motivated starvation policy" that was an integral part of the unprecedented German war of extermination against populations of the Soviet Union generally.[5][6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.34.165 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Siege of Leningrad. Encyclopedia Britannica. [2]
  2. ^ Siege of Leningrad [3]
  3. ^ Siege of Leningrad. Answers.com [4]
  4. ^ The Siege of Leningrad, 1941 - 1944
  5. ^ Ganzenmüller 2005, pp. 17, 20
  6. ^ Barber 2005

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Siege of Leningrad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Your article is an embarrassment

Your article reads like what it is: something written by teenagers and Finns interested in their participation in WWII. You need to start again, beginning by reading serious books on the subject, and leaving out the cannibalism stuff.

Rather than being noble servants to the cause of history, you are imbecilic clowns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.201.120.199 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Giuseppe Bianchini

The infobox currently lists the highest ranking Italian officer as "Giuseppe Bianchini". There is a record of a Corvette Captain, last name Bianchini, commanding XII Squadriglia MAS during the siege under the wider overall command of the Finnish forces under Finnish HQ Marshal Mannerheim, but I haven't seen any source that refers to him with the given name Giuseppe, or any given name that I can find. In addition, is there any other available information about him available aside from his role commanding the XII Squadriglia MAS during the siege? Salociin (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Italian wiki says Giuseppe Blanchini was commander of the squadron. I'm not sure we should list Blanchini under commanders as the Italian commitment wasn't really notable - the squadron was four boats and 99 men. For example, on articles such as Normandy landings we don't list the highest ranking Canadian officer even though the Canadians committed an entire division to that battle. Kges1901 (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The Canadian 3rd Division was under British command (I Corps), so your example is not relevant. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:47F:FC8E:56FB:833F:34AC (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
That's true, but then by that logic there wouldn't be a need to list Bianchini since the squadron was under German command. Kges1901 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please help me translate an article on the relevant topic into English

For more than 32 years there is a commemorative medal "Resident of the besieged Leningrad" and the corresponding social status, providing social support and emphasizing historical and geographical identity. There is a corresponding article in Russian and I guess to create an English version. 176.59.23.179 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Leningrad/Archive_4&oldid=1217210110"