Talk:Siege of Leningrad

== 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." [1]

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." [2] 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." [3]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." [4]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." [5]

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." [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.80.73 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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 [7] Notice how Mannerheim greeted Hitler by saluting him several times.

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 [8]

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.[9] —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 [10] 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 [11]

Mannerheim with Hitler and other dictators

Here [12] 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 [13] 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 [14] 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 [15], 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 [16] and [17] and [18] 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 [19] 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 [20]

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 [21]. 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 [22] and Glantz [23] 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 [24]

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 [25]. For the review of the Glantz's bigger edition, The Battle for Leningrad, 1941-1944. By David M. Glantz, see[26]. 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." [27]

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 [28], Glantz [29], 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." [30] 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." [31]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[32] and Glantz revealing many new facts about coordinated efforts by German and Finnish forces in the Siege of Leningrad"[33]
• 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." [34]

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

• User:Whiskey

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)

• User talk:130.166.34.165

Original research by User:Whiskey is not supported by encyclopedias and academic works by Clark, by Glantz, by Carell, and by Bidlack [35], 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." [36]

• 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[37]
• 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.[38]
• 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[39], World Book, books by Bidlack[40], Glantz[41], 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[42]), or "Coordinated German and Finnish offensive on Leningrad" - see Bidlack and Glantz[43], 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." [44]
  • 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. EyeSerene^talk 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). EyeSerene^talk 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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)