Talk:Siege of Leningrad

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)

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).

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.

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)

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.

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)

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 [1]

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. [2]

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)

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.

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. [3] 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)

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)

Famous survivors of the siege of Leningrad [4]

• Anna Akhmatova — poet, writer
• Boris Babochkin — film star
• Nikolai Baryshnikov — historian, decorated for his courage in battles of the Siege of Leningrad.
• Olga Berggoltz — poet, writer, decorated for her courage in the Siege of Leningrad
• Joseph Brodsky — poet, Nobel Prize laureate
• Karl Eliasberg — symphony director
• Bruno Freindlich — actor
• Alisa Freindlich — actress, film star
• Viktor Korchnoi — chess grandmaster
• Grigori Kozintsev — film director, decorated for his courage in the Siege of Leningrad
• Georgi Lang — Chief Doctor of the Leningrad Front. Decorated for his courage in the Siege of Leningrad
• Evgeny Mravinsky — symphony director
• Nikolai Cherkasov — film star
• Mikhail Petrov-Maslakov — Surgeon General, Leningrad City Hospital. Decorated for his courage in the Siege of Leningrad
• Vsevolod Petrov-Maslakov — artist, decorated for his courage in the Siege of Leningrad
• Nikolai Punin — curator of the Russian Museum and the Hermitage Museum
• Dmitry Shostakovich — composer, decorated for his courage in the Siege of Leningrad
• Boris Strugatsky - writer
• Mark Taimanov — chess grandmaster
• Galina Vishnevskaya - opera singer, writer, decorated for her courage in the Siege of Leningrad

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)

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)

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)

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. [5] They would be great in this article, but make sure you only use the ones from the siege. [6] USchick (talk) 22:04, 27 June 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)

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)

Clearing the language

It is not encyclopedic to start the article with a very convoluted phrase. Wikipedia needs clarity in description of well known facts.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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)

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.»

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)

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)

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)

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)