Talk:Hero City (Soviet Union)

message: On a totally different subject, i was fascinated by the fact that the dates of the declarations of hero cities went all the way to 1985; i assume that's not a slip of the pen (like my frequently saying "1963" when i mean "1993"!), and i think the already excellent article would be further enhanced by discussing the background of that fact. --Jerzy(t) 15:51, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
:I agree.  This is a fascinating subject and I'd like to hear more about the issues in the Soviet Union surrounding the designation of these cities: what government agency administered this program; how were cities chosen; why did some take so long to declare; etc.?  My gratitude to the original author for introducing me to this subject. Jdavidb 17:09, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: It is puzzling to see the controversy about Finnish military activities in the Karelia/Ladoga region. It is true that Finnish command refused to advance further than to the river Svir. That river flows however East of Lake Ladoga, and thus has only little to do with the siege of Leningrad itself, which was located West of the Lake. As far as that is concerned, the Finns also refused to take part in any battle to take Leningrad. The Germans still consulted their Finnish allies about their plans to dynamite the city from the face of the earth after an eventual German victory. Similar plans existed for Moscow, which was to be flooded in a giant artificial lake. Concerning Leningrad's envisaged post-war fate, Finnish command confirmed that Finland had "no interest" in having a multi-million Soviet city so close to its borders. The Siege indeed marked the first stage in eradicating the population of Leningrad.
Nevertheless, the "Leningrad" section in "Hero City" should, as already noted, primarily focus on the defenders' accomplishments, in balance with the fate of the other twelve Hero Cities. For Leningrad the irrefutable fact remains that both land links to the city, the northern and the southern one, were blocked by besieging enemy forces: the Germans to the South, and the Finns to the North and North-West. I am restoring the neutral version of the section, simply noting the Finnish advance to the city's northern approaches, cutting off the northern land access. For further debates on Finland's role in the War see Finland or Continuation War.
Thanks, by the way, to the editor who structured the article into separate sections and added the table of contents.
Kolt
:As a side note: The significance of River Svir is that it (according to Finnish views) marked the southern border of (East) Karelia. It thusly was  appropriate for a halt, as the halt both domestically and internationally could be argued to signal that Finland's ambitions were limited to Karelia. /Tuomas 18:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Finns and the Siege 

message: I would like to take this opportunity to express my admiration for User:Kolt's effort (which I maybe could have done already earlier). In direct response to the comments above, I think there are not much to debate in terms of factualities, its all a question of which facts to present (and what impression thereby is given).
One issue is how to lable the directions. Seeing through the editions of the article, it seems as if "from North" can be understood either as "via the Karelian Isthmus" (which to me rather is "from West") or "via East Karelia" connected with ambitious expansionist dreams in Finland and Germany allong Hitler's words "Finnland bis zum Weißen Meer."
A close reading of the page history  results in these differences between the two last versions:
* the way the Finns are to be represented. 
**By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. Finnish forces had meanwhile closed in from the North across the Karelian isthmus.
**A Soviet attack on Finland resulted in the Continuation War and Finnish forces advancing from the west across the Karelian Isthmus making halt after passing the pre-Winter War border. By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. 
* the pace of Finland's closing in on Leningrad, (in effect threathening to make the siege complete)
**The city was completely cut off from land access on 8 September 1941. Finnish troops further narrowed the Soviet-held stretch of Lake Ladoga shore in East Karelia (...)
**The city was completely cut off from land access on 8 September 1941, and during the fall Finnish troops would narrow the stretch of Soviet held Ladoga shore in East Karelia (...)
** (now completely removed)
* Mannerheim's ostensive refusal to participate in the siege not worth to be hinted at?
** by advancing to the river Svir. 
** by advancing to river Svir where they halted.
** (now completely removed)
* was the siege a responsibility of the Nazis, or was it one of the Axis?
**(...) in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, the Axis began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death. 
**(...) in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, the Germans began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death.
Kolt sees this as a neutral version focusing on the defenders' accomplishments. I do not quite agree. It focus on the defenders' accomplishments, that's right. But I can not really agree that the changes proposed by Kolt are the wisest possible, in as much as they basically returns those details of the article to the version that has been contested.
I believe that no-one actually contests the Finns' ability in 1941 (with munition and other support from the Wehrmacht) to advance further from their lines at River Svir and along the (straightened) pre-WWII border, and in my opinion they not doing this is significant. It shows among other things what degree of independence Finland could exercise in relation to Nazi Germany, and in fact if Finland's C-in-C/government hadn't halted its forces, Leningrad's fate had most certainly been even more lamentable.
Hence it would, in my opinon, be wiser to 
* retain the link to the Karelian Isthmus,
* retain the link to the Continuation War, 
* avoid the impression that the Finns attacked first 
* note that the Finns actually halted at points which had no connection with the siege (pre-Winter War border in the West and one credible East Karelia border in the North)
* retain the indirect credit to Mannerheim for keeping the supply/evacuation route via Lake Ladoga free
* return at a later stage to the section on Murmansk, where similar concerns might be raised.
Since I do not like Wikipedia:Edit wars, and since I belive in the principles of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, I am not going to edit the article at this point. I am sure it's better to discuss the issue at this talk page first.
Finally I would like to emphasize how important I find it to include and integrate non-Western, non-NATO, non-US, non-Anglo-Saxon views into Wikipedia articles. The stress is however on integrate. There is not much won by establishing parallell communities here with each their set of articles and each their world view. In this respect I find the attempt by User:Kolt (above) to by promising.
--Ruhrjung 13:28, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation proposal 

message: :I believe that if more information and views are expressed in the Continuation War and Karelian Isthmus articles, then there should be links to them from this article.  I believe relevent links should almost never be removed from a Wikipedia article.  The problem has been that the wording surrounding these links has not been acceptable to all parties.  I think someone needs to think through a good way of providing these links without expressing a POV.  Perhaps "For discussion of why the Finns should have been in this area, see the Continuation War article."  I don't even know enough about the facts of the case to say whether that wording is good in any way or not. Jdavidb 14:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral links? 

message: Thanks for Ruhrjung's convincing proposal to settle the matter on the Talk site and for his offer to mediate. Concerning the proposal of Jdavidb of retaining links as references, I must say that in earlier editions of the Leningrad section I did keep links to for instance the Continuation War (between brackets) as a sort of compromise to appease Finnish sentiments. Such references however only seem to trigger larger debates.
As has been noted several times by now, the Hero City article is intended to familiarise readers with the distinction itself and with the cities which have received the award, as well as to provide a brief summary - one paragraph per city - of the events that had formed the ground for the distinction. The article is not intended to serve as a subsidiary battlefield over controversies about WWII in general. Germany had several allies who took part in the invasion of the Soviet Union. Inflating the "Leningrad" section with apologetical references to the history of Finland opens a slippery slope to elaborate essays about the Romanians in "Odessa", Slovaks and Hungarians in "Kiev", Italians and Croats in "Volgograd" and the Finns again in "Murmansk". Surely a lot may be further added about the Germans themselves, but please, just not here.
Coming back to Ruhrjung's conciliation proposal:
* I agree to retain the link to the Karelian Isthmus;
* I disagree with retaining the link to the "Continuation War" as it is a highly controversial term with qualitative implications that in the present context pays disproportionate tribute to one German ally over the others;
* I disagree with re-editing the section on Murmansk along the proposed lines, for the reasons stated above;
* Regarding the halt of the Finnish advance in East Karelia, however, I can settle for an insertion as drafted below;
*Regarding geographical references, I propose to refer to the Karelian isthmus direction as "from the North-West".
All in all I propose the following version, changes being italic: 
"(...) By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. Finnish forces had meanwhile closed in from the North-West across the Karelian isthmus. The city was completely cut off from all land access on 8 September 1941. Only a vulnerable waterway across the adjacent Lake Ladoga remained open as the Finns had stopped their offensive East of the Lake, leaving its South-Eastern shores as a Soviet bridgehead. Since taking the city seemed too costly to the Germans, in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, they began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death. (...)"
Can the rest of you settle for that as well?
--Kolt 09:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities, not Wars 

message: Dear Tuomas,
That was, honestly, one of the most persuasive pleadings regarding Finland's relations with its big neighbour I heard in a long time. It helps to look at the question from "the other side of the Isthmus", to put Russian sentiments, which can be also quite emotional, into a relative perspective. Russians are used to territorial security with a centre deep within and a vast periphery around, and a non-dependent foreign state so close to vital areas, such as ice-free ports, makes them feel uncomfortable. And then, just when the Germans unleash a carnage unmatched in history, Finland joins them, crosses a border that had been secure for over a year, straining Soviet military capacities on a border of another 1000 km, while troops are badly needed further South to fight the Germans.
Anyway, I am glad to have exchanged these views. I agree with the wording of your original insertion in the "Leningrad" section, as well as with your adaptation in "Murmansk". I am merely making a minor edit, like converting "Ladoga" to "Lake Ladoga". And I hope we can live with the article as it now stands.
--Kolt 09:37, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Settlement 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Len-doro.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Quick question: Why is only Russia highlighted on a map that is titled Hero Cities on a map of the European part of the former Soviet Union? 129.100.196.235 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Should we split this article?  Please reply at Talk:Hero City. Certes (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split non-Soviet section