Talk:Hero City

Contents

1 Rights 2 Content 3 Cut the crap 4 Original author's remarks 5 Finnish part: not in the siege but in the city's survival 6 The Finns and the Siege 7 Mediation proposal 8 Neutral links? 9 Cities, not Wars 10 The other side of the Isthmus 11 Final Settlement 12 Introducing a historical context to the Brest chapter

Rights

Passed two Google tests against copyvio. Nice job, if indeed not a copyvio. --Jerzy(t) 18:51, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)

If copyvio means copyright violation, then no, indeed it's not a copyvio. And thank you. Kolt

Good, tho i trust you'll understand why i'm not simply dropping the subject. It is a common mistake, among those new enough to have not picked up on the local jargon or gotten into the habit of logging on, to think that the requirements are the same here as with any non-commercial Web page. If you don't hold a valid copyright as author, the usual blanket permissions are not adequate, in part because we represent the entire WP and all its parts as being freely usable even for commercial purposes. IANALB, but IMO any of these is good enough:

• The author of your only source explicitly placed the work in the public domain (rather than just giving away part of the rights), or
• That author assigned all rights to someone who placed it in the public domain, or
• That author executed the GFDL with respect the work, or
• You read multiple sources and got an understanding of the subject so good that you could write the article without rereading the sources, or
• You thoroughly paraphrased a non-public-domain source, in a non-mechanical way (e.g., changing active voice to passive voice is almost certainly not good enough), retaining fragments of the original wording only where there is no other reasonable way of expressing the same idea (i.e., if you've got a situation where "suffered a fatal heart attack" would sound awkward, of course you're going to echo another author who said "died of a heart attack").

But i'm pretty sure that the kind of translation that your foreign-language teacher would want you to produce from a copyright-protected work, for a course exercise, would be a copyvio. --Jerzy(t) 15:51, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Content

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)

Cut the crap

These anonymous edits are removing information and links. If there's a dispute over exactly what Finland did and why, present ALL views and identify who holds them. See Wikipedia:NPOV. Jdavidb 15:16, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I restored the version by User:Jdavidb, added headings and made some minor changes. Regarding Finland there could surely be more said (for instance that half of the Russo-Finnish border was put under German command, and that Finland's defence was reinforced by both German munition and troops) to explain why Stalin ordered the pre-ventive/pre-emptive attack. If he hadn't, then the Finns had been left with the choise to remain inside the post-Winter War borders, or appear as aggressors. The former alternative had certainly been advantageous for the citizens of Leningrad. But on the other hand, the Leningrad section of this article would then grow, and the article would lose the good disposition and the balance between the different Hero Cities. Exhaustive relations of controverses on Finland's role in the Great Patriotic War is maybe best directed to the Continuation War article, which is no one-eyed homage, although a Russian perspective is deficient there.
--Ruhrjung 18:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Original author's remarks

First of all thank you for all the praize, as well as for the advice to log on before editing.

On the procedure and dates of post-War Hero City title awards: just like the individual Hero of the Soviet Union title, the title Hero City was awarded by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Leningrad was awarded the title in 1945 on the first anniversary of the raising of the siege, and other cities also got it on important anniversaries, for instance Victory Day (9 May). Indeed, awards continued into the 1980s - just like the building of memorials, for that matter. I will look into that and add the exact dates.

About Finland, I agree with the second contributor in that an extensive analysis of why Finland joined the War on the Axis side and participated in the siege of Leningrad is better placed in articles devoted to that topic specifically.

Kolt

Finnish part: not in the siege but in the city's survival

It could be pointed out that the Finnish command didn't agree to requests from their German counterpart to advance further south from River Svir.

---

Since this hasn't been disputed, and since it's an important clarification in lieu of the initial, now removed, but in many parts of the world still believed claims of Finnish contributions to the siege, I restore this sentence. /Tuomas 14:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To which Kolt indirectly responds in the edit summary of his improved wording:

more elegant wording for Finnish non-participation mantra.

Maybe it would be reason to explain that there hadn't been any mantra if it weren't for the initial error being edited back to the article — four times! [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hero_City&diff=2983443&oldid=2980674)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hero_City&diff=3001841&oldid=2991920)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hero_City&diff=3035145&oldid=3008334)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hero_City&diff=3266350&oldid=3197836) /Tuomas 08:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Finns and the Siege

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)

Mediation proposal

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 [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hero_City&diff=3008334&oldid=3001841) 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)

Neutral links?

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)

Cities, not Wars

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)

The other side of the Isthmus

I made two changes to this page before reading above. I am sorry, if this causes trouble for you, but it wasn't intentional. I am convinced my small changes are fair. In any case, and as is stated above, it is not fair, it's even pointless, to express anti-Finnish bias and false Finnish-bashing accusations. Seen from the other side of the Isthmus, one could say: The Finns served the Russians loyally until they changed the rules of 1809. The Finns tried to live in peace, and the Russians caused a tragic Civil War. The Finns took care of the next rebellion too, and rule of law and democracy prevailed, only to be slandered as fascists. The Finns did everything possible for neutrality in WWII, and the Russians attacked Finland as the second country in Europe to be attacked during the World War. The Finns fought bravely to defend their country, and didn't lose Karelia until bitterly at the negotiation table. The Finns tried even to establish a new union with Sweden (THAT was emotionally not the easiest thing to do), giving up the foreign ministry to Stockholm, which would have sealed the borders of 1940 - and what do the Russians do? They say they would attack at once if Finland cosied up with Sweden again. The failed russification of the late 19th ct was to be accomplished - so oder so - you didn't need many brain cells in function to understand that. The Russians gave no other openings left to the Finns, if they wanted to come out alive on the other side of the war, but to ask the Nazis for help. And so was done, and never-the-less Finland kept a clearly independent course during the Great Patriotic War, including, now let's be honest here, saving quite a few civilians' lifes in Leningrad by refusing to attack the city, by refusing to contribute to the siege, by refusing to close the Russian route to Leningrad via Ladoga, and by refusing to cut off the Murmansk railroad. And what's the thank for that? We are blamed for the siege and for the deaths. This is NOT the right way to improve relations between our two peoples!

P.S.

My change to the article resulted in the following: Finnish forces had meanwhile recaptured the Karelian Isthmus (lost after the Winter War, 1940). The city was completely cut off from all land access on 8 September 1941. As the Kriegsmarine blocked the Gulf of Finland, Leningrad's only contact with the outer world was over Ladoga.

I like the wording proposed by Kolt above, although I think it would be fair to link to the Winter War, that in my opinion carries the most important explanation to why the Finns are at all mentioned in this context. I do also, in all honesty, realize that Finland's navy contributed in the blocade of the Gulf of Finland. If my change is integrated with Kolt's propasal, the result would become:

"(...) By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. In North-West Finnish forces had meanwhile recaptured the Karelian Isthmus (lost after the Winter War, 1940). The city was completely cut off from all land access on 8 September 1941. As the Gulf of Finland was blocked, Leningrad's only contact with the outer world was the vulnerable waterway across the adjacent Lake Ladoga, which 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. (...)"

/Tuomas

Final Settlement

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)

I think it looks quite good! You, Kolt, are a great wikipedian! Although I miss "which remained open as the Finns had stopped their offensive East of the Lake, leaving its South-Eastern shores as a Soviet bridgehead" which somehow didn't make it into the article. But I don't insist. I only thought it was good and appropriate and balanced and fair... :-)

/Tuomas 18:11, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Introducing a historical context to the Brest chapter

The information on how Brest became Soviet belongs to articles Brest and Belarus, where it is already covered. This coverage on appropriate pages may be improved and these improvements would be very welcome. But there is no need to bring this into this article. Here the name of the fortress is linked to the appropriate page and the reader, if interested, will find out the history of the place by clicking. Some things cannot be made without a POV but there is no need to bring them in the articles devoted, mainly, to a different topic where the relenance is rather remote. This is article is related to the war, not to the general history of every Hero City. Please, no flames. Irpen 20:55, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

No, you're wrong here. The "border" you mention without comment was not internationally recognized, and to use this word without mentioning this fact gives legitimacy to the Nazi-Soviet invasion, which is not NPOV. You wouldn't say, referring to 1940, "the German city of Warsaw." The fact is, the Brest fortress, whatever the settlements at Yalta, was invaded territory. The "Peace Border" was what the two sides called it in contemporary propaganda, hence the quotation marks, although to the Poles, Jews, "bourgeous elements," and other "undesirables" on either side it was anything other than peaceful (cf. the Katyn massacre, the Holocaust, etc.). The single sentence that adds this context, along with the important detail that the fortress was for geographical reasons in the first wave of attacks and thus unprepared, are fully justified, and I don't see what your problem is with it. Kindly stop reverting all my edits. --ProhibitOnions 12:28, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

IMO the arguments of PrOp are convincing. A very brief intro into a relevant non-trivial geographical/historical context always makes sense. It would be extremely annoying to have to click each and every link to understand an article in full. Mikkalai 21:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok guys, a brief intro into historical context is indeed a good idea. I made some changes to the latest version to include more info on the origin of the border location. However, I think the term "Peace border" had to go. It was never used to describe that border in any history works. The term is misleading and falsifies the context rather than introduces the reader to it. "Peace border" is a border between the US and Canada or borders within EU, i.e. borders between truly friendly states. SU and DE had no illusions of each other's attitudes as war preparations were in place. Calling the border this way is a hypocritical interpretation of Soviet-German pact (which itself of course was hypocritical too) and tong-in-cheek interpretations don't belong to encyclopedias, especially if presented as a serious explanation of events. I disagree that the propaganda usage of the term (it might have been used in propaganda, I simply haven't heard) justifies the usage in encyclopedia article. At least an explanation that this is a propaganda term is warranted in a more explicit form than simply using quotation marks. And even with a full explanation, I think it does not belong here, but others may disagree. And finally, PO, I am not at all reverting all your edits. Those two happened to be to the articles in my watch list. Irpen 07:08, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree about "peace border". This term may be used only in historical comments, but not as the main reference to the thing. But I'd like to edit your text for conciseness: M-R Pact mentioned twice; "only weeks after" is a marginally relevant info. Mikkalai 17:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai and others, please change the text I introduced as you see fit.Irpen 06:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)