
Hero City (город-герой or ''gorod-geroy'' in Russian language) is an honorary title awarded to twelve cities and one city-fortress in the Soviet Union for outstanding heroism during the Great Patriotic War of 1941 to 1945. This symbolic distinction for a city corresponds to the individual distinction Hero of the Soviet Union, which was awarded together with the Gold Star medal. The city of Ljubljana (now in Slovenia), was however not part of the Soviet Union, but of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. == Brest Hero-Fortress == The fortress in Brest, Belarus (Belarus) was located right on the recently established border between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. This border was drawn in the secret appendix to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and quickly established ''de-facto'' after the two countries invaded and divided Poland between them in September 1939, only weeks after their conclusion of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As such, the fortress had little warning when the Axis powers invaded on 22 June 1941, and became the site of the first major fighting between Soviet frontier guards and the invading German forces of Army Group Centre. German artillery heavily shelled the fortress; the subsequent attempt to quickly take it with infantry failed, however, and the Germans started a lengthy siege. The Brest garrison, about 4,000 soldiers in the fortress itself, offered bitter resistance to the German assaults. Although they were initially surprised by the attack and outnumbered by a ratio of 10:1, and although they were cut off from the outside world and ran out of food, water and ammunition, the defenders fought and counter-attacked until the very last minute. The Germans deployed tanks, tear gas and flame throwers but could not break Soviet resistance. After the Germans had taken most of the ruined fortifications, taking heavy casualties, bloody fighting continued underground. The fighting ended only in late July. The actual front had by then already moved hundreds of kilometres further East. The fortress of Brest was awarded the title Hero-Fortress in 1965. Even after the fortress was officially taken, the few surviving defenders continued to hide in the basements and to harass the Germans for several months. == Minsk == The city of Minsk, the capital of present-day Belarus, was encircled by advancing German forces in late June 1941. Trapped in a vast pocket, the Soviets defended their positions desperately. Their resistance was broken on 9 July, with over 300,000 Soviet troops taken captive. During the following three-year occupation, the Germans killed about 400,000 civilians in and around the city. The Minsk area became a centre for the Soviet partisan movement behind enemy lines. Minsk was awarded the title Hero City in 1974. == Smolensk == Located on the approaches to Moscow, the city of Smolensk saw a fierce Battle of Smolensk (1941) unfolding in the summer of 1941. German armoured divisions of Army Group Centre began an offensive on July 10, 1941 to encircle Soviet forces in the Smolensk area. Soviet resistance was strong, and several counter-attacks were conducted. The Soviets even managed to temporarily break the German encirclement and to evacuate troops out of the pocket. The battle ended in early September. The bitter fighting had considerably delayed the overall German advance toward Moscow, so that defence lines further East could be strengthened. Smolensk was awarded the title Hero City in 1985. == Kiev == The capital of present-day Ukraine became the site of the largest encirclement battle in the summer of 1941. When the Germans commenced their offensive on 7 July, Soviet forces concentrated in the Kiev area were ordered to stand fast, and a breakout was prohibited. Defence of the pocket was fierce. Thousands of civilians volunteered to help defend the city. Eventually Kiev was taken on 19 September. Over 600,000 Soviet troops were taken captive when the pocket was cleared. During the German occupation of Kiev, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed or deported for slave labour. Kiev again became a battlefield when advancing Soviet forces pushed the Germans back West, liberating the city on 6 November 1943. Kiev was awarded the title Hero City in 1965. == Odessa == In early August 1941, the Black Sea port of Odessa, located in present-day Ukraine, was attacked and besieged by Romanian forces fighting alongside their German allies. The fierce battle in defence of the city lasted until 16 October, when the remaining Soviet troops, as well as 15,000 civilians were evacuated by sea. Partisan fighting continued, however, in the city's catacombs. Odessa was awarded the title Hero City in 1945. == Murmansk == The city of Murmansk, located on the Kola peninsula close to the Norwegian and Finnish borders, was a strategically important sea port and industrial city. It was the only Soviet port on the Northern coast that did not freeze in the winter, and was vital for the transport of supplies to the South. German forces, including 800 Finns under German command, launched an offensive against Murmansk on 29 June 1941. More than 180,000 grenades and inflammable shells were fired on the city itself. Fierce Soviet resistance in the tundra and several Soviet counter-attacks made an Axis breakthrough impossible, however. Axis forces discontinued their attacks in late October 1941, having failed to take Murmansk or to cut off the Karelian railway line. Murmansk was awarded the title Hero City in 1985. == Saint Petersburg (Leningrad) == The city of Leningrad, now known as Saint Petersburg, saw one of the greatest human tragedies of the entire War. Leningrad, a treasure of classical and baroque architecture on the Baltic Sea, was a city with a pre-war population of three million inhabitants. By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. Finnish forces had meanwhile recaptured the Karelian Isthmus North-West of the city, which they had lost after the Winter War in 1940. The city was completely cut off from all land access on 8 September 1941. As the Gulf of Finland was blocked as well, Leningrad's only contact with the outer world was a vulnerable waterway across Lake Ladoga, as Finnish command didn't agree to German requests to advance beyond the River Svir and to conquer the rest of the Lake's coastline. Since taking the city seemed too costly to the Germans, in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, they instead began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death. Soon, electricity, water and heating for civilian housing had to be shut down. All public transportation stopped. Thousands of Leningrad citizens froze or starved to death in the first winter of the siege alone, dying at home in their beds or collapsing from exhaustion in the streets. Meanwhile, German artillery kept taking the agonised city under fire. The siege of Leningrad was to last for 900 days, yet Leningrad did not surrender. During this terrible siege, the starving population was driven to extreme measures to survive, some resorted to cannibalism. When Lake Ladoga froze in the winter, the so-called Road of Life was opened to the Soviet-held southern shore of the Lake, with an endless trail of trucks bringing food and supplies to the besieged city and evacuating citizens on their way back. Both the food and the civilian transports were constantly attacked by the Germans with artillery shelling and air raids. When Soviet forces eventually raised the siege in January 1944, over one million inhabitants of Leningrad had died from starvation, exposure and German shelling. The Soviet citizens who had collaborated with the Nazis and those who had participated in cannibalism were shot. 300,000 soldiers had perished in the defence and relief of Leningrad. Leningrad was awarded the title Hero City in 1945, being the first city to receive that distinction. == Tula == Tula, Russia, a historical Russian city with important military industry South of Moscow, became the target of a German offensive to break Soviet resistance in the Moscow area between 24 October and 5 December 1941. The heavily fortified city held out, however, and secured the Southern flank during the Soviet defence of Moscow and the subsequent counter-offensive. Tula was awarded the title Hero City in 1976. == Moscow == At the gates of the Soviet capital, the German invaders finally suffered their most decisive defeat of 1941. The advance of the German Army Group Centre came to a halt in late November 1941, in the outskirts of Moscow itself. The Soviet Government had by then been evacuated, yet Stalin remained in the city. Struggling between determination and despair, the city's population helped building defensive positions in the streets. The underground metro stations provided shelter during German air raids. General Georgy Zhukov, who assumed command of the city's defence, largely left close combat tactics to the local commanders on the city's approaches, and focused on concentrating fresh troops from Siberia for an eventual counter-attack. The Soviet counter-offensive was launched on 5 and 6 December 1941. In the freezing cold of an unusually harsh winter, Soviet forces, including well-equipped ski battalions, drove the exhausted Germans back out of reach of Moscow and consolidated their positions on 7 January 1942. The victory in the Battle of Moscow provided an important boost in morale for the Soviet population. Moscow was awarded the title Hero City in 1965. == Sevastopol == The Black Sea port of Sevastopol was a heavily defended fortress on the Crimean peninsula. German and Romanian troops had advanced to the outskirts of the city from the North and launched their attack on 30 October 1941. Having failed to take the city, Axis forces began a siege and heavy bombardment. A second Axis offensive against the city, launched in December 1941, failed as well, as the Soviet army and navy forces continued to fight fiercely. Eventually the city was taken in June 1942. It was liberated in bloody fighting in May 1944. Sevastopol was awarded the title Hero City in 1945. == Kerch == Kerch, a port in the East of the Crimean peninsula, formed a bridgehead at the strait dividing Crimea from the Southern Russian mainland. After fierce fighting, it was taken by the Germans in November 1941. On 30 December 1941 the Soviets recaptured the city in a naval landing operation. In May 1942 the Germans occupied the city again, yet Soviet partisan forces held out in the cliffs near the city until October 1942. On 31 October 1943 another Soviet naval landing was launched. The largely ruined city was finally liberated on 11 April 1944. == Novorossiysk == The city of Novorossiysk on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea provided a stronghold against the German summer offensive of 1942. Tense fighting in and around the city lasted from August until September 1942. The Soviets however retained possession of the Eastern part of the bay, which prevented the Germans from using the port for supply shipments. Novorossiysk was awarded the title Hero City in 1973. == Volgograd (Stalingrad)== Volgograd is the present-day name of the city of Stalingrad. The defence of Stalingrad from July to November 1942, the counter-offensive of 19 November 1942 that trapped the Axis forces in and around the city, and the German surrender on 2 February 1943 marked the turning-point of the entire Second World War. The intensity and sheer scale of the battle of Stalingrad illustrate the ferocity of the Great Patriotic War. Heavy German bombardment, killing thousands of civilians, had turned the city into a landscape of ruins. Workers of the city's weapons factories started personally handing over arms and ammunition to the defending soldiers as the Germans closed in, and eventually continued the fight themselves. Ever more Soviet troops were shipped into the city across the Volga River under enemy fire. German superiority in tanks became useless in the rubble of urban warfare. Fierce man-to-man fighting in streets, buildings and staircases continued for months. The Red Army moved its strategic reserve from Moscow to the lower Volga, and transferred all available aircraft from the entire country to the Stalingrad area. The Germans eventually lost a quarter of their total forces deployed on the Eastern Front, and never fully recovered from the defeat. The total casualties on both sides are estimated at between 1 and 2 million, within a period of 200 days. Stalingrad was awarded the title Hero City in 1945. == Ljubljana == The title Hero City (Slovene language ''mesto heroj'') was also awarded to Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia. Although it didn't use to be part of the Soviet Union (but rather SFRY) it was awarded with the title because of the heroism of its citizens during the Second World War. Italian soldiers surrounded the city with barbed wire, effectively making it the largest concentration camp in Europe. In 1985, a path surrounded by green areas marking the location of the wire was erected. The days of occupation are recalled every year with a commemorative arrangement ''Po poteh okupirane Ljubljane'' (''By ways of occupied Ljubljana''). Post-World War II Soviet awards
== Rights == Passed two Google tests against copyvio. Nice job, if indeed not a copyvio. --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 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. --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 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. --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 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. User: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. User: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.
--User: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. /User: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! [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hero_City&diff=2983443&oldid=2980674][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hero_City&diff=3001841&oldid=2991920][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hero_City&diff=3035145&oldid=3008334][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hero_City&diff=3266350&oldid=3197836] /User: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. /User: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 [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. --User: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. User: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? --User: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. --User:Kolt 09:37, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) I think it looks quite good! You, Kolt, are a great NPOV! 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... :-) /User: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. User: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. --User: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. User: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. User: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. User:Mikkalai 17:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::Mikkalai and others, please change the text I introduced as you see fit.User:Irpen 06:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Hero_City:
Hero-City
Hero_City
Hero_City
Hero City
Hero City (город-герой or ''gorod-geroy'' in Russian language) is an honorary title awarded to twelve cities and one city-fortress in the Soviet Union for outstanding heroism during the Great Patriotic War of 1941 to 1945. This symbolic distinction for a city corresponds to the individual distinction Hero of the Soviet Union, which was awarded together with the Gold Star medal. The city of Ljubljana (now in Slovenia), was however not part of the Soviet Union, but of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. == Brest Hero-Fortress == The fortress in Brest, Belarus (Belarus) was located right on the recently established border between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. This border was drawn in the secret appendix to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and quickly established ''de-facto'' after the two countries invaded and divided Poland between them in September 1939, only weeks after their conclusion of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As such, the fortress had little warning when the Axis powers invaded on 22 June 1941, and became the site of the first major fighting between Soviet frontier guards and the invading German forces of Army Group Centre. German artillery heavily shelled the fortress; the subsequent attempt to quickly take it with infantry failed, however, and the Germans started a lengthy siege. The Brest garrison, about 4,000 soldiers in the fortress itself, offered bitter resistance to the German assaults. Although they were initially surprised by the attack and outnumbered by a ratio of 10:1, and although they were cut off from the outside world and ran out of food, water and ammunition, the defenders fought and counter-attacked until the very last minute. The Germans deployed tanks, tear gas and flame throwers but could not break Soviet resistance. After the Germans had taken most of the ruined fortifications, taking heavy casualties, bloody fighting continued underground. The fighting ended only in late July. The actual front had by then already moved hundreds of kilometres further East. The fortress of Brest was awarded the title Hero-Fortress in 1965. Even after the fortress was officially taken, the few surviving defenders continued to hide in the basements and to harass the Germans for several months. == Minsk == The city of Minsk, the capital of present-day Belarus, was encircled by advancing German forces in late June 1941. Trapped in a vast pocket, the Soviets defended their positions desperately. Their resistance was broken on 9 July, with over 300,000 Soviet troops taken captive. During the following three-year occupation, the Germans killed about 400,000 civilians in and around the city. The Minsk area became a centre for the Soviet partisan movement behind enemy lines. Minsk was awarded the title Hero City in 1974. == Smolensk == Located on the approaches to Moscow, the city of Smolensk saw a fierce Battle of Smolensk (1941) unfolding in the summer of 1941. German armoured divisions of Army Group Centre began an offensive on July 10, 1941 to encircle Soviet forces in the Smolensk area. Soviet resistance was strong, and several counter-attacks were conducted. The Soviets even managed to temporarily break the German encirclement and to evacuate troops out of the pocket. The battle ended in early September. The bitter fighting had considerably delayed the overall German advance toward Moscow, so that defence lines further East could be strengthened. Smolensk was awarded the title Hero City in 1985. == Kiev == The capital of present-day Ukraine became the site of the largest encirclement battle in the summer of 1941. When the Germans commenced their offensive on 7 July, Soviet forces concentrated in the Kiev area were ordered to stand fast, and a breakout was prohibited. Defence of the pocket was fierce. Thousands of civilians volunteered to help defend the city. Eventually Kiev was taken on 19 September. Over 600,000 Soviet troops were taken captive when the pocket was cleared. During the German occupation of Kiev, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed or deported for slave labour. Kiev again became a battlefield when advancing Soviet forces pushed the Germans back West, liberating the city on 6 November 1943. Kiev was awarded the title Hero City in 1965. == Odessa == In early August 1941, the Black Sea port of Odessa, located in present-day Ukraine, was attacked and besieged by Romanian forces fighting alongside their German allies. The fierce battle in defence of the city lasted until 16 October, when the remaining Soviet troops, as well as 15,000 civilians were evacuated by sea. Partisan fighting continued, however, in the city's catacombs. Odessa was awarded the title Hero City in 1945. == Murmansk == The city of Murmansk, located on the Kola peninsula close to the Norwegian and Finnish borders, was a strategically important sea port and industrial city. It was the only Soviet port on the Northern coast that did not freeze in the winter, and was vital for the transport of supplies to the South. German forces, including 800 Finns under German command, launched an offensive against Murmansk on 29 June 1941. More than 180,000 grenades and inflammable shells were fired on the city itself. Fierce Soviet resistance in the tundra and several Soviet counter-attacks made an Axis breakthrough impossible, however. Axis forces discontinued their attacks in late October 1941, having failed to take Murmansk or to cut off the Karelian railway line. Murmansk was awarded the title Hero City in 1985. == Saint Petersburg (Leningrad) == The city of Leningrad, now known as Saint Petersburg, saw one of the greatest human tragedies of the entire War. Leningrad, a treasure of classical and baroque architecture on the Baltic Sea, was a city with a pre-war population of three million inhabitants. By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. Finnish forces had meanwhile recaptured the Karelian Isthmus North-West of the city, which they had lost after the Winter War in 1940. The city was completely cut off from all land access on 8 September 1941. As the Gulf of Finland was blocked as well, Leningrad's only contact with the outer world was a vulnerable waterway across Lake Ladoga, as Finnish command didn't agree to German requests to advance beyond the River Svir and to conquer the rest of the Lake's coastline. Since taking the city seemed too costly to the Germans, in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, they instead began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death. Soon, electricity, water and heating for civilian housing had to be shut down. All public transportation stopped. Thousands of Leningrad citizens froze or starved to death in the first winter of the siege alone, dying at home in their beds or collapsing from exhaustion in the streets. Meanwhile, German artillery kept taking the agonised city under fire. The siege of Leningrad was to last for 900 days, yet Leningrad did not surrender. During this terrible siege, the starving population was driven to extreme measures to survive, some resorted to cannibalism. When Lake Ladoga froze in the winter, the so-called Road of Life was opened to the Soviet-held southern shore of the Lake, with an endless trail of trucks bringing food and supplies to the besieged city and evacuating citizens on their way back. Both the food and the civilian transports were constantly attacked by the Germans with artillery shelling and air raids. When Soviet forces eventually raised the siege in January 1944, over one million inhabitants of Leningrad had died from starvation, exposure and German shelling. The Soviet citizens who had collaborated with the Nazis and those who had participated in cannibalism were shot. 300,000 soldiers had perished in the defence and relief of Leningrad. Leningrad was awarded the title Hero City in 1945, being the first city to receive that distinction. == Tula == Tula, Russia, a historical Russian city with important military industry South of Moscow, became the target of a German offensive to break Soviet resistance in the Moscow area between 24 October and 5 December 1941. The heavily fortified city held out, however, and secured the Southern flank during the Soviet defence of Moscow and the subsequent counter-offensive. Tula was awarded the title Hero City in 1976. == Moscow == At the gates of the Soviet capital, the German invaders finally suffered their most decisive defeat of 1941. The advance of the German Army Group Centre came to a halt in late November 1941, in the outskirts of Moscow itself. The Soviet Government had by then been evacuated, yet Stalin remained in the city. Struggling between determination and despair, the city's population helped building defensive positions in the streets. The underground metro stations provided shelter during German air raids. General Georgy Zhukov, who assumed command of the city's defence, largely left close combat tactics to the local commanders on the city's approaches, and focused on concentrating fresh troops from Siberia for an eventual counter-attack. The Soviet counter-offensive was launched on 5 and 6 December 1941. In the freezing cold of an unusually harsh winter, Soviet forces, including well-equipped ski battalions, drove the exhausted Germans back out of reach of Moscow and consolidated their positions on 7 January 1942. The victory in the Battle of Moscow provided an important boost in morale for the Soviet population. Moscow was awarded the title Hero City in 1965. == Sevastopol == The Black Sea port of Sevastopol was a heavily defended fortress on the Crimean peninsula. German and Romanian troops had advanced to the outskirts of the city from the North and launched their attack on 30 October 1941. Having failed to take the city, Axis forces began a siege and heavy bombardment. A second Axis offensive against the city, launched in December 1941, failed as well, as the Soviet army and navy forces continued to fight fiercely. Eventually the city was taken in June 1942. It was liberated in bloody fighting in May 1944. Sevastopol was awarded the title Hero City in 1945. == Kerch == Kerch, a port in the East of the Crimean peninsula, formed a bridgehead at the strait dividing Crimea from the Southern Russian mainland. After fierce fighting, it was taken by the Germans in November 1941. On 30 December 1941 the Soviets recaptured the city in a naval landing operation. In May 1942 the Germans occupied the city again, yet Soviet partisan forces held out in the cliffs near the city until October 1942. On 31 October 1943 another Soviet naval landing was launched. The largely ruined city was finally liberated on 11 April 1944. == Novorossiysk == The city of Novorossiysk on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea provided a stronghold against the German summer offensive of 1942. Tense fighting in and around the city lasted from August until September 1942. The Soviets however retained possession of the Eastern part of the bay, which prevented the Germans from using the port for supply shipments. Novorossiysk was awarded the title Hero City in 1973. == Volgograd (Stalingrad)== Volgograd is the present-day name of the city of Stalingrad. The defence of Stalingrad from July to November 1942, the counter-offensive of 19 November 1942 that trapped the Axis forces in and around the city, and the German surrender on 2 February 1943 marked the turning-point of the entire Second World War. The intensity and sheer scale of the battle of Stalingrad illustrate the ferocity of the Great Patriotic War. Heavy German bombardment, killing thousands of civilians, had turned the city into a landscape of ruins. Workers of the city's weapons factories started personally handing over arms and ammunition to the defending soldiers as the Germans closed in, and eventually continued the fight themselves. Ever more Soviet troops were shipped into the city across the Volga River under enemy fire. German superiority in tanks became useless in the rubble of urban warfare. Fierce man-to-man fighting in streets, buildings and staircases continued for months. The Red Army moved its strategic reserve from Moscow to the lower Volga, and transferred all available aircraft from the entire country to the Stalingrad area. The Germans eventually lost a quarter of their total forces deployed on the Eastern Front, and never fully recovered from the defeat. The total casualties on both sides are estimated at between 1 and 2 million, within a period of 200 days. Stalingrad was awarded the title Hero City in 1945. == Ljubljana == The title Hero City (Slovene language ''mesto heroj'') was also awarded to Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia. Although it didn't use to be part of the Soviet Union (but rather SFRY) it was awarded with the title because of the heroism of its citizens during the Second World War. Italian soldiers surrounded the city with barbed wire, effectively making it the largest concentration camp in Europe. In 1985, a path surrounded by green areas marking the location of the wire was erected. The days of occupation are recalled every year with a commemorative arrangement ''Po poteh okupirane Ljubljane'' (''By ways of occupied Ljubljana''). Post-World War II Soviet awards
Hero City
== Rights == Passed two Google tests against copyvio. Nice job, if indeed not a copyvio. --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 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. --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 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. --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 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. User: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. User: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.
--User: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. /User: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! [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hero_City&diff=2983443&oldid=2980674][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hero_City&diff=3001841&oldid=2991920][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hero_City&diff=3035145&oldid=3008334][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Hero_City&diff=3266350&oldid=3197836] /User: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. /User: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 [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. --User: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. User: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? --User: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. --User:Kolt 09:37, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) I think it looks quite good! You, Kolt, are a great NPOV! 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... :-) /User: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. User: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. --User: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. User: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. User: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. User:Mikkalai 17:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::Mikkalai and others, please change the text I introduced as you see fit.User:Irpen 06:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
H
HA | HB | HC | HD | HE | HF | HG | HI | HJ | HK | HL | HM | HN | HO | HP | HR | HS | HT | HU | HW | HX | HY | HZ |Words begining with Hero_City:
Hero-City
Hero_City
Hero_City
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
