4 ms·

Zero doesn't sound like a reasonable expectation. Elsewhere, conquered Soviet civilians and POWs suffered horribly, but not everyone was killed. However, a mor

Zero doesn't sound like a reasonable expectation. Elsewhere, conquered Soviet civilians and POWs suffered horribly, but not everyone was killed. However, a more reasonable question is whether a timely evacuation of Leningrad would have saved more of the residents. Stalin intentionally left much of the civilian population in the siege. And it is indeed a problem if a law "against rehabilitation of nazism" is used for silencing honest, civilized discussion about WW2 history.

open_bear 10y ago
> Zero doesn't sound like a reasonable expectation. No it does. German documents clearly say "if they try to flee the city - shoot them". Hitler had specific plans to destroy it completely after the war. > but not everyone was killed. Out of 27 million deaths only 8 millions were combatants. Do the math on civilians. > is whether a timely evacuation of Leningrad Leningrad is a major industrial and cultural center, second city in the USSR, its loss would've dealt a colossal moral blow to the Soviet people. It also tied a lot of Nazi forces, that could've been used elsewhere (i.e. Stalingrad battle). > Stalin intentionally left much of the civilian population in the siege. No he didn't. Siege started in September, only 3 months after Nazis attacked. It is not possible to evacuate 3+ million city in such a short time. 659,000 were evacuated before the siege began, and 30,000 after. Many people didn't want to leave their homes. > is used for silencing honest, civilized discussion about WW2 history. No it is not.
- notfromhere 10y ago
  They were censored for questioning national myths, not for whitewashing history.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  This doesn't look like the start of a useful debate, so I'll just say that Stalin prioritized military and ideological victory over sparing the civilian population of Leningrad. Other leaders in other countries made different choices.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

open_bear 10y ago

> Zero doesn't sound like a reasonable expectation. No it does. German documents clearly say "if they try to flee the city - shoot them". Hitler had specific plans to destroy it completely after the war. > but not everyone was killed. Out of 27 million deaths only 8 millions were combatants. Do the math on civilians. > is whether a timely evacuation of Leningrad Leningrad is a major industrial and cultural center, second city in the USSR, its loss would've dealt a colossal moral blow to the Soviet people. It also tied a lot of Nazi forces, that could've been used elsewhere (i.e. Stalingrad battle). > Stalin intentionally left much of the civilian population in the siege. No he didn't. Siege started in September, only 3 months after Nazis attacked. It is not possible to evacuate 3+ million city in such a short time. 659,000 were evacuated before the siege began, and 30,000 after. Many people didn't want to leave their homes. > is used for silencing honest, civilized discussion about WW2 history. No it is not.

notfromhere 10y ago
They were censored for questioning national myths, not for whitewashing history.
ptaipale 10y ago
This doesn't look like the start of a useful debate, so I'll just say that Stalin prioritized military and ideological victory over sparing the civilian population of Leningrad. Other leaders in other countries made different choices.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]