Russia commemorates 70th years since Leningrad siege

[Gerald]

St Petersburg, Russia's second largest city, has commemorated the 70th anniversary of the start of a siege of the city by Hitler's armies during the Second World War.

Then called Leningrad, the German attack was to last nearly 900 days, cost 750,000 lives and led to the horrific suffering of its people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14849339


Note: 9 September 2011 Last updated at 14:08 GMT

[Torplexed]

To fill their empty stomachs, to reduce the intense sufferings caused by hunger, people would look for incredible substitutes: they would try to catch crows or rooks, or any cat or dog that had somehow survived; they would go through medicine chests in search of castor oil, hair oil, vaseline or glycerine; they would make soup or jelly out of carpenter's glue (scrapped off wallpaper or broken-up furniture). But not all people in the enormous city had such supplementary sources of "food."

--Historian D.V. Pavlov, on civilian starvation during the German siege of Leningrad.

A monumentally grim event. Makes the ACW sieges of Vicksburg or Atlanta look almost prosaic in comparison.

[kranz]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

A monumentally grim event.

in russia everything is bigger. except for respect for human lives.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by kranz

in russia everything is bigger. except for respect for human lives.

Sadly true.

A meaningful anniversary for me; two of my grandparents (still living) are survivors of the siege. One of my ancestors, a great-great-grandfather, died by starvation. An old man of about 70 at the time, he was on the short end of the already-unlivable rations in December 1941 (100g of bread which was partially made of sawdust). For New Year's (which since the revolution combined New Year and Christmas traditions into one, and became the biggest holiday in Russia since), his family somehow got their hands on about a pound of meat - which must have been worth its weight in gold by that point in the siege. They decided to boil it to make soup for New Year's Eve, and then slowly and carefully consume the rest.
In the early hours of December 31, 1941, my great-great-grandfather, driven mad by hunger, snuck into the kitchen while everyone was asleep and consumed that entire piece of meat. As he was starving for over 3 months at that point, his system obviously couldn't handle it. He died in excrutiating spasms the same day. The family was left without their head of household and their holiday meal that New Year's.

One of my great-grandfathers was at the front outside the city and lost one of his legs to a Finnish sharp-shooter, who'd probably correctly calculated that shooting a junior Soviet officer in the leg out in the open would attract other targets to his aid. It was some time before help actually did come to him. And with the 'support' that crippled veterans received from the Soviet government in the post-war years, ended up a depressed, violent alcoholic who ruined his family and died far, far before his time just a few years later.

One of my grandparents, my grandmother, got lucky but was also exposed to some of the worst Soviet injustice in the siege. She was only 4 years old when it started. It turned out that one of her aunts was the wife of a general, and like many high party and military officials, was secretly receiving and hoarding supplies not accessible to the starving population. She offered my grandmother's family to stay with her, but it was quickly discovered that the aunt had little intention to treat them as family. Rather, they were to do domestic work for her and receive rations. Perversely, some of that domestic work included cooking for said aunt, who guarded her supplies jelaously and would not share anything that they didn't 'earn'. One of the sharpest memories my grandmother has is that of her older sister keeping an eye on when the aunt wasn't in sight in the kitchen, and then grabbing a spoonful of still-boiling rice from the pot on the stove, and sticking it into the poor kid's mouth. It burned, but at least it was a bit of extra food when the rest of the city was dying of starvation.
Needless to say, when my grandmother again met the aunt after the war ended, she refused to say even a word to her, and hasn't done so since. It's rumored, however, that her general husband fell out of favour and karma bit back. Probably not true of the many party officials who hoarded supplies and lived more or less normally during the siege while millions around them died.

Having grown up in the city, I was always surrounded by reminders of it and, unlike a lot of people, didn't ignore them and gave them their due respect. One of the most important moments from my younger days was standing in the middle of the Piskarev cemetery where 600,000 of the victims of the blockade were buried. It's hard to explain, but it just hit me like a brick wall. Like in that little space, just a few football fields in size, I could hardly imagine 600,000 living people standing. But in the silence of that cloudy day, with almost noone around, I seriously felt like those 600,000 people were all around me, watching my every move. A powerful experience, and one that reminded me that it was indeed not a guaranteed thing for me to be there. Somewhere in there, my great-great-grandfather rested, his grave somewhere in one of the big patches marked only by '1941' or '1942' on a small stone slate. My grandparents had every chance to be among those stones too, and if they were, I wouldn't be around today.

That's a feeling of respect for this tragedy that I hope to preserve and convey to other people.

[Betonov]

Second longest siege in modern history.

How come the Germans decided not to attack the city directly, like Stalingrad ??

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Second longest siege in modern history.

How come the Germans decided not to attack the city directly, like Stalingrad ??

It was never in the plans, as far as I know. Hitler had no interest in capturing the city and wanted it destroyed by long-range bombardment and starvation. The Germans had nothing to gain from taking the city, anyway - it would not open them a route anywhere (like Stalingrad would over the Volga) nor help them secure any strategic resources (like Stalingrad would for Caspian oil). Hitler had no interest in the city itself, disliked its connection to the Bolshevik revolution and its relatively large Jewish population, and wanted it wiped off the map.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Second longest siege in modern history.

How come the Germans decided not to attack the city directly, like Stalingrad ??

Hitler's constant juggling of his forces and vacillating meant von Leeb didn't have the strength to take the city on the move. Hitler finally settled on the final push on Moscow in December 1941 and went with the excuse that he didn't want to feed all those useless mouths in Leningrad anyway, and the starvation a siege would produce would do it for him. So the city was decreed to be destroyed by artillery and bombardment which it was far too large to be destroyed by.

[Schroeder]

@CCIP
Yes, but it bound a great amount of German troops for this for years too, so I still don't get the intention behind this....on the other hand I gave up trying to understand Hitler's logic a long time ago.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Second longest siege in modern history.

How come the Germans decided not to attack the city directly, like Stalingrad ??

The Germans had plans for an assault to take the city after the fall of Sevastopol in 1942, but it was canned after the Soviets launched a large counteroffensive at the same time. Following that, I doubt the Germans could afford to concentrate enough forces there to take the city.

[CCIP]

Well, it was and continued to be the 2nd largest city and one of the largest industrial and military centers. Which would have made it a target by necessity. The military force the Soviets managed to maintain in the city during the siege was also something to reckon with, despite the conditions. Early on in the chaos of the first few weeks of the war, the German army was over-extended and plunging into a massive urban battle with their supply lines so stretched would've been madness. And by the time the Germans stabilized their siege and stemmed the Soviet counter-attacks threatening their position, the defense in Leningrad was rather decently organized. There was no way to break it in 1941 without diverting from the main objective of Moscow, or in 1942 without diverting from the main objective of Stalingrad. By the time those were over, the position at Leningrad was already in the Soviets' favour and it was only a matter of time until they switched to offensive.

And yeah, there were setbacks. The Germans suffered one of their first defeats at Tikhvin, just west of the city, that guaranteed that their position at Leningrad would never be solid.

[Krauter]

I read a book, a novel actually, pertaining to life during the Leningrad siege. For the life of my I can't remember it, but it wasn't a bad novel (bought it at an airport and lasted me from London to Vancouver)

Edit: City of Thieves. Good book that is.

[CCIP]

And if you want a good non-fiction book about it, I highly recommend Leningrad: State of Siege by Michael Jones, which is sitting on the shelf beside me here. A very sober, critical, and balanced look on the situation that gives due respect to the resilience of Leningrad's people through horrible conditions, made worse by often-incompetent political and military leadership (which has been so praised in Soviet literature on the topic). Which makes the city all the more deserving of its' "Hero City" designation, imo.

[Krauter]

I'll have to look into that, thanks !

[Dowly]

IIRC, the siege was never complete. Supplies were brought into the city from
north, which, in german plans was expected to be blocked by the Finns, who
refused to wage offensive war past the areas lost in the Winter War.

[CCIP]

I used to really have an issue with the Finnish position in the siege, but the more I learned the more understanding I became towards it. At the end of the day, if the Finns didn't choose to stop at the Svir' (and they easily could've chosen otherwise), Leningrad may have been doomed. Historically, I think Finland needs to accept some culpability in this massive (and mostly German) war crime, but then of course Russia also has to accept the massive injustices it committed towards Finland that didn't leave them much choice except to side with the Germans.

I think it's also safe to say that if the Finns didn't choose to stop their advance at the Svir', I wouldn't be alive today.