Should Russia have surrendered Leningrad?

perseus

perseus

Active member
Is it even ok to question how events unfolded during World War Two? That's a hot topic of discussion on social media in Russia right now.

This week is the 70th anniversary of the end of the siege of Leningrad during WW2, and on Sunday the independent Russian TV station Dozhd conducted what turned out to be a very controversial poll. They asked whether Leningrad - now St Petersburg - should have been handed over to the Nazis in order to save lives. Hundreds of thousands of Russians died in Leningrad during the blockade - which lasted more than two years - but was a key turning point in the war.

Asking this simple question led to a social media storm against Dozhd TV. Thousands were outraged - arguing that even posing this question was an insult to the dead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-25945781
 
I am not sure how to answer that one.
1) What would the benefits have been for surrendering it, as we know the Germans were killing people by the millions anyway so it is doubtful whether surrendering the city would have saved anyone.

2) It possibly would have saved the city in the short term but I have little doubt that Hitler would have demanded it defended to the last man, last round during the retreat so there is a good chance it would have been flattened at some point.

3) Surrendering it would have freed up Army Group North to progress east which would have cut off and perhaps even cost Russia the Kola Penninsula and provided Germany with ports and a supply line to help supply Army Group North and Centre via Murmansk.
 
Didn't Hitler order the city to be obliterated once captured? I think we can guess on the alternative accommodation arranged for the inhabitants.
 
Would Germany have treated the people in these Russian cities well or would they have treated them like sub humans as they had been portrayed them as. You only have to look at the way the Germans treated other Russian towns to find your answer.
When the Germans first crossed into Russia many of the Russians welcomed them hoping that they would be free of Communist persecution only to find that they had gone from the frying pan into the fire and it was this as much as anything that unified the people to fight the Germans to the death as there was no other option.
 
If leningrad serrundered vs staying sieged

Leningrad lost ~ 1.5 million people due to bombardment and starvation over ~ 900 days which is ~2.5 years. It did tie up a certain quantity of German troops. It was Hillers call not to invade the city and fight house to house. He didn't figure on the citizens of Leningrad having as much grit as they did.
Besides just take a look at Kharkov, Minsk and Kiev to see the fate of citizens in occupied Soviet cities. The survival rate was quite low. In Kharkov alone the population was reduction to 25% of its prewar population. And remember it was Stalin’s policy for the citizens in general to stay put so as not start a defeatist panic. The food was taken for the benefit of the Reich and many were used as forced labor. Complainers were generally shot – hung, etc. As mentioned they Germans were initially greeted as liberators from the repression of Stalin and his NKVD – KGB. They quickly turned from liberators to tormenters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top