Hacker News Reader

Comment by thr234234 | Hacker News Reader

Post-soviet countries are very sensitive to WW2 history. Similar thing on west would be to question, how many people died in Holocaust.

> In January 2014, independent liberal broadcaster Dozhd TV came under attack. It was accused of smearing the memory of WW2 veterans by asking whether residents of wartime Leningrad could have been saved by surrendering the city to Nazi forces.

Zero? Germans were planning genocide to get their Lebensraum

> The public discussion of WW2 history has also been curbed by a controversial 2014 law against the rehabilitation of Nazism.

omg

View on HN

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.

> 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.

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.

They were censored for questioning national myths, not for whitewashing history.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com