Yes, but quite frankly I can't be bothered to explain it to you since you seem to believe that it was the Soviet's who starved their civilians at Leningrad.Ship of Fools wrote:People here are going to think I am very stupid, but I am mystified as to how a secret order can have had any bearing on Soviet decision making.As David points out, they did not have that option. Well, they had the option to declare it such, but the Germans had orders not to accept it, which means that there was never an option of Leningrad becoming an open city.
Presumably the Soviets' would have starved their civilians rather than surrender had the German army been commandeered by Mahatma Ghandi himself.
Or perhaps I am missing something?
Moving on... David is in my view quite right in that the siege was no warcrime, and I think that much of the confusion comes from the 7 October order (which was a bit more formal than 'Hitler's rant'). It is clear that this order was in violation of the rules of war as they existed then. What saved von Leeb and his subordinate commanders from demonstrating whether they would have upheld the laws of war by defying the order is that they never conquered the city due to the Soviet resistance and the obvious failure of the Finns to play the role foreseen for them.
All the best