Leningrad siege War crimes or not?

[Andreas]

From the alleged secret order uncovered by the noble nuremberg investigators.

I must say that I find this denial in the face of several independent instances of documentary evidence absolutely bizarre.

Regards

Andreas

[igor_verh]

Patients of hospital in Leningrad who were killed as a result of german artillery attack 28.12.1943.
Source:
V. Nikitin "Unknown blockade. Leningrad 1941-1944: Photo Album» (Никитин В. «Неизвестная блокада. Ленинград 1941—1944: Фотоальбом»)

[Cerdic]

The High command case at Nuremberg:

6. Criminal conduct pertaining to the siege of Leningrad
Leningrad was encircled and besieged. Its defenders and the civilian population were in great straits and it was feared the population would undertake to flee through the German lines. Orders were issued to use artillery to "prevent any such attempt at the greatest possible distance from our own lines by opening fire as early as possible, so that the infantry, if possible, is spared shooting on civilians." We find this was known to and approved by von Leeb. Was it an unlawful order?
"A belligerent commander may lawfully lay siege to a place controlled by the enemy and endeavor by a process of isolation to cause its surrender. The propriety of attempting to reduce it by starvation is not questioned. Hence, the cutting off of every source of sustenance from without is deemed legitimate.
It is said that if the commander of a besieged place expels the noncombatants, in order to lessen the number of those who consume his stock of provisions, it is lawful, though an extreme measure, to drive them back so as to hasten the surrender." *
We might wish the law were otherwise but we must administer it as we find it. Consequently, we hold no criminality attached on this charge.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ ... Vol-XI.pdf p. 563

[Seppo Koivisto]

Siege of Leningrad as genocide
04:07 PM, 20 October 2022

The Saint Petersburg City Court has recognised the Siege of Leningrad carried out by the Nazi Germany troops as a genocide, the joint city court press service reports.

“To recognise the Siege of Leningrad by Germany’s occupation authorities and troops and its accomplices — armed units formed on the territories of Belgium, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Norway, and Finland, as well as individual volunteer fighters from Austria, Latvia, Poland, France, and Czechia during the period from 8 September 1941 to 27 January 1944 — a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a genocide of national and ethnic groups that were making up the population of the USSR, people of the Soviet Union,” the judge’s ruling states.

During the hearing, it became known that “the death toll during the siege amounted to at least 1,093,842 people”, while the damage sustained is estimated at 35.3 trillion rubles (€585.4 billion).

The Saint Petersburg Regional Court previously recognised the crimes committed by German troops and their allies during the Great Patriotic War on the territory of the region as a genocide. The case files mentioned the creation of filtration camp Dulag 154 where at least 80,000 people died due to the brutal detention regime.

https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2022/1 ... de-en-news

[wm]

That's overt Russian propaganda.
There were no Polish, Czech, or Austrian units at the Siege of Leningrad. These are merely countries that support the Ukrainian cause the most today.
Poland didn't collaborate (basically the only continental country that didn't); the Czechs, they say, offered their army, but the offer was rejected. Austria didn't exist.

This only shows how a great culture (i.e., the Russian) could fail, exactly as the German culture failed when the Nazis took over.

Such a declaration is pointless and worthless. Only a court recognized by the majority of the countries (or at least the great powers) could determine that.
And during the last UN session, even China voted against Russia. Only five shitholes voted for.

[michael mills]

The declaration by the St Petersburg City Court should be seen as yet another of the various declarations made by governments to the effect that a historical action by a different government constituted genocide, ie as a purely political act having no value for determining historical truth.

It might be compared with the declaration made by the Ukrainian Government that the famine of 1932-33 constituted an act of genocide committed by the Russian State against the ethnic Ukrainian population.

[snpol]

Siege of Leningrad as genocide
04:07 PM, 20 October 2022

The Saint Petersburg City Court has recognised the Siege of Leningrad carried out by the Nazi Germany troops as a genocide, the joint city court press service reports.

“To recognise the Siege of Leningrad by Germany’s occupation authorities and troops and its accomplices — armed units formed on the territories of Belgium, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Norway, and Finland, as well as individual volunteer fighters from Austria, Latvia, Poland, France, and Czechia during the period from 8 September 1941 to 27 January 1944 — a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a genocide of national and ethnic groups that were making up the population of the USSR, people of the Soviet Union,” the judge’s ruling states.

During the hearing, it became known that “the death toll during the siege amounted to at least 1,093,842 people”, while the damage sustained is estimated at 35.3 trillion rubles (€585.4 billion).

The Saint Petersburg Regional Court previously recognised the crimes committed by German troops and their allies during the Great Patriotic War on the territory of the region as a genocide. The case files mentioned the creation of filtration camp Dulag 154 where at least 80,000 people died due to the brutal detention regime.

https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2022/1 ... de-en-news

What is your personal point of view? Could Finland establish humanitarian corridors to evacuate children, women, the old, the disabled and the sick from Leningrad? In theory yes. In real life the Finnish government (democratically elected) established the siege along with Hitler's regime.
I reckon that right now the siege of this type (in any modern war) would be regarded as a war crime. And what is your opinion?

[Seppo Koivisto]

What is your personal point of view? Could Finland establish humanitarian corridors to evacuate children, women, the old, the disabled and the sick from Leningrad? In theory yes. In real life the Finnish government (democratically elected) established the siege along with Hitler's regime.
I reckon that right now the siege of this type (in any modern war) would be regarded as a war crime. And what is your opinion?

As far as I know a siege itself is not a war crime. To establish humanitarian corridors Finland would have needed co-operation from the government of the Soviet Union. Finland never bombarded the city of Leningrad or made efforts to cut the Road of Life. In my opinion Finland can not be accused for bombing hospitals or residental areas alleged to have taken place recently during the Siege of Mariupol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... ian_forces

[snpol]

What is your personal point of view? Could Finland establish humanitarian corridors to evacuate children, women, the old, the disabled and the sick from Leningrad? In theory yes. In real life the Finnish government (democratically elected) established the siege along with Hitler's regime.
I reckon that right now the siege of this type (in any modern war) would be regarded as a war crime. And what is your opinion?

As far as I know a siege itself is not a war crime. To establish humanitarian corridors Finland would have needed co-operation from the government of the Soviet Union. Finland never bombarded the city of Leningrad or made efforts to cut the Road of Life. In my opinion Finland can not be accused for bombing hospitals or residental areas alleged to have taken place recently during the Siege of Mariupol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... ian_forces

First of all, it's an apolitical forum and further discussion of current events is not welcomed here. However, I believe that some events happened in the 21st century could be used for the sake of comparison. As you mentioned the siege of Mariupol then while democratically elected Finnish government didn't propose use of (the Red Cross backed) humanitarian corridors then by contrast humanitarian corridors were actively used in Mariupol and there was no cooperation directly between Moscow and Kyiv.
Finnish government being well aware about humanitarian catastrophe in Leningrad, about mass starvation nevertheless did nothing. As I understand you approve it.

[wm]

There were no humanitarian corridors in the laws of war as they were known in the forties (I doubt there are even today).
The Soviets could have stopped the calamity anytime by promptly surrendering the city.
It was their decision that the military benefits of defending the city were greater than the lives of its inhabitants.

[snpol]

1) There were no humanitarian corridors in the laws of war as they were known in the forties (I doubt there are even today).
2) The Soviets could have stopped the calamity anytime by promptly surrendering the city.
It was their decision that the military benefits of defending the city were greater than the lives of its inhabitants.

1) Agreed. However, my point remains valid. The Finnish government was well aware about humanitarian catastrophe in Leningrad, about mass starvation. It was possible to propose evacuation of civilian population. It hadn't been done.
2) It is estimated that about 26 mln. Soviet citizens died as a result of the war. According to your logic the Soviet union had to surrender in attempt to avoid 'the calamity'. Btw, Poland surrendered but nevertheless millions of its citizens were killed, murdered during the occupation including almost whole Jewish community. According to the following source
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Еврейская ... Петербурга
there were 201,542 Jews in Leningrad in 1939. What do you think would be their fate under nazi occupation?
Should the Jews who died in Leningrad from starvation be regarded as victims of the Holocaust? I believe that yes. If you agree then it looks as Finland assisted the Holocaust genocide.

[Seppo Koivisto]

First of all, it's an apolitical forum and further discussion of current events is not welcomed here. However, I believe that some events happened in the 21st century could be used for the sake of comparison. As you mentioned the siege of Mariupol then while democratically elected Finnish government didn't propose use of (the Red Cross backed) humanitarian corridors then by contrast humanitarian corridors were actively used in Mariupol and there was no cooperation directly between Moscow and Kyiv.
Finnish government being well aware about humanitarian catastrophe in Leningrad, about mass starvation nevertheless did nothing. As I understand you approve it.

With your logic I could ask why didn't Russia provide humanitarian corridors in Mariupol.
https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/21/the ... n-shelling

The Soviet Union evacuated 1,4 million people from Leningrad. Alone in Summer 1942 over 400 000 through lake Ladoga, the humanitarian corridor provided by Finland. To me it looks like a deliberate decision by Moscow to leave more people in Leningrad than they could support.

[snpol]

First of all, it's an apolitical forum and further discussion of current events is not welcomed here. However, I believe that some events happened in the 21st century could be used for the sake of comparison. As you mentioned the siege of Mariupol then while democratically elected Finnish government didn't propose use of (the Red Cross backed) humanitarian corridors then by contrast humanitarian corridors were actively used in Mariupol and there was no cooperation directly between Moscow and Kyiv.
Finnish government being well aware about humanitarian catastrophe in Leningrad, about mass starvation nevertheless did nothing. As I understand you approve it.

1) With your logic I could ask why didn't Russia provide humanitarian corridors in Mariupol.
https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/21/the ... n-shelling

2) The Soviet Union evacuated 1,4 million people from Leningrad. Alone in Summer 1942 over 400 000 through lake Ladoga, the humanitarian corridor provided by Finland. To me it looks like a deliberate decision by Moscow to leave more people in Leningrad than they could support.

1) I repeat it again - it's apolitical forum and discussion of current events is not allowed.
However, it is possible to make abstract remarks related to many armed conflicts.
- lies, propaganda are common during war time. Any reports that are not confirmed by independent sources should be viewed with grain of salt and are no more than allegations
- use of human shields is not rare and the side that uses it as a rule tries to find false justifications
- the advancing side is interesting in evacuation of civilians as soon as possible to use overwhelming firepower freely.
- attempts to evacuate encircled troops via humanitarian corridors also are not rare. Shelling in this case is a common solution.
2) You have made an interesting claim - that Finland provided the humanitarian corridor through the lake of Ladoga. Would you be so kind to back the claim by reference to reputable source?


-

[wm]

2) It is estimated that about 26 mln. Soviet citizens died as a result of the war. According to your logic the Soviet union had to surrender in attempt to avoid 'the calamity'. Btw, Poland surrendered but nevertheless millions of its citizens were killed, murdered during the occupation including almost whole Jewish community.

Although Poland didn't surrender, the fight continued in exile, and the army numbered 250,000 in the end. The Poles died because they were nationalistic, anti-German, and well-known for their fierce resistance - the Germans were well aware of it.

The Soviets didn't have to surrender; it was their choice - there are no silver bullets in war and politics. The Danes promptly surrendered and benefited from it. The Swedes didn't even have to surrender and still benefited enormously.

The question wouldn't be better to protect the civilians was actually extensively discussed during the 1907 Peace Conference in Hague, and the prevailing opinion was that it was a bad idea. That it would make wars longer and bloodier (see ww1).
And there is the other argument, in the vein "it is well that war is so terrible; otherwise, we should grow too fond of it."
When belligerents are isolated from war, when they don't suffer its consequences, wars are inevitable and endless (see the recent American endless wars.)

[wm]

Should the Jews who died in Leningrad from starvation be regarded as victims of the Holocaust?

The problem was Stalin didn't protest and didn't demand reprisals (with the intention of stopping German atrocities) - especially the early ones like the mass murder of Soviets POWs. Probably because his hands weren't clean either.

The Polish Government-in-Exile demanded reprisals (for the early atrocities of 1939-1941) and even wanted to use its own air force to do it. Later, Polish Jews, during the Holocaust, demanded them too. But the Allies refused (in my opinion correctly).
But it would be radically different if the Soviet Union joined the Poles - such demands would be hard to refuse.