Who Should Live and Who Should Die

Leningrad was one of Germany’s initial targets and in order to gain control of it, it set up a siege that lasted 872 days – from September 8th, 1941 to January 27, 1944. Over the course of the siege, approximately 632,000 people died from various causes including bombings from the German army, extreme weather conditions, and food and water shortages. Interestingly enough, although the extreme cold during the winter was fatal for many Leningrad residents, it also brought the downfall of the German forces holding the siege. The fact that Hitler believed he would be able to quickly and swiftly take Leningrad meant the soldiers of the German army were not prepared with the correct resources to face the cold weather, which reached -40 celsius. Eventually, when the Russian military realized their enemy had been weakened, they attacked and broke the nearly 900-day siege.

Although Germany failed to achieve their goal, Russia did not walk away unscathed. 632,000 Russians died in the siege and many of those casualties can be attributed to starvation, meaning the method that was used to distribute food rations was less than ideal. I think that the ideal method of distribution would have been to prioritize military personnel first, then workers, young adults and adults who are able, and then mothers, children, the elderly, and sick or injured people. I would give the most to military personnel because they are the ones maintaining the defences that are keeping the Germans out of the city, and there would be far more casualties at the hands of German soldiers if they were to get in than if the population starved. I would prioritize workers and able adults after the military because they are the ones who would be able to tend to the rest of the population. They would be able to help sick and injured people become healthy, and in return, those people would be able to help more people. This would create a chain reaction that would eventually allow each individual to become self-sustaining. Lastly, I would give mothers, children, sick or injured people, and the elderly the least, because they are, quite frankly, the least likely to help the rest of the population survive. Mothers would need to tend to their children. Children would be too weak to help. Sick, injured, and elderly people wouldn’t be healthy enough to help. However, by prioritizing workers and other able people, there would be more people to help the less able population become healthy.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Comments

  1. Louisa Radford

    Really interesting background Alex, your blog conveys the severity of the situation really effectively. Your rationale for how you divided up the resources is logical, and well explained, but not in line with your initial thoughts from class, which interests me. What were some key questions you had to grapple with before coming to this conclusion? How did you reconcile your feelings that everyone is essentially acting in their own self-interest with the decision to priorities the more physically able?

  2. kato80445@gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg

    The blog post includes a summarization of the siege and the rations problem, clearly stated and detailed, and the priorities/reasoning for each were understandable. I agree with your ideas wholely, and they are laid out very nicely. Something I think you could have mentioned some things about being yourself, such as: If you were giving out the rations, you are able to take some more for yourself. Would you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *