The Siege of Leningrad

During WWII, German forces surrounded the city Leningrad in the September of 1941. Hitler’s overconfidence meant the German forces were entirely unprepared for the cruel Russian Winter and didn’t have the strength to overthrow the city but the Nazi blockade was to strong for Leningrad to beat, and though they managed to defend their city they were cut off from the rest of the Soviet Union with almost no resources being brought in.which resulted in a stalemate.  This meant the Siege of Leningrad was to go on for 2 and a half years, “one of the longest and most destructive sieges in Western History”, where over 1 million of the civilians in the city died from the cold, constant shelling or mass starvation. As the siege went on the food shortages became more distressing, people were killing friends or family for ration cards, mothers had to choose which her children should live and in the turmoil of starvation, “which sharpened the senses but confused thought”, people started to go mentally ill and in these extreme conditions cases of cannibalism started to appear. These sickening decisions often fuelled by the notion “eaten or be eaten” were harsh realities of the intensely horrific situation. The decision of who got food, who was chosen to survive, was also a grim choice made by the people in charge of the rations. The morbid power of choosing who gets to live or die was explored in Helen Dunmore’s book The Siege.

In this situation, where it was my decision how to distribute the limited resources we had, it’s hard to say what I would do. In a hypothetical situation I would be as selfless and fair as possible but in the reality of the extreme conditions of the Siege, where family members are killing their own to survive, I would probably ensure my family had enough food to survive first, to protect their lives as well as saving them from the psychological trauma and guilt of killing their own relation. Though, I would take just enough for my family to survive on because I couldn’t justify the unnecessary death of others from my own greed. When distributing the rations I would not give any to the elderly or to babies and young children. Whilst this might seem cruel they are the least likely to survive and they are not contributing anything to the society, not saving anyone else, so the I wouldn’t waste the vital and scarce rations on people who might die anyway. The most important thing in this situation, where you don’t know when the siege is going to end, is to just focus on survival, trying to use the rations to make sure as many people as you can will live. Given that so many people also died from the cold or diseases, I would prioritise people who were most likely to survive the cruel conditions: this being teenagers and young adults, as their general health and immune systems are the strongest and healthiest. So obviously, I would waste any ration on people who were injured or ill. Within the broad category of teenagers and adults, I would reward the people who contributed the most; ensuring the safety of the city by upholding the blockade, ricking their lives to bring in resources over the frozen lake or trying to uphold some order so the city didn’t fall entirely into chaos and anarchy. These people need an incentive for these jobs and these tasks were crucial so their lives need to be protected. The blockade in the Leningrad was always defended and that is why the ultimately won the battle despite the enormous loss of life. Overall I would prfioritize people who can help contribute the the whole community and are likely to survive the siege thought I know it isn’t as simple as that because you don’t know who has died and so you have no idea what the population is on any given day or what resources you can safely get over the lake into the city.

What would you do in these extreme conditions?