From a book review:"The Nazi siege of Leningrad from 1941 to 1943, during which time the city was cut off from the rest of the world, was one of the most gruesome episodes of World War II. In scale, the tragedy of Leningrad dwarfs even the Warsaw ghetto or Hiroshima."
Why is the siege of Leningrad so often overlooked?
Does humanity have difficulty perceiving the scale of tragedies?
How does modern global round the clock competitive media coverage affect both perception and memory?
Originally posted by FMF From a book review: [b]"The Nazi siege of Leningrad from 1941 to 1943, during which time the city was cut off from the rest of the world, was one of the most gruesome episodes of World War II. In scale, the tragedy of Leningrad dwarfs even the Warsaw ghetto or Hiroshima."
Why is the siege of Leningrad so often overlooked?
Does humanity have diff ...[text shortened]... es modern global round the clock competitive media coverage affect both perception and memory?[/b]
Who overlooks it? Depends on who reads history I suppose. It can't be forgotten anyway as long as we have Shostokovitch's Seventh (Leningrad) Symphony, composed largely within the city and during the siege.
Very readable novel about the siege by Helen Dunmore gives it a lot of life. Ordinary people are remarkable.
I am not sure what to do with competitive arguments about what was the most horrible aspect of that war however. Sure way to get very down. I hate the way journalists like to report that this plane crash is the worst since that plane crash but not as bad as that other one.
Originally posted by FMF From a book review: [b]"The Nazi siege of Leningrad from 1941 to 1943, during which time the city was cut off from the rest of the world, was one of the most gruesome episodes of World War II. In scale, the tragedy of Leningrad dwarfs even the Warsaw ghetto or Hiroshima."
Why is the siege of Leningrad so often overlooked?
Does humanity have diff ...[text shortened]... es modern global round the clock competitive media coverage affect both perception and memory?[/b]
You are judging using two scales. One being size and scope of tragedy and the other being quantifying the way they died.
As for the Warsaw ghetto, they were targeted for their religion and systematically killed in concentration camps. As for Hiroshima, the images of a nuclear holocaust comes to mind. However, as for Leningrad, its just war.
Originally posted by FMF From a book review: [b]"The Nazi siege of Leningrad from 1941 to 1943, during which time the city was cut off from the rest of the world, was one of the most gruesome episodes of World War II. In scale, the tragedy of Leningrad dwarfs even the Warsaw ghetto or Hiroshima."
Why is the siege of Leningrad so often overlooked?
Does humanity have diff ...[text shortened]... es modern global round the clock competitive media coverage affect both perception and memory?[/b]
This was indeed a great tragedy. The fact that it happened about 7 decades ago might account for the lack of interest today.
Originally posted by finnegan War is never "just" in any sense. Yes it was "just war," and maybe we could be less casual about just going to war in other situations.
But to say you died while fighting a war does not have the same emotional component as saying that you were racially selected for extermination or saying that you died in a nuclear holocaust.
Originally posted by bill718 This was indeed a great tragedy. The fact that it happened about 7 decades ago might account for the lack of interest today.
I think there is another component to this. After all, who cared about the Hitler or Stalin regimes? They both were on equal footing in many ways and deserved each other in many respects. Of course, the "innocent" people in those regimes suffered but probably are not factored into the equation when contemplating them. Its all mental gymnastics of perception I suppose.
Originally posted by whodey But to say you died while fighting a war does not have the same emotional component as saying that you were racially selected for extermination or saying that you died in a nuclear holocaust.
Are you saying that the Germans were not trying to exterminate the Russians in Leningrad between 1941 and 1943?
Originally posted by FMF Are you saying that the Germans were not trying to exterminate the Russians in Leningrad between 1941 and 1943?
Of course not, but to have sympathy for either Hiter or Stalin is difficult for people to wrap their minds around. In addiiton, it was just conquest, not racial targeting.
I will coneed that Hitler had a disdain for the slaves, but this worked in the Russians favor. In short, he underestimated them.
Originally posted by bill718 This was indeed a great tragedy. The fact that it happened about 7 decades ago might account for the lack of interest today.
But didn't the Warsaw Ghetto or Hiroshima happen 7 decades ago too?
Originally posted by FMF What does "sympathy for Stalin" have to do with the people of Leningrad dying in the siege?
It is akin to Muslims dancing in the streets as they see the Twin Towers go down in New York City.
Of course, you forget one thing, Leningrad never fell. In this regard, it is also considered a victory of sorts. All of those lives lost did not die in vain as opposed to other tragedys
Originally posted by whodey Of course not, but to have sympathy for either Hiter or Stalin is difficult for people to wrap their minds around. In addiiton, it was just conquest, not racial targeting.
You must have missed what Hitler was saying about the Jews and the Slavs and the Gypsies and all the rest when he attacked the U.S.S.R.
Originally posted by FMF You must have missed what Hitler was saying about the Jews and the Slavs and the Gypsies and all the rest when he attacked the U.S.S.R.
Once again, you miss my point. The war in Leningrad was conquest. The Warsaw ghetto was like shooting ducks in a barrel. One is considered to be sportsman like and the other an executioner type approach. Psychologically, they are processed differently.
Scale of Tragedy
04 May '11 02:05
Back to Top