[ptaipale]

Zero doesn't sound like a reasonable expectation. Elsewhere, conquered Soviet civilians and POWs suffered horribly, but not everyone was killed.

However, a more reasonable question is whether a timely evacuation of Leningrad would have saved more of the residents. Stalin intentionally left much of the civilian population in the siege.

And it is indeed a problem if a law "against rehabilitation of nazism" is used for silencing honest, civilized discussion about WW2 history.

[open_bear]

> Zero doesn't sound like a reasonable expectation.

No it does. German documents clearly say "if they try to flee the city - shoot them". Hitler had specific plans to destroy it completely after the war.

> but not everyone was killed.

Out of 27 million deaths only 8 millions were combatants. Do the math on civilians.

> is whether a timely evacuation of Leningrad

Leningrad is a major industrial and cultural center, second city in the USSR, its loss would've dealt a colossal moral blow to the Soviet people. It also tied a lot of Nazi forces, that could've been used elsewhere (i.e. Stalingrad battle).

> Stalin intentionally left much of the civilian population in the siege.

No he didn't. Siege started in September, only 3 months after Nazis attacked. It is not possible to evacuate 3+ million city in such a short time. 659,000 were evacuated before the siege began, and 30,000 after. Many people didn't want to leave their homes.

> is used for silencing honest, civilized discussion about WW2 history.

No it is not.

[ptaipale]

This doesn't look like the start of a useful debate, so I'll just say that Stalin prioritized military and ideological victory over sparing the civilian population of Leningrad. Other leaders in other countries made different choices.

[notfromhere]

They were censored for questioning national myths, not for whitewashing history.