Leningrad Blockade

In what way has the Siege of Leningrad transformed the image of the city and the self-perception of its inhabitants?
When Akhmatova described Leningrad as a ‘city of glory and misfortune’ during the blockade, as cited in Salisbury (1969: 363-364), she perfectly encapsulated the way in which the city was transformed for better and worse. Since its inception, an image of the city has developedwith the city itself and the blockade transformed it further, by mapping new ideas onto the image of the city and added further layers to it. However, just as the city myth has been continually wrought with contradictions, the blockade’s contribution depicts opposing images of Leningrad. It presents a city of monumental resilience, whose inhabitants fought together to brave the blockade’s hardships,having suffered ‘one continuous nightmare’ (George 2004: 497) in the twenty years prior, due to Civil War and Stalin’s Red Terror. However, at the same time, the conditions of the city itself during the blockade now tie into the image of the city due to their brutality and generate an image of a city of exceptional suffering, meaning the citizens had to adapt to a life of suffering there. Byshowing such heroicness in the face of such hardship, the citizens’ self-perception was transformed by their awareness that they were part of something special and made them even more proud of their city and thus even more willing to defend it. However, lack of morality amongst the population is also apparent through the appearance of less humane behaviour, which was largely covered up, showing astruggle to remain civilized in such inhumane conditions. Thus in this essay, I will explore how these factors contributed to this transformation.
By surviving the horrors of the longest siege in modern world history, Leningrad acquired the image of ‘Hero City’ after the Soviet government awarded it this title in 1945. Despite Hitler’s intentions they would not surrender and resorted to superhumanresilience to withstand it. Through this experience, Leningraders’ self-perception was transformed, as they saw themselves as ‘defenders of the city’, which strengthened their already strong personal ties to it, meaning that they could identify with Leningrad even more, as they did not wish to see it destroyed. This feeling meant that it became such a duty to defend the city that leaving was not anoption and any deserters were shot (George 2004: 509). This is evident in the documentary Blokada (Loznitsa 2009), where soldiers are shown marching alongside the Neva with the Peter and Paul Fortress in the background. This is a powerful image because a symbol of defence is shown with images that are immediately identifiable with Leningrad and portrays the soldiers doing their duty for theircity. The use of this monument is also significant because Leningraders saw ‘buildings as embodiments of Leningrad’ (Kirschenbaum: 2006: 34), so they felt the need to protect them to protect the city itself. Thus, the city’s most famous monuments were painted, camouflaged or covered in sandbags by volunteers to protect them from air raids (Salisbury 1969: 145), which emphasises the heroic image ofthe city, because Leningraders’ love of their city spurred them to such devotion towards it in its hour of need.
Leningraders also transformed the city into a ‘Hero City’ by trying to live normal lives during the blockade to collectively preserve a sense of normality and prevent the city from spiralling into chaos. This is clear in Blokada (Loznitsa 2009), when an early scene shows trams runningand many cars and people on the streets, giving the impression that despite the blockade’s hardships, life goes on, which highlights Leningraders’ astounding mental strength. This was emblematised in Shostakovich’s 7th Symphony, which was dedicated to Leningrad and demonstrated the national will to resist the Nazis until the end: ‘это выражение растущей и неизбежой победы советского народа над...