The Battle of Leningrad as Interpreted by Modern English-Speaking Historians

The purpose of the article is to analyze scientific literature devoted to the Battle of Leningrad published in English-speaking countries (Great Britain, USA, Australia, Canada) after 2000, to identify approaches to assessing this battle, and to systematize the material used in the work. During the work on the publication, the principles of historicism and objectivity; historical-genetic, historical-typological, and historical-systemic methods were used. With their help, it was possible to identify and structure monographs and articles devoted to the Battle of Leningrad in accordance with the logic of the article. Three groups of publications were identified: 1) works written in accordance with the conceptual guidelines of the Cold War. In them, historians agree with the assessments of the course, main events, and results of military operations given by German military leaders and researchers during the Cold War, downplay the role of the USSR in the victory of the allied forces, focusing on the terrain and weather, and note the more significant role of Lend-Lease for the Red Army than it actually played; 2) studies that include a revision of some of the previously mentioned assessments and a more in-depth analysis of the facts; however, they also still contain some tendentious assessments that limit their objectivity; 3) articles and monographs in which modern English-speaking historians advocate a complete revision of the assessments of the Eastern Front and, in particular, the Battle of Leningrad. The author came to the conclusion that over the course of several decades there have been “shifts” towards more objective works freed from ideological frameworks, however, publications that still contain assessments aimed at falsifying our history are still presented in sufficient quantity.