Talk:Battle of Stalingrad/Casualties

message: hey hey there.
what it the up?
leave me some love!
cuz oranges are purple and the skys orange!
lyl!! 
:]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.216.61 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

message: Hey,
something is messed up in the table: how come there are civilian casualties for Germans? Mikkalai
:That would be me. I f'ed up. →Raul654 07:41, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
The current numbers make no sense (Every single soldier died?) and contradict the main text. Are there better numbers? availabe?  --Yooden 11:36, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
"The battle was marked by the brutality and disregard for civilian casualties on both sides." - Civilian casualties are only applicable to USSR.
--No, The sentence works as stands.  It means both sides disregarded civilian casualties, not that both sides suffered civilian casualties.
How come the number of casualties on the German side about 800,000, is more than the total number of Germans involved in the battle?
The number given by William Craig in his well-respected "Enemy at the Gates" is 850000 Axis military, 750000 Soviet military, and 40000 Soviet civilain casualties. Kazak 22:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, please sign your comments using four tildes, because anonymous comments like this just won't cut it. Second, of course German had reserves. They basically pulled troops from all around the area (Caucasus, Voronezh front and so on) to assault Stalingrad. And Russians had reinforcements during all the battle, even if this was accomplished through dangerous crossings of Volga. Third, a "strength" is defined as a number of troops commited to a given task at a given moment, and/or the maximum of it. I mean, just read Beevor's Stalingrad if you have trouble believing the figures (no offense meant). The Russian Wiki quotes the same figure. (even if personnaly I think Russian casualties are closer to 1,000,000). But for German ones, no doubt. Demographically speaking, the Wermacht and the Waffen-SS never recovered from Stalingrad, both from a qualitative and a quantitative point of view, because they lost their best troops there. grafikm_fr 22:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: The number of Axis casualties in the Battle of Stalingrad gets revised disturbingly often. The latest revision down to 500,000 obviously tries to make the total losses fit the initial Axis strength, at the beginning of the battle, indicated in the table. It thereby ignores, however, Axis reinforcements during the battle, it ignores Romanian, Italian and Hungarian losses when the Soviets shattered their armies, and it ignores Axis losses sustained in the first phase of the battle, from July to November 1942. The latter point deserves particular attention. 
:Maybe, but not every Axis soldier that participated in the battle became a casualty.--itpastorn 13:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that people are using the terms "German" and "Axis" interchangeably. That isn't accurate though; those two are completely different. Germans are Germans but Axis includes Germany's allies too. So it is true if one says 300,000 "German" died at Stalingrad but it is ALSO true if one says 500,000 "Axis" died at the battle too.--Secret Agent Man 20:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't think you need to attribute sinister motives everywhere; professional historians can have honest differences of opinion in cases where documentary evidence is weak or lacking. Instead of trying to pick a single number, this article should report the varying estimates, qualify them with the method of estimation, and attribute them to the specific sources making the estimates - after all, as a secondary source, we're not in the business of making our own judgments on the facts, we're just reporting what the scholarly publications say. Stan 16:02, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  In any case, the numbers in the table should match the ones in the article. I suggest to put a range in the table for allies, rather than a single number. Mikkalai 17:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mikkalai that a range is a good idea. However one shall not trust pre-1991 Soviet numbers as they regularly inflate German losses. Somwhat simplified: A soldier tells his commander that he fired his gun, the commander tells his superior officer that a tank was hit, who tells his superior that a tank was destroyed, etc. Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson have proven that the Red Army had a reporting system that was flawed and to a large extent driven by fear of repression if one did not produce "results". And on top of that we have propaganda. Later on in the war the Nazi propaganda claimed ridicolous numbers as well. Large portions of the german people seemed to believe they actually could win the war even in 1944! The best numbers are produced by citing German sources for German numbers and Soviet, post-1991-de-classified numbers for Soviet losses. Italian, Hungarian, Romanian, etc losses should be the hardest of all to estimate.--itpastorn 13:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Forgot. The Axis had substantial numbers of Russian and Ukrainian people within their ranks, according to Beevor so many that it really surprised the Stavka when they found out. Since they were all shot upon capture and their existence denied for propaganda reasons, that casualty figure is probably the hardest of all to estimate.--itpastorn 13:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  You wrote "Fact is the 6th Army hat a strengh of ca. 280.000 Soldiers. It NEVER recieved reinfocement." There are a couple of issues with this statement. First, the battle of Stalingrad involved many axis forces in addition to the German 6th Army (as noted above, there is at least the German 4th Panzer Army, the Italian 8th Army, Romanian forces, and Hungarian forces). Second, of course the 6th Army received reinforcements during the battle. Do you think they fought the entire campaign from June to Nov without getting any troop replacements ? *After they were encircled* they stopped getting reinforcements, but we should not confuse the last stages of the battle for the entire battle. Third, the editors above are citing written sources, not movies, even though one movie happens to have the same title as one of the books. DMorpheus 18:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axis Casualties and German Victimisation 

message: I see that the Germans sustained losses of 750,000-850,000, yet I see the troop strength is listed at 500,000. Any explanation for this? -- Natalinasmpf 18:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Krivosheev's (archival) numbers to the article, but let the battle box say "750,000+" for now. Before we change anything someone needs to bring in the German archival numbers, because the figures given for the Axis by the article are also Craig's. Personally, I dislike Western sources which cite through-the-roof Russian/Soviet casualties simply because Russians are supposedly inferior fighters, deriving entirely from the whole 'Slavic human wave' stereotype. Remember, any histories completed before 1991 anywhere will have inexact numbers for the USSR. We can't have the German losses be given by Craig and the Soviet ones by Krivosheev - it doesn't match up. And please, no insults. Kazak 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualty number more than strength number 

message: There seems to be a lot of inconsistency in strength and casualties. The number keep on not only changing, but also seemed to be remote from many other sources.
- The book I'm currently reading ('Stalingrad', by Antony Beevor) says that there were around 50.000 Soviet civilians in German uniform during the Battle of Stalingrad.
This book isn't ment to 'shock the current vision' about Stalingrad, but to inform; it's sources are many, and the book also reports that it (50.00 soviet civilians) was, and still is it's a taboo.
(note that these are not all anti-communist Russians, some (don't know the proportions) were forced)
Should I update 'Strength'?
User:superknijn
:It is already in the article under the topic "Soviet Victory" in the 2nd paragraph from the bottom (Deng 17:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in strength/casualties 

message: People dont understand the concept of reinforcements (Deng 10:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To many people monkey with the numbers so I will add the word starter

message: Just inquisitive, but how on earth did the Germans enter the battle with only 500 000 military men, and come out with 850 000 losses? Hmm... Did they somehow gain 350 000 men through their airdrops? If it was mentioned that the airdrops were insufficient to resupply the trapped German 6th army, how could they be sufficient to drop 350 000 more men? --Terrancommander 14:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As noted above, the Germans were reinforced during the campaign and their allies also suffered severe losses. See above for details. DMorpheus 18:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction? 

message: ===1===
Is it? I thought first Battle of the Somme was?
:The current figures for that battle (the Somme) put casualties in the 1,000,000 - 1,200,000 range.  Stalingrad is quoted at being far more than this, in the 1,500,000+ range.  The Somme was probably more horrific due to the small area (a few square miles) that it took place in compared to the entire Stalingrad combat zone --Pluke 19:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the Brusilov Offensive was the bloodiest battle in history. At least 2 million dead, and possibly 3 million. --Mad Max 03:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important to clarify terms at least. Stalingrad is probably the bloodiest battle in terms of total military casualties suffered by both sides combined.
===Bloodiest Battle===
The Battle of Stalingrad was a major turning point in World War II and is considered the bloodiest battle in recorded human history.
Shouldn't it be just "in human history", leaving out recorded?  It is impossible for a battle to have been deadlier than Stalingrad in pre-historical times.--Gяaρнic 03:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloodiest Battle in Human History

message: Is it? I thought first Battle of the Somme was?
:The current figures for that battle (the Somme) put casualties in the 1,000,000 - 1,200,000 range.  Stalingrad is quoted at being far more than this, in the 1,500,000+ range.  The Somme was probably more horrific due to the small area (a few square miles) that it took place in compared to the entire Stalingrad combat zone --Pluke 19:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the Brusilov Offensive was the bloodiest battle in history. At least 2 million dead, and possibly 3 million. --Mad Max 03:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: The Battle of Stalingrad was a major turning point in World War II and is considered the bloodiest battle in recorded human history.
Shouldn't it be just "in human history", leaving out recorded?  It is impossible for a battle to have been deadlier than Stalingrad in pre-historical times.--Gяaρнic 03:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloodiest Battle