Talk:Battle of Stalingrad/Archive 1

message: Weren't the Russian retreats prior to the Battle of Stalingrad a military tactic to outflank the Germans? Didn't they intentionally fall back while destroying facilities on the way to make the German's ill-equipped and ill-dressed for wintery warfare in Russian Terrain? I'm not really sure but this is from what I remember... can somebody clarify?...
::Thats is true but it was before the battle of Stalingrad. The tactic youre talking about is called Scorched earth.--DerMeister 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retreat 

message: We all know the basic defense strategy on the Eastern Front was street fighting. Soldiers fight from city to city, taking street by street and through house by house. Stalingrad was a great example of this.
My question is how come the Soviets, using street fighting, defended Stalingrad for 4-5 months yet the Germans barely defended their key cities like Berlin, Prague, and Budapest for a couple of weeks? Is the Soviet style of street fighting somehow "better" than the German style of street fighting?
--Secret Agent Man 23:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One word: Resupply. A life expectancy of 24 hours meant that one had to constantly ship more troops into the battle. The Red Army did, the Germans in 1945 could not. They were also often behind 5:1 or even 10:1 in numbers and in 1945 they forces were to a large extentyoung teenagers, older men and invalides.--itpastorn 12:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  5:1 or 10:1 is a bit too much (2.5 or 3 is a more appropriate figure - 2.5 for Berlin, a bit more for Budapest and a bit less than 2:1 for Königsberg) but of course you're right about the bottom line. :o) grafikm_fr 22:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Answer to Kvladiko: Such propaganda. First of all I think most people would agree on that the leaders of neither sides were in a military manner extremely bright. Further the idea that the russians would fight untill their hands were ripped of their body sounds to me riddiculous. Most of the men on the front line were forced there, if you didn't come you were simply shot along with your family. That doesn't leave you with many options unless you don't like your family. Last, but cretainly not least, the russians, armed with shovels and sticks, that turned back from the machinegun fire were shot by their own commanders. Oh such heroism. As for those of you who concider Zhukov to be a military master-mind, HAH! He is nothing more than a butcher of his own soliders. --DerMeister 21:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning Street Fighting 

message: I agree with User:Tannin that Western sources tend to downplay the Soviet contribution to WWII, although the German-Soviet war was the largest single conflict in the history of mankind. In addition, the focus on planning in the German military command tends to be at the expense of realistic descriptions of Soviet sacrifice in battle. I have now shortened the article and highlighted some issues that Tannin has mentioned: the combat itself that made Stalingrad the bloodiest battle in history.
--Kolt 18:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streamlining 

message: While I very much appreciate the ambition to balance the coverage of WWII, where the Great Patriotic War has been disgracefully overlooked in the West during the Cold War, I am concerned with the removal of links to other wikipedia articles.
On a more personal account, I, as a German who has lived outside of Germany for most of the last 14 years, am concerned by what I perceive as a recently increasing anti-German bias in particularly US mass media, signified by the shift from depicturing the de-nazification of West Germany as marking   discontinuity with the Third Reich to today increasing emphasize on the perceived similarities between Nazi Germany and the present-day republic.
I am sorry to see, and disturbed by, the same tendency here, with references to the Third Reich and to Nazi Germany changed into Germany or German (redirected to the article on the federal republic).
--Ruhrjung 09:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that there are superficial simliarities, given that when governments change it is common to recycle old laws, civil service, infrastructure and so on.  Americans should know better, having carried over so many trappings from our own existence as colonies, but it's true that many of us Just Don't Get It. About all that can be done is to make corrections or clarifications when such things ae found, I guess :( iMeowbot~Mw 19:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equating the Third Reich with the Federal Republic of Germany 

message: References to "Germany" as the aggressor in WWII in Europe are in my view not strange at all. To the contrary, what worried me more during the years that I spent in Germany myself was the occasional absence of the word Germany. Instead, the war and the genocide seemed to have been single-handedly carried out by "Hitler" alone, or by a funny nation called "Nazis". The emphasis on "Nazis" instead of "Germans" of course coincided with Cold War ideology on both sides of the Iron Curtain: as both the US and the USSR were in alliance with each a half of post-war Germany, both wanted to distinguish their modern allies from their brutal predecessor. Official Soviet propaganda in addition wanted to make a point of fighting a political communism-versus-fascism struggle. See Reich-Ranicki's memoirs, where he remembers working as a censor for the Polish army towards the end of the war, replacing "damn Germans" with "damn Nazis" in soldiers' letters.
Anyway, in the present article on "Stalingrad" I find that the terminology is quite balanced. The term Nazi-Germany, which is very correct to mention, appears in the introduction. For the rest, the Germans are indeed referred to as Germans, for that is what they undeniably were after all: Germans.
--Kolt 12:24, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think it's not bias, but an attempt to be as specific as possible.  The Federal Republic of Germany is a significantly different entity then Nazi Germany and Imperial Germany, just as the Wehrmacht is different then the Bundeswehr.  IMO, using the term "Germany" should mostly be reserved for geographical references (a town in Germany, the Allies bombed the German cities Dresden etc.) and the specific entity when referring to political actions (Germany invaded the Soviet Union etc.) Oberiko 13:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Total Agreement.  American have done things ( like slavery ) however when your in the northern part of the country you don't hear of the "Southerns" having slaver you hear of the Americans having slavery.  The Same principal should hold true for the germans.  Not all germans were Nazi's but the Nazi's were predominantely german.  PS<Sorry for Spelling errors> ch 16:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need to worry 

message: The Soviet sniper was not Vasily Alexandrovich Zaitsev, but Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev. I'll fix this together with details of biography later. Cmapm 19:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: the X amount is the amount of credited (or confirmed) kills, not the claimed total, which exceeds 1000 for some WWII snipers. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sniper Discussion 

message: Why is there no mention of the NKVD rear guards that would gun down any retreating Russian forces. Surely that is something that should be noted!!
Don't confuse Hollywood with history, please. This an encyclopedia. Kazak 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, not to endorse Hollywood, but the security organs of the USSR *did* operate 'blocking detachments' at times to ensure that Red Army units did not retreat without orders.  DMorpheus 14:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their purpose was to check documents on the roads, not "gun down any retreating Russian forces". The military police served the same function in the US Army. Of course, they killed more deserters (sometimes, like when order #227 was in effect, on the spot) than the MPs, but that was only due to the nature of the Soviet regime. What the user above suggests is a self-destructive mania for slaughter commonly ascribed to the Russian armies of history but in reality a product of myths, furthered by Hollywood and propaganda. Cossack 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoa, we are straying from the topic a bit, but US Army MPs most assuredly do not fire on deserters. Their major function in conventional WW2-style combat is traffic control and rear area security, plus some constabulary duties. I am not suggesting that scenes such as what is shown in the film "Enemy At The Gates" should be a source here, nor even that such scenes were common. I agree wholheartedly that there has been a lot of myth built up around that issue. But we can't deny the historical conduct of blocking detachments. It is precisely the nature of the Soviet regime that is the point here.  DMorpheus 18:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NKVD Rear Guards 

message: This is currently a separate article, and some of the details don't seem to completely match up with what is presented in this article.  It might be a good idea for someone with a good grasp of the details to either reconcile the two articles, or perhaps merge that rather short Uranus article to here (and at the same time, fix up Template:Campaignbox Axis-Soviet War to match). iMeowbot~Mw 08:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Operation Uranus]] 

message: Revert the deleton. Would it be relevant if a new tank model or a bomber plane were used in the battle for the first time? Yes, I think it would. Then why isn't the use of innovative planning methods in one of the largest battle of the 20th century relevant? This isn't a bizarre claim, this is a well-known fact. A lot of planned methods were developed during the Great Patriotic War and later used in the socialist economy. Paranoid 13:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning methods 

message: I thought the way to the Azerbaidjan oil fields had nothing to do with Stalingrad, and that the only reason Hitler was so stubborn with the battle was because the city was called Stalingrad?
:Besides the propaganda importance over the city's name ..it was a communications/logistics node for that more southerly campaign in the Caucasus (azerbaidjan)  -max rspct 15:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: I removed this section, what was the point?  Document the rest of WWII here?  Did not seem appropriate, kinda unNPOV, and the list keeps changing.  Beanbatch 08:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why have this section Other major turning points of WWII here?  It seems to me this section is attempting to dilute the Russian POV as a major turning point in WWII.  What does this add to the article?  Very subjective list, anyway.  I say it should be deleted.  Beanbatch 18:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I actually agree with Beanbatch's edit and agree it should be removed or altered. Although it may be conventional wisdom and even accepted by many historians, it is still POV to declare what are the key turning-points. Maybe a compromise would be to label the section, "Other events often considered major turning points in World War II." I agree that the Russian issue is not the key problem though. Tfine80 15:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So I appreciate Tfine80's efforts at diplomacy.  Recent edits took them all away, however.  Too bad that this section, which has NOTHING to do with Stalingrad, gets changed so much.  I have tried again.  Renamed to "See also", as in many other articles.  Also moved it to the bottom, so as not to affect the flow of the actual article.  Comments? Beanbatch 19:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Turning Points

message: Hmm very interesting article and most good written. But why is the reason of this battle not noted? Where was Stalingrad fought over? I think that should be added aswell. This city was of strategic importance because if it was conquered by the facists they could travel to Baku (by that time Baku was producing 60% of the worldoil). This could lead to intant victory to the nazi army. And therefore is the most important battle of WOII somebody should add that aswell.
:: I agree the reaons for the battle should be included. The trouble of course is figuring out what that reason was. From the little I know, it appears that the city itself was not a German objective prior to the start of the campaign, nor did the Soviets expect to fight there. I would also say there is no step that either side could have taken to secure "instant victory" except perhaps the assassination of one of the two dictators.
Stavka expected that the main German effort in summer 1942 would be on the central part of the front facing Moscow. I don't see any evidence that they saw the city itself as a strategic point for any reason other than prestige (the Tsaritsyn legend from the civil war was a recent memory). 
If the German objective was to cut off the flow of transportation up the volga (as is often stated) they could have accomplished that far more easily by taking any portion of the western bank north of Stalingrad and simply sat there with artillery. That would have completely interdicted traffic. By the way, this would also have denied a large part of the Soviet supply of caucasian oil regardless of whether the oilfields themselves were taken.  
If the German objective was to seize the oilfields of the caucasus, again they could have done that without taking Stalingrad, although the railheads would have been awfully useful to have. 
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Germans did the Soviets a huge favor by blundering into battle within the city of Stalingrad. By doing so they gave away all their advantages in mobile battle and offered up a close-range, small-unit infantry, mortar, and sapper battle that the Red Army had a much better chance of winning than, say, a mechanized campaign on the open steppe west and north of Stalingrad. 
You have to wonder whether the battle would have happened at all if the city had had a different name.
:::No, I think the battle really was about control of the Volga and the railways that led into and out of the city. The Germans had very poor intelligence about the Soviet Union throughout the war, and like almost any government in wartime they fell into the trap of believing their own propaganda. As a result they severely underestimated the Soviets' ability to rebuild their armies. The primary objective of the German summer offensive of 1942 was initially to grab control of the oil fields of the Caucasus. After winning a string of easy victories, then meeting light opposition as they advanced eastwards, Hitler and his senior officers started believing that the Soviet Union was finished as a fighting force, and brushed aside reports of a massive Soviet buildup of reserves. They really thought they could split own their armies and gain control of both the Caucasus and the Volga. As it turned out they could do neither.
:::It's very easy to look at this with 20/20 hindisght and say that the change in strategy was a mistake. We don't know what would have happened if Hitler had concentrated his armies in the Caucasus. The disaster might well have been worse. Zhukov might have launched the same sort of offensive and cut off all of Army Group South, instead of just the sixth army. We don't know. The Stalingrad disaster was not bad strategy as much as the fact that no one in the German high command believed that the Soviets were capable of launching a counter-offensive like Uranus, and they were totally unprepared when it happened.
:::The other thing to realize is that because of the huge areas and distances involved, all of the strategy on the Eastern front revolved around roads, railways and river systems. Whoever could move and supply his armies most efficiently held the strategic initiative. It was really that simple. As a railway center on the Volga Stalingrad had major strategic value for both sides.
Well, I can't say I agree whole heardetly.  It was only a few months into the offensive, after the the Izium Pocket, that Hitler established Stalingrad as a target, and his orders to destroy the city through a bombardment go contrary to the theory that he wished to establish a much needed railroad hub there.  On the contraire, I think that Hitler saw it as a center fold piece to control of the Caucuasus, and that control of Stalingrad would cut off Moscow and her armies and the the armies in the Caucasus, and thus dooming Russia's oil fields and guaranteeing them for Germany.  In fact, I don't believe Hitler had much belief that he would follow up with a southwardly invasion of Moscow, and instead needed the oil to refit Army Group Center.  
In retrospect, Stalingrad was a horrible strategy, within the context of how the actual battle was carried out.  The bombardment was a tactical debacle and it technically, although perhaps disputably, ensured Soviet success in the battle.  The way the Germans handled the street to street fighting was equally as disastrous; Stalingrad shouldn't have been directly invested in the first place.  It should have been sorrounded and forced to surrender; most of Germany's earlier victories at Kiev and Smolensk were done in the same manner.  Even in earlier examples, such as Warsaw in September 1939, Mansten's armour was devoured in the suburbs of Warsaw, and it was only a stroke of genius that allowed him to disengage from there and deploy his armour to finalize the encirclement around Polish troops in the center of the country.
But, then again, that's just my theory on it all. Catalan 07:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Stalingrad?

message: I am not supportive of many of the games listed in the Video Games section.  Why list Sudden Strike or Call of Duty when ignoring other games such as Close Combat?  The list could be huge and from the apparent criteria used here to select the games - Where any war game ever having a few levels set in Stalingrad is included - should be huge.  I believe this section in its current form is unnecessary, games solely dedicated to Stalingrad should be the only criteria.  I am deleting other games, as I have done previously without objection; please discuss any objections here.--Pluke 10:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Expand an incomplete list is always better than deleting it! The fact that it can be huge and could be split in another article is a different question however... ^_^ grafikm_fr 09:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but can we store the list here for the moment, I feel that it adds nothing but length to the main article, after all we don't list every insignificant book that ever had a sentence on the battle --Pluke 10:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the input, you certainly seem to know your stuff, please sign up to wikipedia and help us out, if we have enough info we could eventually expand to a Battle of Stalingrad in popular culture or similar article. Pluke 11:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm signed in, and I have an email on my new signin.  I'm a total noob, but I'm happy to help out; could you toss me an email to let me know what to do next?   Jarretestin 09:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Games Section 

message: Of all the articles about World War 2, I think this one deserves a "What If" section the most. If Battle of Dunkirk has it, so should Battle of Stalingrad. 64.235.219.247 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A "What If" section 

message: In changing Red October from a redirect to October Revolution to a disambig, I changed the reference here (which discussed the factory, but pathologically linked to October Revolution).  I made a to a red article Red October (factory), but should that be Red October (steelworks) instead? Is the factory interesting and notable enough to warrant an article of its own right (in particular, does it have a noteworthy history before and after the Battle of Stalingrad)? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Red October factory