Talk:Battle of Stalingrad

A very good article as it stands. Two changes just now that I question:

(1) Regarding Halder: the original says Hitler dismissed him, replacing him with Gen. Kurt Zeitzler, a spineless yes-man . The most recent change makes this into replacing him with the more tractable Zeitzler. I agree that the former phrase is a little unencyclopedic, but simply saying "more tractable" understates the case. For a general in such a senior position, Zeitzler was "a spineless yes-man". Hmmm..

(2) Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is a monumental history. On the other hand, Shirer inflates the achievements of his own (US and Commonwealth) forces at the expense of the Soviets. I am uncomfortable with the quote, because it is a mistake to place Stalingrad alongside Alemain and Torch: Stalingrad was more significant than either.

Finally, I think the entry needs more sense of the horror and desperation that made Stalingrad the battle that it was, and of the canny way that the Soviet commanders kept on dribbling in just barely enough reinforcement to hold the city, forcing a (relative) handful of defenders do the work of thousands in conditions of unbelievable hardship.

Next time I'm reading on the topic and have it fresh in my mind, I'll try to drop back in and convey a little of this. </reminder to self> Tannin 09:21 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Retreat

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?...

Concerning Street Fighting

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)

The russian's did not necessarily have more effective "street combat" or even necessarily more effective leaders (although i think so) what won the battle in Stalingrad was the frevor with which every russian soldgier fought the germans had invaded their country and killed million of russian civilians the germans had no real motive aside for "cleansing" the russians fought to the death their arm would break unable to fire a gun they would grab grenades with their good hand and pull the pin with their teeth the russians thought as Chuikov said "there is no land for us beyond the volga" -Kvladiko

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)

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)

Casualties

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)

LOL, as i said below: DONT trust movies about historic facts!!! Again: the 6th army had 280.000 Soldiers and german allies were below 100.000 soldiers. SO ITS IMPOSSIBLE that the germans had 800.000 casultis in the battle of stalingrad. so someone please change that!!! thanx

A certain "Kurt Leyman" keeps changing the Red Army casualties into the millions. It would be nice if that person either (a) stopped or (b) showed some evidence. For the moment, Craig's numbers are the best we have. I wonder why so many Germans are so bothered by the fact that they lost World War II and at times suffered higher casualties than their enemies. Either way, I believe Mr. Leyman should be placated by the sentence in the text itself that says, "Soviet military losses were more than 750,000 (some statistics cite up to one million or more)." Kazak 01:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that is is possible for the total number of causualies to be higher than the maximum troop strength in two ways:

• The casualties may include civilians, which are not included in the troop strength.

• The troops could be rotated in and out of the area, so the max at any one time (the number listed) is far fewer than the overall total number of troops involved in the battle.

StuRat 00:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Eeeeek wrong. there were NO "rotating" troops on germans or russian side. and the germans had NO reinforcement. if wikipedia is ever printed, there would be much facts in, that are simply wrong. thats not good. maybe wikipedia should leave historical things to PROFESSIONAL persons.....

No, but seriously. The number of German soldiers listed as taking part is 500,000, and the number of German casualites is 800,000. If there were reinforcements, why aren't they counted in the total? If the 500,000 means anything other than "total number of troops who took part" (like, for instance, "highest number of troops fielded at any given time") then that should be made explicitly clear, because right now it just looks like a stupid mistake.

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)

ok ok... whats all this about german casualties being 850,000 but only 500,000 germans being there and fighting. well the answer is simple, they are AXIS casualties NOT just germans. a large number of italians, romanians, croatians and hungarians for example fought at stalingrad too. this is where the discrepancy comes in and someone should find out exactly how many italians and so on did fight.

Weren't Soviet casualities more than german? somehow i don't believe the table Dracus

Bloodiest Battle in Human History

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)

Streamlining

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)

Equating the Third Reich with the Federal Republic of Germany

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)

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)

No need to worry

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)

We seem to see the same facts on the ground. The question then arises: Do we want the Germans to identify with Nazi Germany?
--Ruhrjung 14:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Calling war-time Germans "Germans" instead of "Nazis" points at the fact that WWII involved the German nation as a whole, not just its leadership. Overcoming selective perception ("Germans fought on the front, Nazis shot the civilians", "Nazis bombed London, Germans suffered in Hamburg") should in my view be part of Aufarbeitung, facing and dealing with the Nazi period. --Kolt 14:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see. And in your opinion, the wikipedia is the right place to educate the Germans?
--Ruhrjung 15:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whenever you get to know new things, including different sets of terminology, that's a sort of education. For nationals of any country. And that's exactly what a network-based encyclopedia should be all about, don't you agree? --Kolt 15:20, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would warn against seeing a colaborative project as a means to continue World War II "with other means."
--Ruhrjung 15:44, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(alluding at Clausewitz. :-)

Oh geez. Could we possibly just agree not to try to sneak POVs and political correctness into these kinds of articles? If you look at the authoritative historians, they use "Germans" for the nation as a whole, and Nazis for the political part of the state. The army consisted of many more Germans than just Nazis for instance, so calling it the "Nazi Army" instead of "German Army" is just wrong. Stan 15:59, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. --Kolt 08:38, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kolt and I do often agree. Here too. :-) --Ruhrjung 07:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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 ([[Nazi Germany|Germany]] invaded the Soviet Union etc.) Oberiko 13:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

Axis Casualties and German Victimisation

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)

The figure of 300,000 German casualties in Stalingrad has become a quasi-axiomatic fact in many Western sources; this is however only the number of troops eventually trapped in the pocket of Stalingrad in November 1942. That biased miscalculation is in line with the post-war German attempt to focus only on the sufferings of the 6th Army during its encirclement, thus trying to actually attribute Germans the role of victims in the War. By the way, this is also why references to the few German survivors of Soviet captivity pop up every time, while such references are almost never provided with respect to Soviet prisoners-of-war, who had a much lower life expectancy in German extermination camps.

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)

• edit* no secret agent man. the german 6th army was the army in stalingrad and area. it had 280.000 soldiers. the german allies in the region were below 100.000 in numbers. so its quite impossible that so much soldiers died in stalingrad.....

Turning back to the war casualties, the focus on the Germans' defensive phase of the battle in the winter means that German losses suffered in the very much aggressive phase of the battle during the summer and autumn are tacitly excluded. This is the reason why the German mantra of 300,000 does not correspond to Soviet estimates of Axis losses in the Battle of Stalingrad, amounting to 1,000,000. The latter figure simply includes all Axis losses: both Germans and their allies, both during the rat-war in the summer and autumn and after the Soviet winter offensive, both Axis losses inside the pocket and losses on the front just outside Stalingrad, including the failed German attempt to relieve the 6th Army in December 1942.

I invite you to comment before re-editing.

--Kolt 12:13, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why was the sentence removed that Hitler's popularity diminished as a consequence of the defeat? Andries 17:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Critic9328 02:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that the German focus on German casualties at Stalingrad represent an attempt to portray Germans as victims of the war, apart from their feeling of having been misled by Hitler and the Nazi leadership in general (I think it's just sloppy ethnocentric history-writing). Also, one-sided comments on the numbers of German prisoners who died is not limited to German sources; it's common in Western (or at least American) accounts, probably as a result of Cold War partisanship (not wanting to highlight injustices against Russian soldiers). Also, technically speaking, I don't think Soviet POWs were sent to extermination or "death" camps per se, at least not systemically (although in practice most of them did die in German captivity).

Many things here are absolutley NOT true. Fact is the 6th Army hat a strengh of ca. 280.000 Soldiers. It NEVER recieved reinfocement. The Casulties of 800.000 are fansasy. 110.000 Germans of the 6th army were POWs after the battle. 80.000 died in Stalingrad and area. And: DONT BELIEVE MOVIES ABOUT HISTORIC FACTS. THANK YOU

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)

NPOV, or just movie criticism

# Enemy at the Gates, a 2001 American film over dramatizing the exploits of sniper Vasily Zaitsev. Directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud and starring Jude Law, Ed Harris and Rachel Weisz

Heh, "over dramitizing." Yeah, it's a drama alright. Leave as is or change those words? :) Krupo 04:39, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sniper Discussion

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)

I have just reverted a change to the number killed by Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev, which was him being credited with 242 kills, his own page says 225 kills in the battle, and the original figure on this page was 149, can we please decide which number to quote. If in fact the number is bigger than 224 then we need to start rewording this section. --Pluke 18:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the Soviet Sniper page, it says 242. Sources for any of this? Benandorsqueaks 07:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

(Note: The article on Vassily Zaitzev claims that he was in fact responsible for 225 kills between November 10th and December 17th. Correction?). This question was put into the article text by an anonymous user - --Sf 14:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Operation Uranus

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)

Planning methods

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)

Background

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)

Other Turning Points

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)

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)

Rubbish. They are generally accepted as the highwater marks of Axis military aggression. If it dilutes POV GREAT! Also, web surfers may well know little about the military "progression" of the war unless they read the whole article on WWII. Having a lttle section like this can lead to other turning points in other theaters of war. Battle of Midway was the turning point in the pacific; Battle of Alamein was the that of the desert war. I don't want to trivialize the war or in anyway sideline the eastern front. But perhaps it would be helpful to mention that servicemen in both European theaters were aware of the monumental outcomes of the 'other battle' e.g north africa 8th Army soldiers were aware of stalingrad and vice versa... German soldiers called the surrender at tunis as "Tunisgrad" because of the large number of germansoldiers taken their -max rspct 10:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

So you admit it is accepted by historians? If you have alternative views on the turning points what are they? You can put them in if you like. As for the change/renaming reorgainisation - i accept THAT current compromise -max rspct 17:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Tales of snipers fictional?

I read somewhere that since the fall of the Soviet Union evidence has been discovered that the whole sniper drama at Stalingrad was a propaganda product of the Soviets, has anyone else heard this?

Certainly the sniper tales were used effectively in the Soviet propaganda machine. However, I think the historical record, esp. German records, confirm at least some of the facts. Beanbatch 17:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The drama between Zaitsev and Thorvalds aka Koenig is pure fiction. Propaganda to 100 %. The man Zaitsev was not. He was really a super sniper. He is a hero in his own right. No need to lie about him. Actually too bad someone decided to lie as it's a stain on an otherwise heroic person.--itpastorn 13:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

And you knows this because...? Evidence is...? Facts are...? Quotes are...?

It's rather well-known that Itpastorn's statement is wholly correct. The burden of proof would be on those who want to back the fictional account, not on those who are calling it (rightly) into question. It is very easy to find sources documenting the existence of Zaitsev. Try finding a reputable post-1990 source, or any German source, to document the existence of the German half of the story. You'll come up empty-handed.DMorpheus 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you knew what it has been like after the war in Russia and its Soviet satellites, then you would've known better of the challenges. There are veterans praising Stalin as their saviour, selling their war medals on both the streets and EBay, and even others saying that they would have rather seen the Germans win. It's a sick, twisted and ugly reality, which has perverted the many things that should have been saved. On top of that, there are still tons of classified war documents that hold the answers to the many questions that we have (probably the biggest of them all, is the total casualties). To simply say, "It happened, and there is no argument against it" in such a complex and important discussion as this (as opposed to something like, who will win the basketball game next week), is not only ignorant and unintelligent but also insulting.

casualty number more than strength number

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)

Possibly Romanian troops? I have a copy of Stalingrad by Beevor .. will consult and come back with figures. -max rspct 14:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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. A certain "Kurt Leyman" keeps changing the Red Army casualties into the millions. It would be nice if that person either (a) stopped or (b) showed some evidence. For the moment, Craig's numbers are the best we have. I wonder why so many Germans are so bothered by the fact that they lost World War II and at times suffered higher casualties than their enemies. Either way, I believe Mr. Leyman should be placated by the sentence in the text itself that says, "Soviet military losses were more than 750,000 (some statistics cite up to one million or more)." Also, Kurt Leymann has been deleting the passage of the losses of the German sattelites for no apparent reason - I am forced to correct him far too often. Kazak 01:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I have made changes, which clarify axis casualties and revise Soviet casualties higher. I have based these revisions on numerous scholarly sources...I am providing a link to a page which has already done an excellent job of quantifying various estimates as well as sources. The figure for Soviet casualties is ridiculously low, 750,000 for the 6 month period is far too low an estimate. By their own statistics they suffered 500,000 killed outright before Jan 1, 1943. I would be pleased to engage in a discussion with anyone who would challenge my figures. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/battles.htm

---

Well here's one. In that page you listed " http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/battles.htm". It indictates 2/5 of the germans killed in 'The Battle Of Berlin' was of Cardiac Arrest.

Now STOP with your personal vendetta.

Not to mention those who actually fled Stalingrad. While Stalin ordered no one to leave Stalingrad; Trust me, quite a few left throughout the year.

---

Also, Erickson is the authority of the Russian Frong, not Craig.

I would also like to point out that Kazak is a Russian himself, living in the United States. I think his patriotism has blinded him to the reality that was Stalingrad. The fact is, the Russians suffered enormous casualties during the entire battle, certainly far higher than the combined axis forces, and when compared to the good German units, the losses were 3:1 and probably higher.

Well, let's bar everyone from writing about their own country.
I deleted all the nonsense about the soldiers shooting starving children. You know, Russians are human, too. Is it that hard to believe? Kazak 22:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You keep changing to that ridiculous 750,000 figure and you are basing it on nothing. Please provide a source or a compendium of sources which put the figure at 750,000....and from when to when? The Battle does not include only the battle for the city itself. It also includes the battle at the approaches as the 6th army crossed the bend of the Don. Listen, Russian, you are obviously a biased poster. You are only concerned with that one figure, and you refuse apparently to engage in a discussion about the figures. STOP imposing your ridiculous fantasies on this thread...if you continue to do so, I will have to get a moderator involved in this thread. Back up your statistics from more than one source and then we can talk. Until then, I am change your silly edit back to the historically accepted numbers.

Craig was writing in the 70's before documents were available from Soviet archives. His number 750,000 is such a disgusting approximation and such an obvious one. I just wonder how on Earth you could act as if Craig is the authority on these statistics when it is well known that Erickson is considered the expert. I am changing the numbers back to 1.2 million. You should just accept the fact that your country suffered more casualties than the axis during Stalingrad. This has been well known fact for years and years. The fact that you are Russian and keep referring to Craig, who wrote in 1970's without access to information the Soviets would not release stinks to high heaven. Craig made an estimate, nothing more. Now get a life and figure it out, you are wrong. Dtraywi

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)

The start number is lower then the casulties number is because none has added reinforcments numbers or none german axis numbers, if someone could add how many the total of axis there were at the start of the battle and how many reinforcments were sent into the battle that would be great. Also people should remeber that the battle of Stalingrad was not only inside the city but around it as well. (Deng 14:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

Well...

I wonder why so many Germans.

I am not German, I am Finnish. I suggest that you drop the (what seems like) hostile attitude.

A certain "Kurt Leyman" keeps changing the Red Army casualties..

I have never claimed that the 1,500,00 would be exact, certain figure. I have always included 750,000 and after that this - little symbol in the casualties box. I have also included the word "estimates".

I believe Mr. Leyman should be placated by the sentence in the text itself that says, "Soviet military losses were more than 750,000 (some statistics cite up to one million or more)

And I belive you should do the same.

Kurt Leyman

Well, thank you for responding. The hostile attitude was caused by your apparently never answering comments and complaints about your posts. However, I still believe that my (and Craig's) numbers should stay as they are the more exact ones, and make reference to Germany's allies. Kazak

Clarification on what is NPOV

I've been watching the edits on people intending to say "biggest" or "largest" battle is POV when they are wrong. A comment recently "NPOV because Okinawa and Normandy can be called just as bloody or biggest" Bloody is a purely subjective. But biggest, in terms of what? In terms of manpower, armor, aircraft, artillery? Let's draw the tables from wiki's very own pages on the stats: Okinawa:"150,000 initially, 300,000 by the end of the battle /76,000 Army soldiers, 24,000 armed militias "

Normandy:"326,000 (by June 11) / ? " Casualties were:"53,700 dead, 18,000 missing, 155,000 wounded /about 200,000 dead, wounded and missing, 200,000 captured " So draw your conclusions on German total.

Now Stalingrad:"500,000 (6th Army)/ 1,700,000"

• • edit* Sorry, but the 6th Army couldnt lose 500.000 soldiers... it had only 280.000........

again i have to say: dont quote Movies about Hisorical Facts!

• • • Did you even read what the guy posted? Those numbers are from the battlebox on this very article.--4.232.222.105 21:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

These objective results earn Stalingrad the right to be called bigger in terms of manpower than the previous 2 mentioned battles/campaigns. Now comparing Stalingrd to Kursk or Berlin is a more complicated matter.

--Mole Man 08:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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.

Why Stalingrad?

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)

NKVD Rear Guards

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)

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)

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)

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)

Inconsistency in strength/casualties

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))

Reproduction?

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)

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)

Dmorpheus is 100% right, to solve this problem someone should look into the start numbers of axis at the battle and how many reinforcments were sent (Deng 14:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

Serious Problem of casualties

There where 500,000 German soldiers in the Battle and they tok 800,000 casualties, can someone explain me that???? This editions lack the credibility of the wikipedia, there is no need to be a History Analizer to note that is just common sense. Please i have navigated thruoght the web and read many books about it and german casualties are a little bit exagerated, and the russian casualties cut to the half, can someone explain me this???

The 500k are German soldiers at the start of the battle, there should ofcurse also be included how many other axis members there were there. Also reinforcments were sent in. Germany hade allies there that all lost alot, Italy lost some 130k Hungary some 130k and Romania some 200k.

If you read the whole article you will get it all explained and if you read the whole talk page you will se that this specific question has been answered many times. (Deng 03:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC))

Mny times, look right now another usser have changed the casualties agaibn with no source !!! and also changed the casualties information of the same article. This talk page if for nothing. People continue changing the information with no souerces.

Hehe well that is wiki,people change without any sources. So if you want to get into wiki you need sources and real ones and many ones so that you can prove that what ever you say about what ever is correct. And since this is wiki then people will allways make changes without sources. You shouldnt look at wiki as absolut fact but as a medium where things may not allways be correct and where things are in constant movement. And if there is something to be gained or lost in any specific article then ofcurse you should take all information in that article with a bucket of salt. (Deng 05:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

This problem will never end, thats true. This article will be changed again and again. But the casualties in the battlebox are different with the casualties of the section of the aftermath. Check it! Now if you said that people change info without sources and thats common. How you can know an edition is a vandalism or a correct edition from a source.

I recomend to split the casualties part of the battlebox with two sources , like it was done in the Battle for Manchuria 1945 battlebox (Check it).

To many people monkey with the numbers so I will add the word starter

People dont understand the concept of reinforcements (Deng 10:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

The numbers are from Great Battles on the Eastern Front by Dupuy (Deng 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

Video Games Section

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)

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)

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)

Video games

• Close Combat III: The Russian Front (1999)
• Sudden Strike (2000)
• Battlefield 1942 (2002)
• Call of Duty (2003)
• Call of Duty: Finest Hour (2004)
• Call of Duty 2 (2005)
• Medal of Honor: Spearhead (2003)
• Medal of Honor: European Assault (2005)
• Stalingrad (2005)

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)

Theoretically yes. However this sentence/issue has been the subject of repeated edit wars so for the sake of peace and progress I suggest it be left as it is. --Sf 09:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm not worried about it.--Gяaρнic 00:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

However, on the point of what is possible our ancestors millenia ago have been known to inflict serious casualties on each other. See Battle of cannae which is still up there as one of the bloodiest of all (recorded) time. --Sf 09:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"A major turning point" . . . certainly this is a true statement. but is it strong enough? William Jockusch 17:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. "one of" or "a" is simply not enough. The battles that took place prior to Stalingrad were either "small victories" (One of the most obvious examples is the Battle of Moscow) or stalemates (One of the less obvious examples is the Battle of Britain). It could also be argued that the Battle of Stalingrad was the first part of the turning point (Kursk being the second).