Talk:Battle of Stalingrad/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Citation for Casualties

-I'm asking why someone has repeatedly changed the Casualties on the page about this war to a decidedly pro-German bias (something like 150,000 dead Germans to 1 million plus Russians). 10 to 1 kill ratio in favor of the Germans? That is rubbish, even the Military Channel's (usually decisively pro-US and pro-West biased) had the casualties/deaths for military personnel at 740,000 Germans, and 750,000 Soviet Red Army troops; which was what this site's accurate estimations were, standing for months. Even the military analyst on the show said about it being an almost 1 to 1 kill ratio with the comment, "That is very good for a peasant army." This was why the German Wermacht lost Stalingrad because their army performed poorly against much weaker equipped and much, MUCH shoddier trained Soviet soldiers.

In explaination to the question about "How can the Germans take more causualties than if the army was not as large..." -Simple. Reservists fill your front line casualties. That is how casualties total higher than your initially mobilized force. Anyway, that's all I got. Thought someone should clear up this decidedly pro-German bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jregley (talkcontribs) 06:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I'd like to see this too. The numbers cited seem to be taken from the worst possible Axis perspective and the best possible Russian perspective. When I first read this article some years ago, the Russians had more than twice the casualties that the Axis had. Now it's reversed, and the Axis actually have more casualties listed than the Russians. This has no basis in history, and reeks of bias. Anti-German sentiments should not have that much of an impact on a supposedly neutral article.

I don't like this post. Your thread is messed up because you have made a big deal over something small. Look, the numbers of casualties ranges based on whoever estimates it, because different people have different opinions. There is no reason to say that this article is biased or use the phrase "supposedly neutral" just because you feel like insulting somebody else's work. Whoever wrote this article found a reliable source online, who got their numbers from either another website, or an actual casualty esmtimator (whoever may be held accountable for this job). A few numbers are wrong, maybe, but that doesn't meant the whole article is biased nor does it mean the author is biased. The history was written by the victor, Russia, so they are naturally to seem the better force. I feel insulted as a person that other people actually troll the internet looking for minute things that are incorrect so you can assault the person who put it there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm just going to waltz on in and say if anything from Stalingrad, by Anthony Beevor, is even half correct. Wikipedia is more then half wrong. NKVD killed thousands of soldiers at Stalingrad, for treasonous activities against the state and othersuch generic accusations. Even more thousands deserted to join the Germans. To even try and pretend that all Russians were 110% devoted to the Motherland is outright laughable. Also, to pretend that the Germans, were their highly mechanized and trained Wermacht, had more casualties inflicted on a army that often sent soldiers to fight without weapons or for the sole task of being a suicide bomber, is once again, charmingly miscorrect. Just throwing it out there, breathing a bit of fresh air into Wiki, no matter how miscorrect that fresh air is.

Yeah, there is a clear conspiracy of WW2 historians, who dare to contradict Hollywood. (Igny 13:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC))
How does it come that the axis troops have 750.000 dead and 110.000 captured while the 6th army was only around 350.000 soldiers INCLUDING allied (such as romania). also the 6th army in stalingrad didnt received reeinforcements. the only way to come near to those casualties is to count the whole operation Blau as the battle for stalingrad.

By the way: this article says that nearly 25% of the overall dead german soldiers died in stalingrad! once more it seems that wikipedia is crap! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

The whole article may not be biased, but these casualties must definetly be reviewed. Also, this article is about the Battle of Stalingrad itself, not Operation Blau (There is another article about the latter). The Germans were outnumbered and had MORE casualties than the Soviet Union ??? We all must remember that the Soviet Union had the largest standing army in the world at the time of WWII, and that the Soviet commanders had no compuncing on using their men as cannon fodder (The NKVD, like the germans, also killed thousands of soldiers not only during Stalingrad, but during the whole war). Something is REALLY wrong here. Where are the REAL numbers ???????????????? --Castigator 01:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the part where it says that the Axis powers lost one quarter of their forces in Stalingrad directly contradicts the article about WWII. --Castigator 11:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
German have rainforce
They have better casualties ratio in first period but after Uranus their casualties turn higher

"::: The whole article may not be biased, but these casualties must definetly be reviewed. Also, this article is about the Battle of Stalingrad itself, not Operation Blau (There is another article about the latter). The Germans were outnumbered and had MORE casualties than the Soviet Union ??? We all must remember that the Soviet Union had the largest standing army in the world at the time of WWII, and that the Soviet commanders had no compuncing on using their men as cannon fodder (The NKVD, like the germans, also killed thousands of soldiers not only during Stalingrad, but during the whole war). Something is REALLY wrong here. Where are the REAL numbers ???????????????? --Castigator 01:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)"

Really, Castigator? What makes you think so? Let me guess, western propaganda. There were occurencies when USSR used men as cannon fodder, but these were pretty rare. you are educated in the west, you are not even taught military history in high schoools, we, in Russia, are taught. so, I would suggest for you to look not jsut in western articles but look up some translated russian ones to get the full picture, and not just propaganda. I am not saying that all written in western articles is propaganda, but most of the times it is very biased, except for rare articles and books. It is a widely accepted fact that USSR lost less men in Stalingrad than Germans, because of beatifully executed operation Uranus and because of sophisticated urban fighting doctrine by USSR. Also, to see how real battles proceeded, I would suggest for you to watch documentaries and read about Grain elevator and Pavlov's house. These readings should refresh your obviously biased opinion on the question. I would also suggest watching movies like "Enemy at the Gates" less.
Also, who edited that USSR captured 110,000 in Stalingrad? It is widely known that 250,000 were captured in Stalingrad. A lot of them died, yes, but 250,000 were captured.

Hi im german an my Grandpa fought in Stalingrad, the number of causualties on axis side mutch lower!! 750000? perhaps for the operations during and after including the whole eastern front, but this is the Battle of Stalingrad, so 230000 (including pows) Chr Didt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:55, August 22, 2007 (UTC)


It is indeed impossible for the casualty ratio to have been 150,000 German/Romanian/Italian/Hungarian vs. 1,130,000 Soviet. The low Axis figure probably reflects just the battle in and close to the city of Stalingrad, rather than the overall fighting in the larger area from the summer of 1942 to February 1943. The Soviet casualty figure, on the other hand, probably refers not just to fighting in Stalingrad and Stalingrad pocket but rather to this longer and larger-scale fighting in 1942-43. The casualty estimates need to be balanced. It might have been that the overall Soviet casualties from the summer of 1942 through February 1943 were somewhat higher than the Axis casualties, but certainly not 7:1. The 1,130,000 Soviet vs. 850,000 Axis sounds much more plausible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brildanz (talkcontribs) 20:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What sounds plausible to you is irrelevant. Soviet figures included workers and civilians pressed into military service, and no doubt a great many were civilians. Also a Soviet body count of dead Axis soldiers, prisoners, and minor Axis recorded losses have also been included. Using erroneous websites doesn't help maters. Dapi89 (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why wikipedia isn't a full trusty knowledge base. People here are saying that a highly experienced and trained army outnumbered heavily be poor trained, unexperienced and most "civil forced to fight" army got more losses? Germany lost about 8 million people at 2WW (2m civilians, 6 million soldiers) and second this article 1/6 was in Stalingrad and with a ratio that Germany wouldn't even stand 2 days against the Soviets. Or the Soviet Union got "worse" the 2,5 last years to the end of the war, or something is really wrong. Not counting that Soviets war tactic was the human wave one...- PHW —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

City map

I am aware this may not be a suitable place to ask, but is there a detailed map of the layout of the city? Just roads, rivers, and squares that represent buildings. Links to a site with it would be fine.


GA review


The article should address these points to keep its GA status :

  • It would be nice to have subsections for the different sections since it is getting too crowded to be easily browsable.
  • I would like to also see a section that addresses the future of the battle, aftermath or strategies that came out of the battle.
  • How was the battle seen by the public? Were the civilians killed mentioned outside the war?
  • There aren't enough references because some of the mentions in the text are close to POV... especially in this section Operation Blau.
  • The dramatization titled section is POV. It should be changed or maybe it should address why they dramatize such event.
  • The article is clearly missing lots of citations/references. Such a subject should be betterl referenced.
  • Review images tag ... for Image:Stalingrad.jpg. Lincher 18:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Listing German snipers of whom there exists no historical data, is not correct.

>>>"the Germans started transferring heavy artillery to the city, including the gigantic 800 mm railroad gun nicknamed Dora." Did they really *start to transfer* Dora? Because I don't think it ever arrived!

In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Restructure, cites

I'm going to start to tackle this by adding fact tags, and then trying to tie in a citation. If you see one I've added that you have info for, please add. Cantankrus 06:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started to search for citations, but the casualty assertion doesn't seem to stand up -- while Stalingrad was certianly one of the bloodiest battles, depending on which estimates it may not be "the most". Cantankrus 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the article is wandering -- No dates or references, just narrative. I'm going to try and get some chronology and move events that I can't find here to the talk page. Cantankrus 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


This talk page is becoming hard to read. Certain sections are outdated. Is this good time to archive this page? The casualties are constantly being revisited, this discussion probably requires some good summary. (Igny 14:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

i'd archive it myself, but not sure how. please go ahead, this page is massive Pluke 09:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Done, see below for some summary (Igny 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC))

Croatian units

What about the croatian units? They are not mentioned in the infobox... --Maestral 01:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Croatia shouldn`t be a participant in the info box. The only unit of Croatians that fought at Stalingrad was the 369th regiment that was part of 100th Jager division of the Wehrmatcht and was in everything part of the German Heer and not of the armed forces of the puppet Croatia.Stanimir 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it should. Dapi89 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary of the archives

I have archived the old, repetitious, outdated and just plain dead discussions. (Igny 20:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC))


Before starting a new fruitless discussion on inconsistencies in casualties and/or the bloodiest battle in history, please read the archive of previous discussions. Summary of the basic concerns were as follows

  • why are the casualties bigger than the strength(number) of the troops?
  • do the casualties include reinforcements?
  • how does the battle of Stalingrad compare to other lethal battles in history?


In another segment of archive, there were discussions on

  • Stalingrad in media, fiction, films, games
  • Enemy at the Gates: snipers, NKVD
  • the most important versus just a turning point in WW2
  • various POV fights
  • various organizational issues

Readability Issues

My comment is not related to the content of the topic, rather to the structure of one particular sentence that I found somewhat ambiguous.

In the fifth paragraph under the section titled, The Soviet counter-offensive: Operation Uranus
I found one sentece that I needed to reread for clarity. After rereading the sentence I have an idea for how to make it more easily understood at first glance.

Here is the sentence:

This would allow the Germans in the city to fight on while a relief force could be assembled, a plan that had been used successfully a year earlier at the Demyansk Pocket on a much smaller scale (an army corps versus an entire army)

I found the parenthetical aside a bit confusing on first read.
I would like to propose, what I feel is, a more easily read, though longer, alternative.
My words:
(it had been only an army corps at Demyansk as opposed to an entire army)

How do contributors who have been working on this page for some time already feel about this slight change of wording?

Rockthing 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

I have delisted Battle of Stalingrad as a good article. This is because of the problems raised above. The main sticking point is the complete lack of references, which is unacceptable in an article of this importance. It has more video games listed than references! Wikiproject Unreferenced GA will be notified of this delisting, as will Wikiproject Military History given that they attatch "Top priority" importance to this article. The formatting issues are being worked through, but the lack of references still brings this article down. Chrisfow 16:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The second two paragraphs of the introduction read like a high school essay. They represent a thesis. Is that what an article should be?

Not a Mortar

In the 8th paragraph in the "In the City" section is: "With no end in sight, the Germans started transferring heavy artillery to the city, including a gigantic 800 mm mortar." The Dora was 800 mm caliber, but was not a mortar. You sure can't muzzle load this gun. Click the link for a picture. Joeylawn 05:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not commenting directly on Dora, but if you're saying that a mortar is defined partly by muzzle-loading, that is not technically correct. Most mortars are muzzleloaders, but despite what it says in wikipedia's own mortar article, breechloading mortars exist. See the talk page on mortar. DMorpheus 14:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Good Boy Morpheus! Keep trying and you eventually get it right! 14thArmored 14:16, 20 December 2006
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. DMorpheus 14:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
My point is that the 800mm gun mentioned is Not a Mortar, it's artillery.Joeylawn 01:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, and so changed the article. I just wanted to be clear on the reasoning. DMorpheus 14:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The integral problem with all forms of heavy weapons is recoil and how to absorb it. A mortar relies on the shock waves being absorbed by the earth. Artillery relies on springs and hyrdaulics. Dora was artillery.

We're all agreeing Dora was not a mortar. However, the type of recoil system (base plate or some form of mechanical dampening system) is not part of the definition of a mortar. The Soviet 160mm, for example, had a recoil system. Your proposed definition would also be hard-pressed to deal with the numerous vehicle-mounted mortars. Just sayin. DMorpheus 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

one of the maps here is really nice ;-) i didnt know that Vistula and Bug are actually the same river ;-)-- 21:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Critique of the style of this article


The second and third paragraphs of the introduction read like a high school essay. They represent a thesis. Is that what an article should be? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The tone of this article...

The tone of much of this article gushes like something I would expect to read in Sport Illustrated. We would like the facts without the constant reference to comparative and superlative aspects of how this was the "greatest" struggle ever. I do not mean to bleed the article of its spirit, but what is important is getting the facts straight. -- 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The gushing prose about "discipline and determination" reads like propaganda sometimes. I think the article needs to note that one of the reasons soldiers didn't retreat and fought on in terrible conditions is that both sides were commanded by totalitarian leaders who would not permit retreat. On both sides soldiers were brutally punished and sometimes killed (or put back into suicidal combat positions) for retreating even when it was the sensible military option. --mgaved 11:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Statistics aside, the narrative is disappointingly POV and needs work before regaining GA status. The article is littered with POV passages such as "Still, many buildings survived and Soviet patriotism shone through." This tone casts doubt on the authenticity of even the ostensibly NPOV narrative, to the detriment of the article. 20:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


I agree in some respects to what the two users above have said. The article needs a cleanup, but I was unprepared to pepper the entire article with fact and other tags. I have some sourcebooks now, and I will be revisiting and adding tags, and trying to reword and revamp things. Cantankrus 03:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too hasty about making substantial changes. This article has been worked on for a long time by many editors, and there are substantial disagreement between different sources which the current article reflects. It may be worthwhile to go through the discussions about sources in the talk page before making changes. Also note that one of the two critics you mention (IP is quite uninformed about the battle. He or she is the one who wrote that victory at Moscow ensured victory at Stanlingrad (sic). Regards, JS 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Also note that there is an archived talk page and one exclusively devoted to casualties. JS 21:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not here as a POV pusher, but as someone interested in factual history. If someone can advance a reliable source for a certain casualty figure, we can include it. I'm also not here to rehash old arguements. That said, I will review the talk page for consensus and source references. I'd like to see this article back to GA candidate status. Cantankrus 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
On review of the talk archives, there seems to have been little reliance on RS. I did take out of it that the article should be non contradicting (ie listing casualties exceeding troop strength). If the consensus is that it's that troublesome, a range, with sources cited, should be included. Really no reason to have a big fight. Cantankrus 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Quite right, thanks! JS 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Importance of this victory

You cannot easily separate the Soviet victories of Stanlingrad and Moscow because the victory at Moscow freed up troops to assist in the relief of Stanlingrad. Let's avoid all this talk about Stalingrad being the turning point of the WW II or we will get into a pointless contest about Stanlingrad vs. Moscow as the "greatest" battle. The fact is that two mechanized national armies, Nazi and Soviet where in a total-warfare struggle with each other. Once Moscow was secured, the entire Soviet national army was directed at rolling/grinding on to Stanlingrad and beyond. -- 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the Battle of Moscow occurred a year before Stalingrad (not Stanlingrad). Between Moscow and Stalingrad there were other important important battles like the 2nd Battle of Kharkov that resulted in massive Soviet casualties (over 200,000 by some estimates). So to say that success at Moscow led inevitably to success at Stalingrad is an error. It is true though that Moscow was the first time that the German Army was forced into a major retreat. Secondly, "entire Soviet national army was directed at rolling/grinding on to Stanlingrad" is factually wrong. The Soviets had a greater number of troops on the North and Central fronts combined than at the South front (Stalingrad). JS 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Also given that the Battle for Moscow was mostly over by the end of 1941, and the German attack on Stalingrad did not begin till August 1942 the following makes no sense "Once Moscow was secured, the entire Soviet national army was directed at rolling/grinding on to Stanlingrad and beyond." JS 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
While its true that one battle has an influence on the other, it doesn't mean we can't critically assess and evaluate what the significance of each individual battle means.
The German army wasn't forced to fight at Stalingrad -- it chose to. The decisions made by the different sides had an impact, and the war could have turned out different if other decisions had been made. During the battle is where the strategic initiative passed from the German forces to the Soviet forces. By this measure, it was the "turning point" of the war in the East.
Before an edit by me, the battle was listed as the costliest battle in terms of lives. The sources I consulted seemed to have various estimates, but it was clear that it was close to the top. This article is on my TODO list, but I haven't been able to make it to the library to check up on my FACT tags. I'll address the tone and bulk up the refs at the same time. Cantankrus 00:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I doubt if a single library will provide you all the information you will need. The internet may be a good alternative. As you note yourself, there are "various estimates". Regards, JS 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the unsigned user is thinking of the battle of Rzhev? We ought to add something about this under-publisized battle, as it was important to the Stalingrad victory. I'll provide more info/sources tommorow. With respect, Ko Soi IX 04:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ko, There is an existing Wiki article about Rzhev [2]. It is rather sparse and certainly can be improved. Regards, JS 07:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
JS - I have access to a number of good libraries, and the library loan system in my area is excellent. What I'm looking for is good reliable sources for battle casualties, for statements on different phases of the battle, etc. I don't expect to have everything done in one run, but I haven't been to the library since I started my FACT tagging.
As far as other battles go, many eastern battles are not really described fully in general WW2 books. There tends to be a focus on Western campaigns, as that is where general reader focus is. If you have any info, please either add it to the article, or here on the talk page. Cantankrus 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello C, I think when it comes to casualties, most sources are biased one way or the other, and it is hard to say which is unbiased. In such a situation the best we can do is probably to mention the various sources. What usually is beyond dispute is which army advanced, and which retreated at what dates. You are right about most sources focusing on the Western campaigns. If you want an alternative view, you could try Alexander Werth's "Russia at War". I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but it certainly is a different take. Regards, JS 07:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello J, in regards to Soviet casualties Krivosheev ( is a rather reliable source because prior to it's publishing (in 1993) S.Maksudov, an emigrant demographer who obviously had no access to Soviet archives, came to a nearly same result by using demographic info only. With respect, Ko Soi IX 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Koi, Thanks for the link. I generally steer clear of casualties arguments as they seem endless. Maybe Cantankrus will find the link useful. Best Regards, JS 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Importance of Stalingrad

Finally, the fact that the city bore the name of Hitler’s nemesis, I. V. Stalin, would make the city’s capture an ideological and propaganda coup. (a cite) It is believed that Stalin also had an ideological and propaganda interest in defending the city which bore his name, but the fact remains that Stalin was doing the best he could given the time and resources.

IMHO this section should be reworked to reflect what was seen as important prior the battle, not the numerous speculations and myths generated afterwards. At least these two should not be mixed together.

There was no shortage of cities named after Stalin in Soviet Union: Stalino (Donetsk) was larger (500,000 inhabitants) city and the centre of important industrial area, captured by Italian troops. Stalinogorsk (Novomoskovsk, Russia) was somewhat smaller city which was captured as well. Neither event caused fall of Soviet regime and neither city was defended differently just because of the name.

Among the other cities were Stalinabad (Dushanbe), capital of Tajikistan, Stalinsk (Novokuznetsk) in Siberia and small Staliniri (Tskhinvali, Georgia). (See list of places named after Stalin). Pavel Vozenilek 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with your point. You can go ahead and reedit the subsection, and we will work from there. (Igny 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
I don't have that much of knowledge to complete the change, I just wanted to point out an inconsistency. Pavel Vozenilek 21:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I replaced a sentence here. The oilfields were a thousand kilometres to the South, nowhere near Stalingrad.SmokeyTheCat 12:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The main danger to the Germans as they pushed west in the southern part of the front was that they were creating a long flank to the north-east of their forces. They did not have enough troops to defend this flank and used allies like the Romanians and Italians. This is what proved to be their undoing at Stalingrad when the Soviets attacked the German allies on this flank (Uranus and Saturn). The claim that the Germans would have benefited if they had pushed even deeper south-west while ignoring Soviet strong points like Stalingrad is rather dubious. JS 19:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
That's true, but it is also true that the long open flank to the north-west (not east, if you mean with reference to the tip of the spear) was irrelevant unless the Soviets massed suffcient force and mounted an major offensive there. The long open southern flank of US forces in France beginning at the end of July 1944, for example, was strategically risky only if the Germans had the forces to do something about it.
I mention this because this is another one of those situations in which the 'error' is obvious in hindsight *because* we know the outcome. At the time, even though there were plenty of objections from German officers, there was also a conclusion that the risk was worth it - the Red Army seemed to be melting away. DMorpheus 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant "north-east" as in the front stretching from north-west to south-east, with the Germans on the south-west side of it. You are right about the amount of remaining strength and reserves being the critical issue. There is much evidence that the Germans consistently underestimated that, beginning of course with Hitler's prediction at the start of Barbarossa that it would last only six weeks. Regards, JS 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
According to Trotsky, and some other sources, Stalingrad (Tsaritsyn) had given Stalin his original power. Stalin himself created plenty of myths and heroic legends about himself in Tsaritsyn. This could be why this city was more important than the others named to Stalin. not to mention it's location at the Volga river: to supply Moscow with goods coming from the newly established Allied supply line through Persia. Gardash 03:50, 8 June 2007


I'd removed NKVD from the list of fronts in the main box on the right. NKVD was an umbrella organisation and during WW2 part of NKVD troops was assigned to the armies and fought alogside of regular army units. Short overview can be found at [3].

"NKVD" may have been added because of the movie but it was rather common practice in Soviet army and foreign units fighting alongside Soviets to immediatelly shoot those who panicked (to stop spreading panic on larger scale). Pavel Vozenilek 22:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Maps of Stalingrad

I found this link to a number of maps of battle of Stalingrad. They orginate from Library of National Defence in Brussels, Belgium. I wonder if Wikipedia could use them. (Igny 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

The best may be to ask the webmaster for the details. The opinions on what image material could be used on WP vary so it is the best to obtain as much of license related info as possible. Pavel Vozenilek 21:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Example of Wikipedia's dark side

I watched the evolution of this article for more than 2 years now, and I must say that it clearly shows Wikipedia's most fatal flaw. The article has gone through so many revisions; it makes me sick to my stomach. The POV, ideology, tone, facts, etc in this article changed sides more than on Mamayev Kurgan. People spend more time arguing sides (primarily the subject of “the” vs “a” turning point), than looking for concrete evidence and citations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I think the evolution of the article simply reflects the disagreements that exist about history. I would say that it is rather evidence of Wikipedia's "bright" rather than "dark" side. In other media, there is no way to rectify bias. Here in Wikipedia the editors constantly challenge bias, and though they are not perfect, I believe that most editors respect evidence when it is presented. JS 22:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite agree with JS, maybe a lot of time has been spent by many people. But the result is a pretty balanced and informative article with sources for free. Pukkie 22:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro vandalised

Is it just me, or has the intro been vandalised?

Just a short quote:

"took place between August 21, 1992 and February 2, 1983, as part of World War I."

Something is very, very wrong here... 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

what? It didn't happen in WWI? Oh no!

Is this a joke? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Number of casualties?

I think the amount of casualties has accidentally been multiplied by a 1000. 250,000,000 Soviet casualties seems a bit extreem, espessially since they lost only 10% of that in the entire war. Thus I'm changing it. Maraud 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC) eh somebody beat me to it. Maraud 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

References for the casualties

Some guy on internet compiled a list of references for different estimates of casualties in different battles. The estimates do vary greatly depending on the source. May be, we should add the table of all the sources, no? (Igny 04:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

Someone just added that the Axis had a grand total of 1.45 million troops, this could be wrong and it could be right but I removed it and another part because neither had any proof. Matilda Sharks 07:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Stalingrad diet

Why have people removed the section on the Stalingrad diet section which I added?

Do we really have to have a separate section for each sentence in the article? General Zeitzler is mentioned elsewhere in the article. (Igny 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC))


THIS Is the third time i wrote the same headline. There is a serious problem here and editors dont want to solve it. Is irritaing, i will tell you why. Is not about the number of casualties higher than the troops deployed. I now germany sent many reinforcements to the battle. THE PROBREM HERE IS THE NUMBER OF RUSSIAN CASUALTIES; NOT GERMAN ONES. Whermacht and axis satellites loosses are ok, and well documented, but russian casualties are 60% higher than the showed here.

Just see here , THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME. IF you dont solve it i will place than numbers here now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

According to Krivosheev, Soviet casualties in the Stalingrad battle (defensive operation+offensive operation) were 478 741 irrecoverable losses (KIA, MIA, dead of other causes, captured) and 650 878 sanitary losses (wounded/sick). Those losses occured from July 17th, 1942 to Februrary 2nd, 1943. ( and With respect, Ko Soi IX 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
But The Axis losses are from sep - jan, so you can not have Soviet july-feb and axis sep-jan, also Axis are only of those who died on the field not of those who died in hospitals back in the reich or on their way to a field hospital. And axis are only of inside the city unlike the Soviet that are also for battles outside the city. Matilda Sharks 07:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Slovakians and "Axis troops who chose not to surrender"

Please state sources which say that Slovakian units took part in the battles in and around Stalingrand. As far as I know, Slovakian troops were fighting in Caucasus, not Stalingrad. Croatian units on the other hand did take part in the battle, if I recall correctly. Then again, I might be wrong.

Conserning the information I added regarding Axis troops who chose not to surrender, this information comes from the German documentary that came with the special edition of movie "Stalingrad" and was confirmed by Soviet documents and veterans. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 12:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kurt, Could you please provide more details about the movie "Stalingrad"? Which year was it made, who was the director etc.? Did the movie explicitly mention the number 10,000? Regards, ~~

"Hello Kurt, Could you please provide more details about the movie "Stalingrad"? Which year was it made, who was the director etc.?" Stalingrad is 1993 German movie. See for details. "Did the movie explicitly mention the number 10,000?" It is not the movie where I got the information from, but from German documentary that came with the movie's special DVD-edition. The documentary is named "Stalingead" and is in three parts called "The Attack", "The War", and "The Fall". In total the documentary lasts for hours. It is in the last part in which Soviet veterans who are interviewed mention German/Axis troops who did not surrender, and that they kept getting casualties for two weeks after the surrender. This is confirmed by official Soviet documents that give the figure of 10000.

Your reply is confusing. It appears that you are now saying that the 10,000 figure did not come from the movie but from "official Soviet documents". Can you specify what these documents are? 10,000 is quite a large number and this would be significant. Anthony Beevor does not mention such holdouts in his book, although I do not claim his book is exhaustive. Regards, JS 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have given you sources but you are ignoring them and refusing to discuss this properly. This has nothing to do with my "poersonal point of view". On the other hand, it is issue of Croatia and Slovakia we should discuss too. I have not seen any sources given about Slovakia's role in the Battle of Stalingrad. Then again, I have not given any about Croatia, which I why I ask for serious discussion about the issue. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 23:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

According to [4], The last German holdouts in Stalingrad’s northern pocket; the 11th Corps under General Strecker, capitulated at 10.00 am on February 2, 1943. I could not find any evidence (sources) that some Germans (moreso 10000 of them) kept fighting after that date. There is a possibility that some (very few) Germans went into hiding and either died from starvation or surrendered later. Unless the sources are provided by Kurt, I will revert him. If someone (anyone) claimed that was true, could you give us the names. Otherwise it is clearly a speculation. (Igny 18:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Kurt and Potaaatos, both of you should relax. The issue isn't difficult. If Kurt can provide sources for the 10,000 number we can keep the information. If he can't I think he won't object to having it removed. Regards, JS 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"It appears that you are now saying that the 10,000 figure did not come from the movie but from " As far as I know I never said that the information came from the movie, but from the documentary that came with it.

Unless someone can prove that the documentary is flawed then we have a problem. The documentary's name is Stalingrad and it is German, but obviously made with Russian assistance, since several Soviet veterans and civilians are interviewed (+German veterans and civilians, and even Romanian veteran). It is clearly a relatively new documentary. Besides Soviet veterans confirming that a large number of enemies refused to surrender, you can see Soviet documents that give the figure.

I am now watching that certain part of the documentary. A Soviet veteran named Fjodor Iltschenko says: "On 13th of February we were in movies. They were showing us a film outside. Suddenly we were being fired at from somewhere. When the men of my company started to fall back, the Germans kept firing at them. They had been hiding in a cellar of destroyed house. They, of course, were killed right after this." According to the documents showed, 2418 of the men were killed, and 8646 were captured. --Kurt Leyman 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I would like to correct my mistake. It was early March, not April, and the figure was over 10000, 11064 (I just watched the part of the documentary with the documents again (the last time I saw it was several months ago, which caused me to make the mistakes. Again, I apologise), and that is the number that is given) according to Soviet intelligence documents.

I clicked on this link. ThenI I looked throught the article, then through the toc., I also searched for the words "film" and "movie." I couldn't find anything support this assertion. In any case, a documentary is a special kind of film. Why shouldn't a doc be considered authoritative? Will videos are legally binding wills. A photograph (and a film is a sequence of photos), though manipulable, is prima facae at least as good as some sentences or graphs in print, which in and of themselves could just be made up. In the case of print, it is the integrity behind the book/newspaper/document. I should think film is the same except for the physical observability, which should tend to be a point in the documentary films favor (If I see George Bush talking in a film, I'm at least as likely to accept that he said that as if I read it in print.) 05:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (a print person, nonetheless)
I think I see the cause of misunderstanding. Surrender of an Army could not just happen overnight. Rounding up 100k+ Germans probably took weeks after the German capitulation, it was a logistic nighmare, worse than the evacuation of New Orleans after Katrina. During this period of cleanup Soviet Army understandably took some casualties in sporadic fights and this was probably reported in the documentary. (Igny 06:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Alright, after coming to conclusion that I cannot upload the relevant parts of the documentary film to internet (lacking the equipment needed to do so) I nearly gave up the hope. However, after a long search I managed to find, with some luck, part of the documentary film that reveals the information. Skip the first 27 minutes and 35 seconds and from there, watch it all the way to 29:11. This version of the documentary has been dubbed in Finnish (the original version is in German) and the audio is entirely Finnish with the exception of interviews. The Russian intelligent documents can still be seen however, and I am sure that people who understand Finnish/Russian or both find the link more than interesting. --Kurt Leyman 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand Finnish, however in an interview in Russian the guy said about the poor condition of those German soldiers they found. The Russian document was a report of the results of the clean up. Most of the city was cleaned up by 15th of February, some areas by 20th of February, the last hiding Germans (very few, divided) were liquidated in early March. Alltogether 11000 bandits and counter-revolutionary elements were liquidated over the period of cleaning up. Your interpretation that some Germans refused to lay arms and continued to fight sounds like they were the last standing heroes, which they were no. So "these forces continued to resist until March" should read "some German soldiers and Russian traitors managed to hide until March" which has quite different meaning and closer to the truth. (Igny 14:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC))
There is an enormous difference between "last standing heroes" and "bandits and counter-revolutionary elements were liquidated over the period of cleaning up" since the EXACT translation given by Igny is that there was no heroic last stand but just a cleaning up action then the whole section should either be rewritten or removed, and since it is based on a movie in a language that is not English then it should be removed since the person who saw the movie can not understand the difference between "some German soldiers and Russian traitors managed to hide until March" and a "last heroic stand" and to boot calling the correct translation vandalism. Neverlose1 01:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am restoring {{fact}} movies are not reliable sources Alex Bakharev 07:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That terms such as "bandits" or "counter revolutionists" were used to describe the people who refused to surrender initially should mean little, as those words were clearly included in the report to to appease the communist party (the word "bandit" was also used of the Finnish during the war several times. See http:// "Your interpretation that some Germans refused to lay arms and continued to fight sounds like they were the last standing heroes, which they were no" The Soviets obviously did not take the effort to ask these people why they chose not to surrender initially. "German soldiers and Russian traitors" The correct word would be Soviet when it comes to the latter and in the article itself "German and Axis soldiers". "movies are not reliable sources" You obviously have not even bothered to see the documentary film. And Igny, if we would use the "hiding" term it would make little sense, as the Axis troops still fought back, inflicting casualties to the Soviets well after the actual battle had ended, and that is considered resisting. Also, the German veterans mention in this and other parts of the documentary how many were afraid of the Soviet captivity, which certainly effected the decission of the last forces. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 07:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurt, could you provide another independent source for this story? The source you are citing sounds like I heard a guy (watched a movie) who heard a guy (showed some document) who said something like that, and here I provide my interpretation of the claim. After some intensive search over the Internet, I could not find an independent confirmation to this story. The story of the prolonged clean up may be true, at least it does not sound implausible, however the story is important enough to be mentioned at least once somewhere else, in chronicles or books. This is precisely what Wikipedia suffers from. A contributor, who saw or heard something somewhere, rushed to edit Wikipedia articles without much fact checking. If everyone will edit the articles as they please, wikipedia will be more like a wikiforum. (Igny 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Paragraphs 2 and 3

Once again, the second and third paragraphs of the introduction read more like an thesis. They are inappropriate for an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

The second paragraph contains a grammatical error and is therefore not necessarily unequivocally understandable.Malcolm535 (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Relief and food

I think that the point needs to be made that although the Luftwaffe was capable of flying in 300 tonnes of food per day, this was the maximum. It was usually closer to around 90 - 100 tonnes of food per day, which is, when you think about it, a significant difference from 300 tonnes. In addition, there were some points where they were unable to fly food in at all, due in part to both the weather and Soviet airforce activity. 19:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


German prisoners

There is the possibility that the figure of 110,000 German prisoners is innacurate. Most of my sources say that the figure was 90,000. Is this a different figure or a made-up number? 15:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Cam

Error in article: Paulus' "surrender" is disputed

Did Paulus in fact "surrender" at Stalingrad? The acclaimed 1999 book, "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor disputes this. Paulus, when his headquarters was captured by the Soviets, said that he did not surrender, and that, in fact he had been "taken by surprise." He then rebuffed his Soviet captors' request that he order his troops to surrender. Hitler's resulting anger was not over Paulus's "surrender," but rather over the fact that Paulus had allowed himself to be captured alive, instead of shooting himself.


While it may be true that Paulus did not in fact "surrender" it is known as a fact that about 90,000 German prisoners were taken at the end of the battle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

GA in zh.wikipedia

Please add {{Link GA|zh}} in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


I suggest that there should be a section or Wik article giving novels, movies, etc. on Stalingrad, e.g. Enemey at the Gate, The Forgotten Army, Stalingrad (Plivier), Beneath the Snows of Stalingrad 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See Battle of Stalingrad in the media (Igny 01:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC))


Regarding the comment

"Their sacrifice is immortalized by a soldier of General Rodimstev, about to die, who scratched on the wall of the main railroad station (which changed hands 15 times during the battle) “Rodimstev’s Guardsmen fought and died here for their Motherland (Rodina)”,

I think the following story is better (this is a true story; unfortunately, I don't recall exactly where I read it)

"Their sacrifice is immortalized by a runner from General Chuikov's HQ, who was sent to repair a cut telephone line during the battle. The line was restored, but the runner didn't come back. Other soldiers were sent to look for him. He was found lying face down on the rubble, with a bullet in his back. A german sniper had got him, but just before he died, he reconnected the severed telephone cable by placing each cut end between his teeth in order to restore the connection. This soldier was later awarded the title of 'Hero of the Soviet Union'".

Prime example of baseless Soviet propaganda. I doubt biting wires would warrent the same reward as hundreds of kills with a sniper rifle. Bits like this are what has made this article what it has become; utter rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

ww2 the war of the nazie

the ww2 the ww1 is the same war the ww1 is the germany vs. french the british and french had won ww1 in 1918 germany had no men had no money germany is dead is the last we'd of the germany in ww1 in ww2 the germany state is reborn is a god of war in the ussr a madman is killing a state in the ww2 the ussr had 13m man in germany had 2.5m and 2000 panzer the ussr had 4000 t34 and germany had 5000 aircraft the ussr had 20000 aircraft the germany had 1,7m kia 2?,m wia and 30000 mia the ussr had 15m kia 13m wia 1m mia the war kill 46m in all

Germany and her allies suffered over 5 million fatalities on the Eastern Front, the USSR - around 8.7 million. German captivity was far more lethal than Soviet. Ko Soi IX 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Germany took over 10,340,728 casualties (killed,wounded, missing POWs) from 1939-1945 of them more than 6,000,000 were sustained fighting in the Eastern Front. Really German casualties are a mystery, they started to track meticously their losses from 1939 until 11.30.44. Them they started to give aproximations of their losses, because their stucture was a disaster, records lost or captured, etc From that data taken from 1939 to 11.30.44. I can said that.... Interms of killed they took over 2,230,324 KIA in all the war, of them over 1,419,728 were KIA from the Eastern Front. I really dont know the Russian Casualties but Brittanica, Encarta, and Puttin once said that the war claimed the lives of 25 million Soviets, soldiers and civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, about 80-85% (not 60%) of German deaths were sustained at the Eastern Front. In 1945 the German losses were tremendous. Krivosheev (btw, the single best source - although, not without minor critisism - for Soviet casualties) puts losses of the Reich on the Eastern Front at 1998 thousand killed, missing, dead of wounds or other dead for the period from June 22, 1941 to January 31, 1945, and further 1606.8 thousand killed, missing, dead of wounds or other dead until May 9, 1945. The number of Germans captured for the same time periods is 1907.7 thousand and 1668.6 thousand. Larger numbers of Germans captured by the Soviets include those Germans who either (majority, over 1.6 million) surrendered after the capitulation, or were captured after May 9th. Death totals don't include those who died in captivity. The grand total of axis deaths (to be more correct, axis demgraphic losses, which in turn are irrecoverable losses (dead+missing+captured) minus those who returned from captivity) is 5076.7 thousand [3604.8 (+442.1 dead in captivity) Germans and 668.2 (+137.8 dead in captivity) from the five minor axis (Hungary, Italy, Romania, Finland, Slovakia)]. For the Soviets the toll is 8668.4 thousand dead. Total irrecoverable losses (dead of all causes, missing and captured) were 8649.3 thousand for the axis and 11520.2 thousand for the soviets. (including 76 100 of such losses of Soviet allies on the eastern front - Poland, etc). The ratio is 1:1.3. With respect, Ko Soi IX 04:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

All numbers here used are going against another wikipedia article: and also —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave you my source, which is so far the best single source for Soviet military losses in World War 2... As for the Axis losses, of course, it's not as good. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

casualties for Axis, Dead and wounded for Soviet?

I think it skews the relations and the numbers/terminology to use two different standards for the two forces, while listing them in the same paragraph. To make this more accurate, relative,.. etc I added the soviet missing, wounded and dead together to get the total number of casualties for the soviets, instead of WIA and KIA, when the Axis forces are not broken down into KIA, WIA, MIA at all. That way you have casualties, and casualties. Not casaulties, and opposing forces WIA,KIA, MIA. The Germans records are very detailed, and I'm sure more available then the Soviet ones, so there is no reason to have one and not the other, especially not the German one. In addition, the article itself says the Soviets did not keep detailed records, or were deflated etc, for propaganda so then why be so specific with theirs and not the German WIA, KIA, MIA. Thanks.

That is just common German anti Russo talks the Soviets kept excellent records unlike the Germans who ONLY counted casualties of those who were living within the 1937 borders of Germany so all the millions of soldiers that came from Austria or the annexed territories were not counted at all giving some very nice statistics for the western German government to boast about, Gobbles would have been proud. CrazyTrainerforyou 19:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You can list everything out, but do it for both sides. You are already including almost as many or more non-german combatants in the Axis casualty list as you are Germans, so your point shows a startling lack of comprehension. The fact is that most of the German dead, or at a least a huge amount, died in Soviet captivity, not in battle. You list soviet MIA, and everything, but you don't even mention that most, or a large amount of the dead for the axis are POWS who died in soviet captivity. Only 5% of the Germans captured at Stalingrad ever saw Germany again. That's 95% fatality rate for German stalingrad POW's. I think it is some sort of Russian bias to not say this and then to attack me for mentioning it. Those dead seem like combat losses to readers when they weren't. It seems like bad scholarship to break down soviet deaths and wounded, captured and not German especially given the over hundred thousand german who died deep in the soviet union as POW's. Basic scholarship here. Not rocket science. Over a hundred thousand Germans died in Stalingrad, not a small number. After running out of ammo food, the captured were taken. only 5,000 men came out of the soviet union from the 6th Army, I believe in 1955.

Most died in captivity? No no you have it backwards. 97% of the Soviet taken prisoner during the first year died in Nazi camps and during the whole war about 60% or so of the Red army died in captivity and only 15% of the Germans did so, where are the books to back up that most died in captivity or did it just happen because you say so? In Stalingrad most of the POWs did die only because they were in such a bad condition when taken also the Nazi inherent poor records of people Dead or missing which was always lagging behind by at least 1 year. The numbers of pows speak for them selves during the first year of the war 97% of Soviet POWs died in German hands and during the whole war 60%. And 15% of German Pows died in Soviet hands. Also the text clearly says 400,000 Germans died and 100,000 were taken captured out of which some 90,000 died which means some 310,000 out of the 400,000 died in battle which is 75% which can be compared with the 600,000 Soviets taken at Kiev where 97% died in captivity. CrazyTrainerforyou 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned user, are you claiming that the Germans would happily surrender to the Bolsheviks? The 5% survivor rate is also debatable, but at any rate, it speaks not of Russian cruelty, but of bravery - of Germans, who would freeze or die rather than raise their hands up, and of Russians, who made them hoist the white flag and saved Russia from doom. The well known cruelty which the Third Reich exhibited upon captured Soviet soldiers has nothing to do with the lie that Soviet captivity was compatible to that of the Nazis. With respect, Ko Soi IX 23:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, inventing numbers doesn't help this article... what you are stating goes directly against another Wikipedia article:


it says that 50,000 tuncoat russians died in Stalingrad. I know a little bit about history, but I have never heard of these people reffered to as turncoats? Many people had legitimate grievences with Stalin and Stalinism and the Soviet Union in general as more then half of the USSR's population was non-russian, and often nationalistic. Millions had died. I don't know the hearts of these men, neither do you, so why not name their regiment, ...etc, instead of saying "turncoat" which smacks of ignorance, maybe some sort of national bias? I'm not choosing sides here when it comes to what a soviet might think in a certain region of the USSR in 1941-42, with Stalin as head of state. Turncoat just sticks out as being not, how do you say, educated or formal, proffesional, or a scholarly way of naming these, often highly trained, mainly, I think, nationalistic Ukrainian, but, also ethnic Russian, Belorussian, and even later a small contingent of, I believe, muslim caucasian troops. Believe it or not, but many of these varied USSR nationalities were willing to die fighting the Soviet UNion with Nazi Germany, because they percieved the USSR as more of a threat (an older threat for sure) then the Germans. Whether or not that makes sense to me or you is totally irrelevant, but, it is true and it is history. 00:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

The fact that some people had personal reasons to switch the side (and most people did have a reason) does not make them any less traitors or any more heroes.(Igny 03:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC))
You seem to neglect the fact that the Germans wanted to enslave and exterminate all Soviets to enslave them and keep them as slave labor and later exterminate every last one, you completely and totally ignore the fact that the Germans launched and extermination campaign and if they had won the war they would have exterminated all Soviets but first they would have enslaved them.CrazyTrainerforyou 22:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My comrade, it is you who neglect me saying "whether or not it makes sense to me or you is totally irrelevant, but, it is true and it is history." (John History, right above). 03:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Are you familiar with the issue from your personal experience? From television? From books? I would really like to know how you came up with this statement. Are you a professional historian? Do you have any degree? Using weasel phrases like "It is history" does not mean much in this argument. I also could cite divine revelations or something and come up with a new revision of history. (Igny 03:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC))
Well, I guess those soldiers first fought for the Soviets but, after being captured by the Germans, switched sides. If that's the case, the word "turncoat" fits perfectly well. On the other hand, if they were, say Ukrainian nationalists or Russian right-wingers, then the word wouldn't be adequate, I think. Could you check those facts, my IP number friend? --Taraborn 16:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
"Turncoat" is not appropriate language for an encyclopedia. If they were formally identified as Soviet traitors, they should be called traitors and this information should be sourced in the article. For now, I have removed the sentence from the article. Please find a source and use the formal language of an encyclopedia when discussing war, rather than a slang term, so that readers understand what is going on, and see what historical sources the ideas developed from, rather than leaving the reader to think an editor is giving a nationalistic opinion about the subject. Please simply put the comment back in, if appropriate, with the correct sources. Thanks. KP Botany 16:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I have amended this sentence to include a link to the HiWi article. The question of who was or was not a traitor to whom is probably best seen as a matter of perspective. With the NKVD on one side and the Nazis on the other any Soviet who found himself captured was very much between a rock and a hard place --Sf 12:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't link internally, but rather use the same outside source used by that article--if it's sourced. And, as I say to Igny below, it doesn't matter whether the Soviets were between a rock and a hard place--this was the war of one state against another, Soviets who changed side to Germany and Germans who changed side to anyone are called traitors. KP Botany 22:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
In any war people are to choose a side. And some people, usually because of cowardice, choose the wrong side and they are rightfully called traitors. I think it is justifiable that the Soviets had NKVD who had to control this issue. Moreover, every army in the world deals with traitors in similar fashion and have similar detachments. So comparing the NKVD to a rock or to Nazis is not quite apt. (Igny 13:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC))
I think that you've shown that you have no neutrality towards the subject and ought to not partake in editing this part. The phrases "choose the wrong side" and "rightfully called traitors" are matters of opinion, specifically your opinion. Traitor is a technical issue in times of external war--there was not a Soviet option for its citizens to choose sides in WWII against the Germans. KP Botany 22:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You can not prohibit me to edit anything anywhere on Wikipedia simply based on my opinion I expressed on a talk page. So stop trolling and do not insult me. (Igny 00:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)) Update: I apologize for my remark, forget it (Igny 17:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC))
I'm not even attempting to "prohibit" you from doing anything, I'm simply emphasizing your serious lack of neutrality which will ultimately interfere with the quality of the article. That's pretty basic for encyclopedia articles. You have shown your lack of neutrality fully, and continue to do so. But we can choose to not engage, as your name-calling indicates you desire. KP Botany 04:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC) ACcept.

"Turncoat" is not appropriate language for an encyclopedia. Britannica online dissagrees with you see Andrey Andreyevich Vlasov "Andrey Andreyevich Vlasov anti-Stalinist military commander who, captured by the Germans early in World War II, became a turncoat and fought with the Germans against the Soviet Union." (This is not a one off see Britannica text search on turncoat) --Philip Baird Shearer 13:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not beholden to Britannica online for anything, and this will not be the first time I have disagreed with their use of a word. Wikipedia has a world-wide audience of English speaking peoples, and "traitor" is a precise and well-defined word, while "turncoat" is a more casual word. We are talking precisely about people in one country at war who changed military sides. Turncoat has extraneous meanings in its roots that are not important here, please explain to me why it should be used rather than traitor? KP Botany 22:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The antecedence of turncoat is more than 400 years old. The first recorded use as "One who changes his principles or party; a renegade; an apostate." in the OED is 1557 and its first uses as verb is 1624. So why is such a word not encyclopaedic? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting for why the preference for it over the straight-forward and technical term, "traitor." First, what does turncoat offer that traitor does not offer? KP Botany 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not debating the issue of traitor (although it is a POV term was George Monck at traitor or a turncoat?) I am debating if turncoat is a encyclopeadic term I think it is. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Igny but in my view you are wrong there. The issue is not that armies tend to execute traitors. The issue is that the Soviet authorities frequently chose to treat any of their own people who had been captured as "traitors". Either way this is not the place for such discussions, the historical source for the Hiwi issue is established and goes back into the article. --Sf 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is an important detail, that the Soviet definition of traitor differed from that of other countries, in that Soviet POWs were often considered traitors, whereas most other countries considered their POWs to be, well, prisoners of war. Possibly this detail needs expanded upon before being entered. Thanks for the important reminder, Sf. KP Botany 22:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
And were White Russians like Andrei Shkuro traitors? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it even says so in the article. He was convicted and sentenced to death. So yes, legally he was a traitor. Or you were questioning the legal system of the USSR? Yes, of course, I forgot that all Soviet courts were illegal or unlawful or something... (Igny 01:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Operation Blau map colors

The colors stated in the legend of the map don't match those seen in it. Can somebody fix that? --Taraborn 16:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

white flag icon

On Palus whats with the surrender flag next to is it really nessisary( 22:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Beevor references

I merged all references to Beevor's book; these will probably need to be split in order to indicate page numbers for each reference. GregorB 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Beevor is a credible source. With respect, Ko Soi IX 23:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't know. My (editorial) interest here is in form rather than content. The article is currently very weak on references. GregorB 19:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
In my understanding Beevor is the authority in the English language literature and certainly had access to a lot of material that Craig etc would not have been aware of. If you need to confirm references from Beevor (or Craig either) leave a message on my talk page. --Sf 22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Another problem regarding Citations is the lack of them. Different sources should be referred to especially when quoting figures.Dapi89 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

German Sixth Army

The remnants of the German Sixth Army completely surrendered, granting the Soviet victory. I think their surrender / destruction should be noted int he casualties / strength section. Staples11 18:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Who Proposed Supplying 6th Army Via Air-Bridge?

First it was Goering. Then, for a while, it was another German officer (who's name I forgot) who was with Hilter at Bavarian retreat and proposed "the air-bridge" with Goering only OK-ing the plan later. Now it's Goering again. Who was it? And can we have some sources this time. --Zealander 20:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1077 AA regiment

"The German 16th Panzer Division reportedly had to fight the 1077th’s gunners "shot for shot" until all 37 AA batteries were destroyed or overrun.". Were there 37 AA batteries, or does it say this because the AA guns were 37mm? The 1077 article says that the 1077 AA guns at the time were 37mm copies of the 40mm Bofors. can someone clarify this? --MKnight9989 14:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep its ambiguous isn't it? However, as I recall thats almost a direct quote from Beevor's translation of the 16th div's battle report. So it could mean "all 37" or "all 37 mm" unfortunately its not for us to decide unless someone can come up with a different number from some other source. Well spotted! --Sf 16:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course even if we got a different number the wording would still stand as a valid report of Beevor's source :-) --Sf 17:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Why do we have Hitler on the list of commanders, but not Stalin? With respect, Ko Soi IX 05:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right!--ItsJodo (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Casualties... AGAIN!

A single source, whose reliability I would now question due to the fact that its figures contridict many others, is used for both figures of casualties. This is why Wikipedia should never be cited for these things. I am not going to bother changing it (I am sick and tired of it), I'll wait for someone else to realize it and fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION RUSSIA PROPAGANDA MINISTERIUM ANNOUCNES THAT 1.5 MILLION GERMANS CAUSALTIES IN THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD!!! Dudes, in German Wikipedia we have a fiercefull discussion about references. It cannot be that causalties numbers are taken 1:1 from russion internetsources, which a) hardly noone can read b) internetsources as such are a very, very doubtfull source for information. (ohterwise i would have made some own internet sources for my own purposes). Hence I removed that - I have to admit - crap. We try to find some more reliable sources and avoid taken that russia propaganda! --Yikrazuul 11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


My mistake.. i thought i was reverting the vandalism not replacing it. -maxrspct ping me 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Which factory?

Hi. This edit was just made. Several Soviet Regiments were wiped out including the entire staff of the Soviet 339th Infantry Regiment[1]. However although I don't have Bergstrom, my information says this was a regiment from the 308th Rifle division at the Barrikady factory and not the Dzerzhinsky tractor factory which was located 14km North of the city centre and according to my information held by the 112th Rifle division (1st formation) and the 37th Guards Rifle division.-- mrg3105mrg3105 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm affraid this is incorrect. This action took place on 6 October. It was definately the HQ of the Soviet Infantry 339th Reg in the vicinity of the Dzerzhinsky factory.Dapi89 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dapi89. I'll get back to you on this. However, I would appreciate if you could post more from Bergstrom if you have it.--mrg3105mrg3105 02:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a really disapointing aricle. The significance of this battle demands that it be properly described. The Battle of Stalingrad provides any talented historian with an outstanding opportunity to demonstrate skill. Yet this article fails to meet even the most basic requirements. Like most wiki-hist articles this was clearly compiled (and reviewed)by amateurs. If one of my students cited this as a source I would dismiss it as a poor reference. I recommend that: 1) the "Battle" be divided into it's different constituent parts (eg tractor factory, Mamyev Kurgan, air lift etc) 2) A greater variety of sources be consulted by the author-I recommned Jeffrey Jukes. Soviet sources (and to a lesser extent Axis) should be treated with extreme caution. 3) The battle should be presented as objectively (good history always is) as possible. Don't apologize, moralize or equivocate. 4) Lastly, less experienced historians often place too much emphasis on military aspects of an event-Stalingrad (while a military struggle)also represented economic, social and economic struggles between and within the two combatants. This emphasis on the local, military aspect compromises focus and leads the historian into a weir which is difficult to escape and often compromises the quality of subsequent composition. I hope my feedback wasn't too brusque. I actually admire the writer for undertaking such a complex, polemic and difficult task. Good luck! 3) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthhawk (talkcontribs) 01:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Earthhawk. By and large I agre with you. The problem was that when the article was originally written, it sought to put too much into too little (many books collated into a few pages). In fact the 'battle' needs to be separated into several articles that will put it into the perspectives of the Theatre and the Wehrmacht Campaign in the South, the fighting on the approaches to Stalingrad, the actual tactical fighting in Stalingrad, and the two Soviet Operations that eventually encircled the 6th Army. This is at least five articles. With the five articles more can be done in terms of narrative and sources.

Are you suggesting Jeffrey Jukes, Stalingrad at the Turning Point (New York: Ballantine Books, 1968? This is quite dated and not particularly balanced from Soviet POV. The different parts you mention were all part of the Northern suburbs of Stalingrad, the Southern suburbs were largely taken by German troops early in the battle for the city. One of the problems of writing a military history article is that it needs to primarily describe the military event. In the case of Stalingrad the vast majority of the civilian population was evacuated and the infrastructure destroyed unlike in the Siege of Leningrad, and the remaining economic and production structures were converted to military production. However I take your point, and it is the same point made to me years ago by my history professor. Comments are always welcome where they are constructive even if critical ;o)--mrg3105mrg3105 02:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure mrg3105mrg3105! Christer Bergströms books are fantastically detailed. Whatsmore he uses a mass of Soviet and German records and sources, both original and through other authors. He is really quite the expert of aerial warfare on the East front. Whats most impressive is his use of Soviet and German records for loss figures, he does not rely on claims made. If the relevant records are not available he makes it clear that any figures he quotes are claims made. Dapi89 (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know why you compare apples and oranges. I would like to know why you compare the whole southern front for the Soviets and only Stalingrad for the Germans, and a follow up question, do you count the same time period august to February for BOTH the Germans and Soviets and one more time why do you compare the whole southern front for the Soviets with just Stalingrad for the Germans and why do you Ignore Italian, Hungarian and Romanian air losses as well Wrongmonth55 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to participate in the Eastern Front project, then I suggest you create a user page and a talk page first so others can interact with you. The entire Eastern Front series of articles will undergo a revision and re-editing with more articles to be added. I agree that there needs to be a greater structuring of the progress of the battle for Stalingrad, but there are only so many people editing, and everything can't be done when you ask for it to be done unless you volunteer to do it yourself. --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong month55: firstly, every single one of your edits on wikipedia so far has been reverted by various editors. They are unconstructive as you moved sourced material which is highly relevent to the topic at hand - this is vandalism. Ontop of that on the Battle of Moscow page you simply put "unrealiable edit" to a heavily sourced bit of text, from an extremely reputable eastern front aviation historian, and you have been warned about this several times.You have done this on the History of the Luftwaffe page as well. I can't work out whether its just stupidity or you are deliberately trying to be a problem. And another thing, stop removing legitimate information from its rightful place. Casualty boxes exist for a reason - to list casualties. It is not appropriate to list them in the main text. This method is not clutter, stop it.

Clearly you don't read any text properly. All the aerial losses suffered and sourced in this article are a part of this battle. I put I note, which I am sure you have seen, indicating that for the period of Aug-Nov figures include losses for the Don-Stalingrad area. This counts. These losses were not clear in Soviet records as to how many were lost in which area as they are not detailed enough. These losses are NOT soviet losses for the entire southern wing of the front. They exclude the Kuban and the Crimean battles. Many losses occurred over stalingrad before the Germans reached the city and were still clearing the Don bend. Dapi89 (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. other Axis losses in the air will be included when I can find the information from a good source. Dapi89 (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Recantation of some earlier remarks

Bold text'''''Bold text''Italic text''' It appears that some changes/improvements have been made to this article since I last reviewed it. My remarks ("this article is disappointing...")overlook these improvements. However, my earlier suggestions remain applicable. Additionally, I do however recommend that the authors-consider their audience (more carefully-it's obvious some consideration has been made) and consider their goals (focus). If a reader is so hopelessly confused as to the background of the battle (Battle of Britain, Battle for Moscow, etc) it's unlikely that reader could catch the significance of this battle with a net. I am (sorry to say) among that group who find the casualty figures inaccurate. Again, best of luck Earth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthhawk (talkcontribs) 01:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism - semi-protection?

Apparently this page is currently a common target for vandals. Can somebody semi-protect it? --Taraborn (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, it doesn't really look bad enough to require semi-protection, or at least not bad enough to deny the legit IP editors and new-account holders the opportunity to contribute to the article. If you still want to make an official request, though, you should make it at WP:RPP. --Dynaflow babble 03:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support this - in my view, the messing about with casualty figures alone justifies locking out unregistered users. --Sf (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The last two IP editors (as of right now) fixed bad edits that were made by registered users. Would you really want to bar them from editing here? --Dynaflow babble 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If the IPs weren't allowed to edit, who would have covered my ass when I made such a dumb mistake? haha faithless (speak) 19:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Stalingrad?

May I suggest (probably controversially) that the correct English usage is "Battle for Stalingrad". "Battle of" in English history is used for events taking place in the vicinity of a given prominent geographic feature, usually a population centre. However in this case the combat took place almost exclusively in the city, and was therefore explicitly 'for' the city. Soviet military historians actually divide the Stalingrad epic into six distinct operations, but that is another story.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 02:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that you get on with your avowed task of building the 'structure' of the Eastern Front 's presentation on wikipedia rather than quibbling over tiny differences of article name? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Mrg. That was uncalled for. In terms of common useage, 'of' gets 174,000 google hits, while 'for' gets 25,100. Thus if we are following the guideline of reflecting the most commonly used name, 'of' would stay. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have to insert an article name into other articles (in this case AG South), so I may as well ask now so by the time the article is ready I may get an answer. The suggested etymology of quibble is "a pun, a play on words" probably a dim. of quib "evasion of point at issue"...which I am not, and in fact to the contrary. I think the question is fairly legitimate. The words 'of' and 'for' as prepositions have distinctly different uses. Lo and behold the chance that readers of Wikipedia articles be English speakers actually familiar with the grammar of the language and its syntax. While the hits may reflect usage for book titles, encyclopaedias are not guided by the same decision making process as that of a publisher. In any case, hit counts prove absolutely nothing. Coke is better known then Pepsi, but Pepsi sells more if one counts by brand. However plain water is preferred to both by doctors :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet mobile operations

"The Red Army, at this stage of the war, was less capable of highly mobile operations than the German Army, and the prospect of combat inside a large urban area, which would be dominated by short-range small firearms and artillery rather than armored and mechanized tactics, minimized the Red Army’s disadvantages against the Germans."

I'm not so sure this is true. Stavka was unprepared to conduct mobile, i.e. offensive operations in the southern direction, but it was by no means devoid of this capability as was proven with the operations that sealed the 6th Army's fate. It just took time to set up the operation (see Glantz) due to the more sophisticated deception planning, never mind the movement and logistics needs of all the formations in place. I have not seen any suggestion that Stalingrad was intended to become a place of urban combat. The intention was to halt Axis troops on the outskirts as was done at Odessa, Sevastopol and Leningrad, and force them into a lengthy siege. It was the failure of the operational UR's that eventually led to the urban combat.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 21:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While the German army was possibly more able in conducting mobile operations, the Battle of Stalingrad wasn't reserved to fighting in the city ruins - as far as I know, more combat (in terms of men involved) took place outside the city, in the frozen steppes, than did in the ruins themselves. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Reverts in the strength box

I would like to let everyone know that the Bergstrom references pertain to aircraft strength and losses only. It does not extend to "Guns", "tanks" or any other equipment. Dapi89 (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Points

  • I'm going to rewrite this entire article as I quite probably know more about the subject than you do. If you object to a specific edit, I suggest you talk to me about it. I don't mean to be rude, but collaborative writing requires that someone be temporarily given a little freedom to operate without constant interference. I have about 20 books on the subject sitting right here, along with access to JSTOR, and so I expect anyone arguing with me to be able to cite their sources.Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)
  • I removed a citation that 65% of Army Group Centre had not been involved in the winter fighting of 1941-42 from the background, its really not relevant unless you want to start a separate section specifically on the historiographical debate over whether a central offensive should have been launched. I just re-added this as a footnote.Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)
  • The beginning does not need to mention Tsaritsyn, how is that important? Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)
  • There is no 'official' start date for this battle. The one you have been using here, August 21, is significant only in that this is the date that Kalatch was seized. August 23 might be a better date to use as the 'start', although one could easily push this back to the main thrusts of September, or advance it forward to the actual orders to seize Stalingrad which were issued in July, and you could arguably even date the battle's beginings to June, since all of Operation Blue is generally considered part of this engagement. Therefore, 'Summer 1942', seems to be the most accurate date to use.Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)
  • A quarter-million Axis troops wound up in the Soviet POW camps, I don't know where your figure of 110'000 came, but these figures vary greatly depending on how you count them, and who exactly you are counting. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I deleted a citation about anyone strong enough to hold a gun being sent out to war, that is obviously a misappled/exaggerated/somewhat irrelevant quote. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your extremely arrogant are'nt you? I have reverted recent edits by "Kir" - is this also you? What makes this most embarrassing for you is that you are wrong on most points. I'll start witht he most glaringly obvious:

  • A quarter of a million Germans were not captured. The German 6th Army was not even a quarter of a million strong. You also fail to consider the enormous losses inflicted up on the Germans during the battle. To assume a quater of a million were taken as POWs is to assume they did not suffer any losses!! It is well known Hitler had to strip the flanks bare of any meaningful reserve to compensate for losses. Numbers also account for the Axis satellites.
  • The sources use for the prisoner count came from JSTOR, I am surprised this all knowing editor has failed to noice this.
  • The figure of 65% is mentioned because it is important background information- it dispels the myth of German unpreparedness: Hence it is in the BACKGROUND section.
  • The battle began on 21 August which is when the first combats took place. This was initiated by the Luftwaffe who began operations over Stalingrad on this date; the air war counts as well you know.

Other obvious and well known facts have been re-added. You don't seem to know nearly as much as you think you do. Dapi89 (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I note this "editor" has been indefinitely blocked. Dapi89 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Commanders

Can anyone confirm if Timoshenko was involved at all in the battle? All I know was that he was involved kharkov on may but that was 3 months before the battle Seektrue (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

All sources agree that Yeremenko commanded the Southeastern Front and later the Stalingrad Front from August to December. Southwestern Front was the one transformed into the Stalingrad Front per Order 994110 12 July 1942 04.40am. At this time, and until 7th August Timoshenko was in commmand. Thereafter Yeremenko took over the Stalingrad Front.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 22:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Was Nikita Krushchev not involved in the defence of Stalingrad? If he was, as future Chairman of the Soviet and decorated veteran, should he not be included in the Soviet commanders infobox? Norgy (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

13 500 by Beevor

According to Beevor 13 500 Soviet soldiers were executed. Even if not true, the number should be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

rather long

interesting article, but rather long. I would be in favour of cutting out some of the detail, which will have its place in the separate articles for the different phases Johncmullen1960 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree. Wikipedia needs a certain amount of detail. All the info is relevent to the article, any removal would damage the article even further. Dapi89 (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. It will be split up into several articles, and this article will be renamed Battle for Stalingrad to reflect the tactical combat in the city as opposed to all the operations that took place around the city over a long period of time.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 13:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The tactical combat in the city was just a relatively small (but overwhelmingly iconic) aspect of the Battle of Stalingrad. The desision though, much like with Battle of Berlin, was achieved beyond the city limits. Creating an article which you propose will likely be misleading to readers. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, leave the details, they add flavour to this article that many other articles on internet do not have. Plus, there is nowhere to put these details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


The concept of "Battle of Stalingrad" exists not only in English sources. For instance, Soviet and Russian historiography also use this term. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Last Luftwaffe landing/takeoff and Croatian involvment in battle of stalingrad

I just wanted to ask why isn't Independant State of Croatia added to Axis allies list, and is there any chance of adding them if not, why not. I didnt want to do that myself because someone would maybe call that vandalasing.

Name of that croatian unit was Kroatischen Infanterie Regiment 369 if i recall correctly, they fought at the Red October factory and many other places. I think they are the only non german unit that fought in stalingrad itself, and there is plenty information about that on the internet and so i think they should be mentioned and added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Croat 369th regiment was the only non-German unit honoured by Paulus (not very lucky as it turned out) to enter the city during assault operations. In those days Paulus and his 6th army group were the best Germany and Hitler ever had before or after Stalingrad. They were the most exparienced, successful, disciplined, trained and equipped army group with victories unparallelled in Europe before Stalingrad and their annihilation by the Russians. It may be argued that by defeating Paulus Stalin defeated Hitler's chances to win or end the war in a peace treaty.
I also think there is an error in date of Gumrak flight operations. From sources I can get to it appears Gumrak last flight out was reportedly during night 21.1. to 22.1.1943. Last flight to leave Stalingrad was from sources I can get to from flight school runway controlled by the 369th Croat regiment called Stalingradskaja night 22.1. to 23.1.1943. It appears that a group of 369th soldiers may have been the last German soldiers ever to leave Stalingrad by air. HE-111 mechanic Deiml describes this in his —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lone plunger (talkcontribs) 13:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
THERE ARE TOO MANY REFERENCES to list here ............ Google ....... sources only disagree between 21st or 22nd Jan
1 'Am Sonnabend, dem 23. Januar 1943 in der Dämmerung, startete ein Leutnant Krausse das letzte Flugzeug aus dem Kessel von Stalingrad. Es war eine Heinkel He 111 mit halb weggeschossenem Höhenruder und neun Verwundeten an Bord.Spiegel article'
2 'Als am 22. Januar der letzte Flughafen Gumrak verloren ging' Wikipedia DE
3 'Das letzte Flugzeug verlässt am 21. Januar den Behelfslandeplatz Gumrak,'
4 'Fest steht, daß Stalingradski am 23.1.1943 verloren ging und am gleichen Tag das letzte deutsche Flugzeug Stalingrad verlassen hat. Dies wurde auch bei einer Stalingradsendung im Deutschen Fernsehen, die ich sah, mitgeteilt.'
5 'Records from original Croat 369th unit war diary (flown out on 23rd of Jan) state beyond doubt that the last flight out of this Croat unit held Stalingrad flight school (Deiml calls it 'Stalingradskaja' in his report) were on 23rd of Jan 1943. Pojić, Milan. Hrvatska pukovnija 369. na Istočnom bojištu 1941. - 1943.. Croatian State Archives. Zagreb, 2007.
6 22.1.1943 H.Gr. Don: 6. Armee: Stalingrad: Der Flugplatz Gumrak im Kessel von Stalingrad wurde aufgegeben
8 or Joel S. A. Hayward, STOPPED AT STALINGRAD: THE LUFTWAFFE AND HITLER'S DEFEAT IN THE EAST 1942-1943. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998. Second ed 2001. ISBN: 0-7006-1146-0.

--Lone plunger (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your quoted sources seem to be wrong, they confuse airdrops to landing and take off operations. Deiml claims they did last airdrops on 29th of Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lone plunger (talkcontribs) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Civilian Casualties in Stalingrad

In 1995 the Russian Academy of Science published a report on USSR Human Losses in WW2. On Page 128 they list the civilian dead in the Stalingrad region at 555,700, 30.1 % of the population. They noted that in one single day in August 1942 40,000 were killed in a German air attack on the city. The numbers need to be updated on this page.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Passage about US involvement in war in the introduction of the article

I think that comment about Hitler wanting to minimize fighting on Eastern Front or seize is plain ignorant in the Backgroud section, because even US Chiefs of Staff admitted that Eastern front will remain the main effort, regardles of involvment of USA. Here is an article:

and yes, it is written in type of marxist rhetoric, but nevertheless, it sites all references for quotes, an one of the quotes is from US Chiefs of Staff report:

"In World War II, Russia occupies a dominant position and is the decisive factor looking toward the defeat of the Axis in Europe. While in Sicily the forces of Great Britain and the USA are being opposed by 2 German divisions, the Russian front is receiving the attention of approximately 200 German divisions. Whenever the Allies open a second front on the Continent, it will be decidedly a secondary front to that of Russia; theirs will continue to be the main effort. Without Russia in the war, the Axis cannot be defeated in Europe, and the position of the United Nations becomes precarious." (quoted in V. Sipols, The Road to Great Victory, p. 133.)

For this reason, I think that what was there in introduction about US involvment in war is wrong. The article also analyzes things in an objective way (although it is surprising, given the name of the site, but still, it cites all references flawelessly), for example, it states that western Allies opened Secondary front because they realized that if they wouldn't do that, they would meet Red Army on the Channel, it does not only state it plainly, it gives reasons for that opinion. In general, I would suggest this article as a viable reference. Sorry for long post in an inappropriate place. (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

"...when resistance no longer served any useful purpose"

In Lost Victories Manstein claims that the holding out in 1943 helped him stablize the front because Soviet units had to remain at Stalingrad to enforce the pocket.Bdell555 (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

False Aircraft losses citations

I have removed this from the article. The "2,769" figure is a complete joke, as it contradict the National Russian Aviation Research Trust, the Russian Central Military Archive TsAMO, in Podolsk, and Monino Air Force Museum , Moscow. These are primary sources. It can't be claimed Krivosheyev used archival sources if he doesn't give the exact documents name. Any author can claim to have based their research on "primary sources". Put these totally contradict the research done by Bergstrom, Dikov, and Antipov - and they cite the exact documents. Dapi89 (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, 2,846 Soviet aircraft were lost to enemy action from 28 June - 19 November alone, so "2,769" from July - February '43 is complete bull. Dapi89 (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bergstrom 2007, p. 83.