Talk:Battle of Stalingrad

Semi-Protected edit request

"It was an extremely costly defeat for German forces" in second paragraph. This is a matter of speculation and should be changed. If the allies had not begun fighting on the western front and North Africa, millions of Axis soldiers could have been sent to the Eastern front. If the sentence stating that it was an extremely costly defeat for German forces stays, a sentence should also be included stating that it was also an extremely costly battle for the Soviets, as their casualties were higher than the Axis units involved.

But this is true. It doesn't mutually exclude what you're saying...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And since it doesn't mutually exclude what I am saying, the point I made should be included in the Stalingrad page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 04:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it was costly for the Soviets, but they had soldiers to spare, Germany didn't, also in recent years I've come to realize that the probable reason Hitler didn't send more troops from France to the Russian front was because the areas conquered in the east had little economic value for Hitlers war effort.

France had more than 10,000 factories in the occupied area and 50% of France's gross industrial product went to Germany during the occupation. In some areas like trucks, locomotives, & rail cars it was 80%. For planes 100% Every year there was an industrial fair in Paris where German military & industrialists would bring plans & prototypes of things they wanted built, French industrialists would bid on these projects.

Large amounts of food also went to Germany. Regression on the eastern front was preferable to losing those factories. Belgium & Holland had smaller but significant contributions also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyreno (talk • contribs) 23:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

But the point about the Stalingrad battle was that Hitler (fueled by Göring's uttlerly unrealistic boasts of the supply capabilities of his Air Force) did not allow a regression which would have had a very real chance of success if ordered early enough.--87.166.166.234 (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2017

Dear Wiki, the Wehrmacht casualties are incorrect. The amount of casualties is 950,000. 2604:2000:E0CC:8300:5003:420:D262:23D (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2017

65.88.88.214 (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The casualties were at least 400,000 for Germany, and 500,000 other. 941,00 total Soviet is 1,169,752.

Not sure what you're proposing needs to change. But I think there's a flag missing in the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Why dont you put estimates according to Isayev, Glant and Krivosheyev? Germans only had almost 600 000 casualties not entire axis combined. Only Italians lost there their entire contingent. https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-casualty-rates-for-the-Battle-of-Stalingrad --Kovanja (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kovanja:, it is the responsibility of those proposing changes to propose them with sources that comply with the reliable sourcing policies. Merely referring to some scholar's last names is not providing reliable sources and neither is referring to a Quora thread. Thank you for your understanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Those remaining sources dont look like so academic more like some fan page, also data from to sources are till 1942, Germans fought until February 1943. Those sources does not say anything about Stalingrad. 300 000 of German casualties look like very undergraded. They had bigger casualties in Moscow 1941 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kovanja (talk • contribs) 16:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

El Alamein more important

The Second Battle of El Alamein was a far more important Allied victory, as it prevented the Axis from invading Egypt and capturing the Suez Canal, seizing the oil supply in the Middle East, and ultimately linking up with Japanese forces in the Indian Ocean. (86.133.84.69 (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC))

Troll!--Jack Upland (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

How is that trolling? Strategically El Alamein was more important for the Allies than Stalingrad. (86.137.48.59 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC))

I can't see why you would be a troll and I assume you edit in good faith, however, the fact (or not) that El Alamein was more important is irrelevant to this page. Could you specify what you would tike to be changed in this article? If there's an error or typo or anything wrong in the article, Ill be happy to correct it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have said that. It just seemed that the comment was calculated to inflame debate rather than improve this page, particularly as there has been a history of people making inflammatory comments on WW2 pages. This issue is relevant to the section "Significance", which actually mentions El Alamein already. However, we can't turn the section into a debating forum. A short statement that some historians consider El Alamein to be more important than Stalingrad, with a citation, could easily be inserted into the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018

Please change the starting date of the Battle of Stalingrad from the 23 Aug to the 17 of July because while doing research on this I found it confusing that different sites requested different dates Diamonds1106 (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Could you please elaborate on your request? I have no idea what you're trying to tell us. ToThAc (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

My word ultimately means little here but I feel Wikipedia should carry the earlier start date so as to not exclude the actions in the Stalingrad area that immediately preceded the earlier, more focused on, siege phase - provided the Wikipedia article has an appropriate section to cover the details of that earlier phase of the engagement. This is not to be used as a source, but simply a better explanation of the earlier date to which the user above and I are alluding: ht/tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCDjAqTUCmw&t=1s 2601:87:4080:372:84D7:679C:1DA0:C7F6 (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Winchester: you forget to count Army Group Don casualtiesUoat365 (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)