Talk:Battle of Stalingrad

Incorrect image

Soviet Katyusha rocket launchers firing at the enemy during the battle of Stalingrad in October 1942.

This almost certainly wasn't taken anywhere near Stalingrad. Look at the mountains in the background! Will someone please come forward to tell us about the mountainous areas within Katyusha range of Stalingrad?

If not, this image should be removed from the article, or an explanation, something along the lines of "Katyusha rockets similar to those housed in the Volga caves at Stalingrad" substituted for the incorrect description. In addition, the description given for the image itself should be changed, perhaps simply edited to take out the reference to Stalingrad.

This is too big a change to make on my own; but I SINCERELY hope there will be discussion about it, as it is an OBVIOUS error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.123.148 (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

after the Red Army had suffered losses of 259% of their initial strength in 1941

"losses of 259%"???

Somebody can't count, and it isn't me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.129.31 (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's you. After the Germans invaded, the Soviet government ordered mobilization and millions of men joined the armed forces. While not counted in the "initial strength", their losses are calculated. Tvoi Ded (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

poor article

This is a very poorly written article that should be extensively revised:

A) The article lacks proper scope. It sometimes seems to be trying to cover the entire 1942 German offensive in South Russia and some of the soviet offensive toward the end of the year. It lacks even a map of the fighting in the actual battle of Stalingrad.

B) The strength and casualty figures are an inconsistant mess. "the battle of Stalingrad" seems to grow and shrink in different places in the article.

C) The article's citations are often very poor. Books are quoted without titles by year and author.

To me, the battle of Stalingrad is about the fighting in the region around the city itself. The greater operations going on along the Don and in the Caucusus should be covered far more briefly than they are.

70.234.240.186 (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"Popular" culture?

Is the argument of an Israeli-American academic that films on the Battle of Stalingrad are insufficiently Judeocentric really a part of "popular" culture? How many people outside the academic discipline of history have even heard of him? Historian932 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Letters from Stalingrad"

From the main article: "According to the German documentary film Stalingrad[full citation needed], over 11,000 soldiers refused to lay down their arms at the official surrender. Some have presumed that they were motivated by a belief that fighting on was better than a slow death in Soviet captivity. The Israeli historian Omer Bartov claims they were motivated by National Socialism. He studied 11,237 letters sent by soldiers inside of Stalingrad between 20 December 1942 and 16 January 1943 to their families in Germany. Almost every letter expressed belief in Germany's ultimate victory and their willingness to fight and die at Stalingrad to achieve that victory.[51] Bartov reported that a great many of the soldiers were well aware that they would not be able to escape from Stalingrad, but in their letters to their families boasted that they were proud to "sacrifice" themselves for the Führer.[51]"

As far as I am aware, these "letters" were found to be forgeries; ie they were not actually written by soldiers at Stalingrad. I recall this fact from a more recent study regarding the Ordnungpolizei.

Could someone expert in this area please review because I think it is important.? Thanks. Princebuster5 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont know that they were found to be forgeries. From what I remember, what was found was that the collection of letters was selectively picked. I think that Bartov's claims about the letters should be removed from the article. The reference is basically out of date and the conclusions are wrong. 70.234.234.227 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Get a life.

Very well written and extremely educational. Go get a life, you haters.