Talk:Battle of Stalingrad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Battle of Stalingrad is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 5, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
November 24, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Semi-Protected edit request[edit]

"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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

El Alamein more important[edit]

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)

EL- Alamein was meaningless compare to Stalingrad. Germnas lost in Stalingrad milion of their best troops, Hitler did not even care of Africa, he helped to Italians. Education of American historians is sourced by Holywood movies.--88.100.201.106 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018[edit]

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)

Casualties[edit]

@Winchester: you didn't count Army Group Don, and Hiwi casualtiesUoat365 (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

First, you have misinterpreted the source diff, by claiming that the losses were 600,000, now you are insisting that the German lost at least 400,000 because of your own dubious calculations diff. Stephen Walsh does not specify the overall German casualties, only mention that they were probably more than 300,000. Also, Army Group Don (12,727 killed, 37,627 wounded and 4,906 missing), is inlcuded in the + 300,000. Witchchester (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about the casualties section[edit]

Here's a quote from the main article: "If the losses of Army Group A, Army Group Don and other German units of Army Group B during the period 28 June 1942 to 2 February 1943 are included, German casualties were well over 600,000."

My question is, why are these casualties not included in the chart at the top of the article? Did these army groups fight in Stalingrad? My guess would be from reading the section that these perhaps fought outside of the inner city line or something? If this is the case, do the soviet casualties include fighting outside of the inner city?

Furthermore, i wanted to comment on the following sentence: "955 Soviet civilians died in Stalingrad and its suburbs from aerial bombing by Luftflotte 4 as the German 4th Panzer and 6th Armies approached the city."

I feel like some additional information about civilian casualties in the battle is missing. This could lead to people reading this and assuming that only 955 civilians where killed during the battle. I know the article never makes such claims, but some additional information would be very nice. For instance, consider reading Encyclopedia Brittanicas article about the battle (https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Stalingrad), where they say that about 40,000 civilians died. Maybe this could be a nice addition?

With regards, Viktor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeñorBiktor (talkcontribs) 14:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)