Talk:Battle of Stalingrad/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Soviet casualties, Bergstorm and Krivosheev

Krivosheev's work is the most authorative source on Soviet casualties available. Why are we constantly going back to citing Bergstorm? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't you just add his figures (with an explanation that they are his figures, and why his work is the most authorative source)? It is no secret that there are there are slightly different opinions. I would like to see an explanation of this: "In the whole Stalingrad area the Axis lost 1.5 million killed, wounded or captured[70]." Why is this figure not even close to other figures? When was this figure calculated, which archives where used and by who? (I am quite sure that ths figure concerns the whole Eastern front during the period) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Also, who keeps editing casualties for soviets back to those for the area in general. Those of the city should be cited. I reversed that mistake. Otherwise, we should cite german casualties for the whole area as well. Please stop re-editing without discussion, or otherwise we post 1.5 million casualties for germans for the whole area.
"Why is this figure not even close to other figures?" What are other figures, and do you have references for other figures? when were they calculated? Which archives were used? and by who? As for Krivosheev, soviet archives and german archives were used I am sure. What other ones?-- (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.
As you said, do not change sourced figures without discussion, and certainly not without providing a source to back your claims up. The Soviet casualties are correct and can be backed up by other sources, as Beevor's Stalingrad ie. As for the German casualties, the source given states that the 840,000 casualties is for the entire Stalingrad operation and goes for all Axis powers involved in the operation. Anthony Beevor estimates in Stalingrad (page 393) around 500,000 axis casualties for the entire operation. 1.5 million seems implausible, especially when you got more then enough credible sources pointing to the contrary. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
More credible sources, what are they? I already asked you? WHAT ARE THEY?? Do you want me to write it in bigger letters? You talk about some other mysterious sources, but give reference only to Beevor. Second thing: Why are we using Beevor and not Krivosheev? Beevor does not seem like a neutral source on the issue to me. And I am not alone in this suspicion. The general tone in which his book is written seems to have as a goal to demonstrate that there were a lot of deserters in soviet army during Stalingrad and not to give credible information on the battle. Do you read russian? Because Oleg Rzheshevsky of the institute of international history of RAN (Russian Academy of Sciences) estimates that soviets lost ~1,1 million soldiers, while germans - 1,5. ( Which agrees with Krivosheev. Should we maybe add the russian estimates and western estimates sections? That would seem a bit more fair than just the numbers you provided, especially considering you did not provide any other source to support them. We will leave your numbers, only we will state that these are Beevors, and then we will add russian and other estimates.

"1.5 million seems implausible" To be honest, we do not care what seems plausible or implausible to you. We are trying to research some authors and their estimates. And I have given you two right now. You cite only Beevor. Anatoly Utkin gives following estimates: 750,000 for soviets, 400,000 for germans, 300,000-400,000 for their allies, the book is "year 1942". Also, when giving soviet losses, Beevor does not go into even a fraction of detail as does this site of Krivosheev ( I do not understand why are we using the numbers of Beevor over the numbers of someone who clearly does much more detailed research? I also heard criticism that Beevor simply did not include the german losses for the Stalingrad area in general, and in particular, those of germans in The Operation Uranus (Stalingrad Strategic Offensive). Again. Why Beevor (much criticized for his books on Russia by many people for writing dramatization instead of history) and not more detailed authors? To give you an idea about Bee vor, he is the guy who made a claim that soviet soldiers raped every german woman 8-80 years of age, which, he estimated, were 2 million. Do you want some more quotes from Beevor? He is more of a journalist and a propaganda figure than a historian. And can you guess what were the sources of his estimates? Apparently he considers as a source a soviet novelist and a couple of rape stories form women in Berlin. Oh yes, sorry, I forgot his main reference - german propaganda during the war. Here is his article on that issue. Find me anything more specific than "experts estimated" in his "work" ( Do you still want to cite Beevor? IF yes, I will pick up his book and look up his references there, and guess what, if he does not reference anybody other than himself, we are reverting it back to the proper historian's references, ok? (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

1.5 million is implausible. Beevor's numbers aren't even used in this article, Bergstörms 841,000 casualties are the number being used at the moment, which are detailed and properly researched. And to the "where are they?" question, they're in most books actually, you should trying reading one for a change, they're much more credible then some random websites. Except for Bergström and Beevor i have three other books right here (Atlas of World War II by David Jordan, World War II Day by Day by Anthony Shaw and World History by Henning Poulsen) that all claim 750,000 casualties followed by 90,000 - 95,000 captured for the entire Stalingrad operation. There are many more of these. If so many authors and researchers say one thing, which is around 850,000 casualties, we shouldn't cite one author claiming nearly twice as many casualties. Beevor isn't biased either, i think you are on the other hand and cant accept someone ruining your nationalistic view of the war and instead of "hearing" criticism of his books, why don't you read them, you obviously have not. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1. You are saying that Beevor is not biased? I have some sort of nationalistic picture? Why would I have nationalistic picture? My country won the war. Little helpless Estonias, Latvias, Georgias etc... have nationalistic picture. I try to look at facts strictly (and I realize that soviet/russian government does not always present them, just like US or any other western government, or any government for that matter). I am sorry to break it to you, but Beevor is one of the worst authors out there. His estimate that soviet soldiers raped 2 million german women was basically taken from Nazi propaganda speeches. You want to believe that? Feel free. Would you believe soviet propaganda too then? You seem to be completely delusional, believing only one side of the discussion, and completely ignoring the other.
2. I found one of the books you mentioned: "World War II Day by Day by Anthony Shaw". Are you kidding me? What are you, 12 years old? This is in no way an encyclopedic book. It is for 12 years old kids or for retarted people, who lose attention too quickly, and therefore need a lot of pictures to keep them from putting this book away. No wonder I do not know about this book. I read serious books, that reference their material, and where at least 70% is text, not pictures. Where did you ever see the references in this book? I did not. I strongly suspect that your books are all like this. I am assuming I am arguing seriously here, with a serious person, and what do I get? Reference to albums basically. And please, do not try to look like a fool. If all three books are giving same numbers, it does not mean you have three sources supporting something, it means you have three books referencing one and the same author or historian. Mine reference Utkin or Rzseshevsky, or Krivosheev. You so far named only Beevor and Bergstrom. If you want, I can bring up 20 russian books, written by different authors that reference Krivosheev alone. Will that make Krivosheev's numbers any more credible? Nope.
3. As for Bergström, Krivosheev is regarded as much more credible source as was pointed to you by another user above, also, Bergstrom did not even write about Battle of Stalingrad proper, but only about the air conflict and especially about fighter tactics, thus suggesting that he simply referenced someone else's numbers on casualties. Once again, tell me, are there references in his book? Where did he take these numbers. These numbers are for December-February too. You, for some mysterious reason, forgot to mention that right now. Why? So, Bergstrom does not give casualties for the full battle, and hence his reference is irrelevant, that leaves only Beevor.
4. Why are you willing to use an author who does not reference his numbers and does not point to the archives he used etc.. (Beevor). Answer me this: Where does Beevor take his numbers? And if he researched them, which archives he used. Please do not evade the question, I would like some serious evidence. Tell me something else. How many soldiers does Beevor or Bergstrom estimate that Wermacht lost in total in WW2? I will be able to tell you the credibility of the authors from that (because there are official german numbers, but of course you do not know what they are). Ok, if you are not willing to adhere to reason, I will have to edit casualties and basically call the ones there right now western/german estimates, and add russian modern estimates.-- (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov
No, i don't see Beevor as biased, he has received criticism from both Germans and Russians for writing about atrocities, mass rapes, massacres etc. Whether your country won the war or not is irrelevant when it comes to nationalism. I don't think you are looking at facts strictly, i think you choose the Russian sources you are pleased with and use them. Your earlier edits where you at times remove sourced casualty numbers and replace them with unsourced numbers show that. What you consider serious and not serious is irrelevant, it was an example of the books i had in my immediate presence. It's strange that you only look at Russian sources that easily can be biased or slanted, not necessarily but it's interesting that the radical increase in Axis casulties only comes from Russian sources. I suggest you look at Bergströms numbers before making assumptions. I think you are mistaken if you think that these constantly reoccurring casualty number 850,000 would come solely from Bergström. I don't see how Beevors writing about the mass rapes in Germany has any relevancy to the discussion about the amount of casualties at Stalingrad. Your making no sense. Beevors numbers are as far as i know, not even used in the article at the moment. I don't think you should change anything with out a consensus from several people, if people agree upon it then sure go ahead, i wont agree with it but thats how it works. As i said, there are several of historians and researchers that have this number, not just Bergström and Beevor, and not just people from one country. I'll try to find some more references to "serious" books. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Pavel, please read WP:Civility, then try WP:Verifiability, then move on to WP:Consensus. The first might help your arguments to be taken more seriously, the second might prompt you to provide proper sources for your edits, and the last should show you that you need to gain consensus before making edits of passages for which prior consensus has already been reached. Otherwise, you will probably find swimming against the tide rather futile.Hohum (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Did Nirvana edit it with consensus? I should look this up. Or did he just used that noone objected in time. Plus, for all I know, the only other person I saw discussing disagreed with Nirvana77.
1.Now for Nirvana. " No, i don't see Beevor as biased, he has received criticism from both Germans and Russians for writing about atrocities, mass rapes, massacres etc." You completely missed the point, COMPLETELY. Ok, I will spell it out in nice long letters: Beevor is biased not because he was critisized by people, but because he does not reference his material, he does not tell us where he took his numbers, which means that for all we know, he took them from his own head. You understand now?
2."Your earlier edits where you at times remove sourced casualty numbers and replace them with unsourced numbers show that. What you consider serious and not serious is irrelevant, it was an example of the books i had in my immediate presence." I do not edit unsourced things, I normally source everything. Also, if I have more books, will that suffice for me to edit it back? So, according to you, it is all about who has more books? Do children books suffice? Can I use propaganda books? German? Russian? Yes, there are serious books and there are not serious books. You want criterion to decide which book is serious and which is not? Easy, look if they reference their numbers. If the book does not, it is not serious, if it does, it is serious. books that do not reference their numbers are most of the time wrote for people with no education and no interest in subject, i.e. people who would believe anything they are told, because they don't know better.
3. "I suggest you look at Bergströms numbers before making assumptions. I think you are mistaken if you think that these constantly reoccurring casualty number 850,000 would come solely from Bergström." I did look at Bergstrom. First of all, where does this number come from??? You don't think they came from only Bergstrom or Beevor? Ok, then from who? Let me spell it out for you in full, so that you do not ask anymore questions about this issue: you use an author, this author gives numbers, where does he take them? From another author. where does this second author take them? from third author, etc... Sooner or later, you are going to give me a REAL reference, that is, to an archive or to official statistics (german or soviet). If you do not arrive at such REAL reference, and end up referencing the author who does not give any evidence for the numbers he publishes, then for all I (or you for that matter) know, he pulled it you know from where, and his credibility is 0. You understand now?
4. "I don't see how Beevors writing about the mass rapes in Germany has any relevancy to the discussion about the amount of casualties at Stalingrad. Your making no sense. Beevors numbers are as far as i know, not even used in the article at the moment. I don't think you should change anything with out a consensus from several people, if people agree upon it then sure go ahead, i wont agree with it but thats how it works. As i said, there are several of historians and researchers that have this number, not just Bergström and Beevor, and not just people from one country." You are seeing no sense, I am making it very well, or do you not want to see it? I stated it out pretty clearly, I question Beevor's credibility, and as evidence for my opinion, I provided the fact that he estimated that 2 million german women were raped by soviet soldiers, and did not provide any basis for that estimation. Real estimates are ~153,000. As other evidence against Beevor, I again provide words of other historians, who critisize Beevor's "Historical books" and say that "the tone in which they are written is more suitable for thriller story, rather than history book". I don't understand one more thing. Why are you evading one question, namely, where does Beevor take his numbers from? Maybe this will help: Where does Beevor take his numbers from, what are his sources?. Please answer this question, otherwise, I do not see any reason to use Beevor's numbers. As for consensus, we have 2 people (me, Ko Soi IX) against 1 (you). So, yes, I add russian estimates. That's how it works. I will reference them quite a lot, don't worry.-- (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Ok, I did not change any of your numbers, I just added that these are western estimates (which they are), I added the russian estimates and referenced them, with websites and one name (just like your western estimates are referenced). This more effectively shows both sides of the discussion, so please do not delete this edit (unless of course you have sources that demonstrate that some one estimate is the ultimate one and should be used above all others (sources that do not exist)) As for consensus, we have 2 (me, Ko Soi IX) against 1 (nirvana77), but effectively, it is just me vs nirvana77, because noone else participated in the discussion. Once again, we represent both sides of the discussion and this is neutral (after all, Wiki is all about neutrality, so why include only one source, one side of the discussion). Russian historians think that germans lost 1.5 million, british historians think otherwise, Nirvana77 thinks 1.5 is implausible, I don't think so, oh well, we will have to include both, because we are all about neutrality, and representing only one side of the discussion is not neutral (no matter what one side thinks). I only need some help, because they are sticking out too much, how one makes it more uniform? :) (Nirvana77, If you want to play the reference game, we shall play it, I will use your tactics, I will use absolutely non-credible sources, for which there is no further reference (Beevor, your books with a lot of pictures, websites, etc...), and use them :), and there is nothing for you to say, because like you, I "referenced" my material, and remember, unless your book references its material, its worth as a reference is in no way bigger than that of a website, the worth as a reference being non-existent, but oh well, that is Wiki, right?). Are we both happy? -- (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

I didn't edit it, i did not even post any of the casualty numbers but i have read the work that is referenced in the article and several other books indicating the same number. I don't think it should be changed or anything to be added without consensus. This irrelevant and ridiculous discussion about Beevor should end. Your seem to be under the impression that if you write something bad about the Red Army you are "biased". Just because he doesn't portray Soviet forces as glorious knights liberating Europe doesn't mean he is biased, it proves the opposite. I dont think we should have "Western" and "Russian" estimates. The question is if there really is an discussion on the Stalingrad casualties and not just one authors claims. I think we should have an actual consensus before changing anything in the info box, not just one guy thinking he has an consensus. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me remind you that the only reliable information on the Soviet losses are the data from Soviet archives. That is equally true for the German, British or American losses: all the data but those obtained from national archives are just estimations. Therefore, Beevor, Glantz or Bergstrom obtained their numbers either directly from the Soviet archives or they used the results of the archival work of other researchers. The most comprehensive archival work on Soviet losses had been done by the Krivosheev's group (note, Krivosheev didn't work alone, he was a head of the large group of researchers who meticulously analysed all available archival data). WP:SOURCES states:"As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is." In other words, although a great number of other book exists that cite one or the another figures of Soviet losses, the comprehensive work of the Krivosheev's group weighs much more than all other books taken together.
In addition, these numbers are well recognized by Western scholars. The difference between the Krivosheev's numbers of total military losses and the Western ones comes from the different approaches to count POWs: according to Krivosheev, about 3 million men captured by the Germans during the first year of the war had not been conscripted by that moment, so they are considered to be civilians according to him. However, both Krivosheev and many reliable western sources agree upon the number of combat losses.
My conclusion is that Krivosheev number on combat losses take precedence over the number from other sources. Similarly, the Overmans' numbers should be used for German losses, although he writes about German losses only and gives much lesser details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as i know, there is not an discussion about the Soviet numbers but the German casualties at Stalingrad. Bergström numbers is not used in the Soviet casualties. is the current source regarding the Soviet casualties in the battle. I'm not that familiar with Overmans figures but would like to find out what they are. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Taking into account that the Axis combat losses (KIA/MIA) were 4.4 million versus 6.6 million Soviet ones (if we leave POW mortality beyond the scope), and that the major losses sustained by the Axis fall on the second part of WWII (1944-45) the number of 1.5 million at Stalingrad it is hard to explain. If we assume that the Axis lost 1.5 million during the battle of Stalingrad, then we have to concede that during all other pre-Bagration battles German losses were minimal. Therefore, I would like to look closer at the work of those "Russian historians". In addition, as I already wrote, for the Soviet losses the Soviet sources seem to be the most reliable, and German sources seem equally trustworthy for German losses. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the Overmans' book was focused on the total amount of German losses, not on the losses during concrete battles. Try to ask Woogie10w (talk) about that, he seems to be able to answer in more details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
From Great Battles on the Eastern Front by TN Dupuy NY 1982 Stalingrad 150,000 German dead were picked off the battlefield and 91,000 taken POW--Woogie10w (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Rudiger Overmans data for total German dead on eastern front Oct 42 25,000; Nov 42 31,198; dec 42 78,759; jan 43 180,310 not including POW taken. Nr POW held by Soviets end 1942 100,000; end Mar 1943 170,000--Woogie10w (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

From 1 July 42 to 31 Jan 43 the Germans lost a total of 460,000 dead on the Eastern Front, my hunch is that about 1/2 were in Staingrad 240,000--Woogie10w (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Stay tuned I have data on Hungarian, Romanian & Italian losses--Woogie10w (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Tomas Stark Hungarian KIA/MIA were 101,000, Mark Axworthy -Romanian 98,000 KIA/MIA- Official Italian Nrs 4,000 kia 58,000 MIA --Woogie10w (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Note well the number of wounded are not given, wounded are usually about three times the dead & missing. So total Axis casualties including wounded may well have been 1.5 million.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Woogie10w, please do not even try to revert the casualties, save yourself some time. I tried to revert to normal ones, but I guess trolls simply have more time. I even tried to put russian estimates and german estimates, but passage about russian estimates was reverted back, leaving only german casualties. If you manage to maintain proper asualties picture for 1 month, I will be impressed, but I will guarantee that some troll will come and change it back.
It seems there will not be any concencus with Nirvana77, he simply wants to use Beevor and Bergstrom and will not admit that these people do not reference their works usually, unlike serious books. I wrote it for him with big letters, I did not try to write it with letters spaced, but I am sure it will not work, this guy is simply unwilling to accept anything but Beevor, ignoring that Beevor, again, does not reference his work. It has nothing to do with my bias towards the red army, but rather with Beevor's unreferenced works, and his bias against Red Army.
I wish you guys good luck in the "Battle for casualties", but not sure common sense will prevail. As usual on Wikipedia, stubbornness and the abundance of free time prevails, in sufficient quantities. I will be very nicely surprised if concencus will be reached.-- (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.
If you Pavel really care about common sense and about presenting correct numbers in this article why don't you do the following: (i) create an account; (ii) learn something about dispute resolution process, neutrality policy and reliable sources; (iii) follow a normal dispute resolution procedure. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, you may be quite able to convince the community in accepting correct numbers, provided that you use reliable sources, demonstrate civil behaviour and are unbiased.
Best regards,
Hope to meet you in WP under some username,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid I have no time for a full engagement in Wikipedia. It doesn't matter though. What is considered as a source in Wikipedia is very often not a source at all. You see, this encyclopedia accepts as a source the books that do not even reference their work. I think you will see that for yourself. Nirvana77 will not accept any of your sources, he will keep insisting that Beevor is correct, despite the fact that this "historian" did not reference his numbers. I tried explaining to Nirvana77 that if Beevor doesn't reference his numbers, then his work is, muldly put, not authoritative. He seems to disagree, without providing any sufficient reason for disagreement. Considering Wikipedia's policy for changes, you will have to convince Nirvana77 that germans could have lost 1.5 million men in Stalingrad area, and I gave a link on which Oleg Rzheshevsky said that recent numbers from Germany confirmed the hypothesis that germans could have lost 1,5 mil. men in the whole area, but he simply keeps insisting that Beevor is right. I give up. -- (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.
Your claims are false. As i have said before, this has nothing do to with Beevor, his numbers on the casualties during the battle aren't even used in the article, i have made this clear several times. If you actually cared you would have made the effort to find that out instead of expressing false and ridiculous claims. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Wait a little. Do not back off now. Yu claimed first that these numbers are given by Beevor and Bergstrom, and "others". I asked you where they took them from. You did not answer. Then you gave me some more silly "history" books (the ones having a lot of pictures, and seemed to have not a single battle disposition plan, you know, the one with boring squares and lines, detailed maps or legends for them) about WW2, again, none of which referenced their material (none of which stated where they took the numbers from). If these numbers have nothing to do with Beevor and Bergstrom, then what do they have to do with? Instead of jumping there and back, please make up your mind. Where are these numbers from? Who is the author? Where did the author take those numbers? Who does the author reference? Thhese are simple questions, for which you seem to be unable to find the answers. As was pointed out by Woogie10w, 1.5 million number is realistic, especially placing it against the research by german historians, who were doing research in german archives, who (german historians) are also the most authoritative source on the issue.-- (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.
I didn't claim Beevor used this number, he estimated an even lower number then the current number wich is being used, wich is Bergstoms number of 841,000 casualties, while Beevor in his book Stalingrad estimated around 500,000 axis casualties. I gave that number as a contrast to the supposed 1,5 million casualties. You should read what i actually wrote. I agree with
--Paul Siebert that German casualties should come from German sources, and vice versa with Soviet casualties. When researchers go in to the business of estimating the opponents casualties, there is historically a tendency to exaggerate the opponents casualties, especially with Russian sources. We can't sit around and guess and estimate the total casualty figure on the separate numbers that Woogie10w presented, that would go against Wikipedia:No original research. --Nirvana77 (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, where does Bergstrom take his casualties from? Using Bergstrom casualties (provided he does not put references in his book) would be much worse than using Woogie10w's estimates, at least the numbers that Woogie10w used are coming from a historian who did a genuine research on the issue and is a recognized authority on german casualties, as opposed to a person who wrote about air battles, and simply mentioned what happened on the ground to put things into prospective. At least he (Woogie10w) has the numbers for every period. Have you looked at Overman's casualties yourself? Please do. As for your little comment on russian sources, you will be extremely naive to think that US or german or british sources do not lie their asses off when it comes to estimating enemy's casualties, just like the russians. Look, for example, at the pathetic Beevor. Ok, listen, now you claim that Bergstrom uses these casualties, right? Ok, I am fine with that. However, unless you will be able to provide the place where Bergstrom takes his casualties from, we will going to have to do something to the casualties, for example use the breakdown that Woogie10w so kindly provided and simply insert it into the infobox, of course deleting the present figures. Or another idea: Woogie10w gave the numbers for those periods on the eastern front in total. So, we look up the figures for german losses in all other battles, and subtract them from the numbers Woogie10w supplied. This will give the numbers for Stalingrad. Another reason why we shouldn't use the source currently cited was provided by you: the source estimates casualties for germans and their allies, but the author is a single author Bergstrom. Assuming he did the research on german figures, who does he cite on the allies? Does he cite anyone? If you fail to provide the source that Bergstrom uses, then I hope you agree that we will have to use some other source, e.g. Overmans. And one question: Do you agree that germans lost 1.5 million men on the entire eastern front during the span of the battle of Stalingrad?-- (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.
You can't use Woogie10w numbers that he presented considering he didn't state what the casualties in the battle of Stalingrad itself, but the entire front. We can't sit around and subtract and estimate the total casualty figure on the separate numbers that Woogie10w presented, that would go against Wikipedia:No original research once again, maybe you should read the rules before editing? I don't doubt that German, British or Americans have exaggerated enemy casualties, i know they have. What i don't think you understand is that it is not necessarily the author/historian that exaggerates the number, the numbers they use usually comes from their own armies archives where they often inflated enemy casualties. Where i also assume Krivosheev have gotten most of his research. I wouldn't have a problem using Overmans figures if there was an actual substantial figure from him on the casualties in the battle of Stalingrad itself. To your "question", I don't know for sure of course, but I would think that is possible if they lost 460,000 killed during that time. --Nirvana77 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing Bergström 2005 reference

Unless I've missed something there appear to be references to a publication by Bergström dated 2005 which isn't expanded anywhere. Can somebody who knows the literature look into this? Pol098 (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


For each of several reference works I've replaced multiple references, with a separate reference number generated for each reference to different pages of the work, by a single reference, displayed followed by the page number. See Beevor in the notes section to see what I mean.

I've also deleted works from the References section which now show with full details in Notes, considering it unnecessary duplication. Works appear in the list of notes in the order they are referenced in the text, rather than alphabetically. If deletion from References wasn't appropriate, please reinstate (from a version dated a couple of hours before this note) Pol098 (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, this is my first time doing something for the Wikipedia, i think that the next message is not right.

The capture of Stalingrad was important to Hitler for three primary reasons. Firstly, it was a major industrial city on the Volga River – a vital transport route between the Caspian Sea and Northern Russia. Secondly, its capture would secure the left flank of the German armies as they advanced into the oil-rich Caucasus region – with the strategic goal of cutting off fuel to Stalin's war machine & thirdly he was gay.

(Daedalo (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

You are quite correct. A vandal left that "contribution" eight minutes before you left the above message. I have now reverted it. To find out how to deal with any other vandalism you may find, feel free to take a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thank you for your vigilance. --Dynaflow babble 16:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hazi Aslanov

Should this person be present in the list of Soviet Commanders? At the time of the battle he only commanded a brigade or a division, so it is hard to see what his place among the other's that are listed (army generals, supreme commanders) is. if he is to be included, i don't know why one shouldn't include in the list people like Alexander Rodimstev or (in the Axis column) General von Daniels too.

it may be that some people put their national favourite in the list, but that should not be a criterion at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauche unie (talkcontribs) 20:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Number wounded

I think someone should look at the numbers wounded and dead. It doesn't seem right —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Previous versions give 750,000 KIA/WIA. I reverted that vandalism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?

This is from the background section: "The capture of Stalingrad was important to Hitler for two primary reasons. Firstly, it was a major industrial city on the Volga Riverbut the real objective was the oil fields stalingrad thier was nothing really thier – a vital transport route between the Caspian Sea and northern Russia."

This is horrible grammar, which I would fix if I was certain as to what this is supposed to say. Could someone more familiar with this article please do so? (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! That text was just inserted a few hours ago; Clarityfiend just fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. For future reference, you can check what a page used to say, at any point in its history, by clicking the "history" tab at the top of the page. If you're interested, read Help:Page history. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


In the Soviet victory section, there are a couple of minor problems:

  • In one place, it says that Gumrak may have been held until the 25th, then soon afterwards, it says there were no more landings after the 22rd.
  • It also says the Germans "...had no usable tanks in the city. Those tanks which still functioned could at best be used as stationary cannons."

I'm no expert on this subject, so I'm not touching this. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Unternehmen Barbarossa on 2009?

I have edited the sentence which read that Unternehmen Barbarossa was commenced on 2009. Who the noob is doing this? I have changed it to original 1941 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RightDeve (talkcontribs) 16:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Civilian casualties from Russia

The battle involved more participants than any other in history, and was marked by brutality and disregard for military and civilian casualties by both sides.

I may be wrong, but doesn't this sentence means Russian civilians were killed by their own soldiers? (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of the sentence is correct and your conclusion is correct. There are many instances of both sides killing civilians. For instance, right at the outset of battle, Stalin refused to allow a civilian evacuation as he believed that his soldiers would fight harder for an occupied city - more than 30,000 civilians lost their lives in the initial bombardment thanks to this policy. Another example a few months later when water was scarce in the city, German soldiers would get civilians (even children) to collect water from the rivers and streams for them. When the Soviets realised what was happening, they started shooting at the water collectors. Another example is Hiwis - Soviet civilians who worked for the Germans in exchange for food - when the Soviets re-captured Stalingrad, there was little mercy shown to Hiwis. Cadae (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment summary page needs deletion.

A user has created an unhelpful, incorrect and unfairly negative assessment summary page. Could some administrator please delete it or get a proper assessment summary done ? Thanks Cadae (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

English translation of Krivosheev's book

User Blackvault provided the link to the English translation of Krivosheev's book: [1]. I checked it briefly, the translation seems to be authentic. I believe it would be useful to add it into all Eastern Front related articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA/A Class...eventual FA

So lets take some time here to make the things that must be worked out in order to get this article an A/GA class and an eventual FA.

  • I have spotted a few critation needed tags and they will have to be worked out soon by either removing the unsourced info of finding a WP:RS
  • Im not sure if this really matters but there are far to many red links, It may be hard to turn them into blue ones but it may just be the diffrence between an FA or just another GA.

Feel free to add any other items that need to be fixed.--Coldplay Expert 22:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This may be minor, but it seems like you should standardize on "6th Army", "4th Panzer Army", etc. as opposed to mixing it up with "Sixth Army", "Fourth Panzer Army" etc. The linked articles I checked also seem to prefer using numerals rather than spelling the numbers out. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I didn't try to change it. I would have done it wrong. The main idea was to make it consistent. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I really enjoyed reading this article, and I think it is excellent. Thanks to all those who contributed to it! --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well your welcome. I plan on reading the whole article myself and checking all links, pictures, ect. And then nominateing it.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A few things I noticed which you might consider modifying: (1) Usually if there are subheadings, there should be at least two in a given section, so either "Importance of Stalingrad" could be promoted to a full section, or another subheading could be added to the section "Background"; (2) The footnoting is not quite consistent: some citations, e.g. Bergström, use the template "Rp" for page numbers, while others, e.g., Shirer, use the more usual type. Either one is OK, but I suppose it should probably be consistent. My inclination would be to move the book citations to a section called "Cited sources" and use the Shirer type of footnote. This also avoids the long list (e.g., "a-o") of footnote returns. (3) It seems unusual, but again my experience is limited, to have a book citation section called "Bibliography". Are "Cited sources" and "Further reading" combined in this section? I think many editors prefer keeping them in separate sections. Not sure how this will affect GAN. (This featured article shows what I mean: Atmosphere of Jupiter, but there may be counter-examples that I am unaware of. The Jupiter article also distinguishes between "Notes" and "References". I doubt this is required, but it's a nice refinement.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the Jupiter article has a section with just one subsection, so that is clearly not a problem. (I guess that's just a personal preference.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thanks for your concerns. Ill be sure to address them once World War II is promoted to GA class. Then me and my buddies can foucus on this article.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow! You guys have done a lot of great work! (Thanks for the link.) I'll try to help out from time to time. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

These refs need pub. details;

  1. pp.108-119, Glantz, Soviet Military Deception : is this the correct source?
  2. pp.209-211, Haupt, Army Group South : here?


the casualties should be divided in uranus and stalingrad. the battle for stalingrad was fought mainly between 6te Armee and the red army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Russian determination

From the article : "Stalingrad revealed the discipline and determination of both the German Wehrmacht and the Soviet Red Army." , the red army murdered more than 10,000 of their men, to achieve this "discipline and determination" . Maybe we should mention this —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Source?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Case Blue

I'm not really up on the whole editing of Wikipedia thing, but I'm pretty sure Hitler never said "If I do not get the jizz of Maikop and Grozny then I must end this war." That word probably just needs to be replaced with "oil." Someone want to change that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying about vandalism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting numbers

Of the more than 500,000 Germans, Italians, Romanians, and Hungarians taken prisoner, few ever returned to their homes. Of the 91,000 German prisoners, only about 5,000 ever returned. 500,000 prisoners cannot be right. Or does that refer to the whole war? If so it has no place in the Stalingrad article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I must agree. 500,000 is off. According to a pro-Russian website ( "In the Stalingrad battle 330 thousand of the enemy’s servicemen were encircled". Another website states ( "There was about 93000 prisoners and nearly 300000 casualties". BBC stated ( "Another 45,000 German soldiers have been taken prisoner in the last two days, bringing the total in custody to over 90,000 officers and men. They are the remains of the 330,000-strong German force sent to take Stalingrad." I will remove the 500,000 number, unless it can be backed up. Think about it. It makes no sense that there were 93,000 Germans and 407,000 Italians, Romanians and Hungarians. Was there anyone left in Romania? I am removing this number, unless hard facts could be produced. Meishern (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides that I found this sentence "Also, more than 40,000 Soviet civilians died in Stalingrad and its suburbs during a single week of aerial bombing as the German 4th Panzer and 6th armies approached the city; the total number of civilians killed in the regions outside the city is unknown. In all, the battle resulted in an estimated total of 1.7 million to 2 million Axis and Soviet casualties." but at the same time this sentence is in the same article "Casualties of 40,000 were exaggerated,". I don't know enough about this so I wont edit anything but It has to be changed without doubt.-- (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC) love ashley♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


I reverted page to the Alansohns version because of consecutive vandalism that has deteriorated editing quality of the article. So I urge all editors to do their edits according to the Wiki rules and standards. Or I will have to urge administrators to protect this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. —WWoods (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Since the vandalism is persistent (that, probably, reflects the article's popularity among school students), it is desirable to make such a protection permanent (like for the WWII article).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the article is good and any improvement can be done while it is semi-protected so I vote to make protection permanent as it is for WWII article. (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps then we can get it to GA class like WWII. But IP. you know that you will not be able to edit it right? Perhaps you should join or just make suggestions on this page we can add them in if you want.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I have registered at Wikipedia but I don't use my profile if it isn't important. Also I know that Wikipedia is all about freedom, democracy and consensus but economically speaking now is the time to put some restrictions to preserve what is achieved. I'll explain it simply: when you have growth there is always more then enough people to contribute and those people outnumber vandals. But now Wikipedia growth is in decline [2] and it is important to retain and upgrade what is done so far. And that is not easy if some jerks are easily and constantly vandalizing some pages from IP addresses. There are enough jerks with open profiles to do that, :D; no insult intended to anyone. So I say: If You want to vandalize, open profile on Wikipedia. This is not freedom FOR security, this is freedom AND accountability. So I'm fine if I can't contribute to this page only trough my IP address as long it can be done trough Wikipedia account. Of course I know that if all articles are semi-protected there would be no new accounts that would be auto-confirmed (ie. at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia), but I am advocating semi-protection for an articles that have gained some level of quality. And in my humble opinion (oh, that's what IMHO is standing for :D) this article has gained nice quality level and any issues, I believe, can be resolved through Talk Page and with auto-confirmed accounts. So I support Paul Sieberts idea for permanent semi-protection of this article. (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, OK then. That makes sense. Too bad this isn't a GA. WE just cannot source the whole thing!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Well that was quick answer, :D, night bird ey. When I was appealing in my first post to the common sense of editors I wasn't hoping for semi-protection. I was just hoping that the editors will pay more attention with reverting because they were reverting some errors and probably some vandalism (poor Vandals, I'm not even sure that they were the worst vandals in the history of mankind). But it seams to me now that semi-protection was immanent and just waiting around the corner. And now it seams to me as, maybe, perfect starting point for this article to be upgraded to the GA status. With IP vandals out of the equation it could be easier to track changes, and to focus on upgrading and not just maintaining of the article. And with the stable text it could be easier to source it. (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
True, true. But I'm WAY too busy to make this a GA right now. Perhaps in the future. It is a good feeling to know that this page will no long be vandalized though.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Some good things come with time. Even Rome wasn't built in one day, although it was burned in six days and seven nights according to Suetonius and Wikipedia. And it wasn't built by one man and one man only, although it was probably burned by carelessness of another who was just preparing lunch; not according to the Wikipedia so I guess citation is needed, :D. So just relax and participate whenever you find a time and feel the need. I hope that protection will bare positive results. (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What happen to this article?!?!

I read this article a few years back. Was great. Now it has a weird vibe. There is little focus on the battle itself. 80% of the article is about the beginning and the surrender. This was a lengthy and famous battle. Unique battle situations occurred (Germans first floor, Russians second floor, Germans third floor, Russians fourth floor etc.. in residential apartment buildings.) Teams of snipers from both sides hunting the wasteland. Common! This was the biggest battle in human history and all we have is a few lousy paragraphs while Britney Spears' backup dancer has 50 pages documenting every detail of his life. Any historians out there interested in putting some content on this very important event? Meishern (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

New template

I've created a template for the battle (see foot of the article). It is still at a rudimentary stage and if you would like to comment on it please visit the template talk page and add your comments there (Template talk:Battle of Stalingrad). Please amend the template, correct it and add whatever you feel is appropriate. The basis for inclusion is pretty much the frequency with which any of the items is mentioned in Beevor's book on the battle. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


What is the point of using 6-7 significant digits for casualties? Are they really 0.00001% accurate?

"According to archival figures, the Red Army suffered a total of 1,129,619 total casualties;[52] 478,741 men killed or missing and 650,878 wounded."

--Mortense (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Every Seven Seconds...

Watching the '70s documentary series "The World at War", I was told of a Russian propaganda broadcast from Moscow aimed at the German Army Group sent on their way to Stalingrad. It was something along the lines of "Every seven seconds a German soldier dies in Russia. Stalingrad - mass grave." The Christmas-time announcement is followed by the ticking of a clock for the rest of the day to emphesise the German defeat.

I cannot find this on Wikipedia, however. As the facts in "The World at War" are based on film and documents at the time, and interviews with people of both sides that were there, does the Stalingrad episode count as a reliable source to include, or should I simply google the quote?-- OsirisV (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"495 a/c equiv.."

A squadron, or "staffel" in German, comprises only 12-16 a/c. I believe you mean equivalent to "5 air wings or more than an air corps." 5 staffel isn't even one air wing (geschwader), and an air corps (fliegerkorps) is made up of several wings.. Someone wanna fix that? I don't know how to change it, and add the wiki link to "geschwader" at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Axis losses

Please stop it. Or must I give you still 12 sources ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is soviet sources and you can not say "propaganda or unreliable". Is is so difficult ti understand ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC) --Igor Piryazev (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

After one million attempts to explain that your websites doesnt count as reliable source you still pump more of this hillarious unscientific sites on the talk pages. Mabye others still believe you dont "unterstand" us, im sure you know what kind of sources we want and iam also sure you know that you cant bring such sources because no real historian publishes all these overexxagrated numbers. Where do we go with this igor? Please tell me. Option one all others give up and let you blemish all the infobox for eastern front? Option 2 in some days somebody gives you the first block ? Blablaaa (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

because no real historian publishes all these overexxagrated numbers


1) Find me please OTHER soviet informations.

2) And what is with Samsonov and others ? Ok I will give you also historians. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


В ходе Сталинградской битвы Красная Армия разгромила пять армий фашистской Германии и ее союзников. Всего за 200 дней битвы на Волге потери противника убитыми, ранеными и пленными составили до 1,5 млн. человек. Гитлеровцы потеряли также массу вооружения. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

hohum already explained you that samsonov isnt reliable reagarding wikis high quality standarts. maybe you should start think why nobody thinks your sources are reliable. Maybe you should buy the books by glantz do finally get a pretty realistic picture about eastern front.Blablaaa (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hohum proofs are nothing and you know it. My proofs against Frieser are perfect. This is soviet-german front and here must be always soviet sources. Russain historians are NOT western historians. Or do you think that the Russian think also that Germany lost in Zitadelle only 11.000 dead soldiers ? Is it so difficult to understand ?

nobody thinks your sources are reliable

Who  ? You and Hohum ? But I and Dimowik think not so. I say it still one time: Find me please other russian sources for Kursk or Stalingrad --Igor Piryazev (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This number has been gone over before. Setting aside that the number just doesn't make sense, the standard is not to use opposing sides estimated enemy casualties as facts as they have proved time and time again to be deeply unreliable. Most reliable for German casualties are almost always German or independent sources, and the same thing for the Soviet losses. Theres by far enough sources to point towards the 750,000 causalities number. Besides, web pages alone are seldom reliable sources. --Nirvana77 (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


So what are the real casualties on both sides? And please distinguish between people and artillery pieces... -- (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

New York City Oct 30

Dave Glantz will give a talk on Stalingrad

Oct 30(Saturday, 10-4)

The Intrepid Sea/Air/Space Museum

12th Avenue and 46th St.

--Woogie10w (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Medals awarded

In several places in this article it is mentioned that a certain participant received some high medal from the Soviet government, such as Hero of the Soviet Union. I suppose there were Axis soldiers who also received high medals but that is not mentioned. I think the medals people received belong in their biographies, whether German or Russian, but not in the history of the battle. I must admit just reading "Hero of the Soviet Union" evokes in me unpleasant memories of Soviet propaganda. Besides, in addition to individuals who exhibited heroism or great leadership, high honors were also bestowed by Stalin on individuals for being his tools in his crimes. A depraved organization such as Stalin's government can not add to someone's stature by giving him a medal or a title.

Peter Ungar (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Vasily Zaytsev

Why are there two numbers for the confirmed kills of Vasily Zaytsev? If they're all confirmed the larger number should be used. If some aren't confirmed that what does the larger number mean? Eomund (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the sources and the 400 is for all of WWII, not just the Battle of Stalingrad. Unless anyone objects I will soon delete the 400. Eomund (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted it Eomund (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Decisive Soviet Victory?

This should be debated because of the term decisive. Clearly its a Soviet victory but decisive? The Soviets lost more men than the German's and their allies. That right their should be a red flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the Soviets losses were not considerably greater than the Axis' ones. Secondly, the victory was convincing, and it dramatically changed the strategic situation in the East and in the world as whole. In that sense the victory was really decisive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Losers who've failed to win the criminal war they've started may "debate" till the cows come home —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Your ad hominem attack against a person who is neither a loser, nor a participant in the war, makes no sense. The term decisive victory is not used by serious military historians to characterize the outcome of Stalingrad.16:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
So, Glantz (for example) is not a "serious military historian"? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalingrad was comparable to the Battle of Midway and El Alamein?

The second sentence of the article says:

"The battle is considered by many historians to be the turning point of World War II in Europe, comparable to the way the Battle of Midway was the turning point of the Pacific War and the Second Battle of El Alamein was the turning point of the North African Campaign"

Instead, the article should just simply say

"The battle is considered by many historians to be the turning point of World War II".

The scale of Stalingrad battle (around 2,000,000 casualties) is COMPLETELY INCOMPARABLE to the scale of the Battle of Midway (around 2,500 casualties) and the Battle of El Alamein (around 45,000 casualties). With all respect to the soldiers and countries fighting these battles, the Battles of Midway and the Battle of El Alamein were just skirmishes compared to the battle of Stalingrad. Mentioning these three battles together in the very beginning of the article about Stalingrad is MISLEADING. Of course, the article does not directly compare these battles in size, it just compares them in terms of being a turning point in a compain. However, mentioning these three battles in one sentence indirectly assumes the idea that these three battles were on the same scale. In reality, the other two were not even close to the vast, enormous, mind-blowing tragedy going on in Stalingrad.

The 2,000,000 people who lost their lives on both sides deserve that the battle they died in be called "the turning point of World War II." This is the least thing we can do for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Neither EB, nor Roberts say that. EB states that "it stopped the German advance into the Soviet Union and marked the turning of the tide of war in favour of the Allies", whereas Roberts cites British and American newspapers that describe the battle as salvation of Western civilisation. Neither of these sources draw a comparison with Midway or Africa. In addition, "many historians" is weasel words, because I am not aware of any sources that question the importance of Stalingrad. I fixed the lede accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
YOur rational is not correct. Most of the dead were not combatants and "the least 'we' can do for them" is not a rational for wikiepdia. And while you will not find historians who "question the importance" of the battle of Stalingrad, it is certainly not the case that all or perhaps not even even most consider it "the" turning point of the war. Just as many would say the entry of the US was the turning point of the war. (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's see. Firstly, you removed one source introduced by me (Bellamy) and replaced it with another one (Blanning). Please, demonstrate that your source is more reliable and trustworthy than mine, otherwise I see no reason for doing that. The second source (EB) states:
"Russians consider it to be the greatest battle of their Great Patriotic War, and most historians consider it to be the greatest battle of the entire conflict. It stopped the German advance into the Soviet Union and marked the turning of the tide of war in favour of the Allies."
In other words, your "some historians" is simply wrong.
The third source (Roberts) states that contemporary western press hailed the Soviet victory as "salvation of European civilisation" (I doubt the same epithets were applicable to El Alamein or Midway, at least, I know no sources that state that). Therefore, my rationale is absolutely correct, whereas your edits reflect the American (i.e. national) POV, and, therefore, is biased. Regarding your other edits, you changed numbers without adding new sources, deleted some pieces of text without providing serious rationale. Please, explain what was a concrete reason for the text deletion, and the changes of the figures. I am ready to discuss the changes proposed by you, however, since the rationale was unsatisfactory reverted these changes. Please, discuss them on the talk page first. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
PS. Your "Most of the dead were not combatants" is simply not true: in this battle most of the dead were combatants both from the Axis and Soviet side. The Axis lost more troops than it had in Africa and Western Europe taken together.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Similarities between our text and published works

I'm concerned by some similarities between our article text and published works. I initially thought that a few of the phrases here sounded very close to wording from Stalingrad by Antony Beevor. I don't have that book at hand to confirm, although I will do so as time permits. However, when I ran some of the phrasing through Google Books, I turned up some concerning similarities to Countdown to Freedom by Willem Ridder (ISBN 9781434312297, 2007, Google Books link). I'm not sure what to make of them, but a partial list is below:

Ridder 2007 Our text as of 19:54, 2 December 2010
A.1. Stalin prevented civilians from leaving the city on the premise that their presence would encourage greater resistance from the city's defenders. Civilians, including women and children, were put to work building trench works and protective fortifications. A massive German air bombardment on 23 August caused a firestorm, killing thousands and turning Stalingrad into a vast landscape of rubble and burnt ruins; 80% of the living space in the city was destroyed. (Page 350) A.2. It has been said that Stalin prevented civilians from leaving the city in the belief that their presence would encourage greater resistance from the city's defenders.[sourced to Beevor] Civilians, including women and children, were put to work building trenchworks and protective fortifications. A massive German air bombardment on 23 August caused a firestorm, killing thousands and turning Stalingrad into a vast landscape of rubble and burnt ruins.[Sourced to Beevor] Ninety percent of the living space in the Voroshilovskiy area was destroyed.
B.1. The burden of the initial defense of the city proper fell on the 1077th Anti-aircraft Regiment, a unit made up mainly of young women volunteers who had no training on engaging ground targets. Despite this and with no support available from other Soviet units, these women stayed at their posts and took on the advancing panzers. The 16th Panzer Division reportedly had to fight the 1077th gunners "shot for shot" until all 37 AA batteries were destroyed or overrun. (page 350) B.2. The burden of the initial defense of the city fell on the 1077th Anti-Aircraft Regiment, a unit made up mainly of young female volunteers who had no training for engaging ground targets. Despite this, and with no support available from other units, the AA gunners stayed at their posts and took on the advancing panzers. 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.
C.1. The Soviet need for equipment was so great that tanks were driven to the front line, often without paint or even gun sights. (page 350) C.2. They [tanks] were driven directly from the factory floor to the front line, often without paint or even gunsights.[Sourced to Beevor]
D.1. "Not a step back!" was the slogan. (page 350) D.2. “Not a step back!” and "There is no land behind the Volga!" were the slogans.
E.1. German military doctrine was based on the principle of combined-arms teams and close co-operation by tanks, infantry, engineers, and artillery and ground-attack aircraft. To counter this, Soviet commanders adopted the simple expedient of always keeping the front lines as close together as physically possible. Chuikov called this tactic "hugging" the Germans. This forced the German infantrymen to either fight on their own... [Google Books preview cuts off here] (page 350) E.2. German military doctrine was based on the principle of combined-arms teams and close cooperation between tanks, infantry, engineers, artillery and ground-attack aircraft. To counter this, Soviet commanders adopted the tactic of always keeping the front lines as close to the Germans as physically possible; Chuikov called this "hugging" the Germans. This forced the German infantry to either fight on their own or risk taking casualties from their own supporting fire; it neutralized German close air support and weakened artillery support.
F.1. For both Stalin and Hitler, the battle of Stalingrad became a prestige issue, on top of the actual strategic significance of the battle. The Soviet command moved the Red Army's strategic reserves from the Moscow area to the lower Volga, and transferred aircraft from the entire country to the Stalingrad region. The strain on both military commanders was immense: Paulus developed an uncontrollable tic in his eye, while Chuikov experienced an outbreak of eczema that required him to bandage his hands completely. The troops on both sides faced the constant strain of close-range combat. (page 353) F.2. For both Stalin and Hitler, Stalingrad became a matter of prestige over and above its actual strategic significance. The Soviet command moved the Red Army's strategic reserves from the Moscow area to the lower Volga, and transferred aircraft from the entire country to the Stalingrad region.

The strain on both military commanders was immense: Paulus developed an uncontrollable tic in his eye, which eventually afflicted the left side of his face, while Chuikov experienced an outbreak of eczema that required him to have his hands completely bandaged. Troops on both sides faced the constant strain of close-range combat.

There are additional equally close similarities; this is a sampling, and I have not made an in-depth search of either our article or the published work. I'm not sure exactly what's going on here, and I don't want to say anything for certain until I have a chance to look at Beevor, but suffice to say I'm pretty concerned. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mastcell. It appears that Ridder's 2007 book may be a reverse copyright violation of Wikipedia. I looked at the one paragraph which you noticed, beginning The burden of the initial defence... I found that it was added in September 2005 with this edit. (Notice the words "without support" which does not appear in Ridder.) That was altered in October 2005 with this minor edit -- which becomes the version appearing in Ridder's book here. (The two minor punctuation differences must have been made later.) Because of this, my initial impression is that the Ridder book was probably copied from us. As you say, you may want to check Beevor's 1998 book to see if any text was copied from it. For the moment, though, I don't think this is a copyvio. CactusWriter (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the legwork on that. It makes sense, since the Ridder book dates to 2007 and this article is much older. I need to look at Beevor more closely - I have a nagging sense that some of this language was his to begin with, but I can't corroborate that until I get my hands on a copy of Stalingrad. MastCell Talk 23:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I agree that the language seems to be quite professional. I'll be interested to see what you discover. CactusWriter (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Added reference numbers to the above table to make feedback easier. I am referencing {{cite book|last=Beevor|first=Antony|title=Stalingrad|year=1998|publisher=Viking, London|isbn=1315171920181614}}
  • A2: Beevor as cited. p.103 but no reference by Beevor to a "firestorm" in pp. 102-108!
  • B2: Not Beevor
  • C2: Beevor p. 110
  • D2: Partially from Beevor (one slogan only) p. 135.
  • E2: In line with what Beevor says, but no direct copy! Beevor p. 141.
  • F2: Not from Beevor.
Opinion: The above text is certainly not a cut and paste job from Beevor.
Farawayman (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Start Class

I have reassessed this article as Start-class as far as Military History is concerned. This article presents the traditional Cold-War era view on the subject, with a large number of inaccuracies, going into excess detail in some areas while completely missing others. Points to note:

  • There is no mention of the fighting north of Stalingrad (between the Don and Volga) in September and October. This fighting was part of the battle and was actually greater in intensity than the battle in the city ruins.
  • Zhukov is mentioned in Operation Uranus. While he did plan it, he was recalled in mid-November, just days before it began, and sent to oversee Operation Mars. At the same time, he is not mentioned before that date, omitting the role he played in September-October
  • "Hugging tactics": needs a separate page and summarization perhaps Urban Warfare in the Battle of Stalingrad.D2306 (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Dyatlenko.jpg

The image File:Dyatlenko.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

German Casualties

I know this is an old topic, but where do the numbers (500,000; 750,000; 850,000) come from? There are no sources given, and i doubt that they come from Bergström's book, especially since the number has been changed several times without citation. The number of German casualties in the encirclement is indisputably around 300,000 and confirmed by several sources i have, leaving only the casualties outside the perimeter questionable.StoneProphet (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the 10-day reports (, the 6th, 4th panzer armies and army group hollidt lost 35 153 kia, 186 270 mia, 117 493 wia (338 916 total) during the entire course of the battle (which started way before the germans were encircled). Since we also know that Romanians and Italians suffered great losses in the battle, it's not unreasonable to assume that 500 000 axis casualties were incurred. However, I've yet to find an academic source for that. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, its not that i dont think that the Germans could have 500,000 casualties, but i think a real source would be nice. Especially since there is a little difference between 500,000 and 850,000. But thanks for the link. StoneProphet (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Was it "Austrian corporal" or "Bohemian corporal"?

Two editors are warring over the Paulus quote. Please provide an additional source - or find the Beevor book and verify. As edit wars go, this is fairly lame. Jd2718 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that it clarifies anything, but through the years, I've seen both nationalities attributed to this, though I can't give sources. The only thing of which I'm certain is that the brass held their "commander" in low esteem. Slimepot636 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hitler is originally Austrian however during the first world war, Hitler serve in the German unit. I thought it was Bavarian though — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sniper Stats

I don't think it is a good idea to compare Vasily Zaytsev kills for the battle with other snipers kills from the entire war. I think we should keep it just to kills from the battle (as that is what the article is about). Does anyone have a source for those numbers? Eomund (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the line with the comparision Eomund (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Not clear what 259% means

The article currently contains the sentence:

Red Army had suffered losses of 259% in 1941

It is not clear what the 259% means. Possibly

2.59 = (total casualties ) / ( initial number of men)

but it is not clear and should be improved. Aberdeen01 (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess its 2.59 times of their initial strenght of June 1941. They started with about 3 million troops and lost about 7-8 million in 1941. StoneProphet (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Names for the Battle in native languages.

It should be better if the name of the battle is mentioned in; German, Russian and Italian and perphas more if they were involved majorly. (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Would a separate article on the fighting for the city itself be helpful?

As written, the article doesn't have much detail on the fighting in and around the city, e.g. the battles of the Orlovka salient and of the various factories, and includes the encirclement operation and other actions farther from the city. (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

File:M3 Tank Stalingrad.JPG Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:M3 Tank Stalingrad.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Stalingrad battle for the factory.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Stalingrad battle for the factory.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

SPAIN DIDN´T PARTICIPATE 1. Spain was a NON-BELLIGERANT country in WWII. 2. Spanish troops were integrated in the 250th Division of the Whermacht. 3. Spanish troops didn´t participate in the Stalingrad Battle. They were in the Leningrad Front.-- (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is who?

According to the caption of the photo of Paulus surrendering, general Schmidt is on the right and col Adam in the middle. However on the german wiki and german photo caption it is stated that general schmidt is in the middle and col Adam on the right. what is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchdoc (talkcontribs) 13:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The EN caption is incorrect - Adam is on the right and Schmidt in the centre. See this photo of Adam in Stalingrad. I have changed the caption. Farawayman (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct Name: "Friedrich Paulus"

I think its time to do a global search and replace in the article, changing " Friedrich Paulus" to Friedrich von Paulus - as this was his correct name. I will gladly provide citations if required. Any objections? Farawayman (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You must provide good references to do such a change. It seems that the correct name is without any "von". KjellG (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Modern Russian Estimate

In the infobox, under casualties and losses (on the Soviet Union side), it states,"Total: 1,129,619 casualties". Under this, it then states: "--- modern russian estimate: 643 000". I find it strange that this statement (modern Russian estimate) reduces the number of Soviet casualties by over 500,000 and also seems to conflict with the casualties section of the article which does not mention this modern estimate and uses the aforementioned 1,129,619 casualties figure. Could someone note which citation/source this modern Russian estimate is derived from if it is even sourced/verified? Junedragon (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The person who wrote this was reading the source without any attention. The 643 842 losses are until Nov 18 only, as Russian historiography separates the battle into a defensive and offensive stage. There were further 485 777 losses during the offensive stage. Axis losses are exaggerated because the 91 000 captured are part of the 750 000 overall Axis losses and shouldn't be added to it. Going to fix it. Tvoi Ded (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
As always Soviet losses are inflated and axis are deflated. The USSR lost 750k in the city and 1.2 in the region. The axis lost 850k in the city and 1.5 million in the region. But as always people compare apples and oranges in the axis favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitchtold12 (talkcontribs) 16:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately for your theory, Axis casualty reports as filed by military units support the 750 000 number... As for the 1.5 million that you claim - do you have a citation, or is it simply what you feel based on an article by a historically illiterate journalist?Tvoi Ded (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

HA, this talk page right now already you have slashed the axis from 850k to 750k and such is the story of wikipedia. The axis always get smaller losses, smaller geographical area, smaller time frame, the red army how ever always gets a larger geographical area and a longer time frame compared.Pitchtold12 (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Still not a source for the 1.5 mil axis losses? Than you have no case. PS axis losses were indeed smaller than that of the Soviets in most, if not all major operations. That is because the German army was a more proficient fighting force than the Red Army. Stalingrad's casualty ratio (1:1.5) favors the Soviets more than many other battles. For example, Kiev cost the RKKA ~700 000 casualties versus ~80 000 (1:8.8), Kursk ~860 000 versus ~220 000 (1:3.9), Bagration - ~765 000 and ~400 000 respectively (1:1.9). Tvoi Ded (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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

This is Wikipedia, so instead of criticizing the article, you should jump in and make the edits needed to improve the article.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. This is Wikipedia. This is a politically sensitive article where people are attached to a certain point of view. Especially about casualty figures. Major changes to the article require a great deal of consensus because I have no interest in wasting my time doing extensive revisions that are then undone by some fanatic. Since I wrote my original comment, there have been various improvements to the article. But most of the comments I made are still valid. I could not fix the citation issues because I didn't have the particular book(s) in question and I was unwilling to just start stripping the citations out. I'm still not willing to personally pick the big fight over changing the scope of the article or fixing the casualty figures. Maybe someday but not now. (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)