Talk:Battle of Stalingrad/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

"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 The reference is basically out of date and the conclusions are wrong. 70.234.234.227 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Nothing has been proved about the letters one way or the other. There is no smoking gun historically to prove that they were forgeries. One of the leading critics, Wilhelm Raimund Beye, has generally based his argument on textual analysis of the letters and his opinions about how the letters line up with his personal experiences in the battle. There are many people who push conspiracy theories on this subject. They will even claim to know who forged them. But the best that can be said is that there is a general lack of facts one way or the other. We don't know that they were forged. But we don't know all the details about how the material was collected and entered its final form either. The letters could have been hand-picked. The letters could have been edited. But nothing can be known for sure. But I personally think its important not to use the letters as statistical information to draw conclusions about the opinions of 6th Army as a whole. Even if the letters are totally authentic, we have no way to know if they form a representative sample of opinion nor do we fully know how they were collected and picked. Thus even if there is no question about the authenticity of the letters, I think Omer Bartov's conclusions do not have a sold basis. 108.60.192.155 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Now who would have forged those letters and for what purpose? This can still be taken into the article either way, if documented. --41.151.98.20 (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Well. Beevor claims that the letters were forged in a footnote, but provides no source or explaination. Wilhelm Raimund Beye claims that the letters are forged, but offers nothing more than anacdotal evidence. The claims about the book being forged seem very close to the typical case made by people cross-referencing each other to prove something in the absence of an original source. The conspiracy-talk labels Heinz Schroeter as the forger but there is no reliable source for that claim. The "purpose" leads to a complex discussion of either the purpose in the wartime gathering of the letters or the "purpose" in the postwar publication. Either way, there is a seperate article on the book which is a more appropriate place than this article for some of that discussion. 69.198.25.5 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2014 (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)

I guess it's taken to be about popular culture. I don't think being "Judeocentric" is the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The material is kind of questionable because its a subjective opinion about popular culture rather than a direct reference to popular culture. Talking about films made about a particular subject is appropriate for popular culture. Reviews of films seems less appropriate. Whatever "Judeocentric" means, that is not the issue. 108.166.164.58 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Scope of the battle

I think this section is a little strange, including the title (why scope?). It includes: background information, the determination of both sides (including the Soviet use of terror and the German surrender), and the involvement of women. Most of this could be easily inserted elsewhere. Does anyone feel it needs to stay?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It evolved over time for bad reasons. The title reflects content that is long gone. Its a grab-bag of condensed essays that have been inserted into the article over a long period of it. There are things that can be moved. There are other things that interfere with the narrative flow of the rest of the article and probably should not be inserted upward in the article. 69.198.25.2 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Vodka and right boots? Someone made this up!

"One aircraft arrived with a cargo of vodka and summer uniforms, another with supplies of black pepper and marjoram, another with a cargo of right boots, and finally, millions of contraceptives"- Craig 1973 is cited as the source, but I tried to find anything similar in the book online and I couldn't. It seems that someone made that up just citing something that seemed reliable --Jbaranao

I believe we should take it out (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No replies. I will take it out --Jbaranao (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hitler's speach at Sportpalats

Article states "Adolf Hitler had declared in a public speech (in the Berlin Sportpalast) on 30 September 1942 that the German army would never leave the city." What source is used here ? I wonder becasuse I belive he spoke of never leaving the river Volga, of which he had become possessed. Boeing720 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And Stalingrad was on the Volga...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Losses

I am going to move all casualties to the bottom of the page because in wikipedia having them at the top always creates and edit war or adds to the number of vandal edits moving it to the bottom however calms things down. I have also cleared up the difference between the city and the Region. And I do not know of any book that gives 500k for axis losses I think some random guy just added it and then no one bothered checking it, 850K has been pretty standard since the 70s when you do the AXIS however German can be 500K and perhaps that is where the confusion comes fromIbsenlome12 (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok I made the changes lets see if people like it or not, either way I will leave it as it is I wont edit war over it. Ibsenlome12 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That may have been good faith, but now those numbers are a mix-up. Those 850,000 men include Axis casualties for the whole Stalingrad area, not only for the city. The destruction of the Romanian, Hungarian and Italian armys happened far away from the city. German casualties in the city are probably not more than about ~350,000 with about 300,000 for the 6th army which as we know was totally destroyed (the Germans hardly lost more men than they got in the city, which was only the 6th Army and small remnants of the 4th Panzer Army after Uranus). That 1,5 million figure for German losses for some kind of "Stalingrad area" seems to be just an old propaganda figure from the Soviets. Where exactly is that mentioned in the Overy book? I couldnt find it. The other source given is an internet page, which itself uses as source old Soviet propaganda books. I have therefore changed it. Note that Axis casualties for Case Blue as whole were only 1,1 million men from July until February. I therefore changed the ection accordingly. StoneProphet (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The 500 was simply put by ip nr 71.252.95.87 on the 16 december 2010 he also removed several sources, the ip just changed it. And now you revert back to that? So a random ip changes the numbers removes sources and now suddenly it becomes accurate?
I will re-add the sources which the ip removed and I will restore the sources you deleted
If you have any sources that give other numbers please provide them. Ibsenlome12 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You didnt provided any source which back up your 1,5 million claim. The 1,5 million figure is not in the book by Overy. There is not even a page mentioned! So the only source which backs up this 1,5 million casualty figure is an obscure Russian internet page. Hardly a reliable source. You appearently now added a third source, linking to a extremly controverse Russian State news organization called Russia today. At first this link is not even working. At second Russia Today is not regarded as reliable source on Wikipedia. At third Russia Today, as pure internet newspapers, isnt even a source which should be considered to use in historical articles. So all in all there are 0 sources which back up this 1,5 million number. A number which is anyway extremly unrealistic, because German casualties for Army Group South / A / B / Don for the while period from July until February 43 were only ~1,1 million men which is a sourced fact. If you want that 1,5 million figure in the article, you need a reliable source. No news papers. No internet pages. Only recent books by reliable historians with proper references.
The 500,000 figure is simply derived from the fact that the only unit significantly engaged in the city itself was the 6th army with a strenght of about 300,000 men. Clearly this 850,000 figure estimate was used for the Stalingrad campaign at whole, because a unit with 300,000 men cannot loose 850,000 "in the city". So obviously it is wrong to write "in the city". You simply invented that, because "in the city" was not used before your changes in the article. Please dont inserted such exagerreated figures without any sources. Ofc perhaps we should remove this entire paragraph, as it seems to have been changed very frqeuent during the last years.
As described above, you need sources to back your claims. Therefore I changed it back to the old version. I will try to see if I can find some more sources for this issue. I hope my post dont sounds too agressive, but I am tired to engaged in edit wars about bad sources like that which get frequently added in WWII articles. Please dont change it back until there are good and reliable sources. StoneProphet (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Lets start with the 500k, do you have any source which backs it up and proves that all other sources that say at least 850k are wrong? And you yourself just wrote that German I say again German were 1.1 million but there were more than just Germans there, there were Germans, Hungarians, Italians, Romanians and Hiwis an you do it again for the "500" you exclude the Axis and only look at the Germans, proving my point. And I will restore the numbers until you can provide a source for the 500k, please dont change it back until there are good and reliable sources. So lets talk about the 500 first and move on from there ok? Ibsenlome12 (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
What you are doing is plain vandalism. You have no source for 1,5 million casualties as I described above. The 500,000 is a strawman, I didnt restored it, because I dont have a source for 500,000 - like you dont have have a source for 1,5 million Axis casualties overall. You cant add something for which you have no source. The same goes for the supposed 850,000 casualties in the city itself, you have no source for that either, you simply changed the alreay sourced paragraphs which stated 850,000 Axis casualties for the Stalingrad battle _overall_ and not just in the city. And ofc I always meant Axis casualties. The Hungarian, Italian and Romanian units were subordinate to the German command structure, their numbers are already included. Will you really continue to insert your numbers despite having no source? You really want to force me to go to the Administrators noticeboard or other institutions? Wow... StoneProphet (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)



Just to bring some facts into this:

Earl F. Ziemke Moscow to Stalingrad: Decision in the East, page 501:

In the Stalingrad pocket the Germans lost somewhat over two hundred thousand men. The exact total was apparently never determined. During the fighting , 30,000 wounded were flown out.

Antony Beevor, Stalingrad, page 439:
Overmans [...], puts the figure of surrounded Germans as low as 195,000, the Hiwis at 50,000 and the Romanians at 5,000, a total of approximately 250,000.

Kehrig had estimated 232,000 Germans, 52,000 Hiwis and 10,000 Romanians, a total of approximately 294,000. Another more recent study estimates a total on 18 December of 268,900, of which 13,000 were Romanians and Italians, and 19,300 Hiwis.

Antill, Peter (2007). Stalingrad 1942, page 87:
German casualties in the battle for the city itself were just under 300,000 (around 35,000 wounded evacuated, almost 100,000 captured and around 150,000 killed)''

Quite obviously 850,000 casualites _in_ the city is impossible, given the authors statements. German casualties in the city were appearently only the 6th Army's full strenght -> about 300,000, as it was almostz the sole unit engaged in the battle for the city itself. Calculating the numbers for the whole campaign is far harder, because then we need to determine which time frame and which area.
Antill for example gives 300,000 inside the city + "with around another 300,000 casualties suffered by the remaining German forces of Army Group A, B and Don. Germany's Axis allies also had high casualties [...] Italy suffered over 110,000 casualties, [...] the Romainians suffered almost 160,000 casualties [...] while Hungary incurred some 143,000 casualties."
Which makes 1 million casualties -> but those numbers are for the whole Case Blue campaign in his book. So again will you keep reverting my edits, or I can can remove those fantasy numbers in the article? I really hate it when people simply cold revert and don't read the arguments, this is always such a waste of time for everybody. StoneProphet (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You are mixing the city and the region in your comments. So lets speak broadly no one is saying that for the Stalingrad operation the Axis lost 500k, correct? For the operation there is at least 850k which there are several sources claiming. And if we move to the USSR losses then the 1.1 million that is for case blau the whole south eastern region. It is quite interesting that you seem to understand that time and area matters for the Axis. But for the USSR then suddenly that dosent matter. So let me break it down, the 500k which the random ip added is no way correct for the Battle of Stalingrad. To avoid future problems I therefore recommend just writing the Battle of Stalingrad and that the Axis lost 850-1.1 million and the USSR lost 750-1.1 million, also I must point out that you thus far have provided zero sources that specifically say that the axis only lost 500k during the Battle of Stalingrad.Ibsenlome12 (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you fucking trolling me on purpose? I never said the Axis lost 500,000 men in the city. Axis casualties in the city were about 250,000 - 300,000 men as shown by a shit-ton of sources. This is what I am saying, are you blind? Axis casualties for the whole Battle fo Stalingrad in and outside of the city were 850,000 men, this is what the old sources said, before you changed it to "in the city". I mean are you even reading what I write? And your last sentence is again totally wrong. Soviet casualties for Case Blue were about 2 million, not 1 million, as stated by Glantz and Krivosheev. So, I even marked my arguments as bold for you, if you still dont get it, I will simply ignore you. I will correct the article tomorrow with said sources. Don't even try to revert me without any proper sources by yourself, or I will report you. StoneProphet (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
First stop swearing, secondly please read what I write. Now I recommend we take one sentence at a time. So, can we agree that for the Battle of Stalingrad the 500k number added by the ip is wrong? And please don't start editing before this has been straightened out. Ibsenlome12 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I already told you which sentences have to be out. No source for 500,000 men -> out. No source for 1,5 German casualties -> out. Claims that the Germans had 850,000 casualties in the city -> backchange to 850,000 men in the whole battle. I will rework the whole paragraph. Please dont vandalize it, if you have no good sources by your own. StoneProphet (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Well at least we are making some progress which is nice, I made some changes that I think everyone can agree with so far, so I think we can leave this "neutral edit" until the details have been resolved, now issue nr 2 would then be the 1.5 million. I have several sources yet you cherry pick them, the same source that gives 1.1 million for the USSR is the same that gives 1.5 million for the Axis. Now a more correct statement would therefore be to write the axis lost 850,000-1.5 million. Your last edit, in the article, was 80% good, so lets work on this together to fix it there are several issues to work through, the major difference between your 80% good edit is that you applied the material losses for the whole of the Axis, when it was just for the Germans. The Hungarian. Italian and Romanian planes and tanks lost are not covered in those numbers Bergström only mentions German losses, so I think we can leave this "neutral edit" until the details have been resolved, do you agree? Ibsenlome12 (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Nobody agrees with your edits. Nice try to sneak your webpage into the casualties section. Do you think I am dumb? 1,1 million Soviet casualties comes from Krivosheev not from your bad webpage you tried to sneak in for the 10th time. Krivosheev made a statistical analysis of Soviet losses which is well known, your webpage has simply copied it and reiterates Soviet propaganda of extreme unrealistic German casualties. Apart from that you:
  • changed the old sourced content at will
  • simply revertet my content which was sourced with the works of reputable historians
  • insert dubious statement from dubious sources (internetpages, news outlets with a bad reputation etc.)
Regarding tanks and planes: Of which Hungarian and Romanian planes/tanks do you speak? They had none. The sole Romanian Panzer division was subordinate to the 4th Panzer army and part of XLVIII Panzer Corps. The "German" in this sentence had been added by you, it wasnt there in old versions. Again, you distorted and changed already sourced content at will. I am also anyway sceptical if Bergstroem has given tank losses at all in his book, since it is about Luftwaffe. Please also stop to write "in addition" regarding Axis material captured by the Soviets, clearly the captured Soviet vehicles are already included in the "losses" of Axis materials. It is obviously not "addtional" losses. Again, you distort content from sources at will. StoneProphet (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to sneak anything anywhere and please relax a little your rage is just too much :), secondly Krivosheev might give numbers A B or C but the ref to the USSR losses was that link, of course this can easily be fixed, just ref Kirosheev. Now about the materiel those losses are of the Germans do you dispute this? The Germans lost at least 500 tanks that were destroyed during the 200 days of battle, then the USSR captured 1600 tanks, but those 1600 do not need all to be German tanks, the Hungarians, Italians and Romanians produced several thousands of airplanes, tanks and self propelled guns during the war. If we look at the Italians they produced about 2,300 tanks and self propelled guns, the Hungarians produced 500, and on the airplane side the Italians produced 7,5000, the Hungarians about 1,000 and the Romanians about 1,0000 the sources for that are these 2 books "Richard Overy, Russia's War, p. 155 and Campaigns of World War II Day By Day, by Chris Bishop and Chris McNab, pp. 244–52" at least according to another wikipedia article about production. When you bring up multiple issues that you did in your post you create the possibility confusion and issues getting mixed up, that is why I recommend that we take 1 issue at a time, and please do so calmly. Pick 1 issue then we discuss that issue and then we move on to the next issue and so onIbsenlome12 (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Those numbers are from Krivosheev, because he is that guy who did the research. That webpage must go out, it is not a reliable source. 2nd: No I dont agree to that, in the old version those material losses were attributed to the Axis, not to the Germans, until you changed it to "German". Yeah it is nice that the Romanians, Hungarians and Italians produced some tanks and aircraft during the whole war. But how many of those were present during the 3 months siege at Stalingrad? And how many of those were actually destroyed? Still that doesn't many anyway, in the original version with that source those material losses were for the whole Axis and not only German losses, until you changed it. I am bringing up multiple issues because you refuse to listen and adress these issues while constantly derailing the discussion with irrelevant matters (like now with production statistcs for the whole world war). StoneProphet (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok lets talk about the materiel, it is obvious that those are for the Germans and not the whole axis since the person who added it was writing about the Luftwaffe and other German losses, then along the way over the years someone added it to represent the whole axis. And it is in no way derailing anything by stating that the axis members themselves produced several thousands of tanks and airplanes. And they started the war with X amount of tanks and airplanes as well. Since they sent half a million men to Stalingrad obviously those troops had tanks and airplanes and obviously some were lost. And whilst on the subject of materiel, have you noticed that German losses are only destroyed tanks not damaged tanks, whilst the USSR losses are damaged, destroyed and captured? This should be reflected as well. In the article it should also be reflected that axis losses are from september to jan whilst the USSR losses are from july to febIbsenlome12 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No it is not obvious that this is for Germans only. It wasnt mentioned before this way. You simply cannot change sourced content based on your own assumptions. Reliable sources is all what count. If the information sounds suspicious or cannot be verified, than it should be removed altogether, instead of butcherings everything up by deducting things out of thin air. StoneProphet (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Those are German materiel losses, here is a copy of the information of the book used "While the land battle for Stalingrad is well known, the air battle fought by the Luftwaffe and the Soviet air force is less well documented but was very important in determining the ultimate fate of the city and the opposing combatants... It also covers the air war during the Russian counter-offensive in early 1943 where the Luftwaffe played a major role in saving the whole German Eastern Front (and thus the whole German war effort) from collapsing " here is the link to the book http://www.amazon.com/Stalingrad-The-Battle-1942-January-1943/dp/1857802764/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404919548&sr=8-1&keywords=Stalingrad%3A+The+Air+Battle , I am 99.99% certain that the materiel losses stated are for the Germans alone and not the other axis Ibsenlome12 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that doesn't change anything. If you want to imply that there are additional material losses you need a source. No source which explicitly states that = no sentence. Apart from that you apparently seem to overestimate the German allied forces, they hardly had any armored and air units at all, especially at Stalingrad. The order of battle at Stalingrad is no secret, why dont you study it and search for your imagined non-German air/tank units by yourself? Maybe then you will understand what I am talking about and this discussion will get shorter.... StoneProphet (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The link to the book shows that the losses listed in numbers are indeed for the Germans and not the Axis as a whole. The European, non German, Axis had over half a million soldiers in this battle, it is obvious that if you deploy more than half a million soldiers, that they will have machines of war as well. Also it should be mentioned that Croatian, Slovaks and Spaniards took part in the battle. Ibsenlome12 (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It surprises me, that in the entire Article none stated anything about the genuine self-sacrifice of many Red Army soldiers. The utterly brutal coercion and execution of thousands of deserters and malingerers by the NKVD at the instruction of the Order No. 227 (Директива Ставки ВГК №227). G.F.Krivosheev giving figures of 14'000 executed waverers, only at Stalingrad. Rearcat (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Consequences

I added the Consequences section, against the advice of another editor, because I thought the article needed this. But it doesn't need a forum to debate the military significance of the battle. All that should be added is a couple of sentences explaining that various authorities don't believe that the battle was a turning point.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Debate ? When military and historical analysts differ in their oppinion, I think we are obliged to not forget this part. Stalingrad was not quite like El-Alamein (or Midway ?, I'm less enlightened about the war in the Pacific). There are those who think that Hitler lost the war on Russia already the day he started it, 22 June 1941. Just like Napoleon in 1812. Mainly due to the size of the USSR. Even before Moscow and/or Stalingrad, had Hitler only taken a small piece of the entire territory. Industies was moved across the Ural mountains - and this would eventually pay off for Russia. The only threat was a new Japaneze attack (like at Port Arthur 1904, which indeed became a Russian disaster) in the far east. Russia had never before fought on two fronts. But after Perl Harbour, a Japaneze attack on far east USSR became unlikely. At the same time did Hitler and his invaders was stopped and needed to retreat 700 km away from Moscow. This huge defeat and turning point caused relieving or fireing of a dozen of German Field Marshals and generals like Walther von Brauchitsch Supreme High Commander of OKH and Franz Halder chief of staff at OKH, and thereby holding the closest German military office that resembled the Chief of the Imperial General Staff during WW1, (and then held by von Moltke the younger, Falkenhayn and Hindenburg.) And Hitler made himself Supreme High Commander and "moved" to OKW. Any such internal inversions didn't happen after Stalingrad. Yet there are also those that claim the German war in Russia as possible to win also long after Stalingrad. And already a month later von Manstein destructed more than 50 Russian divisions What, in military terminology, was lost in Stalingrad compares to around 10 divisions. So much for Stalingrad as the turning point of the German war in USSR. On the other hand, Germany planned for another "Blitzkrieg", and when this failed at Moscow 1941, time entirelly got on Russia's side. But I fail to see why to censure all stuff about the military significance of Stalingrad. Only as a symbol was Stalingrad a turning point. And these are not my speculations, but of historical and military authors. Boeing720 (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Then get references of those authors and add them in.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Decisive victory

I wonder whether it is NPOV to call it a decisive Soviet victory, given the huge losses of Soviet troops and equipment and the complete destruction of the city. This was the subject of some discussion on the History page.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The numbers given for casualties and equipment lost are garbage. They have almost nothing to do with the actual battle for the city. What the article covers as "the battle of stalingrad" is literally the entire 1942 campaign in the Soviet Union south of Army Group Centre plus part of the 1943 campaign. Various popular historians have been blowing up and distorting the battle of stalingrad for decades. They sell people a story where millions of people were supposedly fighting and dying in the rubble of the city. And people believe them. The battle is considered so important that it has to be inflated up into one of the biggest battles in history even if it was not.
The battle for the city was not a decisive victory. But operation Uranus and little saturn were. They tore a hole in the German lines, caused the German retreat from the Caucuses and destroyed the stability of the southern part of the German front to an degree that it was never really able to recover from.
In my mind, the battle for stalingrad is the fight for the city itself from the point the Germans reached the outskirts of the city until the end of the siege. But for other people, its the whole of case blue and I'm not interested in fighting with those people over the issue. 209.163.167.156 (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Operation Uranus led to the lifting of the siege of Stalingrad. When Paulus surrendered he was in the city. So Operation Uranus was part of the Battle of Stalingrad, even though much of the fighting took place on the outskirts of the city.

Victory is not measured in death and destruction. If this was true, Germany would have won the war because the USSR suffered more. And America would have won the Vietnam War etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that victory is not measured in death and destruction, because as you point out, then the US would have "won" the Vietnam War. But the question was more specific; can you call the Soviet victory a decisive victory given their massive losses and the destruction of the city.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The case for it being a decisive victory does seem rather slim. Kiev in 1941 on the German side is not listed as a "decisive" victory for example. The only reasoning given for it being decisive would seem to be the subjective idea that it was a "turning point" in the war. I'm not sure these qualifiers add anything in the first place. Does anyone object to it being changed to "soviet victory"? 108.60.192.150 (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes it was "decisive" because it decided the larger conflict. A turning point is always decisive. There is no requirement for lopsided losses to be decisive. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Well there it stays then. I dont agree but I dont think the argument will be productive. 108.60.192.150 (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a disagreement about what "decisive" means. We mean that it was a turning point, that it decided the future course of the war. This does not mean it was an easy victory. Perhaps another word could be used. But it is important for this to be noted. After Stalingrad, the German forces were in retreat back to Berlin. On the other hand, if the Germans had captured Stalingrad, they would have cut the Volga supply route and been on the way to capturing the oilfields. I think almost all historians would call this a turning point. However, I don't think this is explained very well in the article. I think there needs to be a Consequences section.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The is a long-running disagreement over "decisive" that reaches far beyond this article. I disagree with the logic of defining "decisive" in terms of "turning points" because turning points always amount to subjective analysis and the narratives historians usually try to develop. I personally don't think the qualifiers on battle results add anything useful to the articles. The Germans were not in retreat all the way back to Berlin after Stalingrad. If thats the definition of a turning point, Kursk fits the definition far better than Stalingrad in particular because of 3rd Kharkov. I don't think what-ifs based on the Germans capturing Stalingrad have any place in the article. I personally think the capture of Stalingrad would have meaningless in military terms. It would not have changed the situation in the extreme south nor would it would have done more to block the Volga than the German presence did while they were fighting for the city. I would strongly urge against a Consequences section because those things inevitably degenerate into subjective essays on the meaning of the battle in the context of the war. More supporting arguments for why the battle is decisive will not convince those who don't agree with it in the first place. 69.198.25.2 (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
(1) Many historians describe Stalingrad as a turning point. Do you have a source that denies this? In any case, this is part of what makes the battle famous, and this opinion should be discussed in the article.
(2) But your position seems to be dogmatic. It cannot be changed by argument or evidence?
(3) We have to take into account the "what ifs" of a German victory in order to assess the significance of the battle. Otherwise it loses all meaning and context.
(4) It's true that the Volga was cut during the battle. Supplies had to be taken overland, which was arduous and dangerous. After the battle, however, river traffic was restored. If, on the other hand, the Germans had won, they could have redirected forces against convoys of oil, Lend Lease supplies, etc. I find it hard to believe that Moscow could have continued to receive oil from the Caucasus if the Germans had held Stalingrad.
(5) After being defeated in Stalingrad, the Germans rapidly lost their positions to the south, so I don't see how you can argue that it was irrelevant to them.
(6) Before Stalingrad, Soviet territory under German control was almost continuously increasing; afterwards it was almost continuously decreasing. I would say that's a turning point.
(7) I would agree that Kursk was significant, but it only occurred because of Stalingrad. In any case, we have to deal with these issues in the article, not obliterate them.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
(1) I don't care about fighting over citations. I care about the article and its quality. I think it will be a worse article if people insert subjective essays about "turning points" into the content of the article simply to backstop claims of it being a "decisive victory". I care about the actual history and events of the battle. I dont care at all about people trying to create historical narratives around the battle to turn it into melodrama. There are two sentences in the first paragraph of the article that make the point about "turning points". I have no problem with that. I have a problem with you putting in yet more material saying the same thing in a whole new section you have created using the notion of turning point to further justify the "decisive" tag on the battle result.
(2) I really find that strange. I've gone out of my way to leave your edits alone. I wrote a lengthy polite message hoping that you would at least moderate some what you want to do. You have made your edits. You have refused to bend even on a single point or hold off your edits for an hour to talk about it. And you call me dogmatic?
(3) History is about things that happened. Context is about showing events related to the battle that happened before or after it. Talking about "what if"s or things that did not happen or speculation on what might have happened is inappropriate for this sort of article. There are plenty of actual consquences of the battle that could be written about in the article at great length. There is the desperate struggle to stabilize or smash the German front along the Donets which ends at Kharkov. There is withdrawal from Rzhev. There is Rostov. Its possible to talk about how Soviet plans fell short in victory at Stalingrad and how the obsession with reducing an already surrounded Stalingrad led to the Soviets taking away resources from very significant other operations. Talking about those things doesn't require speculation about what the Germans might have done had they held Stalingrad or any other speculation without a factual basis. This is an important article. It should be historical and accurate rather offering analysis, speculation or trying to insert something as subjective as "meaning".
(4) Your analysis of what might have happened after the battle is meaningless. Speculation is not appropraite for the article.
(5) Quote you "if the Germans had captured Stalingrad, they would have cut the Volga supply route and been on the way to capturing the oilfields.". First you say "capturing the oilfields" now you are making an argument about "rapidly lost their positions to the south, so I don't see how you can argue that it was irrelevant to them." You need to argue your case based on what each of us has actually said.
(6) That is incorrect. German territory decreased during late 1941 and early 1942. In two successive years there were Soviet offensives that threw the Germans back followed by German offensives which threw the soviets back. Again, by your own argument about "turning point"s, Kursk fits your own definition more accurately than Stalingrad.
(7) Ok. By the logic that says Kursk can't be a turning point because Stalingrad happened before, then Moscow 1941 is the turning point because both Stalingrad and Kursk can be said to consequent to the loss there. That leads again to my point that talk of "turning points" is always subjective.
(8) What is needed here is for people to listen to each other and at least consider other points of view. I've made my case. I've tried to discuss them with you. I've tried to urge to change certain things or not to do certain things because it will make the article even worse than it already is. You are not listening. You can't even admit on a single point that you might be less than absolutely right. I'm not interested in starting an edit war. If want this so bad, you can have it. 75.20.224.48 (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the fundamental point is that Stalingrad is commonly called a turning point. In fact, that is one of its claims to fame. The article should mention this, and not just in the introduction. The introduction should reflect the content of the article. If there are are alternative analyses, these can be mentioned too.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think all we need is a source and then it will be fine. If a major historian calls it a decisive victory, then we just reference it and the issues are resolved. On the other hand, if we can't find a notable historian that calls it a decisive victory, then it arguably is outside our scope as WP editors to be making this inference. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Gray's book entitled Defining and Achieving Decisive Victory ...Colin S. Gray

Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2002 - Strategy... He says on page 11 that it is "tempting" to call Stalingrad a decisive victory.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already added a reference to Geoffrey Roberts in the Consequences section. There could be many more references added.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia article states that Stalingrad was not a decisive victory in the sense that it did not destroy the ability of the Wehrmacht to go again on the offensive (as in Kursk). Instead, it makes the point that it was foremost a psychological turning point: (i) In Germany, for the first time, a serious defeat had to be publicly acknowledged. The possibility of Germany losing the war had to be faced. (ii) For the Soviet Union, it was a tremendous moral boost. If the Red Army could inflict such a defeat on the Wehrmacht, who was going to stop it? (iii) For the US and Great Britain, it meant that the Soviet Union would unavoidably play a central role and that it had to be treated as an equal partner in the planning of the war effort. They had to face the possibility that the Soviet Union might be able to defeat Germany directly, which greatly increased pressure for opening a second front. Sources are German academic historians (Jürgen Förster and Jörg Echternkamp). Beevor also emphasizes the psychological impact of Stalingrad but more English language sources would be useful.RFB (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is exactly correct. If Stalingrad was a psychological turning point in Germany, it was a turning point in the opposite direction. In the aftermath of Stalingrad, there was the total war speech. Psychologically in the aftermath of Stalingrad rather than seeing defeat, there was a dramatically increased commitment to the war effort. It was combined with a fatalism that saw defeat as possible, but it led to a greater commitment to the war. In the context of Soviet morale, its very complicated. Stalingrad was one success among many failures in 1942. The failure of the MARS offensive and the disasterous end to the 1942 offensive in the south after the fall of Stalingrad also had an effect on morale. 75.106.146.89 (talk)

Geography

I'm concerned that this article is misrepresenting geography. For example, I have changed the description of Stalingrad from the "south west" of the USSR to "Southern Russia". Yes, Stalingrad was in the west of the Soviet Union, but it was in the far east of the European part of the USSR, on the border with Asia. Most populated regions of the USSR were to the west of Stalingrad. Similarly I have corrected the text where it said that Siberia was "far away" from Stalingrad. Siberia starts at the Ural Mountains so it is not so far away. While most editors are probably well aware of the geography, I think it needs to be made clear for the average reader how deep into Soviet territory the Germans had come, and the Background and Prelude sections should probably be rewritten to reflect this. This is in the same vein as the tendency to deny the significance of the battle.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Any terms used for describing the position of Stalingrad are going to be problematic. Southern Russia is problematic because there was no "Russia" at the time in question or else a russia (RFSSR) that will confuse younger readers. Siberia is even more complicated because it depends on the context. The troops coming to Stalingrad in the context of "Siberia" were coming from far away. They were not coming from the Urals. And while Siberia is very large, the places in Siberia where troops were coming from are a small subset and they were usually far away. The problem with the "how far" arguments as concerns Stalingrad is that in the context of 1942, it wasn't all that far. It was far less of an advance than 1941. The dramatic advances in terms of distance were all to the south in 1942. The units fighting in the Cacasasus were fighting at extreme distances. Sixth Army at Stalingrad....not so much. As far as the significance of the battle, Uranus and Little Saturn were significant. But the fighting in the city of Stalingrad itself really wasn't. If you take a look at the real boots on the ground in the city fighting for both sides, the whole idea of "Stalingrad" degenerates into a symbolic word attached to a battle that really had little to do with the city itself. The best thing to do with this entire article is throw it away. Its a good example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. 75.106.146.89 (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Prestige

For both Stalin and Hitler, Stalingrad became a matter of prestige far beyond its strategic significance.

Is there any historical evidence for this claim? Historians often make reference to the name, but Stalino had fallen without much fanfare.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no historical evidence. The view of the battle presented by "historians" is generally nonsense. "Stalingrad" is important and "decisive" because millions of soldiers on both sides died in the "battle" for the "city"....except that they didn't. The actual fighting for the city of Stalingrad has almost nothing to do with the "battle of Stalingrad". The battle of stalingrad with its millions of dead happened on a battlefield not in the city, but one that reached from the Northern Ukraine all the way to the mountains of the Cacucasus. The important thing to understand is that Wikipedia and "the battle of Stalingrad" has nothing to do with military history. Its all about politics and tradition. The worst part of the article is that it has almost no useful information and no maps of the actual fighting in the city of Stalingrad. There are lots of good books on the battle. Anyone looking for information would be better off picking up one of them than trying to understand anything from this article. 75.106.146.89 (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree. The surrender of Paulus was within the city.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The 1993 movie Stalingrad is not a documentary

i made an edit to reflect this fact and my edit got reverted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.166.96 (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed this reference.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Biggest Battle?

This article sucks it was not "the biggest battle in history" and it was also not the last time germany had the initiative. the battle of kursk was bigger and was also the last time the germans had the initiative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.78.73 (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Stalingrad had more casualties than Kursk. With regard to initiative, the point is basic: after Stalingrad, the Germans went backwards. Kursk is further west. The Germans had gone backwards. They lost at Kursk. And kept going backwards. That is what the article is trying to say. The fundamental answer to all these objections is: get sources, and put them in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Added a quote describing situation in Stalingrad on Feb 5, 1943

I found that passage from Alexander Werth very compelling to show what it was like for the surrounded forces. I also believe that it adds some "color" and perhaps an explanation to the high rate of Axis POW casualties post surrender. Here's what I added:

The condition of the troops that surrendered was pitiful. British war correspondent Alexander Werth describes the following scene in his "Russia at War" book based on his first hand account of the visit to Stalingrad during February 3 to 5, 1943:

We [...] went into the yard of the large burnt out building of the Red Army House; and here one realized particularly clearly what the last days of Stalingrad had been to so many of the Germans. In the porch lay the skeleton of a horse, with only a few scraps of meat still clinging to its ribs. Then we came into the yard. Here lay more more horses' skeletons, and to the right, there was an enormous horrible cesspool—fortunately, frozen solid. And then, suddenly, at the far end of the yard I caught sight of a human figure. He had been crouching over another cesspool, and now, noticing us, he was hastily pulling up his pants, and then he slunk away into the door of the basement. But as he passed, I caught a glimpse of the wretch's face—with its mixture of suffering and idiot-like incomprehension. For a moment, I wished that the whole of Germany were there to see it. There man was probably already dying. In that basement [...] there were still two hundred Germans—dying of hunger and frostbite. "We haven't had time to deal with them yet," one of the Russians said. "They'll be taken away tomorrow, I suppose." And, at the far end of the yard, besides the other cesspool, behind a low stone wall, the yellow corpses of skinny Germans were piled up - men who had died in that basement—about a dozen wax-like dummies. We did not go into the basement itself—what was the use? There was nothing we could do for them." ----- Hope it adds to the entry. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Is "death march" terminology appropriate?

The wording around "death marches" does not seem to support the term: "Already weakened by disease, starvation and lack of medical care during the encirclement, they were sent on death marches (75,000 survivors died within 3 months of capture) to prisoner camps..." If these were indeed "death marches" would the supporting number provide the information on those who died *during* the marches, not within 3 months of capture? Also, the term itself is suggestive of the "death marches" during WWII as used to describe German war crimes and Nazi atrocities, and to equate these events seems inappropriate. Wikipedia's definition: "A death march is a forced march of prisoners of war or other captives or deportees with the intent to kill, brutalize, weaken and/or demoralize as many of the captives as possible along the way. It is distinguished in this way from simple prisoner transport via foot march." Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_march#During_World_War_II --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a week so I've made the change from "death marches" to "foot marches". I preserved the numbers included in the original paragraph. I would like to know where these numbers are sourced from. I added [citation needed] tag.--K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Silence is tacit consent. I would suggest Beevor (a rather overused source but one that covers the fate of the prisoners to a unique level of detail for a general work) may be working checking out. It may originate from him. Irondome (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed "The German tanks inability to traverse..."

"The German tanks inability to traverse snowy terrain effectively may have slowed the relief attempts." Prior to the edit: "The lack of cross country ability of German tanks in the snow may have slowed the relief attempts."

This sentence caught my attention due to a recent edit. I removed the entire sentence as the linked article does not support this statement. Please see: Operation Winter Storm

There is no mentioned in the linked article either of snow or terrain, or German tanks' inability to deal with these conditions. Instead it talks about Soviet redeployments, their stiff resistance, and heavy losses of the relief forces. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Stalingrad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Tania Chernova

Tania Chernova is a credulous, virtually unsourced, and rather dreadful article about this person.

This (strangely worded) BBC article says:

But historian Antony Beevor, whose acclaimed tome Stalingrad is rapidly becoming accredited as the definitive textbook on the battle, described her as a "fantasist". Chernova claimed she was a sniper in the battle. But Beevor told BBC News Online: "The woman was a fantasist. There were no women snipers in Stalingrad. [..]"

(I've added some markup to that quote, and have fiddled with the formatting.) The WP article Tania Chernova has no mention of any suspicion about the claims made by or for her.

I'm not going to get into this matter as I know nothing of this subject area. (I first heard of Chernova only a few minutes ago, when removing a small percentage of the junk with which Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession is hugely bloated.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added the BBC source to the Tania Chernova lede. There should be content in the article body too of course, but for now will be difficult to do adequately given the lack of sources for the article's current content detailing Chernova's claims. The awesomestories website source is not a suitable source, the appropriate source to at least start with seems to be the William Graig book. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Stalingrad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

CE

Did a cheeky little ce to remedy red harv warnings in the citations section, several more need doing. Keith-264 (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Stalingrad?

Would Stalingrad be more appropriately known as a siege or a battle? I searched the difference between a siege and a battle but I did not receive a straight answer so I did not edit anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNSC Luke 1021 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It is commonly called the Battle of Stalingrad, and a lot of fighting took place outside the city. Though there were elements of siege in the battle, the Germans captured most of the city (unlike Leningrad) so it would be misleading to call it a siege.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
For a proper siege one of the sides needs to be surrounded, but even then WWII sieges are considered to be battles anyway. And the only surrounded forces in the battle were the Germans after the Soviet counter-offensive in the late stages of the battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARX, Julius (talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


I think use of the term 'siege' would tend to misunderstand the campaign. The Soviet strategy, once Stalingrad itself became a German objective, was to pour just enough strength into the city fighting to keep the fighting going - avoiding loss but not really seeking a win either. The idea was to keep a large German force engaged. It didn't really matter whether the Red Army gained a little or lost a little within the city. Meanwhile the region around the city became the focal point of Red Army counteroffensives that actually won the campaign.
Focusing on the city fighting alone misses the point entirely, and I think the word 'siege' would tend to get people thinking in that direction.

DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that mentioning Stalingrad as a siege is a bit too much as the soldiers in Stalingrad was resupplied from the river Volga. A siege means that a town or location is cut off from supplies and reinforcements Malcolm Mak (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Never regained the initiative?

There seems to be a misunderstanding relating to the following sentence in the lead, which Nicolas Perrault III has recently altered.

German forces never regained the initiative in the East and withdrew a vast military force from the West to replace their losses.

Obviously communication via edit summaries can be confusing. He disputed the statement about the Germans never regaining the initiative by pointing to the Battle of Kursk (I think). My point in return (which he misconstrued) was that Kursk is to the west of Stalingrad. Hence, German lines had fallen back. Kursk presented a chance for the Germans to regain the initiative, but they failed to do so, and they continued to fall back all the way to Berlin. In any case, if sentences are sourced, as this one appears to be, they shouldn't be altered on the whim of an editor.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jack, I understand your concern, and am more than willing to discuss it with you. I would actually be interested in investing in this article to bring it to good article status. Rest assured, no need to be arrogant, I rarely edit on a whim. My edit was to
1) Recognise that many sources cite Kursk as the point the initiative definitively passed to the Soviets. For instance, in the summary of two books on the Battle of Kursk one reads:
  • "The German defeat signalled the transfer of the initiative to the Russians and demonstrated to the Western Allies that the Soviet Union could defeat the Germans without a second front." (Dunn 1997)
  • "Kursk is a comprehensive history of the last time that Germany held the strategic initiative in the war against the Soviet Union. Once that initiative was lost, a vengeful Red Army set the course for the eventual destruction of the Nazi state." (Barbier 2013)
2) Make it coherent with Battle of Kursk article, which claims the Soviets gained the initiative after that battle.
I hope that clears things up. Ultimately, it's a question of word-choice, the revised one being, I believe, less controversial. Cheers, and thanks for your interest. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Stalingrad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

Delete the sentence "On 3 February 2013 Russian President Vladimir Putin flew to the city to join a military parade commemorating the 70th anniversary of the final victory.[100]" as absolutely irrelevant to the Subject. 212.100.159.82 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Added a "commemoration subsection to create context and changed emphasis from the individual to the city. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Moscow , December 1941

The German defeat outside Moscow in December 1941 (Battle of Moscow) was not "a limited setback". It was the END of the idea of a fast German victory in the USSR. Walther von Brauchitsch was excused (heart attack ? or not) and Hitler became Germany's "oh so brilliant" military commander as well.
This quote must be changed somehow. (It doesn't change the significance of this battle otherwise)
"Before Stalingrad, the German forces had gone from victory to victory on the Eastern Front, with a limited setback in the winter of 1941–42." Boeing720 (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ouch. I have not been keeping an eye on the article lately, don't know how that slipped in. Any other article watchers noticed it? It was a massive setback. I agree strongly that this should be changed. The Soviet defeat of Barbarossa and the huge German losses of 41-42 led directly to the much more modest operation Blue, which was a desperate grab for oil. It led directly to Stalingrad. I think we can reword and source that much more accurately. Irondome (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I must admit that I myself added the last part of the lead in Battle of Moscow. But I hope you do agree with me anyways. Boeing720 (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree it should be changed. You could also mention the Siege of Leningrad in the context. Germany had failed to take Leningrad and Moscow, while capturing huge swathes of territory in the south. This meant that, when the Germans reached Stalingrad, they were fighting on a front that stretched from the Baltic Sea to the Caspian Sea. And when that unravelled at Stalingrad, well, the rest is history... We should balance two things: (a) Hitler didn't get the quick victory he hoped for; (b) the guts were being ripped out of the USSR.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with bot (a) and (b) - about Moscow. But for now in this Stalingrad article, I have removed the mentioned part. It was also stated "After Stalingrad there were no more decisive battle won by the German." which is doubtful, as Erich von Manstein won huge battles in Ukraine even after Stalingrad. This doesn't change the significance of this otherwise good article. It was a turning point from several aspects nevertheless. 6thArmy destroyed, and also by maps. For Leningrad - sieged by German and Finnish armies. But I think Hitler wanted that city to "vanish", but am not certain. Nevertheless the Siege of Leningrad can most certainly be mentioned (by a link) somehow here, in this article. Again - FOR NOW, I have just removed two sentences. Perhaps you, Jack, can include Leningrad ? Like at that time, when only a tiny part of the remained in Russian hands. Before the surrounding. Perhaps something in line with this "simultaneously, the Siege of Leningrad continued" ??? Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Stalingrad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2017

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2017

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

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

Not sure what you're proposing needs to change. But I think there's a flag missing in the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

German Casualties: Russian sources. Великая Отечественная война 1941–1945 годов. В 12 т. — М.: «Кучково поле», 2012. — Т. 3. Битвы и сражения, изменившие ход войны. — С. 421. — 863 с. — ISBN 978-5-9950-0269-7.

Semi-Protected edit request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2018

Change repetition error "more more" to "more" in the Aftermath section of the Article Bluemonster (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: Because the double "more" occurs within a quoted passage, we can't be sure if it's an example of sic erat scriptum. Even though Wikipedia guidelines allow for the silent correcting of quoted trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning, there are still fanatical purists who will claim that every single example of sic must be faithfully reproduced, so if I remove the extra "more", you can be assured it will return shortly thereafter. Thus for now, I will simply place the [sic] template in the text.  spintendo  19:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Further reading

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Reduce -- some dated / non scholarly works or tangentially related". --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

El Alamein more important

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

Troll!--Jack Upland (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
How is that trolling? Strategically El Alamein was more important for the Allies than Stalingrad. (86.137.48.59 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC))
I can't see why you would be a troll and I assume you edit in good faith, however, the fact (or not) that El Alamein was more important is irrelevant to this page. Could you specify what you would tike to be changed in this article? If there's an error or typo or anything wrong in the article, Ill be happy to correct it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I shouldn't have said that. It just seemed that the comment was calculated to inflame debate rather than improve this page, particularly as there has been a history of people making inflammatory comments on WW2 pages. This issue is relevant to the section "Significance", which actually mentions El Alamein already. However, we can't turn the section into a debating forum. A short statement that some historians consider El Alamein to be more important than Stalingrad, with a citation, could easily be inserted into the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

The defeat in North Africa was more decisive from a strategic viewpoint. (217.42.255.175 (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC))

Nazis lost in Stalingrad around 800 000 of men meanwhile in El- Alamein they lost 30 000 men and some of them were even Italians. Tell me more about decisive battles :D In Stalingrad Nazis lost more men than in entire Western front. Holywood movies and reality are two differend things.--Kovanja (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The Allied victory at El Alamein prevented the Axis from capturing the Suez Canal, as well as the oil of North Africa and the Middle East. It was far more important than Stalingrad, regardless of the numbers of men killed or captured. (81.147.63.161 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC))

Stalingrad was gate to the Caucasus, where were bigest oli resources of that time so your comment is not relevant. El- Alamein was ridiculous, If Hitler would have considered El-Alamein more important than Stalingrad why he send two milions of his troops into Stalingard and 30 000 to El Alamein? --Kovanja (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Casualties

Russian women at Stalingrad: 

   We didn’t shoot [prisoners], that was too easy a death for them; we struck them with ramrods like pigs, we cut them to pieces. I went to look at it … I waited for a long time for the moment when their eyes would begin to burst from pain.

Svetlana Alexievich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.22.214 (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


@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)

August 2018

It appears that there was a similar disput not to long ago and ending with the blocking of Uoat365 and Rudotua. However, I will assume good faith and i'd like to discuss the issue. Utakem8 raised the concern that Frieser probably are stating inaccurate figures, while the extrapolated figures from Stephen Walsh and Louis A. DiMarco (both with no references) are more accurate. It should be noted, that Frieser (2017) is citing figures provided by officials, such as the Archive of the Ministry of National Defence of Bucharest and the Hungarian Council of Ministers. Frieser estimates a total of 105,000 casualties for the Hungarian Army, including approx. 30,000 of Jewish Labour Units that were forced to fight alongside. The initial claim of only 70,000 by the Hungarian Council have therefore no basis at all.

However, Utakem8 is trying to push forward that the Germans lost 400,000 at Stalingrad, while excluding all other academic works with lower figures WP:NPOV. Louis A. DiMarco, 'Concrete Hell: Urban Warfare From Stalingrad to Iraq' 2012, p.36 note:

In total the losses at Stalingrad were immense. In the battle and campaign, which included the Soviet counterattack, the Germans lost 400,000 men, and the Soviet lost 750,000 killed wounded and missing. Allies of the Germans - the Italians, Hungarians, and Romanians - lost another 13,000, 120,000 and 200,000 respectively.(emphasis added)

Stephen Walsh, 'Stalingrad 1942–1943: The Infernal Cauldron' 2000, p.164 states:

German losses are uncertain, but inside the cauldron alone, 60,000 had died since 23 November with over 130,000 captured, 91,000 of those on 2 February 1943 alone. The combined German losses of 6th Amy and 4th Panzer were over 300,000 men.

Jochen Hellbeck, 'Stalingrad: The City that Defeated the Third Reich' (GBS) states:

After the Soviet counteroffensive started but before the battle ended, 60,000 German soldiers died and 113,000 German and Romanian survivors were taken prisoner, many of them injured or exhausted. All in all, the battle and the subsequent imprisonment cost 295,000 German lives (190,000 on the battlefield, 105,000 in captivity. On the Soviet side, conservative estimates place the number of dead at 479,000, though one scholar has put the death toll at over a million.

Further opinions and contributions are welcome. Wildkatzen (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok. First, please see this book: GBS
So, Frieser counted only from December 1942 to February 1943 (he didn't count before or later). This is imcomplete dataUtakem8 (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The Romanian expeditionary force came at Stalingrad during the Soviet counteroffensive in November 1942, the 3rd Army was deployed on the north and 4th Army south of Stalingrad. Krivosheev, 'Rossiia i SSSR v voinakh XX veka' notes that 158,854 Romanian between 19 November 1942 and 7 January 1943 were either killed wounded or captured based on Soviet claims. Frieser figures are therefore conservative and neither incomplete nor false.Wildkatzen (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
You forget Hungarian, ok. Please see this book: GBS - 143,000 Hungarian casuaties was confirmed by Admiral Horthy, 158,854 Romanian casuaties was confirmed by Marshal Ion AntonescuUtakem8 (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
No the Hungarians are not forgotten. Friesers official figures of casualties are fine. Sorry, but you keep sending me Vietnamese Google books searches which I can not access. Wildkatzen (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
As your quote "inside the cauldron alone, 60,000 had died since 23 November with over 130,000 captured, 91,000 of those on 2 February 1943 alone. The combined German losses of 6th Amy and 4th Panzer were over 300,000 men..." - Stephen Walsh counted only from 23 November 1942 and "inside the cauldron" (not inculd a hundred thounsand German casualties before that and outside the cauldron). Louis A. DiMarco's "campaign" is Operation Uranus, not Case Blue (if we count Case Blue, German casualties was over 600,000 - GBS)
That's half of the quote. Stephen Walsh mentions that "German losses are uncertain, but..." and presenting estimates inside the cauldron. I don't see what's the issue here. 209,529 Germans trapped, 105,000 surrendered, 60,000 died, 35,000 air lifted and 10,000 remained fit to fight. Further more, Jochen Hellbeck states: "All in all, the battle and the subsequent imprisonment cost 295,000 German lives (190,000 on the battlefield, 105,000 in captivity. On the Soviet side, conservative estimates place the number of dead at 479,000, though one scholar has put the death toll at over a million." The overall German losses outside and inside Stalingrad are 295,000. Making the statement of approx. 300,000 to be spot on.Wildkatzen (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Please, you didn't count German casualties BEFORE the Soviet counter-offensive (July-November 1942). And Jochen Hellbeck didn't count German wounded (he counted only dead/missing or captured)Utakem8 (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This getting tedious. Hellbeck explicitly state "many of them injured or exhausted". You don't make any sense. Wildkatzen (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The section "Sixth Army Surrounded" claims the following:

"When asked by Hitler, Göring replied, after being convinced by Hans Jeschonnek,[5]:234 that the Luftwaffe could supply the 6th Army with an 'air bridge.' This would allow the Germans in the city to fight on temporarily while a relief force was assembled.[20]:926."

However, Hans Jeschonnek shot himself on the 18th of August, 1943. How could he possibly have influenced Göring if the events being described above would have occurred sometime in November of 1943, after the Soviet armies surrounded Stalingrad? Hitler, Göring, and Jeschonnek would not have been discussing an air bridge anytime before August 18th, as the battle had not even started yet. I have seen this rumor claimed in other places as well, but it simply makes no sense. Either clarification is needed regarding when Jeschonnek supported an air bridge (earlier in the battle, perhaps, which still is completely dubious unless proven) or it needs to be removed completely as blame is being attributed to the wrong person entirely. Thetimsterr (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

In response to the above passage, august 18th, 1943 was approximately 6 months after the END of the battle of stalingrad (end date 2nd February, 1943). During the conference cited by many history books as the date in which Goring allegedly "convinced" hitler that the Luftwaffe could supply the sixth army by air (20th november 1942), Goring was actually in Karinhall at a petroleum conference [1], the luftwaffe representative present at the conference (held in berchtesgaden), was in fact Hans Jeschonnek. Goring has been widely attributed blame for convincing hitler to keep the sixth army in place due to manstein's memoirs and the memoirs of other german generals attempting to shift blame.

Thank you for pointing out my error in the dates. I completely jumbled the end date of Stalingrad in my mind. Thetimsterr (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-1954-2.html

Question about the casualties section

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 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Why does the quick info panel call out tank losses caused and inflicted specifically for Romanians, but not for any other nation? This probably shouldn't be there, could be moved to main article body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.165.222.52 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Stalingrad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 01:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


The review may take a day or two to prepare. This article also has over a dozen citation requests throughout the article which need to be taken care of promptly. Let me know when the cite requests have been addressed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Ill be happy to take part in this. I have been watching this article for months and I thought several times about GANing it, but I'm not particularly good in GA domain. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Of course, I'm no reviewer, but I might be inclined to fail this GA. The whole prelude section is not verifiable enough - large paragraphs of text are wholly unsourced. There also are six {{citation needed}}s throughout the article in addition to on {{page needed}} that need attention. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I noted the lack of citations throughout the article as well. I suspect that this is going to take quite a bit of time to address so had contacted the nominator to confirm whether they had the time/resources to deal with this and whether it should be quick-failed so it could be worked on at their leisure. Unfortunately, by the time I finished writing my comments, the article had been claimed for review. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to both editors for their comments. Let's give the nominating editor a day or two for the edits to see where the article stands at that time. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Article subject to quick close at request of nominating editor

This article has been quick closed at the request of the nominating editor who has contacted me on my Talk page over night. The contributing editor has apparently made a good faith effort to withdraw the article after being contacted by another editor concerning other unaddressed issues with the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Diameter of the pocket

Does anyone have information about the size of the pocket of stalingrad during the different stages of the battle? I couldn't find data anywhere. I'm asking mainly from interest, but I think it would be relevant to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.13.175 (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2018

It needs 40,000 civilians to be added for the Soviet side 124.180.195.182 (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Missing Source Cited

In many places of the article there's a reference to Bergstrom (2007). Only a 2006 book by him exists. Is this an error for the 2006 book or is there an edit that erased the 2007 one? 104.172.125.252 (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

German(s)?

Grammatical error in the section "Sixth Army surrounded" on the third image. The caption says, "German dead in the city". The image depicts multiple dead bodies lying in a ditch. I think that "German" should be replaced with "Germans" or "German soldiers". TrueRavin (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually « German » here is being used as an adjective, not a noun, and it is grammatically correct to refer to « German dead ».

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Stalingrad/Archive_4&oldid=921803075"