Talk:Battle of Stalingrad/Archive 1

First comment
A very good article as it stands. Two changes just now that I question:

(1) Regarding Halder: the original says Hitler dismissed him, replacing him with Gen. Kurt Zeitzler, a spineless yes-man. The most recent change makes this into replacing him with the more tractable Zeitzler. I agree that the former phrase is a little unencyclopedic, but simply saying "more tractable" understates the case. For a general in such a senior position, Zeitzler was "a spineless yes-man". Hmmm..

(2) Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is  a monumental history. On the other hand, Shirer inflates the achievements of his own (US and Commonwealth) forces at the expense of the Soviets. I am uncomfortable with the quote, because it is a mistake to place Stalingrad alongside Alemain and Torch: Stalingrad was more significant than either.

Finally, I think the entry needs more sense of the horror and desperation that made Stalingrad the battle that it was, and of the canny way that the Soviet commanders kept on dribbling in just barely enough reinforcement to hold the city, forcing a (relative) handful of defenders do the work of thousands in conditions of unbelievable hardship.

Next time I'm reading on the topic and have it fresh in my mind, I'll try to drop back in and convey a little of this. Tannin 09:21 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Retreat
Weren't the Russian retreats prior to the Battle of Stalingrad a military tactic to outflank the Germans? Didn't they intentionally fall back while destroying facilities on the way to make the German's ill-equipped and ill-dressed for wintery warfare in Russian Terrain? I'm not really sure but this is from what I remember... can somebody clarify?...


 * Thats is true but it was before the battle of Stalingrad. The tactic youre talking about is called Scorched earth.--DerMeister 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Street Fighting
We all know the basic defense strategy on the Eastern Front was street fighting. Soldiers fight from city to city, taking street by street and through house by house. Stalingrad was a great example of this.

My question is how come the Soviets, using street fighting, defended Stalingrad for 4-5 months yet the Germans barely defended their key cities like Berlin, Prague, and Budapest for a couple of weeks? Is the Soviet style of street fighting somehow "better" than the German style of street fighting? --Secret Agent Man 23:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The russian's did not necessarily have more effective "street combat" or even necessarily more effective leaders (although i think so) what won the battle in Stalingrad was the frevor with which every russian soldgier fought the germans had invaded their country and killed million of russian civilians the germans had no real motive aside for "cleansing" the russians fought to the death their arm would break unable to fire a gun they would grab grenades with their good hand and pull the pin with their teeth the russians thought as Chuikov said "there is no land for us beyond the volga" -Kvladiko


 * One word: Resupply. A life expectancy of 24 hours meant that one had to constantly ship more troops into the battle. The Red Army did, the Germans in 1945 could not. They were also often behind 5:1 or even 10:1 in numbers and in 1945 they forces were to a large extentyoung teenagers, older men and invalides.--itpastorn 12:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5:1 or 10:1 is a bit too much (2.5 or 3 is a more appropriate figure - 2.5 for Berlin, a bit more for Budapest and a bit less than 2:1 for Königsberg) but of course you're right about the bottom line. :o) grafikm_fr 22:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Answer to Kvladiko: Such propaganda. First of all I think most people would agree on that the leaders of neither sides were in a military manner extremely bright. Further the idea that the russians would fight untill their hands were ripped of their body sounds to me riddiculous. Most of the men on the front line were forced there, if you didn't come you were simply shot along with your family. That doesn't leave you with many options unless you don't like your family. Last, but cretainly not least, the russians, armed with shovels and sticks, that turned back from the machinegun fire were shot by their own commanders. Oh such heroism. As for those of you who concider Zhukov to be a military master-mind, HAH! He is nothing more than a butcher of his own soliders. --DerMeister 21:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you aren't being objective. You condemn the so called "propoganda" which is no more than fact, I assure you, and yet you make sweeping statements like "oh such heroism" and "nothing but a butcher of his own soldiers". My great grand father fought at Stalingrad and yes, the soldiers DID fight heroically and yes, did have a better cause to fight for - their homes. I don't know you, but it seems like you confuse pride in one's country with propoganda - Kvladiko did not say anything that even comes close to propoganda, his post is a little exagerated in places, granted, but incidents like those he describes are not unheard of. The point is, don't make negative statements without offering constructive advice - if you have nothing useful to say, don't say anything at all. - I. Ignatov

Streamlining
I agree with User:Tannin that Western sources tend to downplay the Soviet contribution to WWII, although the German-Soviet war was the largest single conflict in the history of mankind. In addition, the focus on planning in the German military command tends to be at the expense of realistic descriptions of Soviet sacrifice in battle. I have now shortened the article and highlighted some issues that Tannin has mentioned: the combat itself that made Stalingrad the bloodiest battle in history.

--Kolt 18:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Equating the Third Reich with the Federal Republic of Germany
While I very much appreciate the ambition to balance the coverage of WWII, where the Great Patriotic War has been disgracefully overlooked in the West during the Cold War, I am concerned with the removal of links to other wikipedia articles.

On a more personal account, I, as a German who has lived outside of Germany for most of the last 14 years, am concerned by what I perceive as a recently increasing anti-German bias in particularly US mass media, signified by the shift from depicturing the de-nazification of West Germany as marking  discontinuity with the Third Reich to today increasing emphasize on the perceived similarities between Nazi Germany and the present-day republic.

I am sorry to see, and disturbed by, the same tendency here, with references to the Third Reich and to Nazi Germany changed into Germany or German (redirected to the article on the federal republic).

--Ruhrjung 09:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I suppose that there are superficial simliarities, given that when governments change it is common to recycle old laws, civil service, infrastructure and so on. Americans should know better, having carried over so many trappings from our own existence as colonies, but it's true that many of us Just Don't Get It. About all that can be done is to make corrections or clarifications when such things ae found, I guess :( iMeowbot~Mw 19:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No need to worry
References to "Germany" as the aggressor in WWII in Europe are in my view not strange at all. To the contrary, what worried me more during the years that I spent in Germany myself was the occasional absence of the word Germany. Instead, the war and the genocide seemed to have been single-handedly carried out by "Hitler" alone, or by a funny nation called "Nazis". The emphasis on "Nazis" instead of "Germans" of course coincided with Cold War ideology on both sides of the Iron Curtain: as both the US and the USSR were in alliance with each a half of post-war Germany, both wanted to distinguish their modern allies from their brutal predecessor. Official Soviet propaganda in addition wanted to make a point of fighting a political communism-versus-fascism struggle. See Reich-Ranicki's memoirs, where he remembers working as a censor for the Polish army towards the end of the war, replacing "damn Germans" with "damn Nazis" in soldiers' letters.

Anyway, in the present article on "Stalingrad" I find that the terminology is quite balanced. The term Nazi-Germany, which is very correct to mention, appears in the introduction. For the rest, the Germans are indeed referred to as Germans, for that is what they undeniably were after all: Germans.

--Kolt 12:24, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We seem to see the same facts on the ground. The question then arises: Do we want the Germans to identify with Nazi Germany? --Ruhrjung 14:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Calling war-time Germans "Germans" instead of "Nazis" points at the fact that WWII involved the German nation as a whole, not just its leadership. Overcoming selective perception ("Germans fought on the front, Nazis shot the civilians", "Nazis bombed London, Germans suffered in Hamburg") should in my view be part of Aufarbeitung, facing and dealing with the Nazi period. --Kolt 14:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see. And in your opinion, the wikipedia is the right place to educate the Germans? --Ruhrjung 15:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whenever you get to know new things, including different sets of terminology, that's a sort of education. For nationals of any country. And that's exactly what a network-based encyclopedia should be all about, don't you agree? --Kolt 15:20, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would warn against seeing a colaborative project as a means to continue World War II "with other means." --Ruhrjung 15:44, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) (alluding at Clausewitz. :-)

Oh geez. Could we possibly just agree not to try to sneak POVs and political correctness into these kinds of articles? If you look at the authoritative historians, they use "Germans" for the nation as a whole, and Nazis for the political part of the state. The army consisted of many more Germans than just Nazis for instance, so calling it the "Nazi Army" instead of "German Army" is just wrong. Stan 15:59, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. --Kolt 08:38, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kolt and I do often agree. Here too. :-) --Ruhrjung 07:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I personally think it's not bias, but an attempt to be as specific as possible. The Federal Republic of Germany is a significantly different entity then Nazi Germany and Imperial Germany, just as the Wehrmacht is different then the Bundeswehr.  IMO, using the term "Germany" should mostly be reserved for geographical references (a town in Germany, the Allies bombed the German cities Dresden etc.) and the specific entity when referring to political actions ( Germany invaded the Soviet Union etc.) Oberiko 13:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Total Agreement. American have done things ( like slavery ) however when your in the northern part of the country you don't hear of the "Southerns" having slaver you hear of the Americans having slavery.  The Same principal should hold true for the germans.  Not all germans were Nazi's but the Nazi's were predominantely german.  PS ch 16:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, or just movie criticism
''# Enemy at the Gates, a 2001 American film over dramatizing the exploits of sniper Vasily Zaitsev. Directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud and starring Jude Law, Ed Harris and Rachel Weisz''

Heh, "over dramitizing." Yeah, it's a drama alright. Leave as is or change those words? :) Krupo 04:39, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sniper Discussion
The Soviet sniper was not Vasily Alexandrovich Zaitsev, but Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev. I'll fix this together with details of biography later. Cmapm 19:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have just reverted a change to the number killed by Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev, which was him being credited with 242 kills, his own page says 225 kills in the battle, and the original figure on this page was 149, can we please decide which number to quote. If in fact the number is bigger than 224 then we need to start rewording this section. --Pluke 18:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the Soviet Sniper page, it says 242. Sources for any of this? Benandorsqueaks 07:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

(Note: The article on Vassily Zaitzev claims that he was in fact responsible for 225 kills between November 10th and December 17th. Correction?). This question was put into the article text by an anonymous user - --Sf 14:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to be quite sceptic and add that the number may have greatly been boosted by the Sovjet propaganda papers. Even if he him self claims to have killed X amount of people it doesn't matter, taking credit for something "great" is easy.--DerMeister 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * the X amount is the amount of credited (or confirmed) kills, not the claimed total, which exceeds 1000 for some WWII snipers. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tales of snipers fictional?
I read somewhere that since the fall of the Soviet Union evidence has been discovered that the whole sniper drama at Stalingrad was a propaganda product of the Soviets, has anyone else heard this?


 * Certainly the sniper tales were used effectively in the Soviet propaganda machine. However, I think the historical record, esp. German records, confirm at least some of the facts. Beanbatch 17:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The drama between Zaitsev and Thorvalds aka Koenig is pure fiction. Propaganda to 100 %. The man Zaitsev was not. He was really a super sniper. He is a hero in his own right. No need to lie about him. Actually too bad someone decided to lie as it's a stain on an otherwise heroic person.--itpastorn 13:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And you knows this because...? Evidence is...? Facts are...? Quotes are...?


 * It's rather well-known that Itpastorn's statement is wholly correct. The burden of proof would be on those who want to back the fictional account, not on those who are calling it (rightly) into question. It is very easy to find sources documenting the existence of Zaitsev. Try finding a reputable post-1990 source, or any German source, to document the existence of the German half of the story. You'll come up empty-handed.DMorpheus 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if you knew what it has been like after the war in Russia and its Soviet satellites, then you would've known better of the challenges. There are veterans praising Stalin as their saviour, selling their war medals on both the streets and EBay, and even others saying that they would have rather seen the Germans win. It's a sick, twisted and ugly reality, which has perverted the many things that should have been saved. On top of that, there are still tons of classified war documents that hold the answers to the many questions that we have (probably the biggest of them all, is the total casualties). To simply say, "It happened, and there is no argument against it" in such a complex and important discussion as this (as opposed to something like, who will win the basketball game next week), is not only ignorant and unintelligent but also insulting.

NKVD Rear Guards
Why is there no mention of the NKVD rear guards that would gun down any retreating Russian forces. Surely that is something that should be noted!!

Don't confuse Hollywood with history, please. This an encyclopedia. Kazak 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, not to endorse Hollywood, but the security organs of the USSR *did* operate 'blocking detachments' at times to ensure that Red Army units did not retreat without orders. DMorpheus 14:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Their purpose was to check documents on the roads, not "gun down any retreating Russian forces". The military police served the same function in the US Army. Of course, they killed more deserters (sometimes, like when order #227 was in effect, on the spot) than the MPs, but that was only due to the nature of the Soviet regime. What the user above suggests is a self-destructive mania for slaughter commonly ascribed to the Russian armies of history but in reality a product of myths, furthered by Hollywood and propaganda. Cossack 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa, we are straying from the topic a bit, but US Army MPs most assuredly do not fire on deserters. Their major function in conventional WW2-style combat is traffic control and rear area security, plus some constabulary duties. I am not suggesting that scenes such as what is shown in the film "Enemy At The Gates" should be a source here, nor even that such scenes were common. I agree wholheartedly that there has been a lot of myth built up around that issue. But we can't deny the historical conduct of blocking detachments. It is precisely the nature of the Soviet regime that is the point here. DMorpheus 18:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Operation Uranus
This is currently a separate article, and some of the details don't seem to completely match up with what is presented in this article. It might be a good idea for someone with a good grasp of the details to either reconcile the two articles, or perhaps merge that rather short Uranus article to here (and at the same time, fix up Template:Campaignbox Axis-Soviet War to match). iMeowbot~Mw 08:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Planning methods
Revert the deleton. Would it be relevant if a new tank model or a bomber plane were used in the battle for the first time? Yes, I think it would. Then why isn't the use of innovative planning methods in one of the largest battle of the 20th century relevant? This isn't a bizarre claim, this is a well-known fact. A lot of planned methods were developed during the Great Patriotic War and later used in the socialist economy. Paranoid 13:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Background
I thought the way to the Azerbaidjan oil fields had nothing to do with Stalingrad, and that the only reason Hitler was so stubborn with the battle was because the city was called Stalingrad?


 * Besides the propaganda importance over the city's name ..it was a communications/logistics node for that more southerly campaign in the Caucasus (azerbaidjan) -max rspct 15:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Jempy 14:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) but to cut off Stalingrad it was enough to bring to city and the Wolga under German weapons. There was no need and also no plans to take the city. German general command shrinked from city fighting. As did Hitler. Which shows in the siege of Leningrad. The strike at Stalingrad was meant to cut off the north-south transportation via the Wolga. And to secure the attack of Heeresgruppe A into the Caucasus. That Stalingrad was not a priority shows from the fact that Hitler redirected the 4th Panzer Armee to Heeresgruppe A, taking the momentum out of the attack of Heeresgruppe B. Why Hitler changed the orginal plans by directly attacking Stalingrad is unkown, but surely can only be for propaganda reasons. Which Hitler has always denied. During the battle of Stalingrad the sixth army even burned the reserves of Heeresgruppe A, which meant that the oilfields remained out of german reach.

Other Turning Points
I removed this section, what was the point? Document the rest of WWII here? Did not seem appropriate, kinda unNPOV, and the list keeps changing. Beanbatch 08:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why have this section Other major turning points of WWII here? It seems to me this section is attempting to dilute the Russian POV as a major turning point in WWII.  What does this add to the article?  Very subjective list, anyway.  I say it should be deleted.  Beanbatch 18:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish. They are generally accepted as the highwater marks of Axis military aggression. If it dilutes POV GREAT! Also, web surfers may well know little about the military "progression" of the war unless they read the whole article on WWII. Having a lttle section like this can lead to other turning points in other theaters of war. Battle of Midway was the turning point in the pacific; Battle of Alamein was the that of the desert war. I don't want to trivialize the war or in anyway sideline the eastern front. But perhaps it would be helpful to mention that servicemen in both European theaters were aware of the monumental outcomes of the 'other battle' e.g north africa  8th Army soldiers were aware of stalingrad and vice versa... German soldiers called the surrender at tunis as "Tunisgrad" because of the large number of germansoldiers taken their -max rspct 10:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with Beanbatch's edit and agree it should be removed or altered. Although it may be conventional wisdom and even accepted by many historians, it is still POV to declare what are the key turning-points. Maybe a compromise would be to label the section, "Other events often considered major turning points in World War II." I agree that the Russian issue is not the key problem though. Tfine80 15:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

So you admit it is accepted by historians? If you have alternative views on the turning points what are they? You can put them in if you like. As for the change/renaming reorgainisation - i accept THAT current compromise -max rspct 17:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So I appreciate Tfine80's efforts at diplomacy. Recent edits took them all away, however.  Too bad that this section, which has NOTHING to do with Stalingrad, gets changed so much.  I have tried again.  Renamed to "See also", as in many other articles.  Also moved it to the bottom, so as not to affect the flow of the actual article.  Comments? Beanbatch 19:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Why Stalingrad?
Hmm very interesting article and most good written. But why is the reason of this battle not noted? Where was Stalingrad fought over? I think that should be added aswell. This city was of strategic importance because if it was conquered by the facists they could travel to Baku (by that time Baku was producing 60% of the worldoil). This could lead to intant victory to the nazi army. And therefore is the most important battle of WOII somebody should add that aswell.


 * I agree the reaons for the battle should be included. The trouble of course is figuring out what that reason was. From the little I know, it appears that the city itself was not a German objective prior to the start of the campaign, nor did the Soviets expect to fight there. I would also say there is no step that either side could have taken to secure "instant victory" except perhaps the assassination of one of the two dictators.

Stavka expected that the main German effort in summer 1942 would be on the central part of the front facing Moscow. I don't see any evidence that they saw the city itself as a strategic point for any reason other than prestige (the Tsaritsyn legend from the civil war was a recent memory).

If the German objective was to cut off the flow of transportation up the volga (as is often stated) they could have accomplished that far more easily by taking any portion of the western bank north of Stalingrad and simply sat there with artillery. That would have completely interdicted traffic. By the way, this would also have denied a large part of the Soviet supply of caucasian oil regardless of whether the oilfields themselves were taken.

If the German objective was to seize the oilfields of the caucasus, again they could have done that without taking Stalingrad, although the railheads would have been awfully useful to have.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Germans did the Soviets a huge favor by blundering into battle within the city of Stalingrad. By doing so they gave away all their advantages in mobile battle and offered up a close-range, small-unit infantry, mortar, and sapper battle that the Red Army had a much better chance of winning than, say, a mechanized campaign on the open steppe west and north of Stalingrad.

You have to wonder whether the battle would have happened at all if the city had had a different name.


 * No, I think the battle really was about control of the Volga and the railways that led into and out of the city. The Germans had very poor intelligence about the Soviet Union throughout the war, and like almost any government in wartime they fell into the trap of believing their own propaganda. As a result they severely underestimated the Soviets' ability to rebuild their armies. The primary objective of the German summer offensive of 1942 was initially to grab control of the oil fields of the Caucasus. After winning a string of easy victories, then meeting light opposition as they advanced eastwards, Hitler and his senior officers started believing that the Soviet Union was finished as a fighting force, and brushed aside reports of a massive Soviet buildup of reserves. They really thought they could split own their armies and gain control of both the Caucasus and the Volga. As it turned out they could do neither.


 * It's very easy to look at this with 20/20 hindisght and say that the change in strategy was a mistake. We don't know what would have happened if Hitler had concentrated his armies in the Caucasus. The disaster might well have been worse. Zhukov might have launched the same sort of offensive and cut off all of Army Group South, instead of just the sixth army. We don't know. The Stalingrad disaster was not bad strategy as much as the fact that no one in the German high command believed that the Soviets were capable of launching a counter-offensive like Uranus, and they were totally unprepared when it happened.


 * The other thing to realize is that because of the huge areas and distances involved, all of the strategy on the Eastern front revolved around roads, railways and river systems. Whoever could move and supply his armies most efficiently held the strategic initiative. It was really that simple. As a railway center on the Volga Stalingrad had major strategic value for both sides.

Well, I can't say I agree whole heardetly. It was only a few months into the offensive, after the the Izium Pocket, that Hitler established Stalingrad as a target, and his orders to destroy the city through a bombardment go contrary to the theory that he wished to establish a much needed railroad hub there. On the contraire, I think that Hitler saw it as a center fold piece to control of the Caucuasus, and that control of Stalingrad would cut off Moscow and her armies and the the armies in the Caucasus, and thus dooming Russia's oil fields and guaranteeing them for Germany. In fact, I don't believe Hitler had much belief that he would follow up with a southwardly invasion of Moscow, and instead needed the oil to refit Army Group Center.

In retrospect, Stalingrad was a horrible strategy, within the context of how the actual battle was carried out. The bombardment was a tactical debacle and it technically, although perhaps disputably, ensured Soviet success in the battle. The way the Germans handled the street to street fighting was equally as disastrous; Stalingrad shouldn't have been directly invested in the first place. It should have been sorrounded and forced to surrender; most of Germany's earlier victories at Kiev and Smolensk were done in the same manner. Even in earlier examples, such as Warsaw in September 1939, Mansten's armour was devoured in the suburbs of Warsaw, and it was only a stroke of genius that allowed him to disengage from there and deploy his armour to finalize the encirclement around Polish troops in the center of the country.

But, then again, that's just my theory on it all. Catalan 07:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Video Games Section
I am not supportive of many of the games listed in the Video Games section. Why list Sudden Strike or Call of Duty when ignoring other games such as Close Combat? The list could be huge and from the apparent criteria used here to select the games - Where any war game ever having a few levels set in Stalingrad is included - should be huge. I believe this section in its current form is unnecessary, games solely dedicated to Stalingrad should be the only criteria. I am deleting other games, as I have done previously without objection; please discuss any objections here.--Pluke 10:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Expand an incomplete list is always better than deleting it! The fact that it can be huge and could be split in another article is a different question however... ^_^ grafikm_fr 09:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but can we store the list here for the moment, I feel that it adds nothing but length to the main article, after all we don't list every insignificant book that ever had a sentence on the battle --Pluke 10:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Video games
 * ''Close Combat III: The Russian Front (1999)
 * Sudden Strike (2000)
 * Battlefield 1942 (2002)
 * Call of Duty (2003)
 * Call of Duty: Finest Hour (2004)
 * Call of Duty 2 (2005)
 * Medal of Honor: Spearhead (2003)
 * Medal of Honor: European Assault (2005)
 * Red Orchestra: Combined Arms (2004)
 * Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45 (2006)
 * Stalingrad (2005)

Not precisely Video Games, but there are multiple wargames dealing with Stalingrad:

Stalingrad (AH) - 1963 Stalingrad Pocket I and II (The Gamers/MMP) - 1994 - part of the Standard Combat Series Turning Point: Stalingrad (AH) - 1989 Red Barricades (AH) - 1999 - module for Advanced Squad Leader

and, of course, many scenarios and small-press published games. 66.91.114.251 07:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, you certainly seem to know your stuff, please sign up to wikipedia and help us out, if we have enough info we could eventually expand to a Battle of Stalingrad in popular culture or similar article. Pluke 11:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm signed in, and I have an email on my new signin. I'm a total noob, but I'm happy to help out; could you toss me an email to let me know what to do next?   Jarretestin 09:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A "What If" section
Of all the articles about World War 2, I think this one deserves a "What If" section the most. If Battle of Dunkirk has it, so should Battle of Stalingrad. 64.235.219.247 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

the role of Zhukov
My edit about the role of Zhukov has been removed by Igny. This was my edit:

"According to Victor Suvorov general Zhukov cannot be responsible for the Stalingrad offensive. The offensive was planned by colonel Potapow, the operational map being dated 30 july 1942 and signed by Potapow and Vassilevski (as superior officer). By that time Potapow had also completely worked out the plan. Zhukov at that time was attacking Sytschevka, Rschev and Wyasma. Shukov visited the Stalingrad area for the first time on 31 august 1942. His last visit ended on 16 november 1942. On 19 november the russian counterattack in the Stalingrad area started, thus without it's "planner". Stalin had ordered Zhukov away from Stalingrad, to attack Sytschevka again. It was Vassilevski who was sent to Stalingrad in november 1942 to command to offensive."

Suvorov is highly critical about Zhukov. As always Suvorov uses only publicly accessable data to prove his point. Furthermore, an article in the russian army newspaper (Krasnaja Swesda) confirms on 1 september 1992 that Potapow came up with and worked out the plan for the russian offensive around Stalingrad. The original map with signatures has been found in the archives of the general staff after the fall of communism in russia.

I think there is enough proof to alter the text of the main article. What is your opinion about Shukov? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jempy (talk • contribs)


 * Comment While I don't know much about the topic, I believe as written, this paragraph is clearly POV and doesn't belong to the article. However if true, it is possible to rewrite it in more neutral way. (Igny 20:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC))


 * First, Suvorov is a highly controversial writer and his works are considered OR by many.
 * Second, do you really think that a colonel would plan an offensive involving several armies? Please... Vasilevsky certainly did since he was the Chief of Staff, but a colonel...
 * Third, Zhukov presumably planned that offensive, not executed it, which is not the same thing. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  20:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Red October factory
In changing Red October from a redirect to October Revolution to a disambig, I changed the reference here (which discussed the factory, but pathologically linked to October Revolution). I made a to a red article Red October (factory), but should that be Red October (steelworks) instead? Is the factory interesting and notable enough to warrant an article of its own right (in particular, does it have a noteworthy history before and after the Battle of Stalingrad)? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)