Talk:Battle of Stalingrad/Archive 5

Casualties
Restored archived discussion diff

@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)

March 2019
User Baccaihp appears to claim the same diff as previous blocked socks Uoat365, Rudotua, and Utakem8. It seems to me that this another alt-account of the same person. Wildkatzen (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019
Move the picture to the right (Collage. The Eternal Flame in Mamayev Kurgan, Volgograd, Russia) from the "Red Army" section under "Orders of battle" to the "Commemoration" section under "Significance", as the picture, showing the Eternal Flame in the Hall of Military Glory is part of the Mamayev Kurgan Memorial Complex and so is related to the commemoration of the Battle of Stalingrad.

AreaXimus (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! —  Newslinger  talk   09:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Croatian commander ?
Someone can put Victor Pavičić among the Croatian belligerent commanders? I can't do it. Alph2 (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

El Alamein was more important
The article overstates the importance of Stalingrad. From a strategic point of view the Second Battle of El Alamein was far more important as it ensured Allied victory in the North African Campaign, prevented the Axis from conquering the Middle East with its vast oil reserves, allowed the Allies to win the Battle of the Mediterranean, ended the Siege of Malta, and made possible the Allied invasions of Sicily, Italy and southern France. Also the lede should mention that Hitler opposed the 6th army evacuating Stalingrad on the advice of Goring and Manstein. Paulus failed to request permission to leave when the Soviet counteroffensive began in November 1942. (86.131.7.102 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC))
 * 1. This is not a debating forum, but you could make a brief addition (1–2 sentences) to the "Significance" section, with sources, to the effect that some historians don't think Stalingrad was so important. However, a detailed discussion of El Alamein would not be appropriate. In any case, I think you made the same point a year ago. If so, there is no point in repeating the same argument if you're not going to suggest improvements to the article. 2. The lead is a summary and can't go into details about the failure to evacuate.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Stalingrad was of great symbolic importance. Its name still sends a shiver down the spine of many Germans :) Of course, it did not change the outcome of the war. The city would probably have been captured without a fight if Paulus had not ordered a day's rest before attacking, and in that case we'd care little about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.130 (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * aiming to capture stalingrad(as opposed to losing the battle) may not have been important initially, from axis pov. but once it became an objective anyway, not losing the battle and later preventing the loss of forces there, became important even from axis pov. whole campaign and final victory at stalingrad was very important from soviet pov. loss of battle resulted in huge losses for axis, and prevented axis from carrying on with capturing caucuses' oil fields. as such this suggestion based on privileging of initial axis objectives of war, over neutral, later axis, and soviet  pov, and final results of battle's importance to the whole course of war is extremely problematic.

Biological warfare by the Soviet Union
A mysterious outbreak of tularemia occurred in the Stalingrad area in July 1942. It mostly affected German soldiers and this fact was noticed by doctors on both sides. Ken Alibek's book Biohazard talks about a biological weapons program by the Soviet Union and suggests that this illness was intentionally spread by them. This would make sense since the Soviet Union was the only country at that time which had a vaccine for that disease. The Soviet Union had been researching biological weapons before the war and continued to do so after the war (which suggests they were not useless; comparable to post-war NSA funding by the Americans). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.130 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"the largest confrontation of World War II"
In the lead sentence. Need clarifying/amending. Higher strength figures are given in the Strength box for e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dringle44 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed this to "largest battle". Obviously "confrontation" could mean anything. The largest confrontation in WW2 was in fact WW2 itself!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Redundant redundancy that is redundantly redundant. Largest in history period, as was already stated. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request for April 2020 (minor typos)
Currently, the first paragraph reads:

"In the Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943), Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in Southern Russia. Marked by fierce close-quarters combat and direct assaults on civilians in air raids, it is one of bloodiest battle in the history of warfare, with an estimated 2 million total casualties. After their defeat at Stalingrad, the German High Command had to withdraw vast military forces from the Western Front to replace their losses."

I have bolded the mistakes that I see. "it is one of bloodiest battle" should of course be "it is one of the bloodiest battles ", and "withdraw vast military forces" should be "withdraw vast amounts of military forces".

There are a few more such mistakes in the rest of the article, and hopefully somebody can take a look at these. Considering that this article is considered decently important, it should at the very least have grammatically correct writing.


 * FixedDriverofknowledge (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Croatia's participation
There is no mention of Croatia's participation in the battle. Directly in the urban battles in Stalingrad on the side of Hitler's Germany participated 369th reinforced Croatian infantry regiment, a total of 6,300 soldiers. The regiment participated in the fighting until the very end and was destroyed as part of the entire German group in Stalingrad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.81.219.201 (talk • contribs)
 * Got a reliable source to attribute these numbers? El_C 05:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * See 369th Croatian Reinforced Infantry Regiment (Wehrmacht). 93.81.219.201 (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for verifying about the regiment — but the 6,300 figure is not noted in that article. Got a reliable source for that? El_C 06:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Numbers dance, because Stalingrad was not a resort place, a place of brutal battle. Hundreds and thousands died there. 6300 is the maximum rating. In January 1943, few surrendered at all. But the numbers are in the literature. Романько О. В. (in Russian) Romanko O. V. (in English) [www.e-reading-lib.org/chapter.php/1002618/6/Romanko_Oleg_-_Za_Fyurera_i_Poglavnika.html "За фюрера и Поглавника" (in Russian, "For the Fuhrer and Poglavnik" in English ]. — 2006.


 * If you take other numbers from the page I gave you, I won't mind.


 * 93.81.219.201 (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Understood. Please feel free to draft the prose for a concrete edit request proposal. El_C 06:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The numbers are named, but I understand you don't read Russian. Right? Well, then take the numbers from the English-language page, let it be 4500, and not 6300 in this Croatian regiment on the Hitler side. But I think that it is better to believe the Russians in this case. And from the very beginning - nothing is said about this Croatian regiment at all on the page about Stalingrad. That's bad. 93.81.219.201 (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Right, I don't read Russian, but I agree that Russian data about the 369th in the Battle of Stalingrad is likely reliable. Again, please feel free to write out your specific desired edit here as an edit request. El_C 06:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No more than to put among the "Units involved" this 369th reinforced Croatian regiment with a strength of 4.500. (if you are confused by the figure 6.300) 93.81.219.201 (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand where in the article you wish to place the addition. El_C 07:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * At the very beginning of the page, where a table provides brief information about" units involved "and"strength". I think this is the right thing to do. 93.81.219.201 (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * But those are all field army-sized units, so I'm not sure a regiment-sized unit would fit among them. El_C 07:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 4500-6300 soldiers is not a small number. 93.81.219.201 (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It's small relative to the other units listed, which again, are all field army-sized units. El_C 07:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 4500-6300 soldiers is not a small number in any case. In addition, the political side is particularly important in this case. It is important to point out Croatia's participation in the Hitlerite military coalition of countries among other countries. We must not forget this. 93.81.219.201 (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Repetition is unhelpful — please be responsive. Again, I don't think it fits in the infobox for the reason already given. El_C 07:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course, you have a right to think so. But Russians don't think so, in a Russian wiki-article about Stalingrad, it is written about Croats in the service of Hitler. 93.81.219.201 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You can add prose to that effect to the article — again, please feel free to draft a proposal. But it doesn't fit in the infobox. El_C 07:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is your opinion, not some kind of verdict. I told you that the Russians have a different opinion. 93.81.219.201 (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is my decision. Since the page is semiprotected, it's all you got at the moment. El_C 07:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is your right to an opinion. But this is just your opinion. Nothing more than an opinion. 93.81.219.201 (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You can't make the edit without me, so call it what you wish. El_C 08:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite true. 93.81.219.201 (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 6,000 is substantial in a smaller battle but considering that Stalingrad involved more than 2 million, it isn't here. There's no need to mention Croatian participation together with the army sized units in the infobox as they did not fight as an independent major unit, being under the German 100th Jäger Division. In fact, they are probably included under the German numbers for that reason. Kges1901 (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I can only repeat that you are missing the political side of the issue. In this case, it is necessary to mention the participation of Croatia in the Hitlerite coalition. And 4500-6300 soldiers is NOT so small. 93.81.219.201 (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, the "HW" were mentioned in this article in the infobox. Who are the "HW"? They did bring water to make porridge. Or were they chopping wood for the kitchen. Is this a fighting force? A reinforced infantry regiment of 4500-6300 soldiers is "small". What nonsense. 93.81.219.201 (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

historian name and book title a little wrong
the article is protected, so i can't fix it.

in 2 places Allan Millet should get an extra letter t on the end of his name. his wikipedia page is Allan R. Millett.

and the title of his book in the references section is missing the leading A. it should be 'A war to be won' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:8500:D72:C168:6738:9C7D:72A4 (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Operation Winter Storm
The entire "Operation Winter Storm" section of this article is copy-and-pasted word-for-word without any citations from Beevor, 1998. I'm not a big Wikipedia user so I don't know whether that's considered acceptable but I just thought I'd bring it up so people know about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.126.126 (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

All counts are approximate at time of this writing.

--> remove

centre(s) --> center(s) (5 instances)

stabilised --> stabilized (1 instance)

realised --> realized (2 instances)

strong-point(s) --> strongpoint(s) (5 instances, and yes one word is the Wikipedia standard see strongpoint)

kilometres --> kilometers (1 instance)

defence --> defense (11 instances)

meagre --> meager (1 instance)

organised --> organized (1 instance)

organisation --> organization (1 instance)

gun-sight(s) --> gunsight(s) (1 instance as with strongpoint above)

unauthorised --> unauthorized (1 instance)

labelled --> labeled (2 instances)

theatre(s) --> theater(s) (4 instances)

recognising --> recognizing (1 instance)

motorised --> motorized (4 instances)

front-line --> frontline (2 instances])

armour --> armor (2 instances)

armoured --> armored (4 instances)

sombre --> somber (2 instances)

These are more stylistic but may still be worth reverting under the revert everything model.

residential areas --> residential neighborhoods

The Germans used aircraft --> The Germans used airpower 74.73.230.173 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Edit is from November 2019, with a significant number of edits to the article since then. Jack Frost (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2020
Add the German 17th Army to Units involved. They were part of the Army Group Don, and commanded by Generalobsert Richard Ruoff. Bruiseryoshi (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 12:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Western Front?
as of now article lede says "After their defeat at Stalingrad, the German High Command had to withdraw considerable military forces from the Western Front to replace their losses". what western front? there was no western front at the time. western front was opened only two years later. i doubt the cited source mentions "western front". sentence should be changed to, "After their defeat at Stalingrad, the German High Command had to withdraw considerable military forces from other theaters of operations to replace their losses", or similar.
 * As already stated before, there are some mistakes mistakes in this article. You are absolutely right, there was no so-called Western Front before June 1944 (even if you counted the Allies landing in Sicilia, July '43 would be the earliest). In fact, these troops had been stationed in Western Europe for training, refreshment/reinforcement, or simply as occupation units. One could simply correct this mistake (as it should be a well-known fact), but I'm afraid this could just be reverted, if no sources are presented. --Ennimate (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As there hasn't been any objection, I've just corrected the phrase to "theatres of war". --Ennimate (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2020
Hello, I was going around earlier reverting disruptive page moves and engvar changes made by Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe a now blocked sockpuppet (sockmaster blocked for same kind of disruption), the edits to be reverted is this one, details below.

I understand there are two schools of thought on this. Per one school every edit made by sockpuppets needs to be reverted or else if they succeed even a small amount of the time they will keep making more sockpuppets to incrementally force through their weird personal preferences. But there are also others who feel that for mere MOS violations where it's not POV-pushing or hoaxes to just leave it alone as to much of a time sink to revert, so I'll understand if this edit request is declined. X->Y is collapsed, ctrl+f may be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.230.173 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Finnish soldiers at Stalingrad?
Hello!

I've found an interview of a Romanian war veteran on YouTube, who fought at Stalingrad. From what he says, there were Finnish soldiers in the area, who fought against the Soviets. I've never heard of Finland sending its troops down there, nor have I been able to find anything on the topic (I haven't done a lot of research, though).

Does anyone have sources about this? I notice that the article doesn't say anything about Finland. The interview, which is in Romanian, can be found here; the talk about Finnish soldiers starts at the 11:20 minute mark.

Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021
79.13.135.42 (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC) The soviet victory was decisive
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Role of Army Group A during the battle
''Even, with the desperate situation of the Sixth Army, Army Group A continued their invasion of the Caucasus further south from 19 November until 19 December. By 19 December the German army was in full retreat out of the Caucasus, while using the Sixth Army to tie down the Soviet forces. Hence army Group A was never used to help relieve the Sixth Army.'' — This is wrong in many ways. First of all, there was no further offensive action by Army Group A after the beginning of November, when 17th Army had not been able to take the city of Tuapse on the nothern coast of the Black Sea. Same for the mountain divisions, that could not surpass the Caucasus and take Sukhumi. Farther in the east, 1st Panzer Army's advances towards Grosny and Vladikavkaz (then: Ordzhonikidze) were stopped by the Red Army at the outskirts of both cities. Due to a lack of material, manpower and fuel, there was no more attacking in that region, just holding the ground for several weeks. The retreat out of the Caucasus did only take place when Hitler ordered it in the end of December, as Army Group A was in danger to be cut off by Soviet attacks towards Rostov after Operation Winter Storm had failed. However, this only began on 31st of December, not about two weeks prior. So this whole paragraph is to be corrected accordingly at least. --Ennimate (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If sources to cite for this are presented, the article can be changed. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  01:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, here we go with only a handful examples:
 * Encyclopedia of World War II: A Political, Social, and Military History
 * David R. Galbraith: The Defence and Evacuation of the Kuban Bridgehead, January – October 1943
 * Alexander Werth: The Battle of Stalingrad, Chapter 7, "Caucasus, there and back"
 * P.N. Pospelow: Geschichte des Großen Vaterländischen Krieges der Sowjetunion
 * Percy Ernst Schramm: Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht. Band 2
 * Walter Hubatsch: Hitlers Weisungen für die Kriegführung 1939–1945. Dokumente des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht
 * Carl Wagener: Heeresgruppe Süd
 * Rudolf Konrad: Kampf um den Kaukasus
 * Bernd Wegner: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg. Band 6: Der globale Krieg – Die Ausweitung zum Weltkrieg und der Wechsel der Initiative 1941 bis 1943; chapter Der Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion 1942/43. (page 1063 citing, that if Hitler's order to take back Army Group A from the Caucasus given on Dec. 28 had been given a month earlier, there might have been realistic chances to relief 6th army.)
 * Bernd Wegner: Der Mythos "Stalingrad" (19. November 1942–2. Februar 1943) as a part of Schlachtenmythen. Ereignis – Erzählung – Erinnerung.
 * The Institut für Zeitgeschichte published one of their journals (in German Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte) about the German plans for the Caucasus region in 2005 (titled Das „kaukasische Experiment" - the Caucasian experiment). Quote: Wie auch immer, die Frage erledigte sich mit dem Rückzug der Heeresgruppe A aus der Region ab dem 1. Januar 1943 im Zuge der Auswirkungen der Stalingrad-Katastrophe bei der benachbarten Heeresgruppe B [...] - loosely translated, that the question [how to handle a German controlled Caucasus region] was no more with the retreat of Army Group A after Jan. 1 1943 as a result of the catastrophy at Stalingrad.

To conclude: Except from maybe some smaller skirmishes for the city of Tuapse (which didn't change anything at all), there was no further offensive action of Army Group A in the given time phase. And it would be absolutely nonsense to believe, that the Germany continued their attacks in a large scale, when there was a giant battle in their back for the same time. A simple question of logistics. However, after A.G. A's attacks had come to a hold (in some places already in September and October), they did not retreat immediately; the front was literally frozen for weeks. The Germans couldn't go any further, the Soviets concentrated their efforts elsewhere (Stalingrad), for the moment they were satisfied ti have stopped the German advsce. After the encirclement of 6th army, A.G. A was originally ordered to hold out in its positions. On the one hand, the German high command did not doubt to be able to relief 6th army with their available forces, on the other hand any retreat would have given away the chance for further advance in 1943. If there ever had been such - in 1943, the Germans had the power for only two offensive strikes, one at Charkov in late winter, the other one at Kursk in July. It's hard to believe, that they could have progressed against well-defended Soviet positions with their lack of manpower, overstreched supply lines etc. More likely, the Soviets could have repelled them in 1943 anyway (in a smaller scale, this happened with the Kuban bridge head). However, the decision not to take back the Army Group into some defensive positions closer to the Don and to give free some urgently needed forces for offensive actions in the region of Stalingrad (whatever that might have had as outcome), was obsolete in the end of Dec., when Army Group Don under Manstein could not relief 6th Army (fail of operation Winter Storm), but got under heavy attack by the Red Army itself with the possibility of a Russian break through towards Rostov, which would have cut off Army Group A from the own lines. Only then the full retreat was ordered and followed - but as already cited above, this took place later then actually stated in the article. --Ennimate (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * {U|Ennimate} I have added a citation and minorly edited the sentence. Ping me to let me know I may have made a mistakeLostCitrationHunter (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021
79.13.135.42 (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC) The soviet victory was decisive
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Role of Army Group A during the battle
''Even, with the desperate situation of the Sixth Army, Army Group A continued their invasion of the Caucasus further south from 19 November until 19 December. By 19 December the German army was in full retreat out of the Caucasus, while using the Sixth Army to tie down the Soviet forces. Hence army Group A was never used to help relieve the Sixth Army.'' — This is wrong in many ways. First of all, there was no further offensive action by Army Group A after the beginning of November, when 17th Army had not been able to take the city of Tuapse on the nothern coast of the Black Sea. Same for the mountain divisions, that could not surpass the Caucasus and take Sukhumi. Farther in the east, 1st Panzer Army's advances towards Grosny and Vladikavkaz (then: Ordzhonikidze) were stopped by the Red Army at the outskirts of both cities. Due to a lack of material, manpower and fuel, there was no more attacking in that region, just holding the ground for several weeks. The retreat out of the Caucasus did only take place when Hitler ordered it in the end of December, as Army Group A was in danger to be cut off by Soviet attacks towards Rostov after Operation Winter Storm had failed. However, this only began on 31st of December, not about two weeks prior. So this whole paragraph is to be corrected accordingly at least. --Ennimate (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If sources to cite for this are presented, the article can be changed. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  01:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, here we go with only a handful examples:
 * Encyclopedia of World War II: A Political, Social, and Military History
 * David R. Galbraith: The Defence and Evacuation of the Kuban Bridgehead, January – October 1943
 * Alexander Werth: The Battle of Stalingrad, Chapter 7, "Caucasus, there and back"
 * P.N. Pospelow: Geschichte des Großen Vaterländischen Krieges der Sowjetunion
 * Percy Ernst Schramm: Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht. Band 2
 * Walter Hubatsch: Hitlers Weisungen für die Kriegführung 1939–1945. Dokumente des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht
 * Carl Wagener: Heeresgruppe Süd
 * Rudolf Konrad: Kampf um den Kaukasus
 * Bernd Wegner: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg. Band 6: Der globale Krieg – Die Ausweitung zum Weltkrieg und der Wechsel der Initiative 1941 bis 1943; chapter Der Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion 1942/43. (page 1063 citing, that if Hitler's order to take back Army Group A from the Caucasus given on Dec. 28 had been given a month earlier, there might have been realistic chances to relief 6th army.)
 * Bernd Wegner: Der Mythos "Stalingrad" (19. November 1942–2. Februar 1943) as a part of Schlachtenmythen. Ereignis – Erzählung – Erinnerung.
 * The Institut für Zeitgeschichte published one of their journals (in German Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte) about the German plans for the Caucasus region in 2005 (titled Das „kaukasische Experiment" - the Caucasian experiment). Quote: Wie auch immer, die Frage erledigte sich mit dem Rückzug der Heeresgruppe A aus der Region ab dem 1. Januar 1943 im Zuge der Auswirkungen der Stalingrad-Katastrophe bei der benachbarten Heeresgruppe B [...] - loosely translated, that the question [how to handle a German controlled Caucasus region] was no more with the retreat of Army Group A after Jan. 1 1943 as a result of the catastrophy at Stalingrad.

To conclude: Except from maybe some smaller skirmishes for the city of Tuapse (which didn't change anything at all), there was no further offensive action of Army Group A in the given time phase. And it would be absolutely nonsense to believe, that the Germany continued their attacks in a large scale, when there was a giant battle in their back for the same time. A simple question of logistics. However, after A.G. A's attacks had come to a hold (in some places already in September and October), they did not retreat immediately; the front was literally frozen for weeks. The Germans couldn't go any further, the Soviets concentrated their efforts elsewhere (Stalingrad), for the moment they were satisfied ti have stopped the German advsce. After the encirclement of 6th army, A.G. A was originally ordered to hold out in its positions. On the one hand, the German high command did not doubt to be able to relief 6th army with their available forces, on the other hand any retreat would have given away the chance for further advance in 1943. If there ever had been such - in 1943, the Germans had the power for only two offensive strikes, one at Charkov in late winter, the other one at Kursk in July. It's hard to believe, that they could have progressed against well-defended Soviet positions with their lack of manpower, overstreched supply lines etc. More likely, the Soviets could have repelled them in 1943 anyway (in a smaller scale, this happened with the Kuban bridge head). However, the decision not to take back the Army Group into some defensive positions closer to the Don and to give free some urgently needed forces for offensive actions in the region of Stalingrad (whatever that might have had as outcome), was obsolete in the end of Dec., when Army Group Don under Manstein could not relief 6th Army (fail of operation Winter Storm), but got under heavy attack by the Red Army itself with the possibility of a Russian break through towards Rostov, which would have cut off Army Group A from the own lines. Only then the full retreat was ordered and followed - but as already cited above, this took place later then actually stated in the article. --Ennimate (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * {U|Ennimate} I have added a citation and minorly edited the sentence. Ping me to let me know I may have made a mistakeLostCitrationHunter (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Investment terminology error?
The page states that "The Red Army units immediately formed two defensive fronts: a circumvallation facing inward and a contravallation facing outward"

However, the Investment page (which is linked to) states that a circumvallation faces outward, and that a contravallation faces inward.

I'm not sure which one is right, but perhaps someone with more experience knows which one needs changing! Etherealflux (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Axis armies involved at the Battle of Stalingrad
In When Titan's Clashed, Glantz lists only the 4th Panzer Army, 6th Army, 2nd Romanian and 3rd Romanian Armies as being part of the battle at the start of Operation Uranus. In Zhukov's memoirs he counts these 4 armies as the German forces engaged on the Stalingrad axis whilst Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad and Stalingrad 1942–1943: The Infernal Cauldron only lists the 2 German armies in the order of battle. In fact, most sources discuss either the forces engaged directly in the city or the forces engaged in the city + the Romanian armies involved in Uranus as part of the battle.

The debate over the armies engaged at Stalingrad mentioned in this article is inaccurate, it would be more accurate to say that it refers to whether the scope of the battle refers to the forces of Operation Uranus and in the city or whether only the forces in the city count.Originalcola (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As you said, Glantz lists only "the start of Operation Uranus" (November 1942), he did not list the Axis strength in counter-offensive (Operation Winter Storm, December 1943). Remember, Operation Winter Storm is a part of Stalingrad offensive, tooCacharo66 (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like there's been a misunderstanding, the article refers to the start of the Soviet counter-offensive instead of the Axis one. The Soviet counter-offensive begins with Operation Uranus, which is the first stage of a series of offensives which are not all in the scope of the battle of Stalingrad,

Hypothetically, if it were referring to Operation Winter Storm then there would need to be different sources as these numbers would all be wrong as neither refers to Axis strength at the start of Winter Storm. Operation Winter Storm didn't involve the Hungarian or Italian troop so even if it read "Axis counter-offensive", which is what I am assuming you read, it wouldn't make sense to include them anyway as they aren't part of the battle beforehand or the counter-offensive. In Krivosheev's Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century the Stalingrad Strategic Offensive Operation includes the Italian armies because he groups Little Saturn as part of the offensive, which adds further complexity to the issue of what armies to include. Also note that the Soviet numbers are also referring to the Soviet strength at the start of Operation Uranus so these would also have to be changed.

Either way, you can't keep information on an article if the source material used directly contradicts it and if no sources can be found to support it.Originalcola (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Another note, Glantz doesn't use the quote "the start of Operation Uranus" so you may be reading from a secondary source. If you are struggling to find it I would recommend looking on archive.org as there might be a copy of his book there.Originalcola (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
Under losses and casualties, there is a typo (inculding). Kaneiac (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2022
In the sentence "A massive traffic jam resulted when the 4th Panzer and the 1st Panzer choked the roads", please unlink "traffic jam". It doesn't serve any useful purpose because it links to an article about cars in city streets. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:10D9:CF9F:75:FB78 (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have also rewritten that paragraph slightly. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Soviet Union (1936–1955).svg

Romanian 4th Army
The southern flank was never taken over by the romanian 4th army and remained under the 4th Panzer-army, it was supposed to be created on Nov 21 1942 but it never happened according to "Third Axis Fouth Ally" from Axworthy. Timmtell (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Human wave tactics?
The part about human wave tactics cites a speech from hitler in 1944 and an unrelated article about the 2022 Russian War in Ukraine. 73.36.58.159 (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The first source is admittedly not great but it talks about more than a Hitler speech. The most relevant part to humans wave tactics is this (from the German perspective): "They raised the undamaged periscope and saw the first wave of enemy infantry charging across the snow, only to be mowed down by our machine guns. The second wave soon came, moving steadily forward. A message was sent to our artillery battery. The shells exploded among the Soviets and the second wave was cut down." I see no problem with the second source, using the 2022 war in Ukraine as a comparison, explicitly mentioning Stalingrad. Of course a better source would be welcome if you are aware of one. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 15:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Nikita Khrushchev
What exactly did he do or command that earns him a place in the Commanders/leaders box? 86.186.0.204 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's in the article: "Yeryomenko and Commissar Nikita Khrushchev were tasked with planning the defence of Stalingrad." You could argue his inclusion in the infobox is only due to his later fame/infamy, but I'll leave that to somebody more knowledgeable about his role in the battle. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 21:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I take that back. His wiki page says "his role in the Stalingrad defense was not major". I have removed him from the infobox. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 21:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022
The blurp at the beginning calling it the turning point needs to be edited. It highly disputed between multiple other events, such as during Barbarossa, or if Germany even ever had a chance of winning. 2603:8001:A900:B9B2:99BA:4762:C817:7312 (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The Battle of Stalingrad is considered by many historians to have been the turning point in World War Two in Europe. I suggest a simple Google seach to learn more about the basics of why. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 02:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And I suggest that a "simple Google search" will turn up more trash than substance. Attaching a simplistic "turning point" stamp to any discrete event in a process on the scale of a World War is misguided at best, especially without explaining what is meant by that term.
 * Here's a relevant discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRefNgYnOYY
 * Here's another in-depth discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp_ZOoTJ0QU 108.52.112.198 (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

13th Guards Division - scope of losses
The section describing the introduction of the 13th Guards Division into the battle is in need of significant revisions.

Aside from repetition & poor structure, the scale of the losses of the division in the struggle around Mamayev Kurgan is grossly exaggerated. The current text states that the entire division of 10,000 men was wiped out in a period of ~24-48 hours:

"The Soviet 13th Guards Rifle Division, assigned to counterattack at the Mamayev Kurgan and at Railway Station No. 1, suffered particularly heavy losses. Over 30 percent of its soldiers were killed in the first 24 hours, and just 320 out of the original 10,000 survived the entire assault. Both objectives were retaken, but only temporarily. Fighting was so fierce and intense during one day that the railway station changed hands 14 times in six hours. By the following evening, the 13th Guards Rifle Division had ceased to exist."

The latter bit about the "division ceasing to exist" would be especially surprising news to the division itself, which went on to fight throughout the Battle of Stalingrad, and the Battle of Kursk the next summer, and met American units on the river Elbe in 1945... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Guards_Rifle_Division

The figure of "320 survivors out of 10,000" is both largely apocryphal, and is used to refer to the scope of the losses sustained by the division over the course of the entire battle, not the single engagement at Mamayev Kurgan.

Note that the source for this specific claim is a blog post, which fails to cite any original sources for these numbers.

In short - this section does not stand up to any scrutiny. 108.52.112.198 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Over-inflated Battle Losses?
Over-inflated Battle Losses?

While the Soviets suffered real losses during the whole campaign, does not some of the evidence (as mentioned above) call into question losses doing smaller battles? If so, could this article be adjusted to better reflect the numbers lost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.60 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023
Please italicize the hatnote for "The Battle of Stalingrad (film)". 45.119.85.216 (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Italicization is automatically done by the hatnote template. In which, I'm able to see it's already automatically italicized.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  12:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. WP:ITHAT says it should be un-italicized in this case. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 15:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2023
The opening parentheses for the date of the battle, on the very first line of the article is missing. 87.64.75.150 (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * . –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 11:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Casualties
The second last and third last paragraphs in the 'Casualties' should be removed, as they aren't adding anything relevant to the section, but rather provide a blow by blow account of the performance of Romanian tanks in the battle of Stalingrad. MaillardReactionary (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, doing that now. Also removing the Romanian-specific notes in the lead template. Riposte97 (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding human wave attacks
Beevor, p. 372 references a German account, describing actions in late January 1943, not during the early stages of the Battle of Stalingrad, that mentions waves of Soviet infantry attacking, but also that the Soviet infantry took the German position through outflanking it (certainly not a typical human wave tactic). He doesn't explicitly use the term human wave in authorial voice, which means it is original research to argue that the Soviets used human wave tactics, and it is undue to extrapolate one veteran's account to the entire battle (or even consider it accurate). Glantz's much more recent three volume history of Stalingrad does not describe Soviet tactics as human waves, and many Soviet memoirs refer to the Germans as advancing in waves as well. In addition Beevor's work has been noted as failing to use sufficient source material from the Soviet perspective, as critically noted in Alexander Hill's review of Stalingrad. Kges1901 (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * In Hill's review, Beevor is noted as still having used Soviet archive data, even if limited in use in his chapters. Furthermore, he is credited with using a good amount of German archive data. Furthermore, just because one author does not mention it as such, does not mean it was or did not occur that way. Both Beevor's account from the German soldier, and Craig's description of human wave attacks being used are credible enough to be used on the page. A more recent article from the Telegraph describes wave tactics being used, even if the author is not a historian and is merely a commentator. Furthermore, the archive link used one German soldier's account of Soviet soldiers attacking in waves. Beevor's account from the German soldier on page 372 is quite clear in that it was a human wave assault, with it saying "the first wave was killed or left lying there, the second also, and then a third wave came. In front of our position the Soviet dead piled up and served as a sort of sandbag wall for us." Before that account, "a mass of snow-suited infantry was charging towards them". With all the sources put together, and two authors describing them as such, the line should remain. If German soldiers also used those tactics, it should be mentioned. It is not an extrapolation if the information provided gives accounts of what soldiers did, no matter how large or small. Reaper1945 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Beevor is dated because he wrote in the late 1990s, before a lot of key Soviet documents were available. Craig is similarly dated because he wrote in the 1960s and used only German sources, which makes his account inherently biased. Although Beevor's work is more impartial than Craig's this doesn't change the fact that Beevor does not directly state that Soviet forces used human wave attacks. It is textbook WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and a violation of WP:PRIMARY to extrapolate anything from the words of one German veteran, especially because veterans often exaggerate the amount of enemy soldiers killed. The German account that Beevor quotes exemplifies the pattern because he blames his unit's defeat on the Romanians' retreat, definitely implying German superiority. The Telegraph article is not even worth discussing, it's not an academic reliable source and could potentially be copied from Wikipedia or an unreliable source. Kges1901 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Both authors still provide extensive research over the battle, with Beevor still using Soviet sources in his book. Just because their books came out before the 21st century does not discredit their research nor their credit. Your obsession with German bias found in their work is unfounded and without actual proof. Beevor having a German bias, despite being used extensively throughout WW2 pages on Wikipedia, so that claim is just unwarranted and ignored. If German veterans are to be ignored because of a bias, then so will all Russian sources because of probable bias during and after the war. Beevor does not need to directly state something for that to be the case, arguing over semantics is not a proper argument. The Telegraph article is still able to be used as other modern news sources for past events are or have been, not to mention the author of the article's credentials are listed as "Senioe Reporter & History Correspondent". Overy also makes note of human wave tactics as still be used in the Soviet military during the war. All evidence points to human wave attacks as having been used, regardless of what bias is being implied without actual evidence. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Human wave attacks are well known in academia to be a German myth arising from attempts to blame their defeat on Soviet numerical superiority. For example, Kenneth Slepyan describes the human wave attack theory as an "old chestnut." And you have provided no source that specifically relates to the beginning of the Battle of Stalingrad - August 1942, not January 1943. Kges1901 (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there's a common belief that the Soviets used human wave attacks in the battle, prevalent enough that we would be remiss to not address it in the article, one way or another. Why not mention it, referencing the Craig source (possibly noting the criticisms of his work if any reliable sources address them), then cite Slepyan or somebody else dismissing it as a myth? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 01:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Arguing over when the attacks actually happened shows that you have no credible argument because you can't disprove that the attacks were real, so you nitpick the placing of when they occurred, showing the lack of a legitimate argument to the sources and section. If that was to be true of a "German myth" it would be far more mainstream, yet Overy while disputing the layman's idea of the Soviet army, still acknowledges the use of human wave elements in the Soviet military, a source in which you provided. If the dispute cannot be resolved, then a third party will have to be involved. Also, ironically, in Kenneth Slepyan's review, he does not say whether or not the human wave attacks are true, he merely calls it "old chesnut", saying that the authors describe how the Soviets eventually changed their tactics "particularly in the second half of the war". Reaper1945 (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Human wave attack are known to be a Russian tactic from WW1 to WW2 to the Russian army’s inept performance in Ukraine. There is no credible evidence against it. Kentish 86.3.134.204 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph is an excellent source and extremely credible. What you mean is : you dont agree with it
 * Kentish 86.3.134.204 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Editors should gain consensus before (re)introducing contented content, and definitely stop edit warring. Talk *to* each other, not *about* each other. (Hohum @ ) 01:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article could definitely use a historiography section that discusses the impact of German mythmaking on English-language accounts of the battle, but Craig's description of human wave attacks is just one sentence: On that day, Zhukov launched "human wave" assaults, which crashed into the left flank of the German corridor from the Don to the Volga and immediately foundered. I have tried to find more detailed coverage of these claims in histories of the Eastern Front but most historians don't address such claims. Given consensus at RSN I have removed the relevant statements as either supported by unreliable sources or giving WP:UNDUE weight to a one sentence mention in Craig that uses quotation marks, especially after having checked the most recent scholarship on Stalingrad, including Michael Jones' Stalingrad: How the Red Army Triumphed, David Glantz' Stalingrad Trilogy, Geoffrey Roberts' Victory at Stalingrad, and Jochen Hellbeck's Stalingrad. None of these sources describe Soviet tactics as human wave attacks. The Telegraph news article by a journalist with no academic credentials is inherently unreliable to support such a controversial statement, and Beevor's account, again, does repeat the German soldier's claims in authorial voice. To repeat German soldier claims in wikivoice is misuse of WP:PRIMARY. While this situation illustrates that there is a persistent popular myth of Soviet human wave attacks in general during World War II, I believe that it's undue to mention here without academic sources specifically discussing these myths in relation to the battle itself. Kges1901 (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? This is a discussion about something that didn't happen and about which there are no RSs saying it happened? Can we file it under "forget" and move on? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Turning point
“ Today, the Battle of Stalingrad is universally regarded as the turning point in the European theatre of war”

Suggested changes. Either remove the word “universally”, which is significantly incorrect because it is defined as “all”. That is just factually incorrect. Or change to “possible turning point”. Or add “Alongside the Battle of Britain, it is regarded as one of the turning points. Von Runstedt regarded the Battle of Britain as the significant turning point. Even so, there is no military reason to regard Stalingrad as anything other as a bloody defeat for the Nazis. Kentish 86.3.134.204 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I have removed "universally".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)