Stalingrad

[cam0flage 0]

Surprisingly there were no threads about this, so I decided to make one.

Here are few articles I found about the subject:

Stalingrad forever! (Pravda)

The Greatest Battle of World War II Took Place 60 Years Ago

Russia marks Battle of Stalingrad (BBC)

I've always found the battle of Stalingrad to be one of the most interesting ones of WWII. What books and movies are your favourites on the subject? Beevor's Stalingrad is a very nice book, and the self-titled German movie from 1993 is excellent. I didn't like Enemy At The Gates that much, apart from impressive battle scenes and the view across Volga, it was too much of a Hollywood film for me.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Enemy at the Gates was movie about how a propaganda puts a person in different position than he was. and it was made by French director Jean-Jacques Annaud(Bear, Name of the Rose)

another thing that Stalingrad reminds me.

Stalin: one death is a tragedy. a million death is a statistic.

so true, so sad.

[Warin 0]

I just picked up the Beevor book the other day for cheap at a book sale in the Mall I work at. I've read Enemy at the Gate (Of which only 4 pages even mention Vasily Zaitsev! by William Craig, and I found it fascinating.

I think Stalingrad was definitive in it's demonstration that the German Army was NOT an unbeatable behemoth. And it also exposed Hitler as the raving lunatic that he was, in that he refused to allow Paulus to withdrawl the German 6th Army Group from Stalingrad... a city that had virtually no strategic significance.

I play a wargame called Advanced Squad Leader, and one of the best campaign games to date for the game is called Red Barricades, which simulates the battles for the Barrikady factory complex. Very interesting!

[bogo 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cam0flage @ Feb. 02 2003,19:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Surprisingly there were no threads about this, so I decided to make one.

Here are few articles I found about the subject:

Stalingrad forever! (Pravda)

The Greatest Battle of World War II Took Place 60 Years Ago

Russia marks Battle of Stalingrad (BBC)

I've always found the battle of Stalingrad to be one of the most interesting ones of WWII. What books and movies are your favourites on the subject? Beevor's Stalingrad is a very nice book, and the self-titled German movie from 1993 is excellent. I didn't like Enemy At The Gates that much, apart from impressive battle scenes and the view across Volga, it was too much of a Hollywood film for me.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with you the movie Stalingrad is a good movie. In fact i think it's the best WWII movie i have ever seen cause it's represent the war how it is .

[cam0flage 0]

I wonder why desantnik hasn't posted to this thread already, I'm sure he could recommend some good books . I saw some old authentic war films on tv today, does anyone know where you can get those? Documentaries on DVD would be nice too.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

You know, I would really like to travel through Europe and visit all the old WW1 and WW2 battle fields. Stalingrad would be near the top of my list, next to Dieppe, the Normandy coast, and Vimmy Ridge.

I hear that bodies and war relics are still found at Stalingrad on a regular basis. It just goes to show you that the amount of lives paid to stop (and support) Hitler was very very high.

Tyler

[Tovarish 0]

The memorial at Stalingrad (now Volgograd)

Truly a terrible battle, and widely thought to be the place where the tide of the war turned in favour of the allies. I've heard that to this day you can find human remains without too much trouble if you start digging in a field. A few years ago I heard of volunteers (teenage schoolchildren some of them) who were digging up remains in order to give them some sort of proper burial.

[desantnik 0]

Thanks Camoflauge.  The reason I havent posted was because was talking to a veteran of the battle. My grandfather.

Anyway, I found Antony Beevers, Stalingrad to be a great read. He really describes it in a very good and readable way.

Another good book would be Russia at War 1941-1945. Karpov, Vladimir

Some good documentries would be a series Blood Upon the Snow. It was done by PBS and has like six tapes. It is very good and gives a lot of graphic footage. I was surprised by the content. It shows some very sad and moving scenes.

A Russian website called Russian battlefield has memoirs of Soviet veterans and loads of pictures and documents. Very interesting.  

[cam0flage 0]

Well thank you desantnik I checked out that battlefield.ru site, it was very interesting. If someone is planning to do Russian WWII addons, it might be worth checking out, there were some interesting tank camo schemes for example. Also the interviews made a good reading.

[-TU--33ker 0]

i've read a very old novel from 1946 about Stalingrad some weeks ago. it was printed in East Germany in 1947 ( ) by the soviet military administration. the title is "Dni i nochi" ("Tage und Nächte" "Days and Nights") by Konstantin Simonow.

this book was very realistic but it also was a kind of propaganda to show the german people how wrong the war against the soviet union was. i still like it because it shows the russian point of view.

German TV is also showing lots of Documentaries about stalingrad in the last time. They're showing one today, too.

they include many interviews with german and soviet veterans.

edit: don't know how to write cyrillic letters, so tried to write the Russian title in english.

[DarkLight 0]

I find it sad that most people (especially people who do not know much about war) don't know anything about Operation Barbarossa.

If you ask me, the allies wouldn't have been able to invade Europe without Hitler sending so much men to the East. A huge amount of German and Russian soldiers died there, the importance of this battle is strongly underestimated...

[Gollum1 0]

If I remember correctly, 75% of Germany´s forces were on the Eastern Front during the Allied invasion from the west.

And the Red Tide still swept them away.

The Americans liberated Europe by stopping the Soviet Union at Berlin, but they certainly didn´t defeat Germany.

Of course, I´m not belittling the sacrifices of Americans, Canadians, British and others. But if we´re talking sacrifice, look at Stalingrad.

But ordinary people get their info about stuff like this from Hollywood.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gollum1 @ Feb. 03 2003,17:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I remember correctly, 75% of Germany´s forces were on the Eastern Front during the Allied invasion from the west.

And the Red Tide still swept them away.

The Americans liberated Europe by stopping the Soviet Union at Berlin, but they certainly didn´t defeat Germany.

Of course, I´m not belittling the sacrifices of Americans, Canadians, British and others. But if we´re talking sacrifice, look at Stalingrad.

But ordinary people get their info about stuff like this from Hollywood.

<span id='postcolor'>

I think it's a little more complicated than that. Yes, Hitler poured his entire effort into defeating the Soviet Union. If he had had those men on the western front, I doubt D-Day would have happened.

But at the same time, without the threat of the western front, Hitler would have been able to concentrate on the east front more effectively. While the West certainly did not defeat Germany alone, neither did the USSR defeat Germany single handedly.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 02 2003,20:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just picked up the Beevor book the other day for cheap at a book sale in the Mall I work at.  I've read Enemy at the Gate (Of which only 4 pages even mention Vasily Zaitsev! by William Craig, and I found it fascinating.  

I think Stalingrad was definitive in it's demonstration that the German Army was NOT an unbeatable behemoth.  And it also exposed Hitler as the raving lunatic that he was, in that he refused to allow Paulus to withdrawl the German 6th Army Group from Stalingrad... a city that had virtually no strategic significance.

I play a wargame called Advanced Squad Leader, and one of the best campaign games to date for the game is called Red Barricades,  which simulates the battles for the Barrikady factory complex.  Very interesting!<span id='postcolor'>

It was a demonstration that Blitzkrieg itself bears high risks. Without perfect logistics of supply it is deemed to fail. And no, it wasnt a battle russia against germany, it was a battle of germany against the winter, against the lack of supply and the lack of german troops. Lets not forget that the reasons that made Stalingrad happened was that the german troops were flanked by badly trained rumanian and italian troops. I insist on the fact that stalingrad would have been a failure even without enemy counterforce.

An oncle of mine fought in stalingrad and he told me the story that they often found entire squads being frozen to ice. And those men were not exactly lying on the ground but basically turned into ice-sculptures caught by the ice between one step to the other.

It was a battle of demotivated, underfeeded, exhausted men without bullets.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Feb. 03 2003,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It was a demonstration that Blitzkrieg itself bears high risks. Without perfect logistics of supply it is deemed to fail. And no, it wasnt a battle russia against germany, it was a battle of germany against the winter, against the lack of supply and the lack of german troops. Lets not forget that the reasons that made Stalingrad happened was that the german troops were flanked by badly trained rumanian and italian troops. I insist on the fact that stalingrad would have been a failure even without enemy counterforce.

An oncle of mine fought in stalingrad and he told me the story that they often found entire squads being frozen to ice. And those men were not exactly lying on the ground but basically turned into ice-sculptures caught by the ice between one step to the other.

It was a battle of demotivated, underfeeded, exhausted men without bullets.<span id='postcolor'>

A lesson Napoleon learned a century and a half or so before

Thing is, the Russian 6th Army could have completely avoided Stalingrad and not have been mired in the 'Kessel' that led to their defeat. Their logistic nightmare began when the Russian Army cut off the supply lines and encircled the German Army. Hitler refused to let Paulus pull his (at the time) supplied and capable army back during the Autumn, and so when winter came, they were undersupplied with winter gear, food, and ammunition. And like it or not, those supply lines were cut and held closed by the Russian Army. If Paulus had been allowed to retreat in the late fall when they were encircled, I suspect it wouldnt have ended nearly so bad.

I cant even remotely imagine the things your Uncle experienced War is inglorious at it's best, but Stalingrad was wasteful and insane more than most battles are. I've read about the way the German prisoners were treated by the Red Army after Stalingrad, and it is horrific! Was he a POW, or was he evacuated before the end?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

he still refuses to talk about stalingrad. I usually meet him during family-celebrations so I guess he doesnt want to ruin the athmosphere. But no, he wasnt a POW.

The only thing he constantly he repeats was: the british killed germans for defending their freedom, so did the french, the russians and the americans. And what did I kill for?

[desantnik 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It was a battle of demotivated, underfeeded, exhausted men without bullets.<span id='postcolor'>

I would say that is a bit untrue since the Russians were generally highly motivated by one form or another. Plus if this was the death grip anybody would do everything his body would allow to fight back. I dont think the Russian soldiers suffered from demorelization nearly as much as the Germans.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (desantnik @ Feb. 04 2003,00:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It was a battle of demotivated, underfeeded, exhausted men without bullets.<span id='postcolor'>

I would say that is a bit untrue since the Russians were generally highly motivated by one form or another. Plus if this was the death grip anybody would do everything his body would allow to fight back. I dont think the Russian soldiers suffered from demorelization nearly as much as the Germans.<span id='postcolor'>

I think he was speaking from the German perspective, not a general one.

I would love to visit Volgograd... The Battle of Stalingrad is less well known in the west than something like the Battle of the Bulge, and so it would be a pretty amazing thing to go there and perhaps meet a veteran of the conflict... but at the least get to see some of the history in the place it was made.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

It is sad how many westerners really don't know about the horrific struggle that happened on the Eastern front becuase it was the German Army vs. the . Russians. Its like how most westerners know about Neil Armstrong, but hardly any know about Yuri Gagarin because he was Russian.

The horrific sacrifices made in battle's like Stalingrad and Kursk should be remembered by all, regardless of the nationality of the soldiers.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Feb. 03 2003,22:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">he still refuses to talk about stalingrad. I usually meet him during family-celebrations so I guess he doesnt want to ruin the athmosphere. But no, he wasnt a POW.

The only thing he constantly he repeats was: the british killed germans for defending their freedom, so did the french, the russians and the americans. And what did I kill for?<span id='postcolor'>

Reminds me a lot of my grandfather. He never answered many of my questions about the war, one of the few things I know is that his frequent back pains come from the fact that an unlucky grunt behind him stepped on a landmine. I don't even know where he fought, most likely somewhere in the Ukraine.

As for your uncle's question, the Russians fought for survival above all, but Stalin was no better than Hitler. Sadly enough his style of government survived long after his death in China until fairly recently, and still in North Korea.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but Stalin was no better than Hitler.<span id='postcolor'>

Which is why it disturbs me when I see people at school or on TV wearing red star or hammer & sickle logos or pins on T-Shirts and purses. Idiots.

Anyways, both my grandfather's were never able to serve in WW2. One had an unfortunate accident with a blasting cap when he sat on one. The other was a coal miner. Since coal and metal mining was considered vital to the war effort, the Armed Forces wouldn't accept my grandfather.

However, other relatives of mine fought for the old country (Croatia) back in WW1 and 2. Too bad they had to be on the wrong side. A great uncle of mine fought against the Japanese in Burma.

Tyler

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Feb. 04 2003,03:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but Stalin was no better than Hitler.<span id='postcolor'>

Which is why it disturbs me when I see people at school or on TV wearing red star or hammer & sickle logos or pins on T-Shirts and purses. Idiots.<span id='postcolor'>

Here is where I have to disagree with you....I see a very large distinction between communists and Stalinist-style despots. Though I don't agree with his politics, I would never group Lenin with the two I mentined above, I think his ideals in essence at least were noble.

*edit* And even though I don't wear them, I myself have a pretty good collection of such pins.Most out of sentimental reasons. Some were part of my mom's school uniform, others my late father got during his college education/military service in Russia as well as his time as an aircraft mechanic in the Cuban Air Force.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

This is where we differ Tovarish.

I see the hammer & sickle logo the same way I see a swastika. To me they both represent opressive and tyranical governments. No matter what the intention.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think his ideals in essence at least were noble.<span id='postcolor'>

A right winger might say the same about Hitler. ie: 'At the start his ideals seemed noble, but he went a bit nuts'

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would never group Lenin with the two I mentined above<span id='postcolor'>

Sure, maybe he wasn't a mass murderer, but didn't he eliminate the freedom of the press and various other rights as soon as the revolution was won?

Sure, his ideals were fine for you 'in essence' but not in practice.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The first act of the new government was to issue two decrees: The first decree called for an immediate end to the war in Europe, and the second called for the nationalization of Russian land and authorized the Russian peasantry to forcibly confiscate privately owned lands. The new Soviet government had little popular authority, and few observers believed that it would last.<span id='postcolor'>

From here:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Bolsheviks permitted elections to the Constituent Assembly, which was to draft a democratic constitution, only to dissolve the assembly in January 1918 when they did not win a majority of seats. A constitution favoring Bolshevik control was then drafted, and in July 1918 the Congress of Soviets approved the first constitution of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR).<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Bolsheviks’ control over the state apparatus and over the geographic heartland of the country helps explain their triumph. They outdid all their adversaries in the use of violence, applied by the VeCheka (political police), the Red Army, and squads of party supporters in the countryside.<span id='postcolor'>

From here:

Just the kind of government I want.

Tyler

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I think it's a fairly accurate estimation to say that communism is a broken system, as far as nation states are concerned. The benchmark communist state collapsed on itself over 10 years ago, Cuba is wallowing in a malaise (and not just because of US's embargo- even the biggest apologists have to admit that the numero uno communista on the Cuban island has something to do with that country's problems), and China is going the way of the almighty dollar- I mean yuan. From an ideological standpoint, communism is the antithesis of what I would consider a 'good' system, but that is a different question entirely. The fact is, communism simply doesn't work on the country level, and not only doesn't it work, but it has a nasty habit of leaving huge numbers of people killed in its wake.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Feb. 04 2003,04:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would never group Lenin with the two I mentined above<span id='postcolor'>

Sure, maybe he wasn't a mass murderer, but didn't he eliminate the freedom of the press and various other rights as soon as the revolution was won?<span id='postcolor'>

You think people had freedom of speech and rights under the Czar? Lenin didn't eliminate anything that had already been there in the way of rights except for religion. Incidentally to his credit he did a pretty good job of eliminating starvation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure, his ideals were fine for you 'in essence' but not in practice.<span id='postcolor'>

Which is the reason why I stopped believing in it, no need to convince me .

But the sickle and hammer to me is still a symbol of a brotherhood between farmers and industrial workers. If I want to think of oppression and tyrany I think of an image of Stalin....but enough about politics and the way our psyche reacts to symbolism. This is not what this thread is for