Stalingrad remembered.

[The Pioneer]

It was the definitely the turning point in the European theater. It was the first time that the Germans tasted defeat. But it was a very harsh battle, more than most, to the civilians and the soldiers of both sides, although the Germans went looking for trouble.

So long...

[Az]

German civilians in Stalingrad?


Oh, and a very important thread, Sergey.

[TheStinger]

Pointless battle, if it was left to the generals it wouldn't have happened. It was pissing contest between the 2 worst men in history

[Serb]

How so? It was the battle between main forces of two armies, the battle for Caucasus oil.

[TheStinger]

The actual battle for stalingrad would have ended in Novemebr if the German generals were allowed to withdraw.

I am not arguing it wasn't significant, just that the actual blood bath for the city itself was militarily stupid.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Why bother me with Cromwell and Napoleon? What kind of argument is this anyway? How are they of any importance for the issue?

should i bother you with prinz eugen and his religiously intolerant views?

Mhm, surely true. Every great leader was starving his own population to death and had a totalitarian ideal and a paranoid personality...

no, for most of the history they were mostly concentrating on fostering fine arts

If they hate him: Good, they won't rename the city.If the don't hate hiom, they really have a problem with their own past..

Why don't you let them decide if he was such a butcher...The last time Austrians tried to influence Russian affairs, Russian tanks rolled down streets of Vienna

Maybe that explains it

Well, at least we fought Germans when they drove in.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by VetLegion

stalin certainly killed a bunch of people, but he also gave them guns and ammo

and he positioned NKVD with machine guns behind their backs.. just in case their love of Rodina was not enough. At least according to that movie 'Enemy at the Gates' I saw recently, I m not a wwII expert..

Hey Vetlegion! Hope you are doing fine

As already posted, that scene from the movie is utter crap (even disregarding the fact that the 'ni sagu nazad' order was implemented mostly during the horrible summer of 1942 and that, once in the city, it was not necessary to issue that order anymore). the sillyness of it all reflects in the scene where the soldiers are being slaughtered not for retreating but for having their charge repulsed. nothing like that happened, not even a complete lunatic would expect a 100% success in an infantry charge. that is definitely the stupidest point of the movie (there are some other stupid points too, the whole burlesque with khruschev and stalin's portrait, they were taking a piss out of the movie...)


german movie 'stalingrad' is better.

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by Azazel
German civilians in Stalingrad?


Oh, and a very important thread, Sergey.

The "...on both sides..." was referring only to the soldier's.

So long...

[Serb]

Originally posted by TheStinger
I am not arguing it wasn't significant, just that the actual blood bath for the city itself was militarily stupid.

I guess because the city was already lied in ruins?
With this I can agree. However, main forces of both armies should've fought somewhere during 1942 summer/autmn campaign. If not in Stalingrad, then where? Near Moscow again? It's where Stalin actually waited German's strike in 1942. So, if not in Stalingrad, this battle would have happened in different place anyway. How anyone could win such wars without really big, decisive battles?

[TheStinger]

A war of attrition in an area as vast and as wide open as the caucauss was stupid.

Attrition battles like Stalingrad and Verdun and the Somme are the result of Generals and politicians not wanting to back down. They pay for this with an excessive amount of their youn peoples lives.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by TheStinger
A war of attrition in an area as vast and as wide open as the caucauss was stupid.

Attrition battles like Stalingrad and Verdun and the Somme are the result of Generals and politicians not wanting to back down. They pay for this with an excessive amount of their youn peoples lives.

Stalingrad is not in the Caucasus area.

This is not a proper occassion to bemoan 'politicians and generals'. More like Hitler and his OKW.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by LaRusso


Stalingrad is not in the Caucasus area.

This is not a proper occassion to bemoan 'politicians and generals'. More like Hitler and his OKW.

Stalingrad was as result of a campaign to seize the caucasus.

Why isn't it the right time to bemoan politicians and generals. Hundreds of thousands of people died in a battle which ultimatley turned into a test of how many men Hitler and Stalin could afford to lose.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Stalingrad was as result of a campaign to seize the caucasus.

Why isn't it the right time to bemoan politicians and generals. Hundreds of thousands of people died in a battle which ultimatley turned into a test of how many men Hitler and Stalin could afford to lose.

Stalingrad itself was a separate objective, as a cutoff point for Volga river transport.

Bemoaning: because hundreds and thousands of people died in a battle initiated by Nazis. It turned into a test of whether Soviets can beat Germans decisively. To say that the whole battle happened because of the personal rivalry between Hitler and Stalin is yet another oversimplification, consistent with the myth of 'brave Soviets, despite their idiotic leader'.

Soviet command had every reason do fall back into the city, fight for it fiercely and prepare counterattack.

[TheStinger]

Germany should not have invaded the SU, however does that mean it was right for the SU command to sacrifice troops that would not otherwise have died. The Battle for Berlin is another case in point, men were sacrificed to acheive dubious polictical objectives.

Hitler was possibly the worst leader ever only rivalled by Stalin. So when they fought each other they were hardly going to be looking after their men. They had a casual disregard for life which they filtered down into the government apparatus they controlled.

Stalingrad was a turning point in the war, it was a decisive battle that doesn't mean you have to say it was neccessary.The Germans were even more stupid than the SU( they should have withdrawn) that doesn't mean the SU wern't guilty of needlessley sending their troops to their death.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Germany should not have invaded the SU, however does that mean it was right for the SU command to sacrifice troops that would not otherwise have died. The Battle for Berlin is another case in point, men were sacrificed to acheive dubious polictical objectives.

Hitler was possibly the worst leader ever only rivalled by Stalin. So when they fought each other they were hardly going to be looking after their men. They had a casual disregard for life which they filtered down into the government apparatus they controlled.

Stalingrad was a turning point in the war, it was a decisive battle that doesn't mean you have to say it was neccessary.The Germans were even more stupid than the SU( they should have withdrawn) that doesn't mean the SU wern't guilty of needlessley sending their troops to their death.

I guess the only smart guys were Americans. Disembarked in 1944, had Paris deserted and the rest of the cities surrendered by telephone and when they got beaten in Ardennes they could always call for a massive and 'stupid'(in the terms of human sacrifice) Soviet offensive.

As for your lowly opinion about Stalin, you should probably read the obituary speech of W. Churchill on the news of his death.

It is very unfortunate taht you were not in charge of Russians during WW2. I am sure you would devise the way not to lose so many soldiers vs. Germans. French already found a way to do that - surrender.