Battle actually was not that terrible - Stalingrad (1993) Discussion

[–] mherlick 18 years ago

I dont know if I would agree with that. I actually talked to one of the survivors of the battle while stationed in Germany and I'm sure he would disagree with you. I have done some training in that type of weather and I couldnt imagine fighting in it without the proper clothing, equipment or food.

reply

[–] lagwager137 18 years ago

"Actually the Battle of Stalingrad was not near as bad as what most people think. It is interesting, but not really that big of a deal."

If your going to make an absurd statement like that (most likley for attention) you should elaborate a little more.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

I wish you would be more polite. And, what I said is not absurd. I sincerely believe this statement.

Actually, it is almost (note: I wrote "almost") absurd to think of the battle for Stalingrad being a bad experience. Now, as long as there are survivors of that battle still living then I agree we (the younger generation) should respect the fact that they did have a somewhat hard time back in 1942. Even then, though, their experience was bad only in a relative sense.

In other words, compared to a similiar battle occuring in this day and age, being in the 1942 battle of Stalingrad was not really that terrible. If you have seen, as I have, the UNedited pictures of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (found in some medical textbooks in college libraries) then you might think twice about if the Battle of Stalingrad was really that bad. The same damage inflicted upon Stalingrad during the entire seige in 1942 could easily be done by one bomber or missile today in a matter of seconds.

Remember the scene in the movie where the Germans were fighting the Russians at close quarters within a building? Remember the German soldier coming in from outside with food in a backpack and the men taking a break to eat that food? Well, in a nuclear scenario there probably would not be a building left. And, if the soldiers were still alive they would not care to eat anything as their intestines would have been burned by the gamma radiation. Their hair would be falling out in clumps and.... I will spare you the rest of the details.

Their is a good movie called "Fail Safe" which is available for purchase or rent nowadays. It is based on a book with that title and in the book a description is given of the damage to a city that results from a nuclear weapon. Though the book is fictional, the analysis is fact. Read it for your edification and education and then tell me if Stalingrad was really that big of a deal. I think that even you will admit that this battle has nothing of the horror of a nuclear strike. That is something that the men (and women) involved in the battle in 1942 could not have even imagined then. However, in 1962 the former commander of the Russian forces at Stalingrad realized what was about to happen if he kept those missiles in Cuba. And, that caused him to do something in 1962 that he did not imagine doing at Stalingrad in 1942- he gave up, and pulled those missiles out.

So, if Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev did not think that the Battle Stalingrad of Stalingrad was really that terrible compared to what can happen today then I think I have the best authority for my arguement that anybody could hope to have. I rest my case.

reply

[–] apocalypsenow87 18 years ago

Of course Stalingrad isn't terrible compared to a nuclear strike, did the movie portray it as such? Seems to me they portrayed it as bad as it really was.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

True. Your point is taken; therefore I will reply to your comment.

Part of the reason I compared the two was due to my having visited St. Petersburg, Russia (the former Leningrad) in 2005 and noticing that people there would still refer to the WWII siege more often than one would normally expect. As well as to the large number of monuments dedicated to the defenders of Leningrad during that time. I could not help but think that though the
3 year siege was pretty bad the same effects could be achieved today by one bomb in one bomber.

And, in this day and age the odds of a major city being besieged for 3 years is about zilch. I mean besieged to the degree that you have a million deaths. Wouldn't happen today. Same with a hugh conventional battle such as happened at Stalingrad. I mean, there are certainly large conventional battles even in this enlightened day and age; but the odds of one occurring on the scale of a WWII battle again are pretty durn low.

The Battle of Stalingrad and the Siege of Leningrad happened over two generations ago. Our (people younger than 75) nightmare is nuclear. And, unfortunately the odds of a nuclear strike are not as low as the odds of a battle like Stalingrad happening again. Lower than in 1962 I grant you, but it certainly could happen (there was a fairly close call in 2002 when India and Pakistan almost went to war). And, if, as, and when a nuclear strike occurs it will (in the words of a renowned nuclear analyst) "make WWII look like a picnic".

reply

[–] Bitter_Almonds 17 years ago

Hahaha. You could also say that D-Day wasn't that terrible either

Do The Mussolini! Headkick!

reply

[–] Buckaroo-Robot-Monster 12 years ago

D-day was a cake walk compared to many of the American Civil War battles.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lagwager137 18 years ago

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although terrible, were not BATTLE scenarios...your talking about apples and oranges here....Plus, what do you really understand about street fighting and house to house combat? Do you understand the amount of stress and battle strain that this puts on the individual soldier?... especially after months of continuous combat?
Look at the suicide rates of some average Werhmacht landsers...Not just the soldiers trapped inside the Stalingrad pocket, but on the Eastern front in general.
Remember the scene where soldiers are forced to crack tanks on foot? Think that would be scary? Scary is an understatement when you read about the cases of ' tank Freight' suffered by Landsers on the Eastern front-pretty much just plain suicidal would be a better description. Imagine being on foot and having to take on a 40/50 ton monster- the tracks rumbling fear right into the very hearts of soldiers as they approach-that’s something you just feel in your bones and don’t easily forget.

And YOU should also read about the fighting that took place on the Mamayev Kurgan during the battle before you make a statement such as "the Battle was really not that terrible".
….Talk about getting down and dirty; image the psychological effects of having to hack another human being to death with an entrenchment tool or bayonet.

You’re also wrong about the supply situation as well. Just because they show one scene of German soldiers getting some solid food early on during the battle… I remember reading about how desperate Soviet and German soldiers would often shoot at random pipes laying amongst the wreckage hoping to find a drop of water or so.

My original statement stands about you starting this ridiculous thread.
Note: in your original thread, it was not your aim to compare this siege to a nuclear holocaust, so why try to pull that out all the sudden…My friend you just found something that you don’t understand.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

I do wish you would be more civil in your comments.

In my original thread I did not expound upon my statement (though I assure you it was made upon my thinking of a nuclear scenerio that would be more likely to occur today than a battle such as Stalingrad), but I certainly have done so since in reply to yours and other comments.

I do not know your age, but I am old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis. That is what I grew up with; the nuclear monster. I cannot imagine that you are old enough to have grown up without knowing about the ramifications of nuclear war (the men who fought at Stalingrad grew up without knowing about the horrors of nuclear war when growing up simply because nuclear weapons had not been developed when they were kids; however, those people would be at least 80 years old today- are you THAT old??). Therefore, I could not imagine you or anybody else would not understand what I was alluding to in my original message.

Anyway, to simply demonstate the difference. In the Battle of Stalingrad the men tried to survive by whatever means they could because there was something to go back to if they lived. In a nuclear conflict (and we discussed this very matter in 1962 as we prepared for the worst) the survivors would probably crawl out of their bomb shelters; look at the devestation, and then kill themselves.

By the way, not to belabor the point- in the 19th century, in China, there were even worse battles than the one at Stalingrad. And, please be more civil in your comments. Thank you.

reply

[–] wmarkley 18 years ago

Misery is misery, whether its a soldier getting his body torn up by a shovel in hand-to-hand fighting in Stalingrad, or a person suffering through a nuclear attack. Objectively, there's no question that there was a stunning amount of suffering in the Battle of Stalingrad on the part of soldiers and civilians.

Stalin refused to let civilians evacuate from the city, so as a result many were caught in the fighting, and those which survived lived a miserable existence for months. Families were torn apart by seeing loved ones killed. In addition to the Germans, the Soviet secret police, known as the NKVD, made life miserable for troops and civilians in the city with their extremely harsh repression.

Stalingrad included a lot of horrible close-order combat, with Germans and Soviets fighting each other in the same buildings, in wrecked factories, streets and bitterly cold steppe. The Germans made a massive aerial bombardment early in the battle which turned much of the city into a wasteland, in addition to killing many people. One soldier--I forget now which side he was on--wrote that "Dogs flee this hell. Even the stones cannot endure for long." The Germans became terrified of the Soviet battle tactics which included infiltrating their positions--that alone is a terrible situation in which to live day to day. After a while, you don't expect to get out alive.

During the period when the Germans were encircled in "The Kessel," they ran awfully low in food and other supplies, and became malnourished. Its pretty awful when you don't have enough food to eat. Many Germans, including their commander Paulus, held out hope that they would be relieved eventually by other Axis troops, but it became clear finally that Hitler wanted to sacrifice the men caught in the Kessel for the sake of the rest of the front. It was a pretty awful prospect for thousands of men who knew they would probably die, and didn't have a chance to do anything about it.

At the same time, Soviet soldiers were sacrificed quite horribly by their commanders, as a result of the Soviet ruthlessness. Soviet officers often lived in great fear of their superiors--they were often beat or killed for failures. Soviet "blocking units" would kill en masse troops who retreated. Front-line soldiers were frequently accused of cowardice and shot. The Soviet command didn't worry about huge numbers of their men being killed for gaining tactical advantage. Zhukhov, Khruschev, Chuikov and others at Stalingrad were very ruthless. And the Soviet soldiers, although they were sometimes better equipped, also suffered from the awful cold and occasional supply problems.

In the aftermath, many Axis prisoners suffered from awful cold and typhus, and the vast majority of Germans, Italians, Romanians and Hungarians who were taken into captivity died within months. Only about 5,000 survived the war out of the approximately 60,000 prisoners taken by the Soviets at Stalingrad. With an extreme lack of food in the Soviet prison camps, some POWs resorted to cannibalism, with gangs of some prisoners roaming the camps looking for victims among their fellows. Some Germans resorted to picking out bits of grain in feces to wash and consume again. Groups of prisoners in their huts would prop up dead comrades so that their already paltry rations wouldn't be cut further. Is this less horrible than the aftermath of a nuclear attack? Maybe that's a subjective question, but noone can reasonably say that Stalingrad was not an awful battle for both sides. It, and some other battles on the Eastern Front, were among the most horrific battles in history in scale and also in quality.

If you want to get an idea of how terrible Stalingrad was, read some of the in-depth books about the campaign, and watch some of the documentaries. In my opinion, one problem with the movie "Stalingrad" is that it trivializes some of the suffering by sensationalizing what happened, and by including characters which are caricatures. Really though, no movie can do justice to the scale of the horrors of the battle.

reply

[–] jesusfood-1 18 years ago

artisticengineer, u are a pompous moron, how could Stalingrad not be bloody if it was the turning point where the russians fought and repelled the german army? I have a friend who had a grandfather who is dead by the way, who described it as a giant mess, which almost every soldier involved considered desertion since it was basically suicide fighting in stalingrad. If you werent there shut the hell up.

reply

[–] DannyRK 18 years ago

I think I smell troll as to the guy that started this thread, but without people crying for attention, life would be much more dull.

One thing this movie didn't show was prisoners wrapped in bandages that were covered in crawling, biting lice. Lice were all over the place in Stalingrad, and the survivors told stories of after a man had died, they could see a horde of lice scurry from a dead guy to one of the living.

Another detail not shown were soldiers and prisoners that were as skeletal looking as conecntration camp victims. That happened when the trapped Germans ran out of everything, and when the Sixth Army surrendered, some prisoners ate meat or fatty food, and died because their digestive systems were in shock.

This is a good film, and I know they couldn't include every last detail, but, like a lot of Vietnam movies, the horrors of this battle were actually worse than what you see on the screen.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Well, it still could have been a lot worse. Believe me,...this battle really was not all that terrible. It could have been a lot worse; even staying within the parameters of a conventional conflict then compare Stalingrad to say, the
Battle of Crawnpore. Also, in this battle the right side eventually won. How much worse would it have been had the German Sixth Army WON??? Pretty terrible I would imagine. So, over all the Battle really was not that bad. I know my original statement was subjective, in a way; it all depends on how bad you can imagine things. And, there are a lot worse things that could happen than the Battle of Stalingrad. Even in WWII there were worse things (the firestorm at Dresden comes to mind but also some battles in China where a lot of civilians as well as soldiers were treated even more inhumanely than at Stalingrad).

I agree with you that it was a good film. But, it was IMHO not a great film and, at some points, actually somewhat boring.

reply

[–] axl-31 17 years ago

You say "Believe me,...this battle really was not all that terrible"

OK then. We won't believe you.

You also say "please be more civil when replying". I that sentiment is mutual, by stating that the battle of Stalingrad (which is widely recognised as the bloodiest battle in history) "wasn't all that bad", don't you think that you are offending those who fought there? That is the ultimate insult in my view.

If you were a little more factual, you might actually gain some credibility and respect.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Addressing comments made by WMarkly: Good points. Well written reply. I certainly liked the last paragraph as it mentions that this movie did not show some of the depths of misery that the soldiers on both sides endured (though whether it was the fault of the Battle or the inept commanders is debatable). My main complaint with this movie is not only what you mentioned, but also the fact that it shows mostly the activities of a single German unit and does not give a good overall view of the Battle so it is impossible to understand (from this movie) why people were experiencing the problems you refered to.

And, it could have been a lot worse. At least 5,000 POWs DID survive the war; this probably being due to the fact that they were still treated better than how the Germans treated the Russian they took as POWs. And, yes, this is less horrible than a nuclear attack.

Remember, Khrushchev would not give any ground in Stalingrad. Later, when faced with the likelihood of a nuclear conflict he backed down. That certainly shows what he thought of the relative importance of both matters.

reply

[–] lagwager137 18 years ago

"My main complaint with this movie is not only what you mentioned, but also the fact that it shows mostly the activities of a single German unit and does not give a good overall view of the Battle so it is impossible to understand (from this movie) why people were experiencing the problems you refered to. "

I would agree with this...another poster said that this movie screams B quality; well I don't know about that but I think it could have been alot better and wish teh film would have been done right. With that said, I wouldnt know how to make the movie, therfore it will have to do. :/

"And, it could have been a lot worse. At least 5,000 POWs DID survive the war; this probably being due to the fact that they were still treated better than how the Germans treated the Russian they took as POWs."

That is still an absolute horrible number out of around 90,000 Pows. Contary to popular opinion, The Soviets treated (and were encouraged to) German POWs with the utmost brutality as well...Of course this will send some German commanders into a rage triggering large reprisals. I am reminded of the incident where elements of the Leibstandarte counterattacked previously lost positions finding the bodies of mutilated comrades brutaly hacked to peices with spades; as a result, Dietrich Ordered, "no prisoners for 3 days".
Even the most Dirty Combat formation in the German army, 3rd SS Totenkopf took prisoners. When the Division was deployed to the right flank of the southern thrust at the battle of Kursk, the Soviets didn't take a single one alive; their death's head symbol meaning a death sentence...In fact I dont know of a single soldier that fought in this division that returend home in the post war years.

Although there were of course reported cases of German brutality from time to time, I think t would be more fair to say both sides were equaly as brutal.

"Remember, Khrushchev would not give any ground in Stalingrad. Later, when faced with the likelihood of a nuclear conflict he backed down. That certainly shows what he thought of the relative importance of both matters."

Wasn't Kruschev a political commisar during the battle? If so, This wouldn't give him authorization to give or lose ground.

reply

[–] wmarkley 18 years ago

While I only know about some basics of the Cuban Missile Crisis, I suspect that part of the reason Khrushchev backed down was due to his position as more-or-less head of the Soviet Union at that time, compared with his lower-level position during World War II. In the 1930's and during World War II, he could carry out his ruthlessness against Ukrainians and others with the blessings of his superiors. Before the war, I think he had a lot of personal autonomy in the Ukraine and was able to be very brutal there.

In the 1960's, with the threat of nuclear war, Khrushchev would have been held responsible in large part for the devastation of much of the Soviet Union if nuclear war started. Its dangerous to try to psychoanalyze anyone, but that might have been at least a small factor in his decision to pull the missiles out of Cuba. There were also other factors: in the end, Khrushchev was able to show that there had been a compromise, with the U.S. agreement not to invade Cuba and to remove missiles from Turkey.

reply

[–] bradstory 18 years ago

Nikita's ruthlessness in the 30s and 40s was more a factor of surviving in Stalin's era than his own personality of likes/dislikes. You went along with The Boss or you disappeared. Khrushchev knew it and played the game well.

There's a HUGE reason he backed down in '62: it was largely a giant bluff. Many of the missiles in Cuba did not have nuclear warheads or were simply not operational at all. There was a mole in the GRU (Soviet military intelligence) by the name of Oleg Penkovskiy that relayed that valuable information and has been confirmed by other sources after the fall of the USSR. Thus, the potential for a totally destroyed USSR with only a limited reprisal on the US was still in play back then. He knew it and wanted to see if the US would buy into his bluff that he could wipe out the US the same way that he knew the US could do to him.

As far as Stalingrad not being that terrible, unless the writer is someone who experienced it or something close to it firsthand, I seriously doubt that such a statement can be made with any sort of credibility. I wasn't there either, but I'm not downgrading the largest battle in man's history as 'not that terrible'...

In my life I've personally met two men that were there. One was German who was medically evacuated in December '42, the other was a Russian who was part of Operation Uranus and saw what happened to the city but never really fought inside there. Each of them said that NO war film will EVER fully encompass the horrors they each saw there and didn't elaborate further. I'll take their word and the words of many others who have commented or written about the battle's word for it.

Personally, I'd rather be vaporized in an atomic blast than to have the bleak options of starving and freezing to death in Stalingrad or surrendering to starve and freeze to death in a Siberian gulag.

reply

[–] wmarkley 18 years ago

You're right, bradstory, about how the Penkovsky info on the inferior quality of the Soviet missiles was a major factor in 1962.

And I agree--starving and freezing to death in the Kessel or a Gulag, or being chopped up in city combat in Stalingrad, are not deaths that I'd prefer.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Well, there are a lot of points that one could consider about the whole matter. And, this thread is getting a little long now so I do not wish to take up much more space here discussing these points. I simply wish to conclude by pointing out that I was not being flippant when I wrote that, taken overall, the "Battle actually was not that terrible". Some disagree with that statement; fair enough- heck, this is still something of a free country so you can say what you want. However, I believe I did provide some rationale for my statement-regardless if one agrees with it or not.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] irishdude76 16 years ago

artisticengineer, you are an intelligent troll, but a troll nonetheless. I personally would prefer instant annihilation in a nuclear holocaust to the despair of Stalingrad. Knowing (in the German case) that you are completely encircled and that death is preferable to captivity; knowing (in the Soviet case) that you're most likely going to die in some futile charge on an irrelevant front line that will likely change hands 5-6 times in a day.

It's quite easy to sit at your computer and opine on how the battle was "actually not that terrible". In a way I see your point, nuclear strikes kill people systematically. But the human tragedy of Stalingrad must be neither underestimated or forgotten.

And to trivialise it in the manner you have does a great disservice to those on both sides who died for their homeland.

reply

[–] cucamonster15 13 years ago

Maybe it wasn't the worst, but sure as HELL, it was the MOST important of the entire war.
If the Germans had won in Stalingrad, things were about to get REALLY bad for the Allies.

reply

[–] schwarzvogel1 17 years ago

As someone else pointed out before, comparing the Battle of Stalingrad and a nuclear attack is comparing two completely different things. A nuclear attack is not a battle, but rather a massacre of one side by another. Stalingrad, as far as battles go, was one of the, if not the worst battle in modern history.

Yes, nuclear weapons are terrible, but are you so blind that you cannot see the horrors that conventional weapons can also cause? You mention unedited photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and their victims, I infer) but have you seen the effects of modern high-velocity rounds, artillery, and incendiary weapons on the human body?

Anyone with any sense in his head cannot deny that Stalingrad was a horrible battle, and a hell that went on for months. Over one million people died in that battle. With nuclear weapons, there's no warning, no time to be afraid. How do you imagine the German soldiers trapped in the Stalingrad pocket felt? Or the Russian soldiers first crossing the Volga, for whom the average lifespan was less than 24 hours?

I don't know if any photos exist, but a firestorm started by the Luftwaffe engulfed Stalingrad before the German assault on the city. The effects of a firestorm are remarkably similar to those of a nuclear blast, without the radiation. Just because you see the soldiers in the movie getting solid food doesn't mean that they are not suffering. What quality of life is that, that they are living? The German soldiers in Stalingrad might as well have been dead men by 1943, as very few of them ever returned home.

reply

[–] chrismahon2005 17 years ago

Are you trying to be funy?,how was the death of over one million people in a completly wrecked and devestated city not bloody "that bad",god almighty i wonder about some people i really really do.The cream of the german war machine was wiped out in the city,hundreds of thousands young men never came back,or were left to rot in russian POW camps after the war.men women and children were left to freeze to death in the ice cold tempertures,the suicide rate was sky high,wounded men were left to die alone and in agony in there makeshift hospitals becasue there was not medical help for them,in one case a building burnt down with over a thousand german wounded in,in another incident,a german hospital train was found with hundreds of men froze to death,because it had been forgotten about,in another a train was found by cossacks who killed the wounded,want some more storys mate?
The russians themselves lost 750,000+ men killed,over 40,000 civilians died and yet you claim it was not that bad,you my friend are a total tit.I also dont know why people are being so nice to him,if hes young i despear at modern day education,if he got this *beep* from school then the teachers need to be shot for not drumming it in to people the complete horror OF THE BLOODIEST BATTLE IN HUMAN HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!

***edit*** ok ive seen your not a young kid,to me that makes it far far worse.And sorry some obscure chinese civil war battle is not gonna be the same as this one.This involved tanks planes huge artilliery guns,massed air attacks,dont give me some rusbbish about some 19th cen chinese battle no one in the west can even prove happened.
If there was proof for some of these battles we would no more about them,im sorry but i tend to think the chinese over estimate by far there numbers,just because they have such a huge population,the nearest thing to stalingrad in terms if horrors would be maybe the rape of nanking by the imperial japanese army.

reply

[–] litkey 17 years ago

I will keep my answer simple:

The Battle of Stalingrad actually happened ... hypothetical nuclear war scenarios did not. Thus Stalingrad was a terrible battle. (Cuban Missile Crisis... do you really want to compare that to a WWII battle??

The atomic bombs dropped onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki did huge amounts of damage, they brought devestation on an unprecedent scale, but the drops of these bombs were not battles. Thus Stalingrad was a terrible battle.

In and around Stalingrad there was no relief from combat. It was constant combat against the enemy (ruthless on both sides) and the weather. Thus Stalingrad was a terrible battle. (Was Stalingrad more terrible, because the fighting went on and on, with less and less hope to survive? Probably one of the reasons it is considered a terrible battle is that it was constant, without relief. The stress levels of the troops rose and rose... and they broke or died. What's worse: dying after months of agony or being evaporated by your hypthetical nuke...)

I want to stress my point, as you keep insisting on your NBC warfare scenarios: it DID NOT happen. MAD was not triggered by anyone anywhere...

As a sidenote about your comment about sieges: In Iraq constant low intensity warfare with conventional weapons and assymetric opponents starts to create the stress related to a siege. Danger of being bombed or shot, lacking medical facilities, scarce food and supplies. Plenty of people feel like in a besieged city.

Regards, you have some points, that's conceded

Stalingrad was a battle, thus it was a terrible battle...

reply

[–] Muchacho-4 18 years ago

You are totally wrong in your statement. You are trying to brain-wash visitors of this site or you are truly ignorant and self-centered.
During Stalingrad battle more people died than in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokio combined. And in Tokio more residents (not a military personell) were burned by insindeary bombs from carpet-bombing that died from nuclear blasts in two other Japanese cities.
More people died in Stalingrad battle than were used in D-Day. More people participated in the Stalingrad Battle than US had enlisted in entire WWII.
The Battle for Staligrad was bigger battle than US was ever involved (in terms of number of soldiers and casualties in a geographically small area which would qualify it as a single continuous military event).
Not a single building was intact on west bank of Volga river. More than 300 thousands german soldiers surrendered at the end of the battle. Less than 15 thousands ever came home out of 750 thousands in initial force.
Soviets were losing more than an army each month - over 5 thousand men every day, which is more that Pearl Harbor casualties or 9/11 attack.
Whoever calls it "not near as bad" - is totally ignorant or trying to manipulate opinions of the readers.

reply

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 13 years ago

This "artisticengineer" bases his opinions of reality on a fictional drama, "Fail Safe" and says the battle for Stalingrad was no big deal? This guy has been living under a rock most of his adult life. I'd call him "autisticengineer" but that would be a serious affront to those folks some of whom have much more sanity and accuracy of taste than this miscreant!

Let it be unsaid: insignificance is the locus of true increpation.

reply

[–] robfather_87 13 years ago

Heh i must realy say something to this. If anyone compares an A-bomb to an actual battle hmm i realy don't want to say more then just think what you wrote but. A battle with a nuclear bombing would not be called a very hard battle for those down in the buildings fighting becouse when that nuclear hit it would take a very short time and it would be over. In stalingrad it was a big battle or many big battles if you wish. And a real hard fight to survive when the weather came. So yes the stalingrad battle compared to a nuclear would be far worse for the soldier fighting down there. They starved, they battled and the weather got realy heavy at the end. For our view a nuclear is worse becouse of all the damage it would do for the surroundings and all the people that would die of it. But for a single soldier if i were in that battle i would gladly be wiped out of the picture with a nuclear then stay in that battle for so long and going through that horror. Think of it yourself feeling you are in hell when supplies end coming in. People are dying around you and in top of that you don't have proper clothing when the weather starts smacking your ace. At that point for a soldier i guess a nuclear would be heaven to end it all.

reply

[–] bethpage89 12 years ago

Krushchev wasn't the "commander of the Russian forces at Stalingrad"--he wasn't in Stalingrad during the battle.

reply

[–] mcwoolford33 11 years ago

By your own ridiculous explanation, Hiroshima was a party compared to the Holocaust.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DannyRK 18 years ago

artistic(troll)engineer: any battle that took place during the Soviet winter was hell on earth. You need to read the book "stalingrad" by Antony Beevor. It was taken mostly from direct accounts by the soldiers that fought there, many of whom didn't make it out alive, and have only the'r letters home as their last statements.

People in the West really don't have a grasp on the Eastern Front. At least 27 million Soviets dead. Frostbite, lice, starvation.

reply

[–] DannyRK 18 years ago

"Trolls coming in! Three remarks and 2-10!"

Stay on topic!

"We're too close!"

Stay on topic!

"They came from....their parents' basement!"

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

danny(horsesrearend)kipp: You need to read a book on etiquette.

I am quite aware of the Eastern front. You have shown your rear end in this thread.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jesusfood-1 18 years ago

artistic engineer, your a total hypocrite coz u sound like u think u know what ur talking about. I didnt fight in stalingrad but ive read alot about it, real accounts, and have heard from real vets on the subject. I do know that 2 million people died there for sure, and it was the turning point when the russians began winning the war against germany, which took on the brunt (70%) of the german forces in the war. Those are facts, engineer, i didnt have to be there to know them. read up on it, even if you do it while taking a big stinking dump which im sure ur liable to do.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

If you continue to post these sort of messages I will report you for abuse.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

To SwordWind-2 : How your first paragraph ties in with your second is unclear to me. Unless you are implying that it is useless to pray during a battle. In that case, you and I have found at least one thing that we agree upon.

Concerning casualties: The United States did not actually loose very many soldiers in WWII. Though loosing even one soldier is too many, the number is quite low compared to other allied countries for various reasons (one of them being that at the time of the Battle of Stalingrad the U.S. actually had nobody fighting in Europe except for the air crews and perhaps the Navy if you want to include the ship convoys). The UK actually lost FEWER men in the 1939-45 war than they lost in the last year of the Great War.

But, nevertheless, I stand by my original statement. Please remember that the death or capture of a German soldier in that era was a good thing. That meant one less supporter of a monstrous regime. In that respect you can see my reasoning; if the Battle of Stalingrad had been sufficiently horrible then the damned Third Reich would have immediately collapsed at the conclusion of the battle. Unfortunately, it didn't. Hence, my conclusion.

reply

[–] DannyRK 18 years ago

trolly trolly, here to make life more interesting. Seriously, my day would have been boring w/out your comments.

I am quite aware of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they really weren't that bad. >:)

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Well, Dannykipp, I did expect a couple of comments to my original posting but I assure that I did not expect nor did I want the scathing sarcasm that some people gave me (you are merely sarcastic; not really scathingly so).

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible; more so than most people recognize. At least more so than most Americans seem to recognize (and I am an American). Yet, they were only a short look at a possible future road of action that could still be taken and, if taken, cause so much horror that we would look back at WWII battles such as Stalingrad with fond memories.

So, which path do we take? Do we continue to solve differences by wars; with inevitably one war being the total nuclear war that we have always feared? Or, do we say that there has got to be a better way to do this and remove the barriers that exist between peoples and start respecting their opinions?

reply

[–] dennistraberg 18 years ago

I must say that if i had to die i would rather be vapourized by a nuclear bomb than have my guts ripped out by a sharpend fieldshovel or beaten to death by a riflebutt... A nuclear bomb could of course destroy the city in a matter of seconds, but the way they fought was some of the most brutal methods ever seen in war....

You say that it was not really that bad... what kind of statement is that???Only 6000 out of 250.000 Germans survived and even more russians died...

It is disrespect towards all the brave Russians and Germans who fought and died in that damned city...

But SURE it was no big deal 2.000.000 people died... HAH!! Its nothing..

I would be ashemed if i were you...

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Can't you at least spell "ashamed" correctly? I would certainly be ashamed if I could not spell "ashamed". Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I did NOT say the Battle of Stalingrad was nothing. But, on the overall scale of matters it was certainly no big deal. Now, if the outcome of that battle had caused the immediate collapse of Germany; say that Germany would have surrendered unconditionally by February or March in 1943, then the Battle would have been a big deal. If you can overcome your bias or prejudice concerning the scale or scope of WWII, then you may be able to start seeing matters in the proper perspective.

As another example: More WWII era Germans have died of cancer since the war ended than died at Stalingrad. More WWII American Servicemembers died of cancer caused by smoking, after WWII, than were killed in that war. And, death by cancer is a lot worse than any of the methods of dying that have been mentioned in this somewhat controversial thread. So, keep that in perspective.

Last of all; if I had been a German soldier at Stalingrad I would have probably survived. The reason being is that I am basically a coward at heart and will run away, at the first available opportunity, from a battle. However, in a nuclear battle, where do you run to? What is there left to run to? At least a coward could survive Stalingrad; could even a coward want to survive modern day total war??

By the way, when a nuclear weapon explodes in the atmosphere above a city most fatalities are not caused by instantaneous vaporization (which would indeed be merciful); rather most fatalities are caused by people burning to death. And, most of those people will live long enough to experience the most horrible pain imaginable. Compared to that, at least, I am sure you will agree that being at Stalingrad was not quite as horrible.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DannyRK 18 years ago

This thread has become too ridiculous to continue.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

To dannykipp and everybody else: I agree with you at least on that. Though there have been some proper responses most of the posters really need to learn some manners.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

To swordwind-2: Died in peacetime due to a particularly terrible disease. Please don't twist the meaning of my message.

reply

[–] moezeus 13 years ago

This thread began hilariously, but has become outright absurd by just the second page. I can only imagine where it manages to travel in the next seven pages which were written over six months. Incredible.

As another example: More WWII era Germans have died of cancer since the war ended than died at Stalingrad. More WWII American Servicemembers died of cancer caused by smoking, after WWII, than were killed in that war. And, death by cancer is a lot worse than any of the methods of dying that have been mentioned in this somewhat controversial thread. So, keep that in perspective.

If you believed this to be true, why are you not doing the humane thing and dragging cancer patients out into snowy fields to freeze and/or starve to death? Why not spend your weekends setting hospices ablaze or just fragging or machine-gunning the patients in their beds? Perhaps you could sit on the edge of their beds and ask them if they would rather be at the battle of Stalingrad, killing or being killed?

Last of all; if I had been a German soldier at Stalingrad I would have probably survived. The reason being is that I am basically a coward at heart and will run away, at the first available opportunity, from a battle.

It was that easy, was it? Too bad more German soldiery was not as clever as you.

By the way, when a nuclear weapon explodes in the atmosphere above a city most fatalities are not caused by instantaneous vaporization (which would indeed be merciful); rather most fatalities are caused by people burning to death. And, most of those people will live long enough to experience the most horrible pain imaginable. Compared to that, at least, I am sure you will agree that being at Stalingrad was not quite as horrible.

I have spent a good portion of my life arguing against the nuclear attacks on Japan in WWII (which is not a popular position) and even I find this argument to be preposterous.

We cannot confidentially qualify "worse". Thinking of a battle, offensive or attack as a singular event obfuscates the fact that we are in fact speaking collectively of INDIVIDUAL HUMAN SUFFERING for simplicity's sake.

To an Italian tank commander burning to death in Tobruk neither the Hiroshima attack nor the Battle of Stalingrad were meaningful at all. This does not negate the suffering of those who suffered and died in those events.

The suffering at Stalingrad stretched for six months and left more than 2,000,000 people mutilated, burned, eviscerated, raped, tortured, blinded, faceless, limbless, paralyzed, psychologically damaged, brain-damaged, sick, and wounded. The suffering at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was indeed devastating, but it does in no way negate the suffering of others elsewhere.

Beyond the entertaining rhetorical exercise, I am uncertain as to what point you intended to make, or believed you were making.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

To dennistraberg: Do you realize (or are at least willing to admit) that the German soldiers were supporting one of the most monstrous regimes in history? Why, then, do you glorify them?? The German soldiers deserved their fate; don't waste your pity on them. 11,000,000 unarmed people died in their concentration camps; now THAT is something!! And, I did not state that 2,000,000 dead was nothing; only that the battle, as it turned out, was not that big of a deal. It did stop the German advance into the Soviet Union but it was later battles on the Eastern Front that started the German retreat. Now, if the Battle of Stalingrad had caused an immediate collapse of the entire German front- well, then that would have been quite significant. As is, the movie is worth watching once, but I would not care to view it a second time. You may disagree with my opinion, but please try to do it in a civil and proper way.

reply

[–] lagwager137 18 years ago

" The German soldiers deserved their fate"

Another absolutely ludicrous statement; you don’t blame the actions of government figureheads on an entire nations population- just as you wouldnt/shouldnt blame an entire combat formation for the crimes/actions commited by a few individuals ....And contrary to popular opinion, the manpower needed to carry out the extermination process was relatively small...it only took about 100,000 personnel to accomplish what was done.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

To lagwager137: You are about to push me over the line; to the point where I start posting extremely inflammatory and insulting comments-like a lot of the posters to this thread. I have tried to remain civil, despite the very UNcivil comments posted by people such as you, but your last comment has gone beyond any point of reason. Nonetheless, I will make a reply to your comment:

I am aware that most of the German civilians and soldiers during this time frame were not explicitly aware of the death camps operated by the Third Reich. However, they were certainly aware of the unlawful detainment of various groups of people; plus the official discrimination against the ethic Jewish population. Even if they were not aware; by their actions the German soldiers at Stalingrad were supporting a very monstrous regimen. I did say there were some Germans at Stalingrad who were active in the extermination process; I mean the part that was carried out during the battle (remember the arbritary executions of the civilians depicted in the movie?).

The only German or other Axis soldiers who can say, with pride, that they fought in WWII were the Germans (and other Axis soldiers) who defected to the Allies at some time or another and fought for that side. There were a few. There were German civilians who spied for us; not many, but some did. They hated the regime that controlled their country and were willing to work with the Allied Governments to overthrow it.

There were some Germans who fled to neutral countries; I have met them and their (now adult) children over the years. I have NO animosity towards them.
I do have animosity towards the Axis soldiers who supported a monstrous regimen; even though they may not have been aware of the scope of the atrocities commited by the Government they were supporting they certainly must of had some idea of what was happening. It was simply too big to totally hide. Yet, nonetheless, for some reason these "loyal" soldiers still supported that horrible effort by fighting for the Reich. The ones who died in battle certainly deserved their fate.

So, unless you deny the Holocaust occurred, I think you should reconsider your last posting.

reply

[–] dennistraberg 18 years ago

"I do have animosity towards the Axis soldiers who supported a monstrous regimen; even though they may not have been aware of the scope of the atrocities commited by the Government they were supporting they certainly must of had some idea of what was happening. It was simply too big to totally hide. Yet, nonetheless, for some reason these "loyal" soldiers still supported that horrible effort by fighting for the Reich. The ones who died in battle certainly deserved their fate."

Allright.. Lets just say that you were a young german, and that you refuse to join the Wehrmacht.. What do you think would happen to you??? You think that hte government would just let you be a pacifist?? You would be executed on the spot...

The average German Soldier fought for his country in a war they could no prevent.... They were just fighting for their country like any other man fighting in the war...

So they deserved their fate?? The 12 year old boys who got dragged from the HJ into the army and who got BUTCHERED by the Soviets deserved their fate???

And you complain about concentration-camps... What about the Soviet Gulag?? Deportations to Siberia??? What do you think the commies did to the Jews... They put them in special Regiments who had a 99% chance of being completely destroyed... They did excactly the same, just with other methods...

Im from Denmark, and my great-uncle on my mothers side was shot as a saboteur by the SS, and my fathers cousin ran off with the germans and joined the Waffen SS regiment Nordland... He was killed at the east front, and he was a disgrace, but he still stood by what he believed. Im not saying that the germans were heroes, but i will not have an ignorant disrespect the memory of millions of brave men and women who fought and died in the terrible war.. Wether they were German, Amirican, Japanese og Russian.

I have said it before and i will say it again... You should be ashamed of yourself!!!

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Why do you bring up your family history; especially when it does not make sense in your argument?? If your great uncle was short by the SS then why do you support such an organization? It makes no sense! Your father's cousin was, by your own admission, a disgrace to his family. Why are you defending his actions??

Listen, the Germans loved the Nazi party; the history of that time proves it. That history was downplayed beginning in 1955 when West Germany joined NATO as we did not want to offend the new Alliance member, but I assure you that the average German soldier, AT THE TIME OF THOSE BATTLES, was a believer in Hitler. After the war they tried to deny it, but I am not buying it. (That rhymes nicely doesn't it?)

What I should have mentioned is that after the war the surviving soldiers discovered just how evil the Nazi regime was. And, the defeat certainly showed them that they needed to reexamine their attitude. So, I do not hold a grudge against them now; so long as they "atoned" in some manner for their actions during the war.

As far as the Japanese soldiers- I am not buying your statement. They were worse than the SS. For a long time I thought the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was uncalled for; then I read more about the Japanese culture and traditions and then realized that the dropping of the bombs was totally justifiable and, indeed, even necessary.

As far as your mention of the Soviet gulags, deportations to Siberia, and all that...well, I am quite familiar with all that. I cannot tell you how I am familiar, but believe me I know quite a lot about that stuff that most people do not know (though most of that information has now been released by the Russian Federation government now so I guess you can find it in published records now). Anyway, yes, those institutions did exist and the atrocities by the Soviets did occur. I am not denying that. I will say that most of it ended after Stalin's death; though unfortunately not all.

However, it was the Germans who invaded the Soviet Union. They are the ones who started the war with the Soviet Union. They made the decision to invade, and commit horrible crimes on the civilian population in the areas they controlled. Much worse than what Stalin and his henchmen did. I really cannot feel sorry for the Germans portrayed in that movie. Which brings us up to the final question:

How many German soldiers died in the Battle of Stalingrad? Answer: Not enough!

reply

[–] DannyRK 18 years ago

This is stupid, ppl should see artisticengineer's other posts on the Enemy at the Gates board, he actually argues with a Romanian person who lived under communism as if artisticeng. actually knows more about it.

Posting on the Stalingrad board that the battle was no big deal is obviously trying to provoke people. Either that or just ignorance.

reply

[–] dennistraberg 18 years ago

Allright.. Point taken... Just forget my comments about my family... But i will just say that there is a huge difference between the Waffen SS and the Wermacht.. I hate the Waffen SS of all my heart, but the Wermacht was just the regular army with conscripts who did not have a choice. It was fight or die...

And even if they believed in Hitler, so what.. They did not knwo about all the crimes against humanity.. They only knew a great politician who maked Germany rise from then ashes of the Versaille Treaty.. The needed someone who could unite them and make them fell like a Nations again, and not the whole worlds scapegoat.. So maybe they were all believers in Hitler, but they only knew his "good" sides...

BUT when you say that the Atomic Bombs in japan were necessary i have to say that you talk nonsense... Atomic bombs is NEVER necessary... NEVER!!! Sure, you might die fast but the aftereffects can never be excused...

How many people died in WWII? Too many, no matter what country they came from... If you could have it your way you would probably also have wanted nukes to be dropped in germany during the war.. Am i right??

reply

[–] itwashambone 18 years ago

I hate to be a newcomer and in advance, I truely don't care at all for your feelings so spare me the "read a book of etiquette" *beep* that you have used to make yourself look vitimized throughout this threat. "How many German soldiers died....not enough?" In response to that, I have to question not only your sanity but the extent to which your stupidity dumbfounds me. (pardon the pun) You talk about these peoples' lives with such callous that it suprises me you aren't a neo nazi yourself. Try thinking about them as people and not a statistic before you say something as coldhearted as that.

reply

[–] marj-7 18 years ago

Hej dennitraberg.

Siden du synes at have en interesse i 2. verdenskrig, kan jeg fortælle, at der kommer en ny dokumentar om jøderne i DK under 2. verdenskrig fra man. d. 12. februar.

Mange hilsner
Maria

reply

[–] seshking 18 years ago

1.7 - 2 million casualties.

So how many have to die in 1 battle to make it a big deal?

reply

[–] jesusfood-1 18 years ago

artistic engineer, i am awed by ur steadfast confidence of ur wrong observations, keep it up. Never lose momentum. LOL stalingrad was in no way a big deal... how can u say that, honestly. It was the turning point of the war, seriously, moreso than kursk, normandy, iwo jima... everything. if thats not a big deal then what is? the death of rossevelt? because anything in comparison to stalingrad is like u, insignifigant.

reply

[–] Greengagesummer 18 years ago

artisticengineer,

I am glad there is someone on IMDb who insists on civil discourse. There are a few things I have a problem with in your posts, and I hope we can discuss them in a civilized way.

Firstly, you condemn all the soldiers who fought for Germany during WWII, going so far as to say not enough people died, even though the number of German soldier deaths were around 20 million.

It is easy for us all to sit here today in front of our computers and type that the German soldiers deserved it. But I think, frankly, that it's inhumane to say so. Many of them might have held views that were wrong. They were still thinking, feeling people.

Anyway, even if someone was a racist and a neo-Nazi, I couldn't watch him get tortured and say it was right to put him through it because of the views he held. If I did that, I wouldn't be a bit better than he was.

You’re saying the battle was "not that terrible"... it almost sounds like you're saying it was "almost okay". That’s how it translates for me. ”Not too bad” = ”almost good”. I don't know if this was your intention. If it wasn't, I think that's how most people are reading your post. That's why they are mad.

And saying it wasn't that big a deal... it was a very important battle and a historical milestone. Not only was it the bloodiest battle in history, but it was also the turningpoint of the war, as you yourself have said. Its importance cannot be overstated.

Finally, I wonder why you felt the need to make a post like this in the first place. I think we can both agree that war is a terrible thing. Why compare different kinds of terrible? It’s pretty pointless. The only person who could make an accurate comparison between Stalingrad and Hiroshima, who could tell us which one was ”more terrible” than the other, would be someone who had lived through both of these things. There is no such person.

Greengagesummer

reply

[–] wmarkley 18 years ago

I'd like to echo your comments, Greengagesummer. The fact that the German troops were fighting for a bad regime does not excuse the treatment they received from the Soviets. And while all individuals should take responsibility for their actions, many German soldiers were not war criminals.

Believe it or not, some Germans who participated in one way or another in the Third Reich did so for idealistic or altruistic reasons, and many just sort of went along for the ride, or because they felt they had to. Some thought they were building a better Germany after the devastation of World War I and the bad economic troubles in Germany in the Twenties. There was also a very real threat of Marxist take-over of Germany after World War I, which would not have been a good thing. And the Soviets were being very expansionist between the World Wars, so people had good reason to fear them. I am not saying that the Nazis should be excused for their crimes. Nazis committed many horrible acts, including the Holocaust, but not all Germans were war criminals, and as Greengagesummer states, a person should not be tortured or persecuted because of their views. I think most German soldiers were soldiers because that was their duty as Germans, and the Nazis were not very tolerant of "conscientious objectors."

The Nuremberg Trials were very imperfect, but they at least provided a measure of legal justice for some of the top Nazi criminals. And during the past few decades there have also been many trials and convictions of Germans who committed definite war crimes, and that's how it should be. Its sad that there hasn't been similar justice in countries that suffered under Communism, but that's another story. Some Nazis who committed atrocities escaped justice. At the same time, all Germans who were adults during the war shouldn't suffer under a blanket condemnation.

As was the case with Hitler, in the Soviet Union it wasn't only Stalin who was a criminal. Stalin had many willing partners in committing atrocities and genocide. For starters, read Simon S. Montefiore's The Court of the Red Tsar if you want the tip of the iceberg. Many Soviets who committed terrible crimes were true-believing Communists. Sadly, Soviet Partisans are still often idealized, but they often committed atrocities against civilians who were caught in the middle, and against Germans. As in Germany, though, many people in the Soviet Union just went along for the ride. Some thought, mistakenly, that Communism would provide a better situation. After a while, many Germans and Soviets realized that they had bought into bad systems, but it was too late to do much. Its very easy for us to think we would have been a heroic member of the Resistance. When you're living in totalitarian regimes, its awfully rough just to get by day to day. A lot of the German troops thought they were doing their duty by fighting in the Wehrmacht. I don't think that they should be slammed for doing their duty as regular soldiers, sailors or airmen. If they committed actual war crimes, that's another matter, and then they should be criticized.

Today so many of us like to think we're so superior to our ancestors. I'm certain that many people who consider themselves very enlightened today will be considered by most people in the future to have had outlandish, false beliefs. And I've noticed that a lot of people who are self-righteous in comparison with people in the past often haven't had to face very difficult circumstances. At least many Germans did heroic things in fighting for each other, and against what they perceived as real threats. And they were uniformed soldiers fighting in organized military formations, which is very different from the terrorists of today who specifically target unarmed civilians. In saying these things, I am not excusing Nazism. One has to look at the whole picture.

Also, as Greengagesummer and Artisticengineer have said, its important that we can have civil discussions about these and other things.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Thank you for the compliment concerning civil discourse. Yes, we can discuss things in a civilized way. Unfortunately there are a number of posters who do not want to take the time and trouble to provide proper comments; and some of them have made their presence felt on this thread.

Replying to your comments, the ones you have problems with: Yes, I condemn the German soldiers who fought for the Axis during WWII. They supported a monstrous regime. Simple as that. I am not thinking here about Stalingrad so much as about the horrible matters inflicted upon populations that fell under Axis control. Even a German soldier who was conscripted at gunpoint (which very few actually were) is accountable for his/her actions. You and some other people who have posted here seem to be making an excuse for the German soldier's actions that in legal terms is called "duress". And, if somebody points a gun to my head and tells me to do something illegal I can use that as a "legal defense" at my trial for the crime that I committed. Except, the "duress defense" cannot be used as a legal excuse against the charge of murder. Courts do not buy that defense for murder and I do not feel being conscripted allows a soldier to commit war crimes. You must remember that ultimately one is responsible for one's actions; that is simply a fact. In peace or war, you may eventually have to account for your actions. In 1961, at his war crime's trial, Adolph Eichmann pleaded that he was just following orders. Well, he would claim that, wouldn't he? Anyway, the government of Israel did not feel that was sufficient justification for murder; neither do I.

I did not write that enough people died in the battle. I am saying that not enough German soldiers died at Stalingrad; if enough German soldiers died the entire German front could have collapsed in a couple of months and the war would have been over. I hate to be so brutally pragmatic, but the deaths of more German soldiers in January 1943 would have saved a lot more innocent people than the actual surrender in May 1945. As you may have guessed, I personally know concentration camp survivors. That does change one's attitude.

However, I will concede a point to you. Instead of the German soldiers dying; it would have been even better, and more humane for all, if they simply were captured, deserted in droves, or simply mutinied against the High Command (as happened in 1918 and brought that war to an end). And, yes, I do agree that the captured soldiers should not have been tortured.

The battle was NOT good. There is no such thing as a good battle, or war. As Benjamin Franklin said, "A bad peace is better than a good war." But, suppose the German Army had captured Stalingrad? What then? Not much difference in the long run, I suspect. They would have held it for a few months and then the Soviets would have launched a new counter attack in the spring with new tanks and troops. Looking at the figures (people, weapons, industrial capacity) I really cannot see how the Germans could have made the gain permanent. By that time the Germans were doomed to ultimately loose the war anyway. The battle was indeed a turning point (though not an immediate collapse), but the turning point would have come regardless of the outcome of that particular battle. That is one of the reasons that I wrote that this battle was not really that important (it was in the sense that it was simply one more battle, albeit a large one, on the Eastern Front that doomed Germany). In fact, the Russian casualties in this battle are considerably less than what occurred at Leningrad in the war. Now, that battle, or siege, was one of the all time terrible events in WWII.

As far as comparing the horror of a large conventional battle such as Stalingrad compared to Hiroshima- well, I agree with you that nobody is truly entitled to do so as nobody (that I am aware of) went through both. Yet, that comparison was done by various governments, in the post WWII era. The conclusion was that a conventional battle was not as bad as a use of a nuclear weapon; which is why the United States and other nuclear powers will send troops into conventional battles. However, governments start "shaking in their boots" whenever the possible use of nuclear force is even mentioned.

Thank you for presenting your comments to me in a proper fashion. I believe I have answered them without going into too much extraneous detail. Also, I believe that when you consider this more fully, we are actually in agreement about these matters than in disagreement.

reply

[–] DannyRK 18 years ago

No, the reason Stalingrad was important is because if the city had fallen to the Germans, the USSR could have been cut off from the Baku oilfields in the Caucasus mountains. Baku supplied the USSR with almost three-quarters of it's oil supply. Without that, the Soviet war machine would have quickly ran out of fuel.

Russia's strength drew at least partly from it's wealth of natural resources, so the loss of the Caucasus would have been a bullet through the heart for them.

reply

[–] Greengagesummer 18 years ago

Thank you for your reply, artisticengineer. I think I understand what you meant better now.

I see the battle of Stalingrad as terrible because of how many people were killed, because of the conditions they fought in, and everything else that has already been mentioned on this thread. So the phrase "Battle actually was not that terrible" seemed wrong to me, for reasons I explained before. Naturally it is a good thing the Germans didn't win.

Even if Germany might have lost later anyway, Stalingrad is still the turning point. There are millions of what if's in history, but you can't change it. And, like dannykipp says, the loss of Stalingrad would have meant disaster for Soviet (well, more disaster than there already was).

Regarding the Germans, I don't believe it is as simple as that. wmarkley has explained it better than I could.

Greengagesummer

reply

[–] ajrnos88 18 years ago

wasn't that terrible - your wrong.

reply

[–] CyrilPastorek 18 years ago

why even bother with such a jerkoff psycho

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Well, perhaps. I mean, yes, what you stated concerning Baku supplying the USSR with the enormous oil supply is certainly true. I am not denying that. And, I do know that is why the German Army was pushing so hard in that direction. So, they could get the oil.

However, it is doubtful that even if Germany had obtained that region (ironically, by bypassing Stalingrad they probably would actually have obtained the oilfields) it is rather doubtful they could have actually utilized it as they did not have sufficient pipelines and refineries to do so. The German Army of that era had a notorious habit of initiating campaigns with woefully insufficient fuel reserves; though that was probably the fault of the mediocre street artist who was head of Germany at that time, and not of the generals themselves.

As far as denying the Soviets the oil; yes, that would have been one result had the Germans won the battle. However, the Soviets could have compensated with oil from other parts of that region they still held or from Iran. I do not think it would have affected the ultimate outcome of the Russian Front.

What is quite interesting about the entire oil issue was that the war could have been won fairly fast by the Allies in 1943. By early 1943 the United States Army Air Force had the capability and was carrying out large bombing raids over Germany. Also, so was the Royal Air Force. And, somebody could ask, so what? We knew that already. What is not know by most people (and I did not realize this until a few years ago when I was attending USAF Air Command and Staff College) was that these raids were not well coordinated at all. The USAAF did not have a real good "target committee" to determine the most effective target campaign. And, the USAAF and RAF did not coordinate efforts at all until the very end of the war (when the USAAF would bomb a strategic target by precision bombing in the day and the RAF would follow up with a night raid on the same target). Had the target committees been a little more astute the war would have been over by the summer of 1943. Albert Speer, who was the Minister of Armaments realized this at the time. Basically, had the USAAF and RAF bombed the oil refineries they could have put all of them out of operation within 6 weeks. And, there was only 6 weeks of fuel "in the pipeline" so Germany would have sputtered to a stop within 12 weeks or 3 months of the beginning of an aerial bombing campaign focused on the refineries.

Some refineries were hit; such as during the notorious "Ploesti" Raid, but there was not sufficient focus on these refineries to shut them all down. Their significance was totally overlooked by the planners. Had the Allies understood this there would have been no need of a dramatic "D-Day" or intensive ground campaign by the United States Army and the Soviet Union would not have had the opportunity to seize large areas of Eastern Europe. More humorously- today we would be saying "George Who?" when told about "George Patton".

reply

[–] DannyRK 18 years ago

art.eng., as for the oil business, taking Baku and avoiding the Stalingrad meatgrinder would not have saved Germany, but would have doomed the USSR. You said earlier that Stalingrad did not cause Germany to collapse. True, Stalingrad's significance was that it prevented a Soviet collapse, not caused a German one.

Stalingrad was an industrial town, and the Luftwaffe totally destroyed the infrastructure. HItler's mistake was being obssessed with German ground troops occupying the destroyed city, which consumed men and machines like a maw.

You mention the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 2007, after more than 60 years of cooperation with Japan, it is easy to forget that in the summer of 1945, animosity between the US and Japan had reached unbelieveably high levels.

December 1941: The Pearl Harbor sneak attack enraged the United States so much that the US government feared there would be immigrant Japanese citizens hanging from trees all over the country.

April-June 1942: American-controlled Philippines falls to Japan, and thousands of American and Filipino POWs are killed by exhaustion, torure and starvation in the Bataan Death March. But since communications with the US were cut down, America does not find out about the Death March for more than two years.

October-December 1944: American forces retake the Philippines in a series of bloodbath battles, and discover from Allied survivors and captured Japanese about the Bataan Death March, and other atrocities. The already-high level of hatred of Japan increases even more in the United States.

summer 1945: Germany has fallen, the USSR is looking to expand into Asia, and American leaders are faced with how to deal with Japan: a conventional land invasion or use atomic bombs.

So.....by using the atomic bomb, US leaders kill three birds with one stone:

Militarily, the bomb prevented a land invasion of Japan, ending the war quickly and at a lesser cost in both Allied and Japanese lives.

Strategically, using the bomb and ending the war prevented the USSR from expanding any further into Korea and China. That's why Korea was divided in the first place, the USSR's invasion of the peninnsula halted with Japan's surrender.

On the home front, demand for revenge against Japan was boiling over, with the Philippine atrocities and Pearl Harbor alone. Using the bomb was seen at the time (but faded in the decades after) as the final vengeance.

Yes, there were talks by the Japanese of surrender before the bombs were used, but Japan's government was divided between hardline hawks and supporters of surrender. Every day they argued and delayed was another day hundreds, thousands of Japanese and Americans died.

And even if none if this has made you think, I will say this: Poison gas was used as a military weapon by all sides in WWI. Because poion gas was so destructive, it was not used on the battlefield in WWII. For genocide, yes, but not on the battlefield, because the memories of the use of gas resonated strongly.

So after atom bombs were used in WWII, during the Cold War that followed, global nuclear war didn't happen, in part because of the memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

reply

[–] wmarkley 18 years ago

Good points, dannykipp. For someone wanting to read more, Richard B. Frank has written some excellent, common sense accounts of why it made sense for the U.S. to use the atomic bombs to end World War II.

Regarding Stalingrad, another significant effect it had on Germany was a big blow to morale. A lot of Germans could see through the official propaganda of it being a Thermopylae-type stand on the way to victory, and many started to believe that the war might be lost.

reply

[–] bradstory 18 years ago

Interesting that you mention Thermopylae. The German leadership did exactly that in trying to glamorize the needless and reckless sacrifice of perhaps Germany's finest infantry army. In Joachin Wieder's book "Stalingrad: Memories and Reassessments", he mentions this quite clearly. Weider is a Stalingrad survivor and gives his attitude that as the propaganda broadcasts were comparing the 6th Army to Leonidas and the 300 Spartans, he felt utterly betrayed and that the leaders back home were putting window dressing on what he believed to have been a totally preventable catastrophe. He did not feel like he was a modern equivalent of one of those Spartans. He felt that he and many like him were being sacrificed needlessly. It's a good book. Pick up a copy if you haven't read it already.

Strangely, the fall of Tunisia lost Germany about as many men as Stalingrad did, yet the coverage of it was minor in comparison and the event was largely overlooked by the general public.

reply

[–] DannyRK 18 years ago

"Strangely, the fall of Tunisia lost Germany about as many men as Stalingrad did, yet the coverage of it was minor in comparison and the event was largely overlooked by the general public."

The same thing happened for the Allies in Italy, when Rome fell on June 4th, and two days later D-Day overshadowed the Italian campaign. Italy was not completely taken until April 28th, 1945, when the Duce's last holdout collapsed and he was shot and hanged.

In Bill Mauldin's book "Up Front" he talks about how frustrated the GIs in Italy were since they were in a kind of meatgrinder battle up the penninsula and being ignored, while the GIs in France and Germany were being treated like celebrities.

reply

[–] wmarkley 18 years ago

Thanks Bradstory about the info on Wieder's book. I've only skimmed it a little bit but now I'd like to read more of it.

reply

[–] marj-7 18 years ago

Hi artisticengineer.

I've just watched a German documentary about the battle in question, and I just want to adress Your initial assessments.

First of all, as You Yourself point out in another post on this thread - yes, your statement is rather subjective, but I assume it's meant to be a provocation designed to create debate, in which You have successeded. Good for You.

I've researched a great deal about Your statement, that a number of other conflicts had more casualties than the battle of Stalingrad, and so far I haven't seen a single source that lists a battle in active warfare (so that excludes e.g. genocide), that doesn't name battle of Stalingrad as the single, most casualty-heavy armed conflict in history.

Estimates are btw. 850.000-nearly 2 mio casualties including both soldiers, civilians and P.O.W. If You have other sources or informations that disputes these various claims, You're more than welcome to bring them forth.

Now, You don't know, unless You have made some sort of major survey, what "most people" think about B.O.S, but after I watched this documentary with both German and Russian vets, Russian civilians, and German and Russian family members of killed or missing soldiers, participating, Im sure they would disagree with You, that the battle was "no big deal".

Best Regards
Maria

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Major survey? Well, to tell the truth I have not made one, but I am very certain of the results if such a survey were taken now- most people are not aware of the battle! It really is not that important to Americans.

You watched a German documentary about the battle. In the context of the documentary I am certain the battle was of major importance. But, in the overall context was it really that important? That is what I was trying to tell people.

Concerning the deaths; would not a death from genocide be at least as bad as dying in combat? In fact, would it not be even worse?? So, why do you not consider genocidal slaughter in the statistics? Regardless, there were some battles during the Taiping Rebellion in the 19th century that were much worse than Stalingrad. And, as I have stated before, one nuclear weapon (of modern design) would easily kill more people in a few minutes than died in Stalingrad.

As far as the veterans and their family members are concerned; yes, it was a big deal. However, that would be the case even in a very insignificant battle- a personal loss is always a big deal. To the person experiencing the loss that is. In that case please consider that more people die on U.S. highways in three months (or even less time) than the number of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq in almost four years. Still, though people in the U.S. want to pull the troops out of Iraq I have yet to hear of those same people demanding that our highways be shut down! It is all how you percieve the situation.

Regards

Regards

reply

[–] marj-7 18 years ago

Hi again artisticengineer.

Bravo - I like the fact, that this time I see some real effort, well, at least some, to present factual argumentation.

Im not including genocide in this, because B.O.S. was part of active warfare, and genocides are, per definition (according to international laws of crimes against humanity), a whole different matter. The law act of CPPCG, lists a number of specific traits, that needs to be present, before an "incident" can be refered to as genocide, and none of them apply to B.O.S. So, in that context it seems pointless to compare genocide to a battle like B.O.S. If we were discussing Holocaust, it certainly would be more appropriate.

I have no doubt, that being a victim in a genocide must be awful, and I don't recall to have stated otherwise.......

Now, what is, overall, really important? That's a big question. For You it's somewhat important to convince people, that B.O.S wasn't that important, and for me it's somewhat important to express a different view.

B.O.S. had a major impact on the German warfare - and for the outcome of the European wars, hence the war in its whole. For a very long time the Axis-forces were superior in WWII, but Stalingrad, and the fatigue of the German warmachine, was major contributers in changing that.

WWII was the conflict in modern history, that singlehanded changed the life of both Americans and people all over the world. A great number of political, geographical and socioeconomic factors participated in shaping the modern and present world.

In that context WWII - and B.O.S. seem more important than both the Taiping Rebellion (which lasted about 15 years, but had little if any impact on modern Western history) or a nuclear conflict which is, and hopefully will remain, a pure hypotheses.

Maybe, for Young people today - Americans as well as Europeans - B.O.S. doesn't mean much, but the fact that a discussionboard like this exists, and is quite active indicates, that at least some people have an interest in history.

Best Regards
Maria

reply

[–] Greengagesummer 18 years ago

artisticengineer wrote:
"Major survey? Well, to tell the truth I have not made one, but I am very certain of the results if such a survey were taken now- most people are not aware of the battle! It really is not that important to Americans."

I don't think that necessarily means Stalingrad was unimportant. Rather, it seems to show that there is something seriously wrong with the American education system. Are they trying to gloss over how Soviet also won the war?

It just seems strange to me, considering what we were taught in school, that the battle should be considered "not that important" in America.

Greengagesummer

reply

[–] DannyRK 18 years ago

hahahahahahha! THere are millions of things that aren't important to Americans (and I'm an American)!! The Eastern Front was ignored for so long, that I'm sure it's importance has been lost...to Americans.

And artisticengineers comments about how traffic fatalities outnumber battle deaths: During the first Gulf war in 1990-91, more people died from drive-by shootings in Chicago than in the war.

BUT...the first Gulf War, which drove Iraq's army out of Kuwait and led to US military bases in Saudi Arabia, had a much bigger effect long-term than gangs shooting at each other in Chicago. So numbers of fatalities does NOT determine how important an event is.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

I did not say that every German soldier was a Nazi. However, how could anybody DENY that every German soldier was supporting the Nazi regime??!!! If one supports the actions of a murderer one becomes an accompliance to murder if not actually a principal to murder. Simple legal fact. And, as for your commennt in a previous message about a (now elderly) German soldier accosting me in person I would have to say that I doubt that any of them would have the guts to do so. In fact, if you and I were to meet, in person, I doubt if you would have the courage to do so either.

You said you will not go on with your postings. PLEASE keep your promise!!!

reply

[–] bradstory 18 years ago

"I doubt that any of them would have the guts to do so"

Considering that an 18 year old recruit in 1945 is now turning 80 this year, it's not a stretch that too many of them with any sense would physically challenge a man in his 20's to 50's...

However, had you said that to one of the several millions who wore feldgrau from 1939-1945 when they were younger, I am sure an ample proportion would have taken you up on that challenge.

The notion that each person under arms in the German military was directly supporting the Nazi regime is a little one-dimensional and black and white. Certainly on one hand they took an oath to Adolf Hitler and fought at the will and direction of that man. On the other many soldiers rationalized their actions as fighting for their homeland, fighting to keep their loved ones safe, fighting for the sake of the man next to him, or several other reasons. While you are correct at the very root of it, biographical evidence suggests that very few actively kept in mind that they were acting on behalf of the Nazis. Does their rationalization make the truth that they were indeed ultimately doing things to prop up the Nazis any less true? No. However, it helps to explain why the Germans were very difficult to defeat, since if they were indeed simply fighting solely for a Nazi cause first and foremost, the Wehrmacht would have totally collapsed in the 1941-42 winter or at any other critical point from then on.

reply

[–] DannyRK 18 years ago

German soldiers had to swear an oath to Hitler because Hitler and his thugs had hijacked and dismantled the German Weimar democracy. There was actually a lot of tension between the Nazi stormtroopers and the regular German military.

All three major assassination attempts on Hitler were carried out by German military officials. German soldiers fought because they didn't want to be killed or captured, just like any other soldiers would do.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

To dannykipp: That was an interesting posting and I am sure that everything in the posting is true; even though it sounds somewhat suspicious (i.e. something used by defendants at the war crime trials when they were searching for an excuse). Anyway, presuming it is true, the point still remains that duress (the term for what you are saying was the motive for the regular German military) is not a valid legal defence for the crime of murder. It can be used as a legal defence for other crimes (Patty Hearst tried to use it to defend herself against the crime of bank robbery), but not for the crime of murder.

I respectfully ask you to please stop defending the actions of the Germany military in WWII; all it does is make the person doing the defending look like a neo-Nazi.

reply

[–] wmarkley 18 years ago

artisticengineer, there is a big difference between defending German military men in WWII and being a neo-Nazi. Those who equate the two are like extreme leftists who want to exert mind control on everyone and force them into "groupthink" for the sake of whatever ideals are in fashion. Its like the old leftist accusation of "Fascist" for anyone who disagrees with them. I'm not saying you are necessarily intending to do that, but be careful not to fall into political correctness. The truth shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of appearance or politics.

German soldiers were individuals, and as someone else said, many, and in my guess most of them, were fighting for the sake of their homeland and the safety of their loved ones. In the tradition of western warfare, military men have regularly respected those who fought honorably on the other side, even for a bad regime. Many Allied troops felt this respect for regular German troops even though they hated Nazism.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

As to your first comment: Yes, actually you are correct. However, PLEASE note that I did not say that defending the WWII German military makes one a neo-nazi; I did mention that it causes one to LOOK like a neo nazi. Certainly other people could questions the motives of an individual who defends the actions of the WWII German military. I do not believe that I am too "groupthink" with that statement. The contemporary German government has termed the 1934-1945 German government as "criminal"; so even they are not trying to defend the actions of the WWII German military.

You are VERY correct when you stated that "in the tradition of western warfare, military men have regularly respected those who fought honorably on the other side..." However, you left out one part. Up through World War I the reason why an honorable soldier was fighting in a battle ultimately was due to the fact that his King had commanded him too; and you certainly followed your King's orders. For U.S. troops you were fighting for your President, but same idea. So, if a WWI British soldier captured a German soldier and asked the German why he was fighting in France the answer (given by the German soldier" would most likely be "I'm here because my King told me to fight here; same as what your King told you to do". So, one could understand and even sympathize with the enemy in that context. That is why the rules for the humane treatment of POWs came into effect. Back then, war was seen as honorable.

Unfortunately, in WWII the German government and military were doing things that were simply monstrous. The Western Allies concluded that the humane treatment given to the German POWs was undeserved by those POWs. Well, it was too late to rectify that, but the West finally figured out what the East (Russian) had long known (at least since the time they drove Napoleon out):

There is no such thing anymore as an honorable war. Legitimate differences between countries are solved by negotiations. Going to war is an act of state sanctioned murder. War is, of itself, a terrible "crime against peace". Even if a soldier of the agressor military acts "honorably" he(or she) is still guilty of the crime of "acts against peace".

That is it in a nutshell. Honorable countries do not threaten each other with military action. As an example, look at the Taliban POWs that we have. They are not regarded as "Prisoners of War"; instead they are regarded as criminals-which they are (flying aircraft loaded with innocent passengers into buildings or other such acts of terroism are not the actions of law abiding people regardless on ones political beliefs). And, they are kept in prisons-where they belong. They are not deserving of the "POW" status of the WWI era.

The Soviets treated the German soldiers captured at the end of the Battle of Stalingrad in a very humane fashion. Consider this, if I (or you) caught an enemy soldier in my (or your) town after he had been there killing people for a few months then it is doubtful he would live to worry about would be whether or not he would have a war crimes trial. The very last thing he would be worrying about would be how much time I intended to use to execute him. The Soviets were certainly humane to the Germans considering the destuction and killing they had done.

Sorry about the overly long post...just had to vent. You had some good points.

reply

[–] DannyRK 18 years ago

"Patty Hearst tried to use it to defend herself against the crime of bank robbery"

Bank robbery and military service are not the same, or even similar. Military service in the West involved taking oaths, following rules of engagement, etc. Bank robbery is nothing like this.

That is why the German military and the Nazis butted heads within Germany: the military saw how reckless the Nazis were. And your comment about the defendants at the Nuremburg trials: most of the military officials either got light sentences, or were aquitted. The Nazi leaders, however, got either death sentences or life in prison. There is a difference.

Your comment about how Soviets treated their POWs humanely is completely untrue. Read Antony Beevor's "Stalingrad", the Red Army treated Germans as badly as Germans treated Soviet POWs. Since only 6,000 German Sixth Army troops returned home after the war, the rest were either killed on the spot, or worked to death in labor camps.

Making statments like "German POWs were treated very humanely by Soviets" make you look like a troll, you flip-flop between saying things that sort of make sense, and then saying totally ridiculous things.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

To dannykipp: Well, I do not want to be thought of as a troll (just as you probably do not want to be thought of as a neo-nazi) so I will clarify my statement about "German POWs were treated very humanely by the Soviets". I though it was pretty clear anyway; nevertheless I will elaborate. Basically, one could say the German POWs were treated humanely as not all of them were killed by the Soviets. If the Germans had done the same thing to the United States as they did to the Soviets then I doubt if Americans would have let many, if any, German POWs survive. So, compared to how I would have treated the German POWs the Soviets were very humane.

For a better description or idea of how the United States would probably have treated German POWs; if Germany had invaded the United States, look at how we treated the Japanese POWs. I guess the few that were taken were treated pretty well, but there were not that many. And, not all of the defeated Japanese committed suicide...if you follow what I am implying. So, compared to how the the U.S. treated the enemy in the Pacific..well I think one could state that the German POWs were treated quite well by the Soviets.

I am quite aware of the difference between military service and robbing a bank. I was an officer in the U.S. military in the 1980s. And, yes, military service is not the same as robbing a bank, so why did the German military in WWII act like bank robbers?? Incidentally, some German military leaders were sentenced to death after the war. Herman Goering (head of the Luftwaffe) is an obvious example. Adm Karl Doenitz almost got the death sentence for allowing unrestricted submarine warfare to take place, but lucked out because of politics. That is, the U.S. Navy submarines did the same thing as the German subs (targeted unarmed escorts and allowed their crews to die of exposure in the vast ocean); so to avoid a war crimes trial for Nimitz the U.S. arranged to have Doenitz convicted instead of "crimes against peace", which carried a lighter sentence. These examples do not exonerate Adm Nimitz or Air Marshall Arthur Harris (RAF commander who allowed direct bombing of cities); in my humble opinion the only reason they were not tried is because they were on the winning side. Does not make what they did right, though. Since WWII we have not bombed cities nor have we engaged in submarine warfare (at least to the degree that occurred in WWII). Maybe we have improved since WWII. I can only hope so.

Hope I have clarified my points. This has become quite an interesting thread.

reply

[–] Greengagesummer 18 years ago

Indeed it has!

"Since WWII we have not bombed cities nor have we engaged in submarine warfare (at least to the degree that occurred in WWII). Maybe we have improved since WWII. I can only hope so."

Maybe, but that isn't saying much considering how many people died in WWII. I understand Vietnam was quite a disaster and the current war isn't going very well. We have also let hideous crimes against humanity happen, like in Rwanda and Cambodia.

How are we going to prevent things like that from happening, if we don't try to understand what was going on in Germany when the Nazis came to power? How can we learn from history if we don't acknowledge that most of these people were just people, like us? I don't think Dannykipp looks like a Neo-Nazi just because he brings up the other point of view. We have to be able to discuss this without starting to accuse one another of things like that.

It would also do well for us to remember how the allied countries and the US failed to prevent the Nazis before it was too late, and how most of them closed their borders to Jews who were trying to escape. Racism was pretty much accepted then. It's easy to judge the Germans, but it's difficult to judge nearly everyone.

I can agree with you, artisticengineer, in that most of the orders Hitler gave were as far from honourable as it could get. Hitler comes across as a bit of a cult leader from what I have read, and many people believed in him so strongly that they wouldn't disobey even his most inhumane orders, but a number of people actually resigned their positions because they couldn't obey him for moral reasons.

I don't think we're in a position to say that every German soldier who fought in WWII deserved to die. And I also disagree with you about how the Soviets treated their prisoners after Stalingrad. Out of the 90 000 prisoners they took, 6000 eventually returned home. You say you would have treated them worse. How? Would you have killed every last one? I hope not.

Greengagesummer

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Concerning the German POWs at the end of Stalingrad. The movie (after all, this is a movie discussion board) shows that these men would kill unarmed Soviet prisoners as well as rape female captives. So, I really do not know what sort of legal or moral defense they had against war crime charges. Probably not much. Would I have killed the German POWs? Probably not; but only because they were not committing their crimes (in this movie) against Americans. I knew real life US Army and Marine veterans who fought against the Japanese in WWII and they readily admitted they did not take prisioners. If you look at the statistics (which were not released for a long time after WWII), not many Japanese soldiers were taken captive by our forces. Enough said about that.

Concerning Hitler. The people who wrote the books showing Hitler as a cult leader probably did that so the blame for the atoricities would be focused on Hitler- who had died by the time the books were written. That would shift the blame from other Germans who were still alive then. Actually, though Hitler believed in some cult ideas he was not a "cult leader" as such; thorough analysis shows that he was a leader in the sense that he knew which way the crowd was going so he was able to run ahead and get in front of the crowd. By no means was the attitude of 1933-1945 Germany caused by the National Socialist Party. That party simply reflected the attitude of the German people of that time. Yes, there were some Germans who violently disagreed with the National Socialists; an example being Albert Einstein. Germans like him had to leave Germany or else! The people who resigned also left. In fact, there were some Germans fighting for the Allies in the war. Those are the only Germans who could be said to have fought in an honorable way in WWII.

And yes, there were definitely some failures on the part of the Allied Governments as early as 1919 (treating the Central Powers too harshly after WWI) all the way to Munich in 1938 (not treating Hitler harsh enough).

I am glad you do not look upon Dannykipp like he is a neo nazi. I do not either, but other people could certainly percieve him or anybody else who tries to defend the actions of the German Military in WWII as a symphathizer of that evil regime. I think you can see why. That is all I will mention about that except to suggest that he puts in future postings some sort of disclaimer.

reply

[–] Greengagesummer 18 years ago

"And yes, there were definitely some failures on the part of the Allied Governments as early as 1919 (treating the Central Powers too harshly after WWI) all the way to Munich in 1938 (not treating Hitler harsh enough)."

And ignoring their treatment of the Jews. All the people who admired Hitler before 1938, like Lloyd George and Gertrude Stein and others - nobody seemed to see anti-semitism as an important issue. A lot of people were wilfully blind to what was going on in this monstrous regime, both in and outside of Germany.

I'm not saying the Germans were justified because 'everyone else thought so too'. I'm saying the war was not such a struggle of good against evil as it often gets depicted as in Hollywood movies. I'm saying that we should examine the way the allied countries and the neutral countries acted as well. It wasn't black and white.

I thought Hitler seemed like a cult leader because of his alleged charisma, and the way he caused people around him to become so incredibly devoted to him. But I agree with you that you can't take away responsibility from the people who carried out his orders.

"Concerning the German POWs at the end of Stalingrad. The movie (after all, this is a movie discussion board) shows that these men would kill unarmed Soviet prisoners as well as rape female captives. So, I really do not know what sort of legal or moral defence they had against war crime charges. Probably not much. Would I have killed the German POWs? Probably not; but only because they were not committing their crimes (in this movie) against Americans."

Of course, but if you had been a citizen of Soviet instead of America?

According to what I've read, there were both German and Soviet soldiers who acted barbarously during the war, Germans when they invaded Soviet, Soviets when they invaded Germany. In the end, I guess everyone deserved to die...?

reply

[–] artisticengineer 17 years ago

Just try it.

reply

[–] Slipdigit 17 years ago

posted by jakemiller5000
>>>>You really are ignorant dumbass. Stalingrad was hell on earth. Over 2 MILLION PEOPLE ***DIED*** in this battle and you come in here claiming "OH STALINGRAD WASN'T THAT BAD".<<<<<<

Could you provide a verifiable source for this excessive number, when you consider that there were only about 1.5 million total committed to the battle on both sides.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 17 years ago

Thank you slipdigit for trying to put this discussion on a reasonable level.

As to the others who disagreed with me: I am being quite serious. Stalingrad was NOT as terrible as some would have you think. It was not as terrible as the Pacific battles between the U.S. and Japan. Though I am referring mainly to the island battles I would like to point out that even the "strictly" naval battles such as Midway and Leyte Gulf were very merciless also.

To prove this: Well, imagine you were on the loosing side of the Battle of Stalingrad- you were taken to prison and (probably) died a slow death due to illness or starvation. About a 7~8% chance of eventually being released. Not good, but compare to being a looser in the Pacific. There you were probably dying of illness or starvation (due to the siege by the U.S. Navy) BEFORE the battle even began. Then, at the end of the battle you had less than 1 tenth of 1% chance of being taken alive. Battle conditions MUCH more brutal than Stalingrad. The Germans in this movie were practically on vacation compared to the troops (either side) in battle at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Tarawa, etc.

I really have nothing more to add. If somebody thinks that this is not enough, then I guess I will probably never convince them. With the first hand knowledge of the great Pacific battles dying out more and more every day (all of the Pacific War vets that I personally knew are now deceased) then the day may come when nobody remembers when "civilized" man was turned inside out.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] richard-994 18 years ago

In regards to this being "not a big deal" - I think it is worth remembering that the population of Stalingrad (modern day Volgograd) went from well over 1 million (think the population figure was nearer 2 million to 1 million at the start of the battle) to 1,500 people. That's just the civilian loss with the vast vast majority not being given the opportunity to cross to Volga to relative safety. On top of that civilian loss is the loss of the men, women and children who fought with weapons in the battle.

Also, 98% of the City was destroyed, in Hiroshima only 60% was destroyed. So much of Stalingrad was destoryed that in fact only 1 or 2 buildings are still standing from when the battle ended in 1943.

In relation to scrapping for food, many soldiers died of starvation, and even when food came in for those Germans who had nearly starved the Germans were given food designed to fill them up and fatten them up, but this resulted in the Germans eating too much for what their body could handle and then dying from that. In fact, the Germans had such little food that cannabilism was certainly something many of those captured were not un-used to.

So, just looking at those minor facts (without taking into account the incredible stress on the bodies and minds of those people involved) it clearly was a major battle of death and destruction. In fact, on Christmas Day 1942 the Russians broadcast a message saying that every 7 seconds a German dies in Stalingrad - a statement which has been shown to be very close to fact.

In terms of militarily and then on the future out-come of the war and how Europe would look at the end of this conflict, Stalingrad was a massive battle and certainly a "big deal" in that respect because if Stalingrad had captiulated then Hitler could have turned all of his armies in the drive south to the Russian Oilfields of the Caucases (his armies were progressing very effectively until they were forced to withdraw by the Russian push West while Stalingrad was surrounded) and had the oilfields gone the Russians would have struggled for fuel for their tanks and planes, thus giving the Nazis a massive advantage.

The phsycologial effect of the defeat greatly added to the success for the Russians towards the middle of 1942 and the numbers of soldiers the Germans lost in Stalingrad was so huge that it impacted greatly on what military actions they could enforce in the immediate aftermarth. The attempt to supply the trapped Germans was costly in terms of aircraft and pilots lost which also caused the Nazis a great difficulty in trying to replace them.

But, all in all, your probably right. Stalingrad was just a few lads having a laugh and not really doing any sort of proper fighting while living in nice warm conditions. It also wasn't really that important a result in the war, as those Germans probably realised they were towards the end of their limits of supply lines so they would have just left Stalingrad had they won the battle anyway. Your right, as a battle, it certainly wasn't a big deal.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Well, whenever anybody dies it is a big deal for their friends and relatives, and of course for the individual themselves. However, it all has to be judged against "the big picture". There are quite a few ways to look at this; some of which you have mentioned. Let me give my rebuttal:

1. Yes, more of Stalingrad was destroyed than what was destroyed at Hiroshima. However, it took months for the destruction of Stalingrad to take place. Hiroshima
was destroyed in a matter of hours (most of that time consisted of the fire storm). And, the nuclear weapons used in Hiroshima was only a "tactical" nuclear weapon; as we term it today. If it had been a strategic nuclear weapon then very little would have been left of Hiroshima. And, it was the horror of the consequences of strategic weapon use that kept the U.S. and the Soviet Union from going to war against each other. VERY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER- a battle such a Stalingrad did not deter future wars; it was the possibility of nuclear weapon use that has detered us from WW III. The political leaders were not horrified of a battle such as Stalingrad from occurring again; they were horrified of a nuclear war.

2. A lot of German soldiers died in that city. Great! I do not see a problem with that! I wish the Soviets had killed even more of them!!Unfortunately the Soviets did not kill enough of them to cause an IMMEDIATE widescale collapse of the German Army along the Eastern Front. It still took some time before the German Army collapsed along that front.

3. I agree that if the Germans had captured the "Oilfields of the Caucases" then the Soviets would have had a problem getting sufficient oil for their military effort. I believe they could have compensated by getting oil from other areas that they still would have had control over, but it would have been a problem. Still, I doubt if the Germans could have gone much further. The Russian resistance would not have collapsed had Stalingrad fell; and, in fact, I doubt if the Germans could have held it for more than a few months before the Soviets retook it considering their advantage in manpower and machines. What is not so well known is that Allied bombing could have brought Germany to a standstill within a few months (best estimate by Albert Speer: 3 months) if the U.K. and U.S. had concentrated on the oil refineries. That is right- by the middle of 1943 Allied airpower was sufficient to stop oil refining in Germany in 6 weeks; and with 6 weeks of supplies in the Germany "pipeline". That gives a total of 12 weeks from start of bombing campaign to collapse of Germany. Unfortunately, the Allied planners did not realize that at the time.

4. Like I said at first, the Battle of Stalingrad was not really a big deal. I can understand now why it was hardly even mentioned when I was in high school in the 1960s. Even in the USAF Air Command and Staff College in the 1990s not much was mentioned about it. A lot was mentioned concerning the bombing campaign and the oil refineries; that was the very interesting point about strategic bombing effectiveness in WWII.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Greengagesummer 18 years ago

Field Marshall Haig incarnated, you are.

Can't you understand what we are saying? On a purely human level, the Battle of Stalingrad was horrifying. Slowly and torturously, in a freezing winter hell, two million people were slaughtered. Two million people. And these are NOT just statistics, these are People with Names, Faces, Lives! Try to imagine it! I know you won't. You don't think that's important, do you?

The point is that, as is clearly proven in this thread, the battle of Stalingrad is not just horrific to friends and relatives of the people involved. Most of us here can also understand that it was, even if we will never know what it was truly like to be there. Your casual comments that it was "not that terrible" and "not that big a deal" are offensive to anyone capable of feeling empathy.

If Dannykipp supposedly looks like a Neo-Nazi, you are coming across as a psychopath. Note, I'm not saying you are a psychopath; just that you look like a psychopath. If you can't see anything at all wrong with millions of people dying, wherever they're from, no matter on whose side they are... well...

Oh, and regarding what you learned in school - considering what my sister told me after she got to compare an American history textbook with textbooks from other countries, I wouldn't trust your education system to save my life. Apparently there were pages and pages about Pearl Harbor and America's war against Japan, and one small paragraph about the Holocaust. Can a book like that give an accurate picture of what happened during WWII?

I'm leaving. I give up.

Greengagesummer

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Now wait just a second Greengagesummer! Don't you dare imply that I do not think the Holocaust was a big deal! I certainly believe the Holocaust was quite terrible indeed!! Over 11 million innocent people died in the Holocaust. Concerning Stalingrad- well, the Germans got what they deserved. Why do you keep defending them??

By the way, are you from the United States? Your posting, concerning the educational system, makes it appear that you are from another country. Please clarify that before you give up.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

Capt Jim- well, there is another possibility of what I am- an ardent fan of Generals McArthur and Patton! Both of them said similiar things during WWII.

You, though, are definitely a lowlife. I suspect that you may truely be a neo-Nazi, or a member of some other hate organization.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Greengagesummer 18 years ago

Alright artisticengineer, I'll clarify what I said.

1. I did not mean to imply that you didn't care about the holocaust. I'm sorry it seemed that way. I only mentioned it in response to what you said, about why you didn't get taught much about Stalingrad at school. I just wanted to bring up an example of how your books might have been slanted in certain ways. Of course, I'm no expert, which brings me to:

2. No, I'm not American. I'm Swedish, so English isn't my first language, hence why some of the things I wrote might have seemed unclear to you.

3. Why do I keep defending the Germans, you ask? Well, to begin with, I have never written anything supporting the German cause during WWII. It wouldn't occur to me to defend what the Nazis did, and I can't understand why you choose to interpret what I or anyone else here has written that way. I wish you would stop accusing people of being Neo-Nazis. It's absurd and quite insulting. Objecting to your extreme view does not make someone pro-Nazi.

What I'm objecting to is your statement that ALL Germans deserved what they got, and that more of them should have died. I already explained my reasoning in my first post, and other people have explained it too, again and again. I, for one, am sick of repeating it.

Greengagesummer.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

To Greengagesummer: Thank you for the clarification. I have to be somewhat defensive as there are a lot of nuts out there who put horrible statements in their postings. That is why your statement about the Holocaust initially disturbed me. However, I see now that your posting presented a legitimate opinion, and was not meant to (totally) discredit me.

My reply to your points:

1. American schoolkids were not (in the 1960s) taught very much about Stalingrad. The Russian front was explained to us, but only in general terms. Looking back at this I do NOT think this was an error of the American school system. Rather, it was (still is) a reflection of the fact that the people we knew (our dads and grandfathers and their friends) were not stationed on that front. The American Serviceman fought on other fronts; that is why those were emphasized.

Now, for something that I wish to put most diplomatically, but it still needs to be brought up. You are Swedish and during WWII Sweden was a neutral country. I do not know why Sweden was neutral, but the fact remains that Sweden did not even try to stop the Germans on ANY front! So, I do not think the Swedish educational system should criticize the U.S. educational system for skipping over the Battle of Stalingrad as your troops were not there either. Enough said, because I really like your country and do not want to insult it any further.

2. As you are Swedish you are probably unfamiliar with the term "USAF Air Command and Staff College." That is a United States Air Force graduate school for military officers. It is NOT an academy like West Point, which is for undergraduate studies; instead ACSC is for career military officers who are majors. I am a graduate of that school. Imply from that what you want to. My comments on the IMDB are NOT official.

3. I really do not accuse people of being neo-nazis unless they say something that definitely them out as such. However, I do admit to warning people that what they write (if they defend the German cause in WWII in some way) could LOOK like they were neo-nazis. There is a difference, and hopefully others will see that difference too, but a lot of people do not so I respectfully recommend that in the future, when you speak about the WWII German Military, that you begin by saying that you do NOT agree with what they represented. Just my suggestion.

I personally know some Germans from that era. And, they fled Germany because of Nazi prosecution. So, I am not against all Germans from that time. I simply wanted to state that the German soldiers (who were defending a monstrous regime) should have been stopped in some way. Sweden did not see German soldiers invading and pillaging, plundering, and raping during that war. Had your country seen that then I believe you would have agreed with my comments about the WWII German soldiers. Or, perhaps you would still take exception to my statements. Well, you are free to speak as you feel. Again, thank you for clarifying your previous comments.

reply

[–] Greengagesummer 18 years ago

You're welcome. I was rather angry when I wrote those, so it's understandable that they seemed muddled. I guess I haven't given up. Or maybe I'm resigned.

"Now, for something that I wish to put most diplomatically, but it still needs to be brought up. You are Swedish and during WWII Sweden was a neutral country. I do not know why Sweden was neutral, but the fact remains that Sweden did not even try to stop the Germans on ANY front!"

I knew you were going to say something like that. :)

I am aware of my country's own history, actually. Note how I in a previous post said the allied countries AND the neutral countries should examine their own actions during WWII.

I know about what was going on in Sweden during that time. I have seen documentaries and read plenty of articles during the past few years. I can tell you one of the reasons why Sweden was neutral. Sweden had disarmed before the war. It was a horrible mistake. When the war began, we had no way of defending ourselves.

"So, I do not think the Swedish educational system should criticize the U.S. educational system for skipping over the Battle of Stalingrad as your troops were not there either. Enough said, because I really like your country and do not want to insult it any further."

Merely stating facts is not an insult. Feel free to do that as much as you like, I won't take offense or deny anything that's true.

I do not see why we shouldn't compare textbooks from different countries in school though, and discuss the different ways in which the same events are presented. I think it's a splendid idea. It can give you a real sense of perspective.

Does the fact that we weren't fighting in WWII mean we have no right to have critical opinions about this? Aren't we supposed to study battles where our own troops weren't involved? (You'd have to go back two hundred years in that case...) Is WWII none of our business? Does this mean we shouldn't study ancient Greece or Rome either?

You'll have to explain what you mean there. I'm afraid I don't understand. I, personally, haven't fought on any front. Does this mean I should stay away from this discussion, and history altogether?

Greengagesummer

reply

[–] juninho25-1 18 years ago

First of all I still don't understand why The Battle of Stalingrad should be compared with something that haven't happened yet (the extensive nuclear war) to become truly terrible... Of course (or at least i hope)there is always something worse than what realy happened, but it still doesn't make the real thing a minor deal.

But my real point is: Perhaps the reason that Stalingrad isn't such a big deal in America is because it's one of Soviets biggest succes' and shows the country as one of the "good countries" (I'm not saying that Soviet was a good regime, please note that). But a battle, that shows Soviet as an really important player against the Nazis, could easily be neglected in Cold War perspective...

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

To greengagesummer: Thank you for the interesting response and I am glad you did not take offense over my remark about Sweden's neutrality in WWII. I personally believe that Sweden chose neutrality as it was the least bad of two choices. The other choice, of course, was for Sweden to enter the war and, like you said, your country was certainly not prepared to defend itself at that time. So, entering the war was unacceptable for Sweden.

I agree that it is interesting to compare textbooks from different countries. Swiss textbooks view the war as a time when Switzerland "triumped" by being able to keep carnage caused by the fighting of the the waring nations (Allied and Axis) from being able to enter Switzerland. I think the best comment about textbooks comes from a now deceased relative who was awarded very high medals for heroism for fighting the Japanese in WWII. He was stationed in Japan during the post war occupation and, despite having killed quite a few Japanese soldiers in the war, grew to admire their culture. Anyway, as he stated, "History books are written by the winners."

Of course, you should NOT stay away from discussion of WWII just because Sweden was neutral in that war! All I ask of anybody, about discussing WWII, is to remember that a lot of what is shown in movies is not accurate. Some of what is shown IS accurate, but most movies are not very good true life documentaries ("Enemy at the Gate" is an example of a movie about the Battle of Stalingrad that is a good movie, but not particularly accurate). Also, when discussing WWII, remember that the military tactics are mostly obsolete. Now, for my final comment:

The Battle of Stalingrad was a pretty bad experience for the participants; I certainly agree with that. However, it was not Armageddon. It could have been worse (heck, it would have been worse had the Germans won! Fortunately they did not). The movie shows it as a sort of Armageddon, but it really was not.

Thanks for your consideration in reading my replies.

reply

[–] paratus-2 18 years ago

I'm sorry I can't read all these replies, but this opening message is unreal. This person is apparently serious, as well.

...but not really that big of a deal....

I know, I'm sure it's been discussed to death below, but wow.... not really that big of a deal - and the sun really isn't that hot.

reply

[–] artisticengineer 18 years ago

To paratus-2: Huh?

reply