Battle actually was not that terrible
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. Good movie, but I would not bother to watch it a second time.
shareThe person who started this thread (a 10 year old kid?) has no idea what he/she is talking about. It's the same type of talk as people who now say the holocaust was "not that terrible". It's an absurd thing to say, it shows a shocking lack of historical knowledge and a lack of sympathy to human suffering. You can't compare this horrible battle with a nuclear strike, that's a pointless absurd way of belittling things.
sharePlease watch your allegations howstrangitistobeanythi! The holocaust was indeed terrible and I NEVER SAID IT WASN'T!!! IT WAS AWFUL!!!!
And it is NOT pointless to compare the battle with a nuclear strike! Just the sheer horror of nuclear war has detered that from ever occurring (again). Unfortunately the history of the Battle of Stalingrad has not detered conventional war from continuing through the 20th century and into the 21st century.
I'm beginning to think nothing will deter war...
shareI firmly believe that war, or at least some aggression, is ingrained in human nature. Pacifism does not work unless it is a defined movement within a relatively humane culture, such as Gandhi's movement in British India, and the Civil Rights movement in the U.S. The British or the U.S. governments could have easily wiped out such movements by force, but the relatively democratic, open nature of U.S. and British societies plus their generally high value on individual life that is common to Western Civilization prevented that. If Gandhi would have tried his tactics against the Japanese, Nazis or Soviets, the latter would have laughed, and then run their tanks over the demonstrators. The Soviet Empire would never have crumbled if it weren't for the guns and missiles of the U.S. and the U.K. which were backing up those behind the Iron Curtain who were working for freedom. Those people in Europe arguing for the "nuclear freeze" were dead wrong. The Soviets only respected counter-force.
Look throughout history and prehistory. Archaeology and ancient art show lots of evidence of massacres and warfare in various parts of the world during prehistoric times, and then throughout history throughout the world.
There never has been a successful large-scale utopia. Today there are the PC myths of supposedly utopian Indians living in the Western Hemisphere before Columbus arrived, but Indians were committing genocide against each other before the Europeans arrived. Many American Indian tribes were extremely warlike before the arrival of Europeans due to various reasons: competition for natural resources, a great emphasis on honor, etc.
Emphasizing honor is one thing though that we shouldn't ever do away with, as long as it is tempered by civilized values. As humans we are all fundamentally flawed, and so unfortunately there will always be some people who cannot be negotiated with, because they are bullies. Therefore we'll always need an honorable military tradition to protect civilized values.
George Orwell said it right: He said more or less that we sleep safely at night only because rough men are willing to do the hard jobs of defending us. For instance, Western Europe has had an easy ride during the last several decades because others, along with a few Western European leaders, have been willing to shoulder the burden of defense. Western Europe couldn't even fix the problem in their "backyard" of Yugoslavia. Now Europe is realizing they have a very serious Islamic threat within and outside their borders which won't be negotiated away. Putin's Russia is starting to intimidate again, and Iran is not going to stop their threats against Jews, Israel and others because Europe tries to be accomodating.
Greengagesummer, nuclear weapons did about as good a job as anything else at deterring war, yet that was because the Soviet Union, as nasty as its government was, wasn't willing to be destroyed in a retaliatory strike by the West. Unfortunately that deterrent factor doesn't work against radical Islam, because its leaders are willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their own people for the sake of furthering Islam. Anyone who doesn't believe that should read comments by some Islamic leaders including Khomeini, and by current-day Islamic leaders in Iran, Egypt and elsewhere. The MEMRI service which monitors Islamic media records lots of such comments.
Rather than say there are only either dishonorable wars now or successful negotiations, as I believe that artisticengineer said, I would say that democratic, free societies do not tend to go to war against each other. At the same time, we still have lots of dangerous non-democratic nations and aggressive trans-national organizations such as al-Qaeda which are threats to the rest of us, and with which negotiations often don't work. Britain and Western Europe understandably tried to negotiate with Hitler in the Thirties to avoid another catastrophe like World War I. Neville Chamberlain gets unfairly maligned now, but his nation suffered horribly in World War I, and when it was clear the Nazis couldn't be placated he did the right thing by supporting Poland. Now, with experience, we should know better than the pacifists of the past.
I'm sorry if this is straying too far off topic, but some of these points should be raised.
Well, I did not mean to imply (concering "dishonorable wars or negotiations") what is construed here. I can, though, understand why it is construed the way it is so I will take some time to clarify it.
There is nothing dishonorable about fighting a war against a horrible enemy. I have no hesitation about the U.S. putting forces into Afghanistan in order to defeat the Al Queda. The dishonor here involves the enemy. They are not "honorable". The last time there was an honorable enemy in any war (that I am aware of) was during the first fracas in 1914-1918. Some of the enemy in that war (ex. Theodore Von Karman, a young officer in the Austria-Hungarian Army who later became the "father" of the modern day United States Air Force) were honorable and only doing their duty. Many of those worked later for the Allied Countries in WWII and nobody questioned their integrity.
Anyway, that time is long over. If we go to war against a country now it is (hopefully) because they are a bunch of low life scumbuckets. Captive soldiers from that sort of country are certainly not entitled to the "Geneva Convention Rules". That is the reason why quite a few of them are incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay Air Station-they are not considered traditional soldiers but rather as a type of criminal. I agree with that description of them. The Geneva Convention and the concept of an "honorable enemy" belong to the past.
If we set no standards for our own behavior, how can we set standards for other people's behavior?
BTW, thank you for your earlier reply. I'm glad. I can understand what you mean, even if I don't always agree.
Greengagesummer
The author of the original post is out of his gourd!!
Where do you come off comparing one of the greatest and deadliest battles in human history to a nuclear bomb attack? Whatever gave you that idea?
If you are accusing a battle of not being that "big of a deal", then shouldn't you provide other BATTLES that are... I emphasize battles, and not a nuclear attack, earthquake, tsunami, or the black death of the middle ages.
As far as battles go, Stalingrad is as "big of a deal" as any battle ever fought in history. Witness the well over 1.5 million millitary casualties (killed or wounded), and god knows how many tens of thousands of civilians dead in the five months long drawn-out battle.
I think giongulas is out of his manners. But, I shall try to answer his comments anyway (though I probably should not even bother).
First of all, the fighting at Stalingrad lasted for quite some time; it really was more of a campaign than a battle (like the Battle of the Bulge which lasted for only a few weeks). And, even if you consider it a battle, then please note that other posters in this thread have confirmed that it doesn't even make the top 10 list!
Why did I compare this battle to a nuclear bomb attack? Well, same reason Nikita Khrushev did. Please remember he was at Stalingrad during the fighting and he later had to decide if he wanted to defy the United States and keep his missiles in Cuba- which probably would have lead to a thermonuclear exchange. As tough and mean as Khrushev was- well, even he backed down from the risk of thermonuclear war. He would (did) not back down from Stalingrad. Shows what he thought of both scenarios.
Please remember "giongulas" - the odds of a large scale conventional battle like Stalingrad occurring again are about non-existent. Unfortunately, the odds of thermonuclear weapon use, somewhere in the world at sometime, are not so small.
Iran cannot mobilize enough troops to engage the United States in a Stalingrad type battle (even with our forces in Iraq), but in a few years, with the way the Iranian nuclear program is progressing.....well you can fill in the rest. As one well known political scientist said, "Compared to nuclear war WWII looks like a picnic." Which, in a way, it was.
The movie took a very "pro-German" view; which is not surprising as it was made by Germans. However, (and others in this thread have raised perhaps legitimate objections about what I am about to write now) I do not see anything wrong in what happened to the group shown in this movie! Speaking as an American, the deaths of the WWII German soldiers are certainly nothing to grieve over. Too bad more were not killed!! I mean, do you think the Germans were the good guys in WWII??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you do, well maybe that explains your rudeness.
Yeah, you probably should NOT have bothered...
You know, that must really make you feel good doesn't it, that other posters in this thread agree with you... You know what they say, there's strength in numbers.
Your logic in trying to explain your comparison is really awkward and convoluted, and as much as I agree with you(and your pal, Leonid) that nuclear war is a terrible thing indeed, it still doesn't atone for your high-fallutin original post. You know, using Khruschev's reluctance to launch nuclear war (like any sane person would do) doesn't take away anything from the barbarity of the killing in Stalingrad. And I can assure you, the high ranking political commisar didn't get his hands overly dirty in his couple of months behind the lines. After all, the only injury he personally suffered was a sprained ankle
when he jumped out of the truck that took him 30 miles away from the Volga.
It would be interesting to know what Vasiliy Chuikov, commander of the 62nd Army encircled in Stalingrad, had to say. But wait, he did say it was "hell on earth" in his Battle of Stalingrad. Other trusted sources on the topic I recommend: Erickson, Hayward and Beevor.
Truman had no compunction using the bombs. What do you make of it... that he once got into a schoolfight as a boy that was so brutal that nothing could compare to it? not Stalingrad, not even Hiroshima? You wanna discuss the use of nuclear weapons, let's talk about nuclear weapons. But it's a poor excuse to use an ipothetic nuclear war to minimise the misery and brutality of a battle that as you yourself said, will probably never come close to being equaled.
It's not my intention to argue about casualties or even if it "made" the top ten (although, last I checked it ranked Nr. 1 in wikipedia's lethal battles of the world). Did you know that the Soviets lost in that one battle more casualties than both the Americans and the Brits put together in the whole war?
I can assure you that had you been one of the German or Romanian troops who had to put up with five months of constant shelling, fatigue, starvation, freezing and/or muddy trenches, and hand to hand combat, (all the while suspecting that your survival chances are just about nil) than you'd gladly volunteer to be one of the innocent passerbys in the main square of Hiroshima circa 08:15, August 6, 1945.
Wow, it's almost funny (if it wasn't so sad) to see how "atuned" to world politics and current events you seem to be, and yet you fail to realize that you can't even dream about understanding the world we live in by taking "snapshots" of particular events like you do. Everything is intertwined, you gotta start at the beginning mon cher. I strongly suggest starting with the first written accounts of Summeria, Babylon and Egypt, you know, like a real historian would do. It seems you've got a long way to go, given the high horse you feel entitled to preach from about the German army in WW2. You know, it wouldn't hurt to pick up a history book now and then, especially those that deal with interbellic Europe if you want to understand what made Germany itch for a sequel to WW1. I don't approve of the methods the Germans chose to resolve their perceived unjust treatment after Versailles, and I certainly don't think the Germans were the good guys. But that doesn't make me wish that a lot more *beep* had died, because in the end they were regular people with regular lives who got thrown into a very real dillema: follow orders and march into Stalingrad, or death by firing squad. Yes, it's true that maybe a majority of the German people started the war on a relatively enthusiastic note, but 2 decades before that the French and the Brits marched off enthusiastically into the "war to end all wars". And before that the history of humankind is replete with examples of societies resorting to war in order to further their general good. Killing fellow humans, it seems requires a certain dose of enthusiasm, just look at the conservative right in your country, they're gushing with how you're gonna bring democracy to the Middle East. I'd say that particular propaganda has seen its best days several decades ago.
You know, it's easy to spit out moral judgements of bygone eras with the benefit of hindsight, but we are a product of our immediate environment and current philosophy. In other words what's moral today will be frowned upon in the future, just look at feminism, gay rights, color blindness and other things that are hot topics today, but in ancient Greece, Etruscia, Minoa and Rome, were more or less taken for granted. I'm sure there'll come a day when they will be trampled upon again.
The US is seen right now (still) as the good guys, but there'll come a time when it'll be pretty hard to explain actions like Vietnam and Iraq, plus others that will surface in due time. And nothing makes an argument more persuasive than when you lost the war and your enemies are writing all the history books.
I'm sure I'm rocking your little world when I affirm that there were NO good guys in WW2. Try to wrap your mind around that idea. Back in the first half of the 20th century there were no good or bad guys, just imperialistic powers eager to stab each other in the back. You're gonna say the US was not a colonizing empire. Oh, but is so was/is. Ask the Filipinos, the Hawaiians and other bits and pieces of islands, or better yet read up the history of the US Southwest. Ot take a country at random today and chances are that the US is using one method or another to make it comply and give concessions. Bet they didn't teach you that piece of info in grade school. Wait, I forgot, they hardly teach any history or geography AT ALL nowadays in the US(maybe in college, if you ask nicely for it), which is a sad state of affairs in today's biggest colonial empire... That should give you an idea of how long America's empire will last. At least our British empire lasted well over 3 centuries.
I watched recently a series of US propaganda movies made in the early forties where they were trying to justify their entry into the war and also drum up financial support. It was plain hilarious, like the insistence, whenever Hitler'n name came up in discussion, to mention, in a very insidious and snobby way "that ex-common labourer", "that former house painter". Wait, I thought it is good now for a politician or President to come from the masses, don't they all try to fabricate stories of how poor they were and how they realized their American dream all by hard work and dedication? See, this is where you start to realize that you can't use the 2007 set of morals and way of thinking to judge what happened in the 1930's. But if you insist on doing it, than you should probably feel compelled to commit suicide overcome by good ol' American shame over what happened to your native indian population, over slavery, over Vietnam, over Iraq and oh yes, over those two pesky little bombs you good guys
dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki that you keep whining about. Funny how one can change his position from "moral justification" in using them to righteous indignation now that the "bad guys" have them.
Just about anything can be morally justified these days, it just depends on who's doing the justification.
To giongulas: What country are you from???
sharegood post giongulas.
share