Stalingrad remembered.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by LaRusso


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

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

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

This isn't about the Americans.

I have no idea what Churchill said about Stalin, it was probably diplomatic nonsense. In any case Churchil was wrong on as many occasions as he was right. In this country we acknowledge Churchil has flaws ( although killing 10 million of his own citizens wasn't one of them.

Why is being concerned about minimizing your own casualties a sign of weakness.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by TheStinger

I have no idea what Churchill said about Stalin, it was probably diplomatic nonsense.

NOt really. Stalin was already dead.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by LaRusso


NOt really. Stalin was already dead.

Bit Stalin wasn't denounced by Kruschev for some years, and it wasn't the done thing to compare the man who was on your side during a recent war to the man you beat in that war

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Bit Stalin wasn't denounced by Kruschev for some years, and it wasn't the done thing to compare the man who was on your side during a recent war to the man you beat in that war

he was already denounced as a dictator who drew over an iron curtain

[TheStinger]

Whatever Churchil did or didn't say about Stalin doesn't alter the fact that along with HItler he was the biggest mass muredrer of all time and certaintly didn't give a rats arse about ensuring his troops were cared for and only fought neccesary battles

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Whatever Churchil did or didn't say about Stalin doesn't alter the fact that along with HItler he was the biggest mass muredrer of all time and certaintly didn't give a rats arse about ensuring his troops were cared for and only fought neccesary battles

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by LaRusso

So Stalin wasn't a mass muredrer and did care about his troops

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by TheStinger


So Stalin wasn't a mass muredrer and did care about his troops

hehe, cmon, make up your mind

[Master Zen]

So Stalin was a mass-murderer, IMO the worst of all time since he butchered his own people, at least Hitler slaughtered mostly other races.

Still, the issue here is on the battle. The Soviets defended the city for the same reason the Nazis attacked it: not its military value but as a symbol of Stalin's name. It might have seemed militarily mad to hold on to it ( from russian POV) as it was to assault it for months (german POV) but even as the battle started the battle had enourmous advantage to the soviets:

1) unable to defeat the Germans in terms of armour and mobility, the ideal situation was to stand and fight in a confined space where the Wehrmachts advantages would not be decisive

2) city fighting is bloody and long, the Germans did not have the manpower or the reserves to fight a prolonged battle in those circumstances, the Soviets did. The soviets could lose men at a prodigious rate and still win.

As for the US, they actually did fight a major city battle, nowhere are heavy as Stalingrad of course, but the Battle of Manila was pretty fierce. I don't know how many US troops died but over 100,000 civilans were killed.

If I were a general, my priority would be winning the war, but my soldier's lives would be a very close second. I would try to do evertyhing possible to minimize my casualties, and the only reason I would order full frontal Soviet-style slaughterhouse assaults would be if there were no other alternatives to victory. I don't think soviet infantry training was good enough to go for an Allied-style infantry doctrine. They were also more poorly equipped and supplied.

Add to this that Stalin in fact did not care much for his troops...

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Master Zen
So Stalin was a mass-murderer, IMO the worst of all time since he butchered his own people, at least Hitler slaughtered mostly other races.

odd, why would you be bothered then. let russians decide then on whether they were 'butchered' by him

Still, the issue here is on the battle. The Soviets defended the city for the same reason the Nazis attacked it: not its military value but as a symbol of Stalin's name. .

this crops up again and again. do you really think russians would surrender volgograd or czariczin but not stalingrad? mind you, stalino (now doneck) has already fallen by that time in ukraine. stalin did not sacrifice truckloads of infantry to defend that one

It might have seemed militarily mad to hold on to it ( from russian POV) as it was to assault it for months (german POV) but even as the battle started the battle had enourmous advantage to the soviets:

1) unable to defeat the Germans in terms of armour and mobility, the ideal situation was to stand and fight in a confined space where the Wehrmachts advantages would not be decisive

2) city fighting is bloody and long, the Germans did not have the manpower or the reserves to fight a prolonged battle in those circumstances, the Soviets did. The soviets could lose men at a prodigious rate and still win..

so you are saying that it actually made a LOT of military sense to defend the city and that it was a perfect spot to bleed germans to death. so stalin is guilty of losing troops in a fight with the BEST army there was in ww2.

As for the US, they actually did fight a major city battle, nowhere are heavy as Stalingrad of course, but the Battle of Manila was pretty fierce. I don't know how many US troops died but over 100,000 civilans were killed...

according to your previous standards, killing foreigners is a tad better than killing your own people. that is why firebombing dresden suddenly looks less horrible in that perspective

If I were a general, my priority would be winning the war, but my soldier's lives would be a very close second. I would try to do evertyhing possible to minimize my casualties, and the only reason I would order full frontal Soviet-style slaughterhouse assaults would be if there were no other alternatives to victory.

those alternatives have already been tried against the germans. e.g. french tried digging in. british occassionally surrendered (tobruk) and soviets tried it all. the only thing that really stopped germans was a deliberate all out defense, and the only thing that really pushed them back was a deliberate attack. some attacks soviets made were simply brilliant (like 1944 summer offensive) and some german attacks were suicidal (kursk). again, sometimes russians attacked with a disregard for human loss (berlin operation) and, you might say, political reasons. but then again, russians did not need a command to charge like mad on berlin, every single soldier wanted vengenace. for more on this, i reccomend a superb book bu cornelius ryan : the last battle.

I don't think soviet infantry training was good enough to go for an Allied-style infantry doctrine. They were also more poorly equipped and supplied.

Add to this that Stalin in fact did not care much for his troops...

first sentence: ?. second sentence: they had guns and no chocolates in their backpacks. admittedly, russians got jeeps and light trucks from americans, but the rest of the equipment (light tanks) was useless

last sentence: because they were the only people standing between him and hitler?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by LaRusso
odd, why would you be bothered then. let russians decide then on whether they were 'butchered' by him

Though Zen's post was nonsense too, this speaks volumes 'nuff said on the issue.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Though Zen's post was nonsense too, this speaks volumes 'nuff said on the issue.

your avatar is just perfect.

[David Floyd]

Actually, Volgograd should be renamed to Americograd, in recognition that the Soviet Union would have been defeated without US involvement in the war

[Serb]

*throw up*


Stuipid troll.

[David Floyd]

Well it's true, but it was also a troll

[molly bloom]

Something for the Russians honouring the sacrifice of Stalingrad/Volgograd:


Stalin Wasn’t Stalling c/w Stalingrad (picture sleeve - 1980 UK 7" stereo single) Rough Trade (RT 046)

prog/a capella, Robert Wyatt’s cover of a 1940s doo wop hit back with a poem about the battle of Stalingrad.

Well worth buying. Also both tracks appear on Wyatt's magnum opus, 'Nothing Can Stop Us' album:

'Wyatt lay low for the remainder of the '70s, finally reemerging at the turn of the decade with a series of four audacious Rough Trade singles. Those eight sides (two of which are performed by artists other than Wyatt) are collected on the Italian Robert Wyatt, and form the basis of Nothing Can Stop Us. Though basically a singles compilation with only one original composition, the latter is a cohesive and incredibly moving statement, with Wyatt's fragile, plaintive vocals breathing new life (and political content) into material as diverse as Chic's "At Last I Am Free," the obscure American gospel tune "Stalin Wasn't Stallin'," the folk song "Caimanera" (aka "Guantanamera") and the disquieting lynch-mob protest "Strange Fruit" (popularized by Billie Holiday). Though Wyatt personally adheres to a fairly ruthless strain of Stalinism, you'd never know it from the compassion and empathy that radiate from every groove of this record.

Nothing Can Stop Us was subsequently re-released with the significant inclusion of the Elvis Costello/Clive Langer-penned "Shipbuilding" (produced by Costello, Langer and Alan Winstanley), as subtle and insightful an anti-war song as anyone's ever written. The album's US version, released in 1986, ditches the poet Peter Blackman reading his "Stalingrad" and adds "Shipbuilding," plus its British 12-inch B-sides (interpretations of Thelonious Monk's "Round Midnight" and Eubie Blake's "Memories of You") and cover art.'

[Serb]

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

And what do you think Soviets should did? Always retreat- right to Vladivostok and avoid battles, because otherwise many soldiers would have died?

In accordance with your logic Soviets should have surrendered and retreated from Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad to save lives of their soldiers. It would ended with defeat of SU 100% and extermination of entire Soviet people. Great logic.

[David Floyd]

That's not his logic at all. He's saying that certain battles were quite unnecessary, such as the Battle for Berlin. He's saying that human wave tactics are brutal and uncivilized, not to often generally ineffective.

[Serb]

Originally posted by LaRusso


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

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

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

P.S.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's not his logic at all. He's saying that certain battles were quite unnecessary, such as the Battle for Berlin.

1) He was talking about Stalingrad, that it was piss off fight between Hitler and Stalin. That Stalin is guilty that he didn't allowed his troops to retreat.
2) Battle for enemy's capital is quite unnecessary? News to me. How the hell you can win the war if enemy's capital is remain unconquered?
3) How brave you Yanks are. In 1945 didn't have balls to took such heavily fortified city and now whining that Russians were idiots.

He's saying that human wave tactics are brutal and uncivilized, not to often generally ineffective.

I'm tired of your anti-Soviet/anti-Russian crap.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Serb
60 years ago in February 2 of 1943 the Stalingrad’s battle was over. The encircled army of field marshal von Paulus surrendered to Red army.

A great day in history.

Today all Russians give their respect to veterans of WW2 whose courage saved our country, and to memory of thousands of soldiers who sacrificed their lives for this victory.

Quite right you should.

We consider this battle as the most decisive battle of World War II. What do you think about this battle? Was it the most decisive battle of WW2 or not?

It was a decisive battle but more a turning point than the most decisive. Germany never won a major battle on the Eastern Front after Stalingrad. Kursk was the most decisive battle. German offensive power was destroyed forever at Kursk.

Another question. Stalingrad was completely destroyed during first months of battle. After the war it was rebuild and after the death of Stalin it was renamed to Volgograd. Today some people here in Russia suggest that name Stalingrad should be returned to city. What do you think about this? As far as I know Paris have the Stalingrad’s Street or Stalingrad’s square (I’m not really sure is it street or square). So, should we or shouldn’t we return to the city of Volgograd its previous name?

The city will probably always be known as Stalingrad so if it changed back I wouldn't be surprised. The trouble is Stalin was such an evil man that is unlikely.

I found out recently that many civilians were hiding in the city throughout the battle. Another incredible story of survival. Also the life expectancy of a Russian soldier at the height of the battle was 24 hours from the time they crossed the Volga. Russia paid a very heavy price.

[Flatlander Fox]

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

Words like these held the line during that battle, no bullsh!t...

I think ALL OF EUROPE has Russia to thank for Stalingrad and the Battle of Moscow.

The price was heavy, and politics really kept Russia from receiving her due for the sacrifices she made.

The ALLIES saved the world from Facism, not just US/UK.

[David Floyd]

2) Battle for enemy's capital is quite unnecessary? News to me. How the hell you can win the war if enemy's capital is remain unconquered?

I wasn't aware the US conquered Tokyo, or the WW1 Allies conquered Berlin, or the colonial Americans conquered London, for example

3) How brave you Yanks are. In 1945 didn't have balls to took such heavily fortified city and now whining that Russians were idiots.

Why the hell would we want to? Why not just go around the city, put a covering force there, and defeat armies in the field, eventually forcing the besieged city to run out of supplies?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by LaRusso


odd, why would you be bothered then. let russians decide then on whether they were 'butchered' by him

That's what I said in various posts back. Have you even read them?

this crops up again and again. do you really think russians would surrender volgograd or czariczin but not stalingrad? mind you, stalino (now doneck) has already fallen by that time in ukraine. stalin did not sacrifice truckloads of infantry to defend that one

It's not just the name, it's the history. Stalingrad was the largest Stalin-named city in the USSR. Stalin also had a personal attachment to the city because he helped defend it during the civil war.

so you are saying that it actually made a LOT of military sense to defend the city and that it was a perfect spot to bleed germans to death. so stalin is guilty of losing troops in a fight with the BEST army there was in ww2.

I made a HUGE amount of military sense to defend it knowing that the germans would give it all to take it. If the Soviets felt the Germans would have bypassed it, it would have made no sense to defend.

according to your previous standards, killing foreigners is a tad better than killing your own people. that is why firebombing dresden suddenly looks less horrible in that perspective

Yes. Can you imagine the RAF and USAAF bombing its own cities? Slaughter is evil, slaughtering your own countrymen is the utmost evil and the utmost stupid.

those alternatives have already been tried against the germans. e.g. french tried digging in. british occassionally surrendered (tobruk) and soviets tried it all. the only thing that really stopped germans was a deliberate all out defense, and the only thing that really pushed them back was a deliberate attack. some attacks soviets made were simply brilliant (like 1944 summer offensive) and some german attacks were suicidal (kursk). again, sometimes russians attacked with a disregard for human loss (berlin operation) and, you might say, political reasons. but then again, russians did not need a command to charge like mad on berlin, every single soldier wanted vengenace. for more on this, i reccomend a superb book bu cornelius ryan : the last battle.

Can you honestly believe the USSR cared more of its troops than the western allies? Pleeeease. Much of the idea of Soviet brutality might have been western propaganda but here's always a bit of truth in everything.

first sentence: ?. second sentence: they had guns and no chocolates in their backpacks. admittedly, russians got jeeps and light trucks from americans, but the rest of the equipment (light tanks) was useless

last sentence: because they were the only people standing between him and hitler?

the US had guns AND chocolate. But chocolate doesn't win wars. With the casualty rate the soviets sustained, it was impossible to maitain the levels of training and experience the western allies had. Most western troops were crap before the entered combat. Most western troops were crap when they entered combat. Most western troops were crap after they entered combat. But after months in western europe, italy, burma and the pacific, the average western infantryman was far superior than the average soviet one.

Equipment is another story. The soviets had more and far better tanks than the west. Infantry equipment was not as good but numbers made up for it.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Flatlander Fox

I think ALL OF EUROPE has Russia to thank for Stalingrad and the Battle of Moscow.

The price was heavy, and politics really kept Russia from receiving her due for the sacrifices she made.

The ALLIES saved the world from Facism, not just US/UK.

I actually sent an e-mail to all my friends reminding them of the importance of this anniversary which most don't know about.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I wasn't aware the US conquered Tokyo, or the WW1 Allies conquered Berlin, or the colonial Americans conquered London, for example



Why the hell would we want to? Why not just go around the city, put a covering force there, and defeat armies in the field, eventually forcing the besieged city to run out of supplies?

APPLAUDS very good point David..EXCELLENT!!


Troll

[Master Zen]

Saying the Germans would have won by taking Moscow is classic school textbook misconception.

There is ample evidence to prove taking Moscow would not have been enought.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Saying the Germans would have won by taking Moscow is classic school textbook misconception.

No it isn't - if they took Moscow and Leningrad they would have won, no doubt about it.

Their biggest mistake of the war was not renewing the offensive on these cities in 1942. That blunder cost them the war, and their generals knew it.

[Sava]

David, don't be silly... Even without American involvement, the Russians would have beat the Germans back.

[David Floyd]

David, don't be silly... Even without American involvement, the Russians would have beat the Germans back.

Wrong. By 1944, Germany had over a million men in Italy and the Balkans, 46 divisions in France, including 9 Panzer divisions with 1500 tanks, over 450,000 men in Norway, a million men on air defense duties with thousands of anti-aircraft guns (88s that could be used in anti-tank roles), tens of thousands of men involved in the U-boat campaign with huge resources being poured into U-boats, and 80% of the Luftwaffe's fighter strength on anti-bomber duty in the West.

Additionally, involvement of the US provided the means for the early fall of Africa, and the shipment of a quarter million men there in 1942/43, as well as the capability for the invasions of Sicily and Italy. Add the losses incurred in those campaigns (hundreds of tanks, hundreds of aircraft, at least half a million men, and the country of Italy) to the forces in 1944, and it becomes even more significant.

In 1944, though, the Soviets did not have anything near that level of forces laying around idle or engaged in other sectors, and would have had nothing significant with which to counter.

But this assumes that the same historical outcome took place up to 1944. This is hardly accurate. Without US Lend Lease, the Soviet Union would have been much harder pressed from mid-1942 on. Further, with the lack of credible flank threats, Germany could have devoted a lot more reserves to the Eastern Front, including hundreds of thousands of men and thousands of tanks and fighters, in 1942. Monty would probably have eventually won in Africa, but it would have taken at least a couple more years.

The SU could probably have forced a stalemate, with Germany holding some of the most productive areas of Western Russia - such as arable regions of the Ukraine and parts of the Donets Basin.