Stalingrad - 75th anniversary of the defeat of the German 6th Army

Remove this Banner Ad

Seeds said:
the whole concept of this battle must be hard for anyone to fathom. Both sides just kept going and going and going. The outcome of World war 2 was decided here and yet most people no very little about it.
Click to expand...
The numbers are staggering .

Read that any major building works in the city today often unearth human remains.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

To the Italian fallen.
And the brave Alpini... holding the flank open until the last man.
Rip.
 
Last edited:
Seeds said:
the whole concept of this battle must be hard for anyone to fathom. Both sides just kept going and going and going. The outcome of World war 2 was decided here and yet most people no very little about it.
Click to expand...
A grinder fought more as a point of of pride rather than for strategic advantage.
But saying "the outcome of world war 2 was decided here" is simplistic and lacks insight.

I read a survey from England the other day, half of all high school kids don't even know what the Battle of Britain was.
It's all fading from memory now, and kids mostly just aren't interested in events from 70+ years ago. Which is a real shame, considering that war contributed greatly to the shape of modern history.
 
Last edited:
Stone fish said:
A grinder fought more as a point of of pride rather than for strategic advantage.
But saying "the outcome of world war 2 was decided here" is simplistic and lacks insight.

I read a survey from England the other day, half of all high school kids don't even know what the Battle of Britain was.
It's all fading from memory now, and kids mostly just aren't interested in events from 70+ years ago. Which is a real shame, considering that war contributed greatly to the shape of modern history.
Click to expand...

Long time ago for todays kids. Does your generation know much about the original great war that completely changed modern society. Probably not much.
 
Seeds said:
Long time ago for todays kids. Does your generation know much about the original great war that completely changed modern society. Probably not much.
Click to expand...
That's quite an assumption. Try me.

Also, I'd wager previous generations knew more about history in general than current ones do.
One reason I say that is education. Modern educational techniques (In Australia) are geared more toward Australian history and social studies than the Eurocentric history taught in past decades, and only a few have an interest in the subject beyond high school. Additionally, in-depth studies of either world war in the current educational system are practically non-existent, which isn't the fault of the educational system, but more one of time and perceived relevance. It results in a lot of people having wiki-knowledge not tempered by actual discussion.

Essentially, there aren't many history teachers who have the time to explain why they roll their eyes every time some netizen comes out with something like "the outcome of world war 2 was decided here" because they read a wiki article once. Those are the same sorts of people who make jokes about French tanks only having one gear and Italian soldiers being crap. They look at outcomes, not catalysts or causality.

Stalingrad was fought between '42 and '43, and the outcome of the war was pretty much decided well before that. Actually, I'm going to make a sweeping statement, ignore the accepted European narrative and say it was decided before Hitler even rolled into Poland.
I'd be really interested in someone who could tell me why I say that, and if they disagree, could tell me why they do.
 
Stone fish said:
That's quite an assumption. Try me.

Also, I'd wager previous generations knew more about history in general than current ones do.
One reason I say that is education. Modern educational techniques (In Australia) are geared more toward Australian history and social studies than the Eurocentric history taught in past decades, and only a few have an interest in the subject beyond high school. Additionally, in-depth studies of either world war in the current educational system are practically non-existent, which isn't the fault of the educational system, but more one of time and perceived relevance. It results in a lot of people having wiki-knowledge not tempered by actual discussion.

Essentially, there aren't many history teachers who have the time to explain why they roll their eyes every time some netizen comes out with something like "the outcome of world war 2 was decided here" because they read a wiki article once. Those are the same sorts of people who make jokes about French tanks only having one gear and Italian soldiers being crap. They look at outcomes, not catalysts or causality.

Stalingrad was fought between '42 and '43, and the outcome of the war was pretty much decided well before that. Actually, I'm going to make a sweeping statement, ignore the accepted European narrative and say it was decided before Hitler even rolled into Poland.
I'd be really interested in someone who could tell me why I say that, and if they disagree, could tell me why they do.
Click to expand...
technically everything was decided at or even before the big bang. Stalingrad was a major turning point as was hitlers decision to delay his campaign into Russia.

also i wasnt talking about world war 1 but the original great war that completely changed the course of history. all world war 1 did was lead to world war 2.
 
Seeds said:
technically everything was decided at or even before the big bang. Stalingrad was a major turning point as was hitlers decision to delay his campaign into Russia.

also i wasnt talking about world war 1 but the original great war that completely changed the course of history. all world war 1 did was lead to world war 2.
Click to expand...

Battle of Kursk was more pivotal IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hitlers invasion and take over of Greece was supposed to take just 24 hours. We know it took much longer than that not to mention the extra resources needed to complete the invasion. That delay was crucial in the upcoming attack on the Soviet Union. So there is an argument that the end started before the battle of Stalingrad.
 
Read Anthony Beevor's book about it last year. Some of the stuff I read was just mindblowing and horribly depressing.

Soldiers freezing to death, Russians shooting their own men, schoolkids being bombed and so on. There was everything. The lowest of lows for humanity.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Stone fish said:
I'd be really interested in someone who could tell me why I say that, and if they disagree, could tell me why they do.
Click to expand...

WW2 was an existential war, a war of annihilation, there was going to be no armistice this time around. To fight such a war the axis powers had to attack the allies means of production. Once the Soviets moved their industry beyond the Urals, Germany had no way to attack it. Neither Japan or Germany could reach Detroit. Even during the Battle of Britain, the English were producing more Spitfires than Me109s. They did not have a 4 engine long range bomber that could fly far enough to attack such areas of military production and Germany had no aircraft carriers. Hitler even said himself that if had of known that Russia had 2000 T34 tanks, which was superior to anything the Germans had at the time, he would not have invaded Russia. Deterrence doesn't do any good if the enemy is oblivious of all this. Their arrogance lead them on the path of destruction from the beginning.
 
Seeds said:
the whole concept of this battle must be hard for anyone to fathom. Both sides just kept going and going and going. The outcome of World war 2 was decided here and yet most people no very little about it.
Click to expand...

You sound like Mark from Peep Show.
 
Max Baker said:
That's what war is all about. A population cull.
Click to expand...

In 1911 Britain was so worried about drop of in fertility rate they asked specific questions about it. Amazing that they sleepwalked into 1914-1918


The early decades of the 20th century saw growing concerns in government circles about the falling birth rate, the large numbers of people emigrating and the poor health of the nation. A large healthy workforce was needed to maintain Britain’s position as one of the foremost industrialised nations and there were continuing tensions in Europe that were being closely monitored. These concerns prompted the government to include questions on fertility and marriage in the census. The census asked married women to state the years their marriage had lasted, the number of children born alive to the present marriage and how many had died. The body of work for statisticians analysing the census returns was substantial, which is why documents such as this Parliamentary Paper on the 1911 census were not published until years after the census was taken.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/livi...tions1/parliament-and-the-census/1921-census/
 
I have always found the battles within the battle to be most interesting. You could make a jaw dropping movie out of any of Mamayev Hill, Pavlovs House, the grain elevator, the factory district and many more. The one that always stuck in my mind was the fight for the main train station and surrounds in Stalingrad.


***The battle for Stalingrad turned into bitter street fighting by this time. Every building was turned into Soviet fortresses, and even the sewer tunnels became battlegrounds. The railroad station became the scene of ferocious combat; on a particularly violent day, the marshalling yards exchanged hands 14 times within six hours, with the Germans finally capturing it only because the Soviet unit deployed there had been completely wiped out.***

https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=3

Changed hands 14 times in a 6 hour period! Desperation and a complete disregard for casualties on both sides.
 
ChampRevesby said:
WW2 was an existential war, a war of annihilation, there was going to be no armistice this time around. To fight such a war the axis powers had to attack the allies means of production. Once the Soviets moved their industry beyond the Urals, Germany had no way to attack it. Neither Japan or Germany could reach Detroit. Even during the Battle of Britain, the English were producing more Spitfires than Me109s. They did not have a 4 engine long range bomber that could fly far enough to attack such areas of military production and Germany had no aircraft carriers. Hitler even said himself that if had of known that Russia had 2000 T34 tanks, which was superior to anything the Germans had at the time, he would not have invaded Russia. Deterrence doesn't do any good if the enemy is oblivious of all this. Their arrogance lead them on the path of destruction from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Production has an impact for sure, but eventual outcomes still rely upon things going your way on the field. It's a good point and it has been well-documented, but debate surrounding the production capability of Germany is still contested, particularly in the light of events on the battlefield determining that capability over the longer term.
It took a sustained effort by British and American heavy bombers over years to cripple German industry, the effectiveness and overall impact of which is still sometimes debated. But if the Germans had managed to invade and occupy England in 1940 as well as France, German production would have been largely a non-issue. There would have been no bombing campaign on Germany to begin with, without the English airfields. Russia certainly didn't have the capability to maintain one, particularly not on its own.

Production (and supply) still relies upon the outcomes of battles.

This is partially why I don't consider Stalingrad to be the most significant battle of the war, by far.
Important, certainly, but events prior to it were more so. When assessing importance, both long and short term impact have to be weighed, along with eventual outcomes, rather than immediate casualties. Arguments could be mounted for several other earlier events, and in terms of importance even Pearl Harbour was more significant than Stalingrad. The USA entering the war on the allied side was a momentous event, completely altering eventual outcomes in Europe as well as in the Pacific region. The Battle of Keren enabled the Suez canal to be kept open and relatively safe for merchant shipping (primarily from the USA) as well as forcing Germany to wage war in Africa in an attempt to contain it. Imphal and Khohima were described as "Britain's Thermopylae", stopped the Japanese from entering India, and allowed an allied air war to be waged from India into China and South-East Asia. Guadalcanal was the first defeat for Japanese ground forces in the Pacific, and where they were stopped, turned and eventually routed (which is pretty much the same rationalisation used for Stalingrad). Midway the same for their Navy.

Khalkin-Gol (Russo-Japanese war, fought in 1938) ensured the Japanese would never invade Russia from the East, an outcome of critical importance for the German invasion and Russian defence later on. I'd have to say that in my estimation the entire outcome of world war 2 was heralded right there, before it even began. If the Japanese had succeeded in advancing into Russia in 1938, Russian defence against Germany would have been severely compromised, particularly considering that moving production east would not have been an option. There would have been no Pearl Harbour either, but rather a pincered Axis attack on Russia from both East and West they'd never have been able to defend against.
A little-known Asian war, the culmination of which was fought in 1938 isn't in the accepted scope of World War 2 though, so I'll leave that there.

The most important and crucial factors affecting world war two though, aside from the Russo-Japanese war in 1938, were the initial battles in France (including the Netherlands) and later the Battle of Britain. The losses inflicted upon the Luftwaffe (and the Fallshirmjager), resulting in Britain remaining a participant in the war, had wide-reaching consequences having an effect on everything which followed - including the delay of Operation Barbarossa. While it may be difficult to swallow the fall of Nazi Germany and a chance for a Russian victory being started as far back as Dunkirk, that's the reality.
A more detailed argument would require several pages though.
 
Imagine if Japan attack East Russia when Germany was on the front foot in Russia.

Without extra support from moving the eastern forces, Russia may we’ll have collapsed.



Interesting 75 years on, Russia may face similar pressures with Chinese troops entering the east and the west applying pressure in the west.
 
Power Raid said:
Imagine if Japan attack East Russia when Germany was on the front foot in Russia.

Without extra support from moving the eastern forces, Russia may we’ll have collapsed.



Interesting 75 years on, Russia may face similar pressures with Chinese troops entering the east and the west applying pressure in the west.
Click to expand...
They never could because they were fighting with China... that's an obvious one. You really do make some weird points without applying logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SBD Gonzalez
The true cost of the British Raj?
Replies
7
Views
836
Johnny Bananas
Johnny Bananas

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top