Talk:Battle of Stalingrad

Soviet casualties, Bergstorm and Krivosheev

Krivosheev's work is the most authorative source on Soviet casualties available. Why are we constantly going back to citing Bergstorm? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't you just add his figures (with an explanation that they are his figures, and why his work is the most authorative source)? It is no secret that there are there are slightly different opinions. I would like to see an explanation of this: "In the whole Stalingrad area the Axis lost 1.5 million killed, wounded or captured[70]." Why is this figure not even close to other figures? When was this figure calculated, which archives where used and by who? (I am quite sure that ths figure concerns the whole Eastern front during the period) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.63.144 (talk)

Also, who keeps editing casualties for soviets back to those for the area in general. Those of the city should be cited. I reversed that mistake. Otherwise, we should cite german casualties for the whole area as well. Please stop re-editing without discussion, or otherwise we post 1.5 million casualties for germans for the whole area.

"Why is this figure not even close to other figures?" What are other figures, and do you have references for other figures? when were they calculated? Which archives were used? and by who? As for Krivosheev, soviet archives and german archives were used I am sure. What other ones?--99.231.50.118 (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

As you said, do not change sourced figures without discussion, and certainly not without providing a source to back your claims up. The Soviet casualties are correct and can be backed up by other sources, as Beevor's Stalingrad ie. As for the German casualties, the source given states that the 840,000 casualties is for the entire Stalingrad operation and goes for all Axis powers involved in the operation. Anthony Beevor estimates in Stalingrad (page 393) around 500,000 axis casualties for the entire operation. 1.5 million seems implausible, especially when you got more then enough credible sources pointing to the contrary. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

More credible sources, what are they? I already asked you? WHAT ARE THEY?? Do you want me to write it in bigger letters? You talk about some other mysterious sources, but give reference only to Beevor. Second thing: Why are we using Beevor and not Krivosheev? Beevor does not seem like a neutral source on the issue to me. And I am not alone in this suspicion. The general tone in which his book is written seems to have as a goal to demonstrate that there were a lot of deserters in soviet army during Stalingrad and not to give credible information on the battle. Do you read russian? Because Oleg Rzheshevsky of the institute of international history of RAN (Russian Academy of Sciences) estimates that soviets lost ~1,1 million soldiers, while germans - 1,5. (http://www.russia-today.ru/2003/no_02/2_stalingrad_2.htm) Which agrees with Krivosheev. Should we maybe add the russian estimates and western estimates sections? That would seem a bit more fair than just the numbers you provided, especially considering you did not provide any other source to support them. We will leave your numbers, only we will state that these are Beevors, and then we will add russian and other estimates.

"1.5 million seems implausible" To be honest, we do not care what seems plausible or implausible to you. We are trying to research some authors and their estimates. And I have given you two right now. You cite only Beevor. Anatoly Utkin gives following estimates: 750,000 for soviets, 400,000 for germans, 300,000-400,000 for their allies, the book is "year 1942". Also, when giving soviet losses, Beevor does not go into even a fraction of detail as does this site of Krivosheev (http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_10_1.html#5_10_18). I do not understand why are we using the numbers of Beevor over the numbers of someone who clearly does much more detailed research? I also heard criticism that Beevor simply did not include the german losses for the Stalingrad area in general, and in particular, those of germans in The Operation Uranus (Stalingrad Strategic Offensive). Again. Why Beevor (much criticized for his books on Russia by many people for writing dramatization instead of history) and not more detailed authors? To give you an idea about Bee vor, he is the guy who made a claim that soviet soldiers raped every german woman 8-80 years of age, which, he estimated, were 2 million. Do you want some more quotes from Beevor? He is more of a journalist and a propaganda figure than a historian. And can you guess what were the sources of his estimates? Apparently he considers as a source a soviet novelist and a couple of rape stories form women in Berlin. Oh yes, sorry, I forgot his main reference - german propaganda during the war. Here is his article on that issue. Find me anything more specific than "experts estimated" in his "work" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11). Do you still want to cite Beevor? IF yes, I will pick up his book and look up his references there, and guess what, if he does not reference anybody other than himself, we are reverting it back to the proper historian's references, ok? 99.231.50.118 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

1.5 million is implausible. Beevor's numbers aren't even used in this article, Bergstörms 841,000 casualties are the number being used at the moment, which are detailed and properly researched. And to the "where are they?" question, they're in most books actually, you should trying reading one for a change, they're much more credible then some random websites. Except for Bergström and Beevor i have three other books right here (Atlas of World War II by David Jordan, World War II Day by Day by Anthony Shaw and World History by Henning Poulsen) that all claim 750,000 casualties followed by 90,000 - 95,000 captured for the entire Stalingrad operation. There are many more of these. If so many authors and researchers say one thing, which is around 850,000 casualties, we shouldn't cite one author claiming nearly twice as many casualties. Beevor isn't biased either, i think you are on the other hand and cant accept someone ruining your nationalistic view of the war and instead of "hearing" criticism of his books, why don't you read them, you obviously have not. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You are saying that Beevor is not biased? I have some sort of nationalistic picture? Why would I have nationalistic picture? My country won the war. Little helpless Estonias, Latvias, Georgias etc... have nationalistic picture. I try to look at facts strictly (and I realize that soviet/russian government does not always present them, just like US or any other western government, or any government for that matter). I am sorry to break it to you, but Beevor is one of the worst authors out there. His estimate that soviet soldiers raped 2 million german women was basically taken from Nazi propaganda speeches. You want to believe that? Feel free. Would you believe soviet propaganda too then? You seem to be completely delusional, believing only one side of the discussion, and completely ignoring the other.

2. I found one of the books you mentioned: "World War II Day by Day by Anthony Shaw". Are you kidding me? What are you, 12 years old? This is in no way an encyclopedic book. It is for 12 years old kids or for retarted people, who lose attention too quickly, and therefore need a lot of pictures to keep them from putting this book away. No wonder I do not know about this book. I read serious books, that reference their material, and where at least 70% is text, not pictures. Where did you ever see the references in this book? I did not. I strongly suspect that your books are all like this. I am assuming I am arguing seriously here, with a serious person, and what do I get? Reference to albums basically. And please, do not try to look like a fool. If all three books are giving same numbers, it does not mean you have three sources supporting something, it means you have three books referencing one and the same author or historian. Mine reference Utkin or Rzseshevsky, or Krivosheev. You so far named only Beevor and Bergstrom. If you want, I can bring up 20 russian books, written by different authors that reference Krivosheev alone. Will that make Krivosheev's numbers any more credible? Nope.

3. As for Bergström, Krivosheev is regarded as much more credible source as was pointed to you by another user above, also, Bergstrom did not even write about Battle of Stalingrad proper, but only about the air conflict and especially about fighter tactics, thus suggesting that he simply referenced someone else's numbers on casualties. Once again, tell me, are there references in his book? Where did he take these numbers. These numbers are for December-February too. You, for some mysterious reason, forgot to mention that right now. Why? So, Bergstrom does not give casualties for the full battle, and hence his reference is irrelevant, that leaves only Beevor.

4. Why are you willing to use an author who does not reference his numbers and does not point to the archives he used etc.. (Beevor). Answer me this: Where does Beevor take his numbers? And if he researched them, which archives he used. Please do not evade the question, I would like some serious evidence. Tell me something else. How many soldiers does Beevor or Bergstrom estimate that Wermacht lost in total in WW2? I will be able to tell you the credibility of the authors from that (because there are official german numbers, but of course you do not know what they are). Ok, if you are not willing to adhere to reason, I will have to edit casualties and basically call the ones there right now western/german estimates, and add russian modern estimates.--99.231.50.118 (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov

No, i don't see Beevor as biased, he has received criticism from both Germans and Russians for writing about atrocities, mass rapes, massacres etc. Whether your country won the war or not is irrelevant when it comes to nationalism. I don't think you are looking at facts strictly, i think you choose the Russian sources you are pleased with and use them. Your earlier edits where you at times remove sourced casualty numbers and replace them with unsourced numbers show that. What you consider serious and not serious is irrelevant, it was an example of the books i had in my immediate presence. It's strange that you only look at Russian sources that easily can be biased or slanted, not necessarily but it's interesting that the radical increase in Axis casulties only comes from Russian sources. I suggest you look at Bergströms numbers before making assumptions. I think you are mistaken if you think that these constantly reoccurring casualty number 850,000 would come solely from Bergström. I don't see how Beevors writing about the mass rapes in Germany has any relevancy to the discussion about the amount of casualties at Stalingrad. Your making no sense. Beevors numbers are as far as i know, not even used in the article at the moment. I don't think you should change anything with out a consensus from several people, if people agree upon it then sure go ahead, i wont agree with it but thats how it works. As i said, there are several of historians and researchers that have this number, not just Bergström and Beevor, and not just people from one country. I'll try to find some more references to "serious" books. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Pavel, please read WP:Civility, then try WP:Verifiability, then move on to WP:Consensus. The first might help your arguments to be taken more seriously, the second might prompt you to provide proper sources for your edits, and the last should show you that you need to gain consensus before making edits of passages for which prior consensus has already been reached. Otherwise, you will probably find swimming against the tide rather futile.Hohum (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Did Nirvana edit it with consensus? I should look this up. Or did he just used that noone objected in time. Plus, for all I know, the only other person I saw discussing disagreed with Nirvana77.

1.Now for Nirvana. " No, i don't see Beevor as biased, he has received criticism from both Germans and Russians for writing about atrocities, mass rapes, massacres etc." You completely missed the point, COMPLETELY. Ok, I will spell it out in nice long letters: Beevor is biased not because he was critisized by people, but because he does not reference his material, he does not tell us where he took his numbers, which means that for all we know, he took them from his own head. You understand now?

2."Your earlier edits where you at times remove sourced casualty numbers and replace them with unsourced numbers show that. What you consider serious and not serious is irrelevant, it was an example of the books i had in my immediate presence." I do not edit unsourced things, I normally source everything. Also, if I have more books, will that suffice for me to edit it back? So, according to you, it is all about who has more books? Do children books suffice? Can I use propaganda books? German? Russian? Yes, there are serious books and there are not serious books. You want criterion to decide which book is serious and which is not? Easy, look if they reference their numbers. If the book does not, it is not serious, if it does, it is serious. books that do not reference their numbers are most of the time wrote for people with no education and no interest in subject, i.e. people who would believe anything they are told, because they don't know better.

3. "I suggest you look at Bergströms numbers before making assumptions. I think you are mistaken if you think that these constantly reoccurring casualty number 850,000 would come solely from Bergström." I did look at Bergstrom. First of all, where does this number come from??? You don't think they came from only Bergstrom or Beevor? Ok, then from who? Let me spell it out for you in full, so that you do not ask anymore questions about this issue: you use an author, this author gives numbers, where does he take them? From another author. where does this second author take them? from third author, etc... Sooner or later, you are going to give me a REAL reference, that is, to an archive or to official statistics (german or soviet). If you do not arrive at such REAL reference, and end up referencing the author who does not give any evidence for the numbers he publishes, then for all I (or you for that matter) know, he pulled it you know from where, and his credibility is 0. You understand now?

4. "I don't see how Beevors writing about the mass rapes in Germany has any relevancy to the discussion about the amount of casualties at Stalingrad. Your making no sense. Beevors numbers are as far as i know, not even used in the article at the moment. I don't think you should change anything with out a consensus from several people, if people agree upon it then sure go ahead, i wont agree with it but thats how it works. As i said, there are several of historians and researchers that have this number, not just Bergström and Beevor, and not just people from one country." You are seeing no sense, I am making it very well, or do you not want to see it? I stated it out pretty clearly, I question Beevor's credibility, and as evidence for my opinion, I provided the fact that he estimated that 2 million german women were raped by soviet soldiers, and did not provide any basis for that estimation. Real estimates are ~153,000. As other evidence against Beevor, I again provide words of other historians, who critisize Beevor's "Historical books" and say that "the tone in which they are written is more suitable for thriller story, rather than history book". I don't understand one more thing. Why are you evading one question, namely, where does Beevor take his numbers from? Maybe this will help: Where does Beevor take his numbers from, what are his sources?. Please answer this question, otherwise, I do not see any reason to use Beevor's numbers. As for consensus, we have 2 people (me, Ko Soi IX) against 1 (you). So, yes, I add russian estimates. That's how it works. I will reference them quite a lot, don't worry.--99.231.50.118 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Ok, I did not change any of your numbers, I just added that these are western estimates (which they are), I added the russian estimates and referenced them, with websites and one name (just like your western estimates are referenced). This more effectively shows both sides of the discussion, so please do not delete this edit (unless of course you have sources that demonstrate that some one estimate is the ultimate one and should be used above all others (sources that do not exist)) As for consensus, we have 2 (me, Ko Soi IX) against 1 (nirvana77), but effectively, it is just me vs nirvana77, because noone else participated in the discussion. Once again, we represent both sides of the discussion and this is neutral (after all, Wiki is all about neutrality, so why include only one source, one side of the discussion). Russian historians think that germans lost 1.5 million, british historians think otherwise, Nirvana77 thinks 1.5 is implausible, I don't think so, oh well, we will have to include both, because we are all about neutrality, and representing only one side of the discussion is not neutral (no matter what one side thinks). I only need some help, because they are sticking out too much, how one makes it more uniform? :) (Nirvana77, If you want to play the reference game, we shall play it, I will use your tactics, I will use absolutely non-credible sources, for which there is no further reference (Beevor, your books with a lot of pictures, websites, etc...), and use them :), and there is nothing for you to say, because like you, I "referenced" my material, and remember, unless your book references its material, its worth as a reference is in no way bigger than that of a website, the worth as a reference being non-existent, but oh well, that is Wiki, right?). Are we both happy? --99.231.50.118 (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

I didn't edit it, i did not even post any of the casualty numbers but i have read the work that is referenced in the article and several other books indicating the same number. I don't think it should be changed or anything to be added without consensus. This irrelevant and ridiculous discussion about Beevor should end. Your seem to be under the impression that if you write something bad about the Red Army you are "biased". Just because he doesn't portray Soviet forces as glorious knights liberating Europe doesn't mean he is biased, it proves the opposite. I dont think we should have "Western" and "Russian" estimates. The question is if there really is an discussion on the Stalingrad casualties and not just one authors claims. I think we should have an actual consensus before changing anything in the info box, not just one guy thinking he has an consensus. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the only reliable information on the Soviet losses are the data from Soviet archives. That is equally true for the German, British or American losses: all the data but those obtained from national archives are just estimations. Therefore, Beevor, Glantz or Bergstrom obtained their numbers either directly from the Soviet archives or they used the results of the archival work of other researchers. The most comprehensive archival work on Soviet losses had been done by the Krivosheev's group (note, Krivosheev didn't work alone, he was a head of the large group of researchers who meticulously analysed all available archival data). WP:SOURCES states:"As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is." In other words, although a great number of other book exists that cite one or the another figures of Soviet losses, the comprehensive work of the Krivosheev's group weighs much more than all other books taken together.
In addition, these numbers are well recognized by Western scholars. The difference between the Krivosheev's numbers of total military losses and the Western ones comes from the different approaches to count POWs: according to Krivosheev, about 3 million men captured by the Germans during the first year of the war had not been conscripted by that moment, so they are considered to be civilians according to him. However, both Krivosheev and many reliable western sources agree upon the number of combat losses.
My conclusion is that Krivosheev number on combat losses take precedence over the number from other sources. Similarly, the Overmans' numbers should be used for German losses, although he writes about German losses only and gives much lesser details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as i know, there is not an discussion about the Soviet numbers but the German casualties at Stalingrad. Bergström numbers is not used in the Soviet casualties. http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_10_1.html#5_10_16 is the current source regarding the Soviet casualties in the battle. I'm not that familiar with Overmans figures but would like to find out what they are. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking into account that the Axis combat losses (KIA/MIA) were 4.4 million versus 6.6 million Soviet ones (if we leave POW mortality beyond the scope), and that the major losses sustained by the Axis fall on the second part of WWII (1944-45) the number of 1.5 million at Stalingrad it is hard to explain. If we assume that the Axis lost 1.5 million during the battle of Stalingrad, then we have to concede that during all other pre-Bagration battles German losses were minimal. Therefore, I would like to look closer at the work of those "Russian historians". In addition, as I already wrote, for the Soviet losses the Soviet sources seem to be the most reliable, and German sources seem equally trustworthy for German losses. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the Overmans' book was focused on the total amount of German losses, not on the losses during concrete battles. Try to ask Woogie10w (talk) about that, he seems to be able to answer in more details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

From Great Battles on the Eastern Front by TN Dupuy NY 1982 Stalingrad 150,000 German dead were picked off the battlefield and 91,000 taken POW--Woogie10w (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Rudiger Overmans data for total German dead on eastern front Oct 42 25,000; Nov 42 31,198; dec 42 78,759; jan 43 180,310 not including POW taken. Nr POW held by Soviets end 1942 100,000; end Mar 1943 170,000--Woogie10w (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

From 1 July 42 to 31 Jan 43 the Germans lost a total of 460,000 dead on the Eastern Front, my hunch is that about 1/2 were in Staingrad 240,000--Woogie10w (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Stay tuned I have data on Hungarian, Romanian & Italian losses--Woogie10w (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Tomas Stark Hungarian KIA/MIA were 101,000, Mark Axworthy -Romanian 98,000 KIA/MIA- Official Italian Nrs 4,000 kia 58,000 MIA --Woogie10w (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Note well the number of wounded are not given, wounded are usually about three times the dead & missing. So total Axis casualties including wounded may well have been 1.5 million.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Woogie10w, please do not even try to revert the casualties, save yourself some time. I tried to revert to normal ones, but I guess trolls simply have more time. I even tried to put russian estimates and german estimates, but passage about russian estimates was reverted back, leaving only german casualties. If you manage to maintain proper asualties picture for 1 month, I will be impressed, but I will guarantee that some troll will come and change it back.

It seems there will not be any concencus with Nirvana77, he simply wants to use Beevor and Bergstrom and will not admit that these people do not reference their works usually, unlike serious books. I wrote it for him with big letters, I did not try to write it with letters spaced, but I am sure it will not work, this guy is simply unwilling to accept anything but Beevor, ignoring that Beevor, again, does not reference his work. It has nothing to do with my bias towards the red army, but rather with Beevor's unreferenced works, and his bias against Red Army.

I wish you guys good luck in the "Battle for casualties", but not sure common sense will prevail. As usual on Wikipedia, stubbornness and the abundance of free time prevails, in sufficient quantities. I will be very nicely surprised if concencus will be reached.--99.231.48.138 (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

If you Pavel really care about common sense and about presenting correct numbers in this article why don't you do the following: (i) create an account; (ii) learn something about dispute resolution process, neutrality policy and reliable sources; (iii) follow a normal dispute resolution procedure. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, you may be quite able to convince the community in accepting correct numbers, provided that you use reliable sources, demonstrate civil behaviour and are unbiased.
Best regards,
Hope to meet you in WP under some username,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I have no time for a full engagement in Wikipedia. It doesn't matter though. What is considered as a source in Wikipedia is very often not a source at all. You see, this encyclopedia accepts as a source the books that do not even reference their work. I think you will see that for yourself. Nirvana77 will not accept any of your sources, he will keep insisting that Beevor is correct, despite the fact that this "historian" did not reference his numbers. I tried explaining to Nirvana77 that if Beevor doesn't reference his numbers, then his work is, muldly put, not authoritative. He seems to disagree, without providing any sufficient reason for disagreement. Considering Wikipedia's policy for changes, you will have to convince Nirvana77 that germans could have lost 1.5 million men in Stalingrad area, and I gave a link on which Oleg Rzheshevsky said that recent numbers from Germany confirmed the hypothesis that germans could have lost 1,5 mil. men in the whole area, but he simply keeps insisting that Beevor is right. I give up. --99.231.48.138 (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Your claims are false. As i have said before, this has nothing do to with Beevor, his numbers on the casualties during the battle aren't even used in the article, i have made this clear several times. If you actually cared you would have made the effort to find that out instead of expressing false and ridiculous claims. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a little. Do not back off now. Yu claimed first that these numbers are given by Beevor and Bergstrom, and "others". I asked you where they took them from. You did not answer. Then you gave me some more silly "history" books (the ones having a lot of pictures, and seemed to have not a single battle disposition plan, you know, the one with boring squares and lines, detailed maps or legends for them) about WW2, again, none of which referenced their material (none of which stated where they took the numbers from). If these numbers have nothing to do with Beevor and Bergstrom, then what do they have to do with? Instead of jumping there and back, please make up your mind. Where are these numbers from? Who is the author? Where did the author take those numbers? Who does the author reference? Thhese are simple questions, for which you seem to be unable to find the answers. As was pointed out by Woogie10w, 1.5 million number is realistic, especially placing it against the research by german historians, who were doing research in german archives, who (german historians) are also the most authoritative source on the issue.--99.231.48.138 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

I didn't claim Beevor used this number, he estimated an even lower number then the current number wich is being used, wich is Bergstoms number of 841,000 casualties, while Beevor in his book Stalingrad estimated around 500,000 axis casualties. I gave that number as a contrast to the supposed 1,5 million casualties. You should read what i actually wrote. I agree with
--Paul Siebert that German casualties should come from German sources, and vice versa with Soviet casualties. When researchers go in to the business of estimating the opponents casualties, there is historically a tendency to exaggerate the opponents casualties, especially with Russian sources. We can't sit around and guess and estimate the total casualty figure on the separate numbers that Woogie10w presented, that would go against Wikipedia:No original research. --Nirvana77 (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You claimed that Beevor also uses this number. Look above. Or do you want me to quote you? Now, as for casualties. Ok, where does Bergstrom take his casualties from? And why don't we use Overman's casualties. And using Bergstrom casualties (provided he does not put references in his book) would be much worse than using Woogie10w's estimates, at least the numbers that Woogie10w used are coming from a historian who did a genuine research on the issue and is a recognized authority on german casualties, as opposed to a person who wrote about air battles. At least he has the numbers for every period. Have you looked at Overman's casualties yourself? Please do. As for your little comment on russian sources, you will be extremely naive to think that US or german or british sources do not lie their asses off when it comes to estimating enemy's casualties. Look, for example, at the pathetic Beevor. Ok, listen, now you claim that Bergstrom uses these casualties, right? Ok, I am fine with that. However, unless you will be able to provide the place where Bergstrom takes his casualties from, we will going to have to do something to the casualties, for example use the breakdown that Woogie10w so kindly provided and simply insert it into the infobox, of course deleting the present figures. Or another idea: Woogie10w gave the numbers for those periods on the eastern front in total. So, we look up the figures for german losses in all other battles, and subtract them from the numbers Woogie10w supplied. This will give the numbers for Stalingrad. Another reason why we shouldn't use the source currently cited was provided by you: the source estimates casualties for germans and their allies, but the author is a single author Bergstrom. Assuming he did the research on german figures, who does he cite on the allies? Does he cite anyone? If you fail to provide the source that Bergstrom uses, then I hope you agree that we will have to use some other source, e.g. Overmans--99.231.50.255 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Missing Bergström 2005 reference

Unless I've missed something there appear to be references to a publication by Bergström dated 2005 which isn't expanded anywhere. Can somebody who knows the literature look into this? Pol098 (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

References

For each of several reference works I've replaced multiple references, with a separate reference number generated for each reference to different pages of the work, by a single reference, displayed followed by the page number. See Beevor in the notes section to see what I mean.

I've also deleted works from the References section which now show with full details in Notes, considering it unnecessary duplication. Works appear in the list of notes in the order they are referenced in the text, rather than alphabetically. If deletion from References wasn't appropriate, please reinstate (from a version dated a couple of hours before this note) Pol098 (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, this is my first time doing something for the Wikipedia, i think that the next message is not right.

The capture of Stalingrad was important to Hitler for three primary reasons. Firstly, it was a major industrial city on the Volga River – a vital transport route between the Caspian Sea and Northern Russia. Secondly, its capture would secure the left flank of the German armies as they advanced into the oil-rich Caucasus region – with the strategic goal of cutting off fuel to Stalin's war machine & thirdly he was gay.

(Daedalo (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

You are quite correct. A vandal left that "contribution" eight minutes before you left the above message. I have now reverted it. To find out how to deal with any other vandalism you may find, feel free to take a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thank you for your vigilance. --Dynaflow babble 16:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hazi Aslanov

Should this person be present in the list of Soviet Commanders? At the time of the battle he only commanded a brigade or a division, so it is hard to see what his place among the other's that are listed (army generals, supreme commanders) is. if he is to be included, i don't know why one shouldn't include in the list people like Alexander Rodimstev or (in the Axis column) General von Daniels too.

it may be that some people put their national favourite in the list, but that should not be a criterion at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauche unie (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Number wounded

I think someone should look at the numbers wounded and dead. It doesn't seem right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.172.195 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Previous versions give 750,000 KIA/WIA. I reverted that vandalism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?

This is from the background section: "The capture of Stalingrad was important to Hitler for two primary reasons. Firstly, it was a major industrial city on the Volga Riverbut the real objective was the oil fields stalingrad thier was nothing really thier – a vital transport route between the Caspian Sea and northern Russia."

This is horrible grammar, which I would fix if I was certain as to what this is supposed to say. Could someone more familiar with this article please do so? 71.201.243.242 (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! That text was just inserted a few hours ago; Clarityfiend just fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. For future reference, you can check what a page used to say, at any point in its history, by clicking the "history" tab at the top of the page. If you're interested, read Help:Page history. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

In the Soviet victory section, there are a couple of minor problems:

• In one place, it says that Gumrak may have been held until the 25th, then soon afterwards, it says there were no more landings after the 22rd.
• It also says the Germans "...had no usable tanks in the city. Those tanks which still functioned could at best be used as stationary cannons."

I'm no expert on this subject, so I'm not touching this. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Unternehmen Barbarossa on 2009?

I have edited the sentence which read that Unternehmen Barbarossa was commenced on 2009. Who the noob is doing this? I have changed it to original 1941 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RightDeve (talk • contribs) 16:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Civilian casualties from Russia

The battle involved more participants than any other in history, and was marked by brutality and disregard for military and civilian casualties by both sides.

I may be wrong, but doesn't this sentence means Russian civilians were killed by their own soldiers? 201.51.38.23 (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of the sentence is correct and your conclusion is correct. There are many instances of both sides killing civilians. For instance, right at the outset of battle, Stalin refused to allow a civilian evacuation as he believed that his soldiers would fight harder for an occupied city - more than 30,000 civilians lost their lives in the initial bombardment thanks to this policy. Another example a few months later when water was scarce in the city, German soldiers would get civilians (even children) to collect water from the rivers and streams for them. When the Soviets realised what was happening, they started shooting at the water collectors. Another example is Hiwis - Soviet civilians who worked for the Germans in exchange for food - when the Soviets re-captured Stalingrad, there was little mercy shown to Hiwis. Cadae (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)