Talk:Battle of Stalingrad

Regarding human wave attacks

Beevor, p. 372 references a German account, describing actions in late January 1943, not during the early stages of the Battle of Stalingrad, that mentions waves of Soviet infantry attacking, but also that the Soviet infantry took the German position through outflanking it (certainly not a typical human wave tactic). He doesn't explicitly use the term human wave in authorial voice, which means it is original research to argue that the Soviets used human wave tactics, and it is undue to extrapolate one veteran's account to the entire battle (or even consider it accurate). Glantz's much more recent three volume history of Stalingrad does not describe Soviet tactics as human waves, and many Soviet memoirs refer to the Germans as advancing in waves as well. In addition Beevor's work has been noted as failing to use sufficient source material from the Soviet perspective, as critically noted in Alexander Hill's review of Stalingrad. Kges1901 (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

In Hill's review, Beevor is noted as still having used Soviet archive data, even if limited in use in his chapters. Furthermore, he is credited with using a good amount of German archive data. Furthermore, just because one author does not mention it as such, does not mean it was or did not occur that way. Both Beevor's account from the German soldier, and Craig's description of human wave attacks being used are credible enough to be used on the page. A more recent article from the Telegraph describes wave tactics being used, even if the author is not a historian and is merely a commentator. Furthermore, the archive link used one German soldier's account of Soviet soldiers attacking in waves. Beevor's account from the German soldier on page 372 is quite clear in that it was a human wave assault, with it saying "the first wave was killed or left lying there, the second also, and then a third wave came. In front of our position the Soviet dead piled up and served as a sort of sandbag wall for us." Before that account, "a mass of snow-suited infantry was charging towards them". With all the sources put together, and two authors describing them as such, the line should remain. If German soldiers also used those tactics, it should be mentioned. It is not an extrapolation if the information provided gives accounts of what soldiers did, no matter how large or small. Reaper1945 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Beevor is dated because he wrote in the late 1990s, before a lot of key Soviet documents were available. Craig is similarly dated because he wrote in the 1960s and used only German sources, which makes his account inherently biased. Although Beevor's work is more impartial than Craig's this doesn't change the fact that Beevor does not directly state that Soviet forces used human wave attacks. It is textbook WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and a violation of WP:PRIMARY to extrapolate anything from the words of one German veteran, especially because veterans often exaggerate the amount of enemy soldiers killed. The German account that Beevor quotes exemplifies the pattern because he blames his unit's defeat on the Romanians' retreat, definitely implying German superiority. The Telegraph article is not even worth discussing, it's not an academic reliable source and could potentially be copied from Wikipedia or an unreliable source. Kges1901 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Both authors still provide extensive research over the battle, with Beevor still using Soviet sources in his book. Just because their books came out before the 21st century does not discredit their research nor their credit. Your obsession with German bias found in their work is unfounded and without actual proof. Beevor having a German bias, despite being used extensively throughout WW2 pages on Wikipedia, so that claim is just unwarranted and ignored. If German veterans are to be ignored because of a bias, then so will all Russian sources because of probable bias during and after the war. Beevor does not need to directly state something for that to be the case, arguing over semantics is not a proper argument. The Telegraph article is still able to be used as other modern news sources for past events are or have been, not to mention the author of the article's credentials are listed as "Senioe Reporter & History Correspondent". Overy also makes note of human wave tactics as still be used in the Soviet military during the war. All evidence points to human wave attacks as having been used, regardless of what bias is being implied without actual evidence. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Human wave attacks are well known in academia to be a German myth arising from attempts to blame their defeat on Soviet numerical superiority. For example, Kenneth Slepyan describes the human wave attack theory as an "old chestnut." [1] And you have provided no source that specifically relates to the beginning of the Battle of Stalingrad - August 1942, not January 1943. Kges1901 (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think there's a common belief that the Soviets used human wave attacks in the battle, prevalent enough that we would be remiss to not address it in the article, one way or another. Why not mention it, referencing the Craig source (possibly noting the criticisms of his work if any reliable sources address them), then cite Slepyan or somebody else dismissing it as a myth? –CWenger (^ • @) 01:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Arguing over when the attacks actually happened shows that you have no credible argument because you can't disprove that the attacks were real, so you nitpick the placing of when they occurred, showing the lack of a legitimate argument to the sources and section. If that was to be true of a "German myth" it would be far more mainstream, yet Overy while disputing the layman's idea of the Soviet army, still acknowledges the use of human wave elements in the Soviet military, a source in which you provided. If the dispute cannot be resolved, then a third party will have to be involved. Also, ironically, in Kenneth Slepyan's review, he does not say whether or not the human wave attacks are true, he merely calls it "old chesnut", saying that the authors describe how the Soviets eventually changed their tactics "particularly in the second half of the war". Reaper1945 (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Human wave attack are known to be a Russian tactic from WW1 to WW2 to the Russian army’s inept performance in Ukraine. There is no credible evidence against it. Kentish 86.3.134.204 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph is an excellent source and extremely credible. What you mean is : you dont agree with it

Kentish 86.3.134.204 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Editors should gain consensus before (re)introducing contented content, and definitely stop edit warring. Talk *to* each other, not *about* each other. (Hohum ^@) 01:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• The article could definitely use a historiography section that discusses the impact of German mythmaking on English-language accounts of the battle, but Craig's description of human wave attacks is just one sentence: On that day, Zhukov launched "human wave" assaults, which crashed into the left flank of the German corridor from the Don to the Volga and immediately foundered. I have tried to find more detailed coverage of these claims in histories of the Eastern Front but most historians don't address such claims. Given consensus at RSN I have removed the relevant statements as either supported by unreliable sources or giving WP:UNDUE weight to a one sentence mention in Craig that uses quotation marks, especially after having checked the most recent scholarship on Stalingrad, including Michael Jones' Stalingrad: How the Red Army Triumphed, David Glantz' Stalingrad Trilogy, Geoffrey Roberts' Victory at Stalingrad, and Jochen Hellbeck's Stalingrad. None of these sources describe Soviet tactics as human wave attacks. The Telegraph news article by a journalist with no academic credentials is inherently unreliable to support such a controversial statement, and Beevor's account, again, does repeat the German soldier's claims in authorial voice. To repeat German soldier claims in wikivoice is misuse of WP:PRIMARY. While this situation illustrates that there is a persistent popular myth of Soviet human wave attacks in general during World War II, I believe that it's undue to mention here without academic sources specifically discussing these myths in relation to the battle itself. Kges1901 (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Am I missing something? This is a discussion about something that didn't happen and about which there are no RSs saying it happened? Can we file it under "forget" and move on? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Turning point

“ Today, the Battle of Stalingrad is universally regarded as the turning point in the European theatre of war”

Suggested changes. Either remove the word “universally”, which is significantly incorrect because it is defined as “all”. That is just factually incorrect. Or change to “possible turning point”. Or add “Alongside the Battle of Britain, it is regarded as one of the turning points. Von Runstedt regarded the Battle of Britain as the significant turning point. Even so, there is no military reason to regard Stalingrad as anything other as a bloody defeat for the Nazis. Kentish 86.3.134.204 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I have removed "universally".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request

the article cites that temperatures dropped to -40 Celsius however, according to Wiki Weatger and other sources, the average nighttime winter temperatures are above -10 Celsius 2A00:23C4:3522:6B01:713:C0B9:3A0E:E284 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Stalingrad start date and scope

The date as listed on here for the battle is 23 August 1942, however, the casualties for Soviet forces are calculated from 17 July 1942 to the end of the battle by Krivosheev, and 17 July is listed as the start of the battle by Russian historians. The Hebrew Wikipedia article explains that "It can be started on July 17, 1942, when the Sixth Army first encountered the forces of the Stalingrad front west of the bend of the Don River, on August 23, when the first force of the German army managed to reach the Volga north of Stalingrad, or on September 13, when the campaign inside the city of Stalingrad began".

Another issue is the scope of the battle, which while all include German, Italian, Romanian and Croatian losses, the inclusion of Hungarian losses is complicated, as the article from the Hebrew Wikipedia makes note that "The Second Hungarian Army also suffered heavy losses (about 200,000 casualties) during the Soviet attack in the Upper Don region, which followed the Battle of Stalingrad. However, there is no justification to include its losses within the Axis forces' losses in the campaign on Stalingrad, because the attack on the army had no direct connection to the Battle of Stalingrad, and it was conducted in the area of ​​the city of Voronezh, hundreds of kilometers from the Stalingrad area".

Any input would be appreciated. Reaper1945 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Article size 17,000 words.

Over the last several months, the article has grown from 12,000 words (which was already too big) to over 17,000. This is going in the wrong direction. (Hohum ^@) 22:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hohum I have made several recent edits to trim the article down and make it more concise, and made a new subsection detailing the tactics and battlefield conditions, as the "strategy and tactics" section was enormously long under one subsection. The problem most likely lies with the importance, popularity and all the information that can be gleaned from the battle itself. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's great that you have trimmed some parts. However the complexity of the subject isn't an excuse for such an overlength article. This is explained clearly in WP:Article size, with "reader issues/readability" being the primary one here, although it also affects maintenance significantly. Other articles on extremely complex and important subjects do manage to be far smaller, using various means. While the guideline does say that there can be occasional exceptions, I think other alternatives should be carefully considered first. (Hohum ^@) 01:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have added a "section sizes" template at the top of this talk page to assist any potential efforts. (Hohum ^@) 01:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Understandable of course and I'll continue to make it more concise, since I am guilty myself of adding a great deal to the article to give more information and signify its importance from all sources, including a lot more Russian ones than just English sources. As noted by historian Geoffrey Roberts for example, there's just so much information about the battle and countless sources of it, so pulling what you can from these sources is a bit hard without taking away from what should be stated and explained. Reaper1945 (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, should the self-published source by Cameran Guan from https://thebattleofstalingrad1942-1943.weebly.com/historical-background-and-prelude.html still be used? Reaper1945 (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

With so many good sources available for the subject, I think you can be fairly ruthless with any questionable ones. (Hohum ^@) 11:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the "Tactics and battle conditions" & "Significance" sections could use trimming. I will scrutinize them in greater detail at a later date if no one else does. In general however, I think the significant historical notoriety of this battle and mountains of literature published on it warrants a large article. Durchbruchmüller (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2024

65.255.131.188 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) make more info like the general during this battle how long it was ya

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)