Stalingrad remembered. - Page 2

Datajack Franit · February 2, 2003, 19:31

Quote:

Did I say I was leaving?

When one posts a vomit thread and tells all of us about his barf attitude, he's supposed to post something like: "it wasn't a bowel cancer, I don't do drugs and now I feel better thank you very much"-thread

VetLegion · February 2, 2003, 20:14

Quote:

stalin certainly killed a bunch of people, but he also gave them guns and ammo

and he positioned NKVD with machine guns behind their backs.. just in case their love of Rodina was not enough. At least according to that movie 'Enemy at the Gates' I saw recently, I m not a wwII expert..

Grandpa Troll · February 2, 2003, 22:35

900-DAY SIEGE OF LENINGRAD (BLOKADA)
Despite hunger and cold they did not surrender
"The Road of Life" - the vital link with the mainland
City's art treasures during the Siege
The Piskariovskoye Cemetery - a place for silent mourning
This was certainly the most tragic period in the history of this city. It was full of suffering and heroism. For everyone who lives in St. Petersburg the Blokada (the Siege) of Leningrad is an important part of their heritage and for the older generations it brings the memories that they will never forget.

Less than two and a half months after June 22, 1941, when the Soviet Union was attacked by Nazi Germany, German troops were already approaching Leningrad. The Red Army was outflanked and on September 8, 1941 the Germans had fully encircled Leningrad and the siege began. It lasted for about 900 days, from September 8, 1941 till January 27, 1944. Two million 887 thousand civilians (including about 400 thousand children) plus troops didn't even consider any calls for surrender. Food and fuel stocks were very limited (1-2 months only). All the public transport stopped. By the winter of 1941-42 there was no heating, no water supply, almost no electricity and very little food. In January 1942, in the depths of an unusually cold winter, the lowest food rations in the city were only 125 grams (about 1/4 of a pound) of bread per day. In just two months, January and February, 1942, 200 thousand people (!!!) died in Leningrad of cold and starvation. But some of the war industry still worked and the city did not surrender.

Several hundred thousand people were evacuated from the city across Lake Ladoga via the famous "Road of Life" ("Doroga Zhizni") - the only route that connected the besieged city with the mainland. During the warm season people were ferried to the mainland, and in winter - carried by trucks that drove across the frozen lake under constant enemy bombardment.

Meanwhile, the city lived on. The treasures of the Hermitage and the suburban palaces of Petrodvorets, Pushkin, etc. were hidden in the basements of the Hermitage and St Isaac's Cathedral. Most students continued their studies and even passed finals. Dmitry Shostakovich wrote his Seventh "Leningrad" Symphony and it was performed in the besieged city.

In January 1943 the Siege was broken and a year later, on January 27, 1944 it was fully lifted. At least 641 thousand people had died in Leningrad during the Siege (some estimates put this figure at 800 thousand). Most of them were buried in mass graves in different cemeteries. The Piskariovskoye Memorial Cemetery, where almost 500 thousand people are buried, became one of the most impressive national war memorials.

Next: Post-war reconstruction

Back to History Contents

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2001-2002 Moscow Hotels, JSC. All rights reserved.

I would have chosen this as a more important battle in Russia's Plight. Just an opinion is all.

This anniversary also just passed, January 27th

Troll

Serb · February 2, 2003, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso
oh yes and i support remaining kaliningrad into koenigsberg. that would make immanuel kant stop turning in his grave...

Serb · February 2, 2003, 23:36

Quote:

Originally posted by VetLegion

and he positioned NKVD with machine guns behind their backs.. just in case their love of Rodina was not enough.

Rumors about those units "zagrad otryadi" are greatly exxagerated. In accordance with Stalin's order N227 "no retreat" (iirc the number) 5-6 units per army, (each unit 200 soldiers) should be created and put behind regiments with lowest morale. So, count it by yourself how much those NKVD soldiers- 1000-1200 PER ARMY (an army usually had several divisions, each division usually had 10 000 soldiers) could affect the outcome of battle.

Quote:

At least according to that movie 'Enemy at the Gates' I saw recently, I m not a wwII expert..

"Enemy at the gates" is complete crap, just complete CRAP.

Felch · February 2, 2003, 23:51

I remember reading a book about the Leningrad siege in elementary school. I guess because of that, I always viewed it as more important and meaningful than Stalingrad. But whatever.

Master Zen · February 2, 2003, 23:57

I actually liked enemy at the gates... it had a much better plot than saving private ryan.

If you all want to read an awsome book on the battle, read Antony Beevor's STALINGRAD: THE FATEFUL SIEGE. It is the best book on a single battle I have ever read.

As I said earlier, I think it is up to the Russians to decide if they are willing to forget a name, when I hear the word Stalingrad I do not think of the man, I think of the battle, and its for that reason that if I were Russian I would probably agree (if my familiy had been killed by Stalin I probably wouldn't)

Dr Strangelove · February 3, 2003, 00:11

Actually, I think that successive Republican regimes have pretty much wiped FDR's name off of the face of the (American) map. AFAIK all he ever got his name on was an office buiilding, and I think that it has been torn down and rteplaced with something named after someone else. There were of course literally thousands of schools built by the WPA, and adorned by corner stones bearing the WPA logo,but after more than 60 years few of them remain standing. I went to two of such schools. One was recently torn down, the other has been remodeled in such a manner as to obliterate the original corner stone.

We should remember the enormous ordeal born by the Russian people during WW2 though.

Drake Tungsten · February 3, 2003, 00:16

Quote:

oh yes and i support remaining kaliningrad into koenigsberg. that would make immanuel kant stop turning in his grave...

Hear, hear!

It was and always shall be Koenigsberg!

Zkribbler · February 3, 2003, 01:30

Quote:

Originally posted by raguil_79
I actually liked enemy at the gates... it had a much better plot than saving private ryan.

Are you kidding?? The Muppets Take Manhattan has a better plot than Saving Private Ryan.

Quote:

If you all want to read an awsome book on the battle, read Antony Beevor's STALINGRAD: THE FATEFUL SIEGE. It is the best book on a single battle I have ever read.

Or the book War of the Rats [I forget the author] It's about the same sniper duel as Enemy at the Gates but is about 1,000 times better. The snipers in War of the Rats would have taken out those inept snipers in Enemy at the Gates in about 5 seconds.

Nubclear · February 3, 2003, 02:07

EDIT: Bad version of the Soviet flag. Anyone got a better one?

Serb · February 3, 2003, 02:51

A flag waving show? Cool

How about this one?

Propaganda · February 3, 2003, 03:00

Quote:

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Serb · February 3, 2003, 03:00

Quote:

Originally posted by raguil_79

As I said earlier, I think it is up to the Russians to decide if they are willing to forget a name, when I hear the word Stalingrad I do not think of the man, I think of the battle, and its for that reason that if I were Russian I would probably agree (if my familiy had been killed by Stalin I probably wouldn't)

Well, my grandmother and her sister lost their parents during Stalin's purges of Red army. Both of them don't mind if city will be renamed (which is VERY unlikely imho), because as you said word Stalingrad reminds battle, not dictator.

Jaguar · February 3, 2003, 03:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

EDIT: Bad version of the Soviet flag. Anyone got a better one?

I think you are the 'poly leader in the field of "number of posts consisting entirely of flags"

The Pioneer · February 3, 2003, 04:17

It was the definitely the turning point in the European theater. It was the first time that the Germans tasted defeat. But it was a very harsh battle, more than most, to the civilians and the soldiers of both sides, although the Germans went looking for trouble.

So long...

Az · February 3, 2003, 04:28

German civilians in Stalingrad?

Oh, and a very important thread, Sergey.

TheStinger · February 3, 2003, 04:30

Pointless battle, if it was left to the generals it wouldn't have happened. It was pissing contest between the 2 worst men in history

Serb · February 3, 2003, 04:48

How so?

It was the battle between main forces of two armies, the battle for Caucasus oil.

TheStinger · February 3, 2003, 04:52

The actual battle for stalingrad would have ended in Novemebr if the German generals were allowed to withdraw.

I am not arguing it wasn't significant, just that the actual blood bath for the city itself was militarily stupid.

LaRusso · February 3, 2003, 05:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Why bother me with Cromwell and Napoleon? What kind of argument is this anyway? How are they of any importance for the issue?

should i bother you with prinz eugen and his religiously intolerant views?

Quote:

Mhm, surely true.

Every great leader was starving his own population to death and had a totalitarian ideal and a paranoid personality...

no, for most of the history they were mostly concentrating on fostering fine arts

Quote:

If they hate him: Good, they won't rename the city.If the don't hate hiom, they really have a problem with their own past..

Why don't you let them decide if he was such a butcher...The last time Austrians tried to influence Russian affairs, Russian tanks rolled down streets of Vienna

Quote:

Maybe that explains it

Well, at least we fought Germans when they drove in.

LaRusso · February 3, 2003, 05:29

Quote:

Originally posted by VetLegion

Quote:

stalin certainly killed a bunch of people, but he also gave them guns and ammo

and he positioned NKVD with machine guns behind their backs.. just in case their love of Rodina was not enough. At least according to that movie 'Enemy at the Gates' I saw recently, I m not a wwII expert..

Hey Vetlegion! Hope you are doing fine

As already posted, that scene from the movie is utter crap (even disregarding the fact that the 'ni sagu nazad' order was implemented mostly during the horrible summer of 1942 and that, once in the city, it was not necessary to issue that order anymore). the sillyness of it all reflects in the scene where the soldiers are being slaughtered not for retreating but for having their charge repulsed. nothing like that happened, not even a complete lunatic would expect a 100% success in an infantry charge. that is definitely the stupidest point of the movie (there are some other stupid points too, the whole burlesque with khruschev and stalin's portrait, they were taking a piss out of the movie...)

german movie 'stalingrad' is better.

The Pioneer · February 3, 2003, 05:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
German civilians in Stalingrad?

Oh, and a very important thread, Sergey.

The "...on both sides..." was referring only to the soldier's.

So long...

Serb · February 3, 2003, 06:39

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
I am not arguing it wasn't significant, just that the actual blood bath for the city itself was militarily stupid.

I guess because the city was already lied in ruins?
With this I can agree. However, main forces of both armies should've fought somewhere during 1942 summer/autmn campaign. If not in Stalingrad, then where? Near Moscow again? It's where Stalin actually waited German's strike in 1942. So, if not in Stalingrad, this battle would have happened in different place anyway. How anyone could win such wars without really big, decisive battles?

TheStinger · February 3, 2003, 06:45

A war of attrition in an area as vast and as wide open as the caucauss was stupid.

Attrition battles like Stalingrad and Verdun and the Somme are the result of Generals and politicians not wanting to back down. They pay for this with an excessive amount of their youn peoples lives.

LaRusso · February 3, 2003, 08:06

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
A war of attrition in an area as vast and as wide open as the caucauss was stupid.

Attrition battles like Stalingrad and Verdun and the Somme are the result of Generals and politicians not wanting to back down. They pay for this with an excessive amount of their youn peoples lives.

Stalingrad is not in the Caucasus area.

This is not a proper occassion to bemoan 'politicians and generals'. More like Hitler and his OKW.

TheStinger · February 3, 2003, 08:15

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso

Stalingrad is not in the Caucasus area.

This is not a proper occassion to bemoan 'politicians and generals'. More like Hitler and his OKW.

Stalingrad was as result of a campaign to seize the caucasus.

Why isn't it the right time to bemoan politicians and generals. Hundreds of thousands of people died in a battle which ultimatley turned into a test of how many men Hitler and Stalin could afford to lose.

LaRusso · February 3, 2003, 08:27

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger

Stalingrad was as result of a campaign to seize the caucasus.

Why isn't it the right time to bemoan politicians and generals. Hundreds of thousands of people died in a battle which ultimatley turned into a test of how many men Hitler and Stalin could afford to lose.

Stalingrad itself was a separate objective, as a cutoff point for Volga river transport.

Bemoaning: because hundreds and thousands of people died in a battle initiated by Nazis. It turned into a test of whether Soviets can beat Germans decisively. To say that the whole battle happened because of the personal rivalry between Hitler and Stalin is yet another oversimplification, consistent with the myth of 'brave Soviets, despite their idiotic leader'.

Soviet command had every reason do fall back into the city, fight for it fiercely and prepare counterattack.

TheStinger · February 3, 2003, 08:38

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.

Hitler was possibly the worst leader ever only rivalled by Stalin. So when they fought each other they were hardly going to be looking after their men. They had a casual disregard for life which they filtered down into the government apparatus they controlled.

Stalingrad was a turning point in the war, it was a decisive battle that doesn't mean you have to say it was neccessary.The Germans were even more stupid than the SU( they should have withdrawn) that doesn't mean the SU wern't guilty of needlessley sending their troops to their death.

LaRusso · February 3, 2003, 08:48

Quote:

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.

Hitler was possibly the worst leader ever only rivalled by Stalin. So when they fought each other they were hardly going to be looking after their men. They had a casual disregard for life which they filtered down into the government apparatus they controlled.

Stalingrad was a turning point in the war, it was a decisive battle that doesn't mean you have to say it was neccessary.The Germans were even more stupid than the SU( they should have withdrawn) that doesn't mean the SU wern't guilty of needlessley sending their troops to their death.

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.