In Volgograd, It’s Stalin Who Lurks on the Sideline

More than two million soldiers participated (!) in the battle of Stalingrad (best estimates conclude: about 2.6 million), about 800.000 died (450 to 500 thousand from the Soviet Union, the others Germans, Italians, Romanians, Hungarians). The number of civilians killed was considerable; exact numbers are unknown however. For comparison: The Second Battle of El Alamein - which the British very often like to see as the turning point of the war - involved about 200.000 soldiers: 110.000 allied (mostly British or from British dominions, quite a few from British India, plus a few American Air Force units), and 90.000 axis (Italian, German). After the battle about 10.000 guys on all sides were dead. The Battle of Okinawa (i.e. the bloodiest battle faught by US troops in the Second World War) involved about 250.000 American, and 120.000 Japanese combat troops, of which more than 12.000 Americans, and up to 110.000 Japanese were killed; not to forget an estimated 120.000 civilians from the island's population.

Stalingrad became a battleground because Hitler and Stalin chose it to be. Hitler could have and should have gone by it. The oil fields east and south and the Caucasus region could have been taken without taking Stalingrad. But Hitler wanted the city named after Stalin destroyed. More absurd and cruel was Stalin. While Stalingrad was a good place to stall the German advance for him he let it become a meat grinder, sending masses of troops in to die. He would not allow civilians to leave the city even after it was a battleground. The battle was terrible, long, and perhaps the bloodiest ever recorded. It was so because of Hitler and Stalin, both being men of cruel and savage character who considered other people objects to use as they might.

Russians and their history... Heroic effort and distorted whitewash... Man had led Russians to the historic victory in the war that he had started with Hitler... that killed more Russians and Germans not to count immense number of others than at any time in history... Both belong in same dustiest bins of history lessons

Stalin liked dealing with Hitler better than with democracies as he felt they were less dangerous for his power. As a result, Russia had to fight alone against the Germans for almost four years. In turn, his callous and incompetent leadership led to the needless loss of millions of Russian soldiers and civilians. That is his true legacy. Putin can have his citizens parade as much as they want on their Victory Day, but the reality is that of a very damaged people who are unable to face or understand their past.

Their call, but—contrary to what we learned about D-Day—Stalingrad was the pivotal battle of the war. No other leader, not Churchill, not Roosevelt, could have sustained such losses and continued the fight. An evil man but his name should be remembered for his key role in defeating an even more evil regime. Imagine Gettysburg being renamed.

As I read this article, I could not help thinking that millions of Russians, much like millions of Americans, would like to recreate the world as it was in1900 to 1945. Of course, that means xenophobic leaders and nationalistic policies that lead to such moments of devastation and death as Stalingrad in 1943. I hope those who are so nostalgic for their respective countries' return to "greatness" realize that the next Stalingrad will not be played out on a small place on the Volga but will be resolved over the sweep of one or two entire continents.

A reader of this article unfamiliar with the battle of Stalingrad will not understand the debate over the name. Because the US and the other western powers were not involved, history as taught here usually underplays the crucial importance of the battle to the outcome of the Second World War. It would have been helpful to include more context than a link to a film review of 1995.

Stalin did lead the U.S.S.R. during the most desperate years in it’s history. He was a man without conscience, an intelligent strategist, a ruthless dictator, and probably was the main reason that the Soviet Union was able to keep fighting Nazi Germany, second only to the vast aid from the U.S. The massive casualties were due to the way Russians never tried to defeat the enemy by outmaneuvering nor employed technology as much as anyone else. It was flesh against steel with Soviet troops often attacking bare handed. NKVD formations blocked the retreating of their own people by shooting them. He was the reason that the U.S.S.R. was doomed to fail. He built industry big fast and poorly with citizens never getting their needs met because Stalin never considered their lives worth respecting. In the end U.S.S.R. the country was not a competent modern one but a poorly operating one without the means to fix it’s problems by the time he died. He had coldly killed tens of millions of his own people on ill considered programs, to destroy any lack of loyalty, and just because he did not care. The result was a system that could not adapt because it could do nothing without Stalin’s approval. But when he died even those who suffered the worst at his hands, and knew it, were sad. They felt empathy while he never did. Go figure that out.

Stalin was a brutal dictator and one would need second thoughts to change the name of a city to include his name, but most people in the US don’t have much context on the nature of the Battle of Stalingrad. It was the morale turning point of the war, the largest and bloodiest battle in history (the military turning point happened at the Battle of Kursk the next summer, after which German forces never launched another major offensive). The battle demonstrated to the world that major German forces could be defeated, and it was a disaster for the German army. The US was not going to Europe even after Pearl Harbor, it only happened after Germany declared war on the US. During the Battle of Stalingrad the first US forces engaged in Europe with a landing in Africa, three years after the war had started. Just after the Battle of Stalingrad US forces were being bloodied at Kasserine Pass. About eighty percent of German losses were on the Eastern Front, which included the largest defeat of the German army with the destruction of Army Group Center. Arguably the major feat of the landings at Normandy would be to prevent occupation of all of Europe by the Soviets. I can sympathize with people who would like to change the name back to Stalingrad, but appreciate the current consensus by people of the city to keep the current name.

A mass murderer is a mass murderer. How on earth can any Russian brush that off? Shameful.

A book about the Soviet Union (when there still WAS a Soviet Union) came out years ago. Full of anecdotes. This is one: A member of the intelligentsia was taking a cab somewhere. He noticed a tiny Stalin icon dangling from the rear view mirror. He bristled. "Why have you got an image of that HANGMAN in your taxi?" he demanded. "Bah!" rejoined the cab driver. "If he's a hangman, then I'M a hangman." The man was reluctant to give it up. "But he shot five million people," he protested. And he got another reply: "Bah! Maybe he should have shot TEN million people. "Maybe he should have shot YOU." I think it reasonable to assume that, in today's Russia. .. . ..opinions are STILL divided . . . . . .on the merits or demerits of Comrade Joseph Stalin. We certainly see this in Volgograd, don't we. (Though no one is talking about SHOOTING people who disagree with them.) Thanks. Fascinating article!.

Stalin was not really the hero of Stalingrad - Zhukov was. It took weeks of arguing to persuade Stalin to adopt Zhukov's proposed strategy, which led to the turning point of the war.