Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Was Stalingrad's role as a turning point exaggerated?

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 16 May 2009, 19:58
Quote:
why was stalingrad named stalingrad? wasn't it because of the war, what was the name of the city before?

It was originally called 'Tsaritsyn'. The city was named 'Stalingrad' in the 1930s, since it was the scene of one of Stalin's (few) glorious victories in the Russian Civil War of 1918-21. This is why Hitler could not resist making Stalingrad a lynchpin of the war, something which was strategically completely unnecessary. Stalin chose to accept his challenge, and the Battle of Stalingrad became the symbolic duel between Hitler and Stalin, fought in the city which bore Stalin's name. How fucкing cool is that?
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 17 May 2009, 05:03
Almost as cool at this.

No more off-topic please. sptnz
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 1384
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2009, 03:41
Party Member
Post 18 May 2009, 03:24
hehe.. alright, but there was another city named leningrad right? that is what i thought. i always thought that city was named leningrad and then was renamed stalingrad.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9816
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Apr 2008, 03:25
Embalmed
Post 18 May 2009, 03:49
Yeah a lot of people think that. Stalingrad is called Volgagrad now. And Leningrad was St. Petersburg then Petrograd then Leningrad and now it's St. Petersburg again.
Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
_Comrade Gulper
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 18 May 2009, 06:01
I think it's a shame to rename such an important location in the world's history.

Like they're ashamed to acknowledge that Stalin saved the world.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 18 May 2009, 15:48
Quote:
I think it's a shame to rename such an important location in the world's history.

Like they're ashamed to acknowledge that Stalin saved the world.

Quoted for truth. We have that asshole Khrushchev to thank for that.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 18 May 2009, 16:25
Potemkin: You've often defended Stalin and said things like the above. I find that a bit confusing given your sig. What's your opinion?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 18 May 2009, 18:17
I think Chairman Mao pretty much summed up my own view of Stalin when he claimed that Stalin was "70% positive, 30% negative". He was a great statesman and an historically important Communist leader, but he committed grievous errors and even crimes, believing them to be necessary at the time. I cannot be uncritical of Stalin, but at the same time I regard the rejection of Stalin's role tout court to be ignorant and self-defeating for a Communist. Renaming Stalingrad to 'Volgograd' (a name the city never previously held) was simply absurd and egregious, as well as an insult to the millions of Soviet soldiers who fought so heroically there.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1384
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2009, 03:41
Party Member
Post 18 May 2009, 21:12
yes, and in the west the myth that lenin and stalin just change name for a very important city so they can boast their own image or propaganda, there is alot of lies concerning the overall morality of the soviet system, ideas that everybody was stealing, that everybody was lazy

anyhow, is stalin in any way comparable to hitler? as nobody would respect a statue of such a man in germany, and we are defending the idea of such a statue in russia. at what point are deportation and execution of our citizens equal to mass murder?

there were many purge though... and this was a large society so to have the same effect more purge had to be done. the deportation of the german in russia is said to have done a whole lot to help stalin win the war, so this war crime could have save him the war right? are war crime only good when they help win a war?

the purges were much less indiscriminate killing than the einsatzgruppen. are the katyn massacre true? because when the english invaded my little french colony in quebec, they expropriated and executed our top society. why wouldn't stalin do the same? i've heard fascists saying that the soviet were around that area too we don't know if the gas chambers are ours or not. the katyn massacre is defended the same way by the communist, it makes more sense that it is nazi however, to eliminate the intellectuals of poland. nevertheless both were to execute intellectuals and politicians.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 109
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 May 2009, 14:55
Pioneer
Post 19 May 2009, 00:22
For the Soviet army, the victory at Stalingrad was a turning point in that it was the first real victory that they could grab onto. Psychologically, it showed them that the Germans were not unstoppable. Also, it was around the time of Stalingrad that the Soviet production of tanks / planes and firearms ramped up and surpassed Germany, ensuring that their fighting men would enter the field properly equipped.

Yes, Stalingrad was incredibly important in the Eastern Front, and is not exaggerated.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9816
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Apr 2008, 03:25
Embalmed
Post 19 May 2009, 00:34
Quote:
yes, and in the west the myth that lenin and stalin just change name for a very important city so they can boast their own image or propaganda

It should be worth noting that Petrograd wasn't changed to Leningrad until after Lenin's death.
Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
_Comrade Gulper
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 19 May 2009, 00:41
I've always found the argument that naming cities after your leader implies a cult of personality from americans perplexing. Our capital is named Washington, and there are about a million Lincolns across the country.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9816
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Apr 2008, 03:25
Embalmed
Post 19 May 2009, 00:43
That and there's a Washington Street in almost every town in the country. A state named Washington too. The show Frasier takes place there.
Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
_Comrade Gulper
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 19 May 2009, 03:33
Quote:
I think Chairman Mao pretty much summed up my own view of Stalin when he claimed that Stalin was "70% positive, 30% negative". He was a great statesman and an historically important Communist leader, but he committed grievous errors and even crimes, believing them to be necessary at the time. I cannot be uncritical of Stalin, but at the same time I regard the rejection of Stalin's role tout court to be ignorant and self-defeating for a Communist. Renaming Stalingrad to 'Volgograd' (a name the city never previously held) was simply absurd and egregious, as well as an insult to the millions of Soviet soldiers who fought so heroically there.


Sounds good to me
.
Soviet cogitations: 51
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Jan 2009, 21:59
Pioneer
Post 28 May 2009, 17:54
I would say it was both Stalingrad and Kursk which represented the main turning point in the war. It was pretty much all-downhill for the Germans afterward.
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 13 Jun 2009, 04:12
Im going to say that it wasnt a battle ie Stalingrad or El Alamein, but more so the whole year of 1943. The german navy was experincing heavy U-boat losses to advanced Allied equipment and tactics, the North Atlantic air gap was closed. This is somewhat important, crippling the UK prevents a second front from opening up. The germans where pushed out of Africa, Sicily, ofcourse Stalingrad, the surrender of the Italians, the collapse of the Demyansk Pocket, incresed heavy bombing of Germany. Its like they say in Saudi death by a thousand cuts, or is it lashes. All these factors played an important part, Admiral Donitz mentioned in his memoirs something about being interrogated by the Russians after the war. He was asked what was turning point, he was expected to Stalingrad, instead he said the Battle of the Atlantic and the NKVD became enraged and wouldnt talk to him any more.
Soviet cogitations: 9
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Aug 2009, 21:17
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 16 Oct 2009, 18:42
I love study of this battle. hitler was obcessed with destroying Volgrad. I hate nazis. As a man of Russian descent I am somehow stupid and inferior to them. As a mensa member, I beg to differ. I'm even alot taller than most germans.
Now (Stalingrad) was a fairly long city spread along the(Volga River) Key industry was the tractor plant and a plant making the BT7 light tank. The barbarians(what the Romans called them) could have bi passed and went for the oil fields in the caucuses. Instead the ultimate genius hitler had Paulus fight a protracted war in winter, Letting Zietzev killabout 250 officers. It eventually lead to Gen Zukov slam them with artillery. He couldv'e broke out but hitler said no. as a result wellover 100000 frostbitten hakf dead krouts started a new life in sunny arctic circle siberia.
Hell atleast they got free lessons in the Ruski Yazeek
Солдат Ленина Soldier of Lenin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 55
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Feb 2011, 12:58
Ideology: Social Democracy
Pioneer
Post 09 Feb 2011, 13:10
Stalingrad was definately the turning point of the Nazi-Soviet war. Stalingrad was the last hope of victory before Moscow. The Sixth army was the best the Nazi's had and when they surrendered (eventually), Morale dropped, soldiers deserted and generally the Nazi's couldn't stop the Soviets. This is probably because of the hunger for revenge on the Fascists.

At the same time, Soviet production lines surpassed German's production by far. Also with the Winter causing such disruption on the roads and things, even less aid got to the Sixth Army. As a result they just capitulated.
Image

"Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem."
Joseph Stalin
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 66
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Feb 2011, 20:21
Pioneer
Post 18 Feb 2011, 21:18
Stalingrad was more than a tactical victory,it was a crushing victory of the Soviet forces that showed the nazi's that they cannot defeat the spirit of the soviet people,and that surrender is not an option,they saw that their war machines were not invunerable.The morale impact was great,the Soviet forces were filled with joy and were inspired by this victory to achieve many more over the course of the war.Not to mention the great loss of soldiers and tanks the nazi's suffered.From that point on,the Soviet forces fought with greater enthusiasm and courage,they had but one cause,a red flag proudly waving in Berlin.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 43
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2011, 19:40
Pioneer
Post 28 Feb 2011, 23:57
300,000 Germans of an invasion force of 2 and a half million died for a tiny strip of land next to the volga, worth little. The soviet force formed a much smaller army but continually reinforced managed to hold that tiny strip of land for 3 months until Zhukov could do his encirclement.

It's interesting that Khruschev would rename the city, considering he served as the representative of Stavka in Stalingrad, and as such, a general. Why would he disgrace a victory he participated in?
I can't wait until someone splits Hoxhaism, so that there will be a 6th Generation in the esteemed Marxist-Leninist line to be sectarian about.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron