Was Stalingrad the single worst event in human history?
Was Stalingrad the single worst event in human history?
John Russell
Chase King
No. Do you have trouble dressing yourself? I ask because the only way you could consider it a terrible event at all is if you wanted the Nazis to win WW2, but even a victory at Stalingrad isn't going to make that happen, so you're probably just a stupid stormnigger.
Michael Gray
Was it really this bad?
Wyatt Long
What the fuck was that? Was that an actual movie?
Juan Jones
No.
Fucking frogposters should go back to their containment board.
Kayden Thomas
Welcome to Russian patriotic cinematography.
Jack Scott
The CSA losing the Civil War was the single worst event in human history. Just about every fucked up act of evil from the Third Reich to ISIS can be traced back to Robert E. Lee's prophesy that the "consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."
Michael Lee
*See "Jüdische Physik"
Kayden Rivera
look up Knights of the Golden Circle you fucking leeaboo autist
Justin Cox
Yeah, shit like this destroys cinematograph
Alexander Ramirez
>Knights of the Golden Circle
>Relevant
It was literally a Ponzi scheme run by a Yankee.
The Kult of Kek has more political legitimacy than they did.
Carson Brown
Not even the single worst event in Russia in ww2.
Gavin Clark
war-kino
Sebastian Price
OP here, didn't mean that it was bad because Germany lost, more the brutality of the battle itself.
Brody Richardson
You don't need to wish the nazis won to think Stalingrad was a fucking human tragedy, you autist.
Do you also think people who think the Somme was a shitshow say it because they wish the Germans won the war?
Zachary White
I don't understand Veeky Forums obsession with Stalingrad. Ok, 2 millions dead, during the winter, fighting in buildings etc.
Is that it? Why wouldn't fighting in the worst WW1 trenches be worse than this?
Anthony Adams
>Soldiers drinking excessively to escape the hell they found themselves in
>Constant bombings
>“Every seven seconds a German soldier dies in Russia. Stalingrad, mass grave."
>Snipers
>Incredible hatred between the two sides
Jack Powell
World War 1 was worse.
>many millions dead in battle
>millions of civilians die from famine and disease
>continental Europe bombed into dust
>all for nothing, started for no good reason, ended without settling anything
>set the stage for nearly all future problems, like Fascism, Communism, and radical Islam
Not-so-fun fact: One third of combat age males in France died in WW1.
Samuel Harris
Pearl Harbor.
Josiah Cruz
>You don't need to wish the nazis won to think Stalingrad was a fucking human tragedy, you autist.
But that's not what OP said, he said "the single worst event in human history". What makes Stalingrad worse than any other extremely large, high fatality battle?
Zachary Wright
Black Death
Luis Johnson
The fact that it was the deadliest battle in history you shithead
Tyler Cook
No. Making Veeky Forums was.
Jordan Bell
You should probably google the shit that Mao did.
>Cuts of the worlds largest population from the rest of the world
>10's of millions dead, if not more.
>Rest of the world now having to deal with a nationalistic China looking to project its power around the world.
And I dunno, there was also shit like the plague.
Landon Peterson
No, that'd be Verdun
Charles Lopez
Wrong. Even the low estimates of the Lower Dniepr battle in 1943 are well in excess of Stalingrad. Leningrad blows it the hell out of you count civilian casualties.
Parker Cox
That was Gettysburg.
James Wood
>many millions dead in battle
>millions of civilians die from famine and disease
>continental Europe bombed into dust
So just like WW2 then?
Luke Cox
the nazis coming to power made eugenics permanently taboo and will doom humanity into a downward spiral of dysgenic policies and effects
probably the worst event for the genetic health of our species
Luis Miller
Not at all.
Eli Johnson
WW2 actually settled some things though. WW1 was totally pointless.
Jeremiah Turner
I remain unconvinced. WW1 seems the absolute worst to me.
Sebastian Parker
>That was Gettysburg.
Only in North America. Still one of the most epic and consequential military confrontations in history.
William Morris
What tank is this even supposed to be?
Dominic Ross
BT-7?
Austin Jones
>tfw you'll never ride on your comfy carriage through the ruins of stalingrad
Matthew Johnson
The Kult of Kek sounds like a really big joke. I can´t believe anyone would take something that came out of Veeky Forums as real.
Luke Peterson
No
China sure is amazing at fucking itself up
Nathan Turner
another not so fun fact
68% of males born in the soviet union in 1923 were dead by 1946
Even more shocking, of the 3,400,000 males born that year 1,600,000 were already dead by 1941.
Anthony James
So was the KGC.
Every account I've read of the group makes it clear they were just a bunch of con artists out to make a quick buck.
Asher Hill
> Even the low estimates of the Lower Dniepr battle in 1943
That was an entire campaign spread out across a nearly 1,500 mile front.
Stalingrad was roughly as much carnage (in both campaigns you're roughly within the 1.5 million mark for casualties) packed into a single city and fed into the unending meat-grinder of urban warfare, where the Red Army's entire strategy was to get up close and personal so that the Germans couldn't make effective use of artillery and aerial bombardment
Kayden Young
>I can´t believe anyone would take something that came out of Veeky Forums as real.
/pol/acks are the new chanology fags
Robert Ortiz
Was inevitable after the decision to "colonise" reddit really
John King
>Stalingrad was roughly as much carnage (in both campaigns you're roughly within the 1.5 million mark for casualties) packed into a single city and fed into the unending meat-grinder of urban warfare, where the Red Army's entire strategy was to get up close and personal so that the Germans couldn't make effective use of artillery and aerial bombardment
WRONG. You would know this if you even took a casual glance at the wikipedia article about the battle. "The Battle of Stalingrad" was more than just an urban street to street shootout.
It includes
>The lower Don offensive that spanned close to 500 kilometers and took weeks
>The city fighting itself
>The flanking actions to hold either side of the Volga that extended for over 150 miles on the north alone
>The Soviet counterattack, which rolled all the way back to fucking Rostov
>The closing of the 6th army pocket, to the west of the city.
Please either pick up a fucking wiki article, or just kill yourself.
Colton King
It's called "paraphrasing" you half-wit.
Obviously a battle of roughly 2 million dead is a gigantic Mandelbrot of horrors and trying to condense it down into a single sentence is going to be leaving out a shit ton of details.
The point is that it's not even fair to compare it to an extended campaign across over a thousand and a half mile front just because you needed to be the snowflake who goes against professional consensus in order to prove what history's biggest single military confrontation was.
Jackson Morris
>It's called "paraphrasing" you half-wit.
No, it's called having no fucking clue what you're tlaking about. "Stalingrad" the battle included far more than the fighting in the city limits, and encompassed a huge amount of area and time.
>Obviously a battle of roughly 2 million dead
This part is wrong too. You had roughly two million CASUALTIES, which is distinct from dead. That includes all the wounded, and also all of the caputred, which Stalingrad had a disproportionately high amount compared to other Eastern Front battles, what with the wholesale envelopments and mass captures for both sides at different phases of the battle.
>The point is that it's not even fair to compare it to an extended campaign across over a thousand and a half mile front just because you needed to be the snowflake who goes against professional consensus in order to prove what history's biggest single military confrontation was.
Over 5 months doesn't count as an extended campaign? The front was "only" about 350 miles, that doesn't make it extended over a large amount of space? What "professional consensus" dictated that Stalingrad was the world's biggest battle, or that it was relatively contained?
You are wrong about pretty much every single thing you claim. Even if you were, Leningrad has Stalingrad beat all out. Stop posting.
Isaiah Thompson
>No, it's called having no fucking clue what you're tlaking about.
No, it's called not being a nitpicking snowflake
> You had roughly two million CASUALTIES
Yes, casualties is what I meant
>Leningrad has Stalingrad beat all out.
A siege is something different from a battle, if you want to get technical
>Over 5 months doesn't count as an extended campaign? The front was "only" about 350 miles
still not even 1 /3 the length the Dnieper campaign. You're still talking about far more intense fighting in a far more contained space, where the life-expectancy of a Red Army officer was a mere 3 days and a soldier was as little as 24 hours.
I mean I could run with your logic and say that Operation Barbarossa is the largest battle ever, assuming that I could just define "battle" to mean whatever the fuck I want it to mean, and didn't put any constraints upon what "sustained armed confrontation" could
> What "professional consensus" dictated that Stalingrad was the world's biggest battle, or that it was relatively contained?
britannica.com
>most historians consider it to be the greatest battle of the entire conflict
And here's the point you're missing snowflake: sheer volume of people dead is not what makes a battle particularly "great" or using OP's terminology, the single worst event in human history. It's scale, intensity of the fighting, the futility of it all, the barbarity. And yes, it has the unique quality of being a symbolic battle because the two men who orchestrated the battle made it into one. Even among Russians Stalingrad stands out from the rest, there's even a movement going to rename Volgograd back to Stalingrad.
theguardian.com
>Stop posting.
settle down, this will be my last post, because I came here looking for a solid discussion about the Battle of Stalingrad but all I found were shit-flinging apes
Nicholas Collins
>No, it's called not being a nitpicking snowflake
Stop using words that you don't understand the meaning of. "Snowflake"? How am I demanding special attention here? Who the fuck were you "paraphrasing" earlier?
>A siege is something different from a battle, if you want to get technical
If you want to be technical, Leningrad was both a siege (an investment of a fortified position) and a battle, since there was considerable fighting going on both at the southern fortifications of the city and along the lines of communication to the east of it for the Soviet relief efforts.
>still not even 1 /3 the length the Dnieper campaign.
Please learn to do math, among your numerous other failings. While you're at it, I still don't see why the geographic size of things is even mattering, once we've moved away from your "it was all in the city" nonsense.
>where the life-expectancy of a Red Army officer was a mere 3 days and a soldier was as little as 24 hours.
Please cite this claim.
>I mean I could run with your logic and say that Operation Barbarossa is the largest battle ever
No, you couldn't.
>assuming that I could just define "battle" to mean whatever the fuck I want it to mean,
They are both attempts to seize a strategic point. Unlike Barbarossa, which was an attempt to knock out a country's ability to fight by bringing an army to heel before it can retreat across the Dvina and Dniepr and destroyed; and is hence an operation.
Thomas Carter
>britannica.com
An encyclopedia that is updated over the course of decades between revisions and of course does not quote any military historians, good job. Let's not forget that it starts its coverage of the battle on June 9th, 1942, well before the Germans even got to the Don, which makes it even LARGER in area than the definition I gave upthread.
>It's scale,
By your own admission less than other eastern front battles.
>intensity of the fighting,
Which you have provided nothing to prove that it was any worse than other eastern front battles.
>he futility of it all
How was it futile? It is usually considered the turning point in the War in the East?
>the barbarity.
Again, how was this different from any other battle in the Eastern Front?
> And yes, it has the unique quality of being a symbolic battle because the two men who orchestrated the battle made it into one.
So, in other words, it's meme status that continues to feed off of itself makes it more great/tragic than other battles? That's retarded, as are you
>because I came here looking for a solid discussion about the Battle of Stalingrad but all I found were shit-flinging apes
No you didn't (and you'll respond to these posts, like every other Veeky Forums retard who says that this is their last post) But if you want to have a discussion, let's start here.
youtu.be
Here, we have Glantz, one of the foremost scholars of the Eastern Front, talking about how no more than 250,000 of those German troops (Lower than their casualties of the battle!) were involved in the city fighting. That the battle was lost attacking in the Don river basin, and how much damage the Germans and allies sustained in the months before you even started urban combat. Why then, are we fixated on the urban combat, and not other open fights between Germany and the USSR?
Justin Campbell
Yeah and it fucking sucks ass, I tried to watch it once and it was like a typical Hollywood WWII movie but ten times more absurd and corny, I started thinking it was satirical while watching it but it's really not.