The German surrender at Stalingrad, February 1943 Sources Question

In Source A, the reasons for the German defeat at Stalingrad are not explained adequately. However, it does state some of the causes. Such as ‘Troops without ammunition or food’, the fact that they were ‘without dressings or drugs’ for the wounded soldiers. The other reasons for the defeat that are not stated are that the German supply line was cut off and that the Germans were not prepared for the harsh Soviet winter, and therefore thousands of men who were already weak from starvation perished. There was individual, one on one fighting in the streets, which the Germans were not used to; they were trained as fighting as a unit. The German forces went into this battle expecting to win easily and consequently as it was clear they were not going to win their morale dropped, as the Soviets’ increased.

The reasons for it possible not showing all of the reasons to why the Germans were defeated because the source is a message, so therefore what the source shows may only be an extract of a message that explained all of the reasons. However it is more likely that it was a radio message and had to be short and straight to the point instead of a long detailed message incase Paulus was cut off. The message was from Von Paulus who at the time was a General, and would therefore know the state that his men were in as he would have been suffering the same himself. The recipient of the message was the German Army High Command, which would have been Hitler, therefore Paulus knew what Hitler needed to hear to give permission for Paulus and his troops to surrender, as you cannot fight without ammunition, and you cannot survive without food.

Source B is a photograph that shows the back of a soldier holding the Russian flag, leaning over a balcony looking onto the city of Stalingrad. It was taken after the German surrender, by the Soviets in Stalingrad. This photograph was taken to boost the Soviets morale, as it was their first major victory for the Allies throughout the war. It would also inspire other Soviet units fighting that they can beat the Germans with enough perseverance and will power. Another purpose of the photograph is to boast about their victory and to show what a great achievement it was to the other countries. The other Allies had not helped the Soviet Union as much as they would have liked them too so it showed the Allies, that they eventually didn’t need their help and they could do it on their own to a certain extent. As it is a Soviet photograph it would have been used as propaganda to flaunt off the power and economic might of the Soviet Union to other countries; especially Germany.

However the photograph has its limitations, it is most likely to be staged as it shows Russia in control of the situation and standing buildings. When we know that the vast majority of Stalingrad was in ruins so they must have found the minority where some buildings were still standing and up- right. This is to show to the public that the Germans did not make that much of an impact on the town of Stalingrad. Also in the background there are Soviet trucks, signifying to the audience of the photograph that everything is getting back to normal. In the foreground the soldier who is holding the flag has his back to the front, so the face cannot be seen. This may because if it had, it would have linked the victory to an individual and not to the whole army units; dead or alive. The soldier is portrayed as an ordinary civilian who was willing to fight for his country, in order to encourage others to do the same.

Source C is a letter from an unknown German soldier writing from Stalingrad, presumably home to his love ones. This would be useful to a historian studying the German defeat at Stalingrad because it shows the sheer lack of spirit and morale, that he has just begun to give up ‘you know that I am not coming back.’ This lack of will would make these soldiers easy target to the Soviets and also to suicide, ‘Once I was strong and believed; now I am small and unbelieving.’ The soldier writes that he was ‘in the Hitler Youth’ and any member of the Hitler Youth would have been completely dedicated, loyal and would have honoured Hitler; so to say that he would not die saying ‘Heil Hitler’ shows his desperation and now his distrust in Hitler and his promises ‘If what were promised is not true, then Germany will be lost.’ This letter shows very clearly this soldier’s feelings towards Hitler.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The reliability of this source is shown when it states that it was confiscated by the German army and therefore not delivered. This shows that it was a truthful letter about the conditions and feelings of the soldier. It would also be honest because it is a letter, most possible to a loved one, and would consequently be private and personal so there would be know need to lie. To also display these kind of emotions to worried loved ones back at home, shows his now, no longer lack of consideration or care, but only the loss of hope he now feels. The letter was written in January 1943, for that reason it is primary evidence and it is also coming from a German soldier that was actually there and experiencing all of these emotions and living conditions. The only possible limitation of this source would be that it may only be an extract, however it is expected that the whole letter would convey a very similar atmosphere.

Source D is a cartoonist’s view of the Battle of Stalingrad, written for the Evening Standard newspaper. This would be useful to a historian studying the German defeat at Stalingrad as it shows the efforts made by the Allies to boost morale, at a time when years into the war they still had no major victories. This cartoon was drawn in January 1943, so probably before the surrender, however it is still primary evidence and drawn around the time of the defeat. So it also shows that it was predicted that in the end that the Soviet Union would win. The cartoon shows a sickle and a hammer, the symbols of strength in the Soviet Union. The hands holding the tools are conveyed as strong muscular hands that are scooping and crushing the German trucks and army units below. This is useful because, as a political cartoon would often reflect public opinion, in this case that the Soviet Union were stronger that Germany and they would soon defeat them.

However the source has its limitations, such as it is only one persons point of view, yet saying that the cartoon is drawn by David Low, who was a very capable political cartoonist and was very accurate at sensing the mood of the British people. The cartoon may have been used as propaganda purposes to boost the morale of the Allied people and would therefore be biased towards them.

Overall Source C is more useful to a historian studying the German defeat at Stalingrad, firstly because someone who was actually there and experienced it wrote it. It also shows the general state of mind that the German troops were in. Source C is a more personal Source and talks about the feelings of an individual whereas Source D is an overall view drawn by someone who was not even there and who wouldn’t of had full access to the information relating to the battle and it would have been used for propaganda purposes in order to boost morale.

Source E is the German announcement of their defeat at Stalingrad. It says that the German soldiers were defeated due to ‘the unfavourable circumstances confronting’ them. This source says that ‘the sacrifice of the army was not in vain’ and that they were brave as they ‘fought shoulder to shoulder to their last bullet.’ However Source F has a different interpretation of Stalingrad, it states that it was ‘the greatest military and political event of the Second World War’ and the source uses numbers to display that ‘147,200 fascist officers and men had been killed in the fight’, showing as little sensitivity to the people who died as possible.

The reasons for why these interpretations are so different should firstly be who wrote it. Source E is a broadcasted by a German; therefore he would not try to praise the Soviets, actually quite the opposite. The broadcaster is very vague about what the ‘unfavourable circumstances’ were, merely because it was the German leaders fault that the soldiers did not have enough supplies such as ammunition and drugs for the wounded. Source E was broadcasted on 3rd February 1943, so not far off the day from the German defeat; therefore it would be a highly sensitive matter to the German people as nearly every German person knew a soldier that was involved in the battle. This Source is a broadcast, therefore he would be addressing the general German public. For that reason he would have to boost morale because the public would have been be disheartened, and as the war was not over people still needed to continue with the war effort so needed hope to feel they still could win. The word defeat was not used throughout the broadcast, the battle has simply ‘come to an end.’ If Germany had shown a defeatist attitude it would have reflected on the civilians. The public would not want to know the real truth; they needed a reassurance that their relatives or friends lives had not been in vain. It was a broadcast of damage limitations; they were protecting the public from what had happened.

Source F is written by a Soviet, consequently having the opposite view to a German, they would be proud of their victory and therefore would want to brag about how many Germans they killed and how many they captured. It goes into detail about how they ‘surrounded German- Fascist troops’; it’s a negative viewpoint towards the German. Source F was written in the 1960s, therefore nearly twenty years after the German defeat at Stalingrad had happened. Also during this period was the Cold War, so the Soviets would want it to appear that they defeat the Germans on their own with little help from the other Allies. The audience of Source F would have been Soviet school children as it is written for a textbook, therefore they would want to make their children proud of their for-fathers and their country, this was done by adding in all the facts and figures.

Apart from the above reasons the sources may be different because for Source E there may have been a lack of information available for the person reading the broadcast. The information would have come from the government, which would have been censored. There are no facts or figures stated about the loss of men, this may be because of censorship or it was too early after the defeat to calculate the numbers. However if the numbers were available they would not have been used to protect the civilians from the sheer scale of the defeat. Source F, does not give the number of Soviet casualties or the number of Germans that eventually returned, it is only focussing on the positive achievements made by the Soviets. Although historians usually give balanced views, the information given could have biased in the first place. As the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state everything would have been censored, yet due to the time gap some information may have been released.

Source F, G and H each show different numbers of the Germans killed and captured at Stalingrad. Source F states that 147,200 German soldiers were killed and 91,000 were taken prisoner including 2,500 officers and 24 generals including Paulus. According to Source G, 91,000 Germans went into captivity and only 6,000 ever returned. The number that was killed was not stated. In Source H it is written that 100,000 German soldiers died and 90,000 were captured.

These figures differ between the sources because of a number of factors. Source F was written by a Soviet, in the 1960s which at that time there was the Cold War so every detail about how many Germans that the Soviets killed or captured would have wanted to be stated to show what an achievement it was. Source F is from an official History textbook for Soviet school children, and therefore some of the numbers could possibly be inflated, but they are roughly correct. When stating that 147,000 German soldiers had been killed this was not rounded to the nearest hundred as it would have made a huge difference, and lowered the extent of their victory. It is directly stated that General- field marshal Paulus was also captured to yet again highlight what an achievement it had been for the Soviets.

Source G is written by a British Historian in 1975, and by this time the Cold War was over and due to the passage of time a larger source of information was available. The number of German soldiers killed has not been stated in this source, as reading on it is clear that the Historian is biased towards the Germans. Therefore it only says the number of Germans that went into captivity and the number that returned. Perhaps to show how the Soviets treated and tortured the Germans during their captivity, the last ever German war prisoner was returned in 1955.

Source H is another British view of Stalingrad written in 1953, as the British were not completely involved in the battle the writer is more balanced, and just generally rounding the numbers to the nearest thousand as the exact numbers are not important. The figures are merely used to illustrate the writer’s point that Stalingrad was a battle that Hitler could not free himself from the responsibility.

Both Sources G and H are extracts from general books, however they have different audiences. Source Gs ‘Second World War’ book seems to be more about the historians view of the Battle and how it effected, or didn’t effect the Germans. Whereas Source Hs, ‘The Nemesis of Power’ book gives the impression of a more colloquial toned book, telling the story of Stalingrad whilst keeping the reader entertained.

Source I is a wartime newsreel, cut into two parts; the first showing the success of the Germans and the second half showing the defeat at Stalingrad. The film was clearly influenced by the people making it because they are trying to show the defeat with a damage limitation. They do this in the first half by showing smiling soldiers marching off into war and in moving tanks, sunny weather, upbeat and positive commentary and music. There are also close ups of individual faces. Then in the second part the music becomes depressing, and the commentators voice becomes sad and sombre. The weather changes to a harsh winter snow, there is no movement until the end when we see men marching off into captivity, and here we do not see their individual faces. Yet the commentary does not mention that the men are being marched into captivity, maybe because it gives hope to some of the grieving families that there loved ones have not perished in the battle. Or it could be that the idea of them not just being defeated but that they surrendered and were captured, makes the enemy seem more superior, which they didn’t want to do. There are dramatic shots of the graveyard in which the soldiers’ bodies are meant buried. The graves are shown with crucifixes for gravestones to show that the men are respected. The commentary mentions that 210,000 Germans perished, they could not avoid mentioning this fact, as they cannot hide it. The reasons for the defeat are not stated except the poor weather and their lack of food, but the way it is said makes the soldiers sound brave and heroic. There is no evidence of the fighting done by either the Soviets or Germans, that part of the battle is skipped out, only them going into battle and the final result is shown. The word defeat is not used throughout the newsreel as the audience is the general public, and if the newsreel took a defeatist view then this would perhaps reflect onto the civilians. This newsreel was also produced to boost morale because as it was the Germans first major defeat they needed to maintain their confidence in order to keep up the war effort. This newsreel is basically propaganda, to show to the grieving widows and families that their men did not die in vain and that Germany would live to fight another day.

As wartime propaganda it would have been made by the ministry of enlightenment and propaganda, who used new and up to date techniques for its day such as the fading between the first and second part of the film. Overall the way that it was produced, the commentary used, the visual shots chosen were all used for the purpose that the Government wanted the newsreel for, which was for damage limitations. They had to admit that it happened but they went about it in the best possible way in order to protect the mourning general public.

I agree that overall ‘The Nazi defeat at Stalingrad was more important to the Russians than to the Germans.’ This is because it has long-term consequences to the Russians but only short-term consequences to the Germans. This was the first major defeat of Germany and for that reason gave all Allied, especially Russian, soldiers a huge morale boost, which was much needed in order to keep the strong war effort going. The Russians believed that this battle at Stalingrad, which they won, was the ‘greatest military and political event of the Second World war’ as shown in Source F. However this is contradicted by Source G, which states that ‘Stalingrad was not the decisive battle of the Second World War.’ The Russians felt extra pride in winning this battle as they did it without as much help that was desired from the other Allied forces, so now the use of propaganda, for example Source B, was used to display to the West that they were now a major power and proved that their system of Communism had worked. It would also have been used in the propaganda war, during the years of the Cold War. However Source D shows a British cartoon showing the strength and power of Russia, consequently the Allies, according to this cartoon were behind the Russians in all her actions. This defeat of the Germans was very important to Russia in the long-term as they used the fact that they felt they had defeated Germany without the desired help from the Allies against America in the Cold War.

The defeat at Stalingrad was a terrible disaster with a huge loss of life, shown in Source I, by the number of gravestones. It was a blow to the German pride and morale fell, yet the Government tried to limit the damage of the event by making heroes out of the soldiers who perished in saying that they dies for their country, ‘They died that Germany might live’ stated in the German announcement in Source E.

In spite of what the Government stated the German soldiers had lost all hope in Hitler and Germany, ‘Nobody can tell me that comrades die with word like “Germany” and “Heil Hitler” on their lips. Most merely cry for help’ as written in a confiscated letter, by a German soldier at Stalingrad, in Source C. The purpose for the battle at Stalingrad for the Germans was so they could access the oil at the Caucuses. If the oil was available to the Germans it would have meant that she could have withstood a prolonged was, without having to depend on Romanian oilfields which were vulnerable to attack by Russian bombers. So as a medium-term consequence the Germans would have been short of oil and therefore not being able to withstand a long-lasting war. The defeat also meant that because of the loss of life the Germans could never again strike again on the Eastern Front. However it was not until the Germans lost in the battle of Kursk against the Russians that they were pushed back, and forced out of the Soviet Union.

The defeat obviously had an impact of the German soldiers and their commanding officers; they lost faith in Hitler’s ruling and felt he was not listening. During the battle at Stalingrad General Paulus was pleading with ‘immediate permission to surrender in order to save lives of remaining troops’ as displayed in Source A which is a message from Paulus to Hitler. So with the fallen morale due to the loss of life and defeat at Stalingrad, now as well’ there were no doubts among civilians and military circles …a mad corporal whose lucky gambles were no longer paying off’ shown in Source H, that the people’s confidence in Hitler was wearing away.

At the time, February 1943, the defeat of the Germans at Stalingrad was important to both the Russians and the Germans, but after time had past the Germans only remember the tragic events of Stalingrad, whereas the Russians used it to their advantage, for example during the years of the Cold War. Although not all the Sources support my view, I still believe that the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad was more important to the Russians as it had long term effects whereas it only effected the Germans at that time and non there after.

Words: 3,670

By Katie Matthews -