Source C is a letter.
Source D is a cartoon.
Which is the most useful to a historian studying the German defeat at Stalingrad?
Explain your answer using sources C and D and your own knowledge
I think that both sources are useful, although both in almost entirely different ways. Source C shows us the view of a soldier who has nothing left to live for – he knows he will soon die, and as in A, he has nothing left to lie about. He shows us the extent to which the Germans morale was dropping – so much that they were no longer loyal to their leader. C however shows us the view of the outside world – from Britain, which wasn’t really involved in the conflict from a first hand point of view. The cartoon shows that the Russians had gotten the Germans ‘in their grasp’ and were about to bring down the hammer – this may show that we knew what was going to happen, as the cartoon was drawn before the defeat. It is highly likely that the cartoon is biased, however, as the British were allied to the Russian. Therefore, I would say that C is less biased than D, because the soldier seems to be perhaps a little more honest. Also, the cartoon cannot show us what is happening to the Germans themselves, nor the Russians – it could be said that it is not a primary source as much as C is. For views on other nations thoughts of Stalingrad I would use source D, however I think as a source for showing what happened to the Germans in the defeat I would be inclined to use source C, as it is relatively unbiased, a primary source and one which could give reasons for the future defeat of Germany. The fact that the letter was confiscated may also show that this is true, as the Germans would only confiscate something that they knew was true, and they would not want the public morale to drop even lower. D, also, can be said to be true though, as the Evening Standard would probably not lie, especially as the enemy is being beaten. The portrayal of the supply line being long and thin is probably designed to show us that the Russians were able to easily attack from the flanks, possibly showing more of the tactical side of the battle. It may also show that the British realise the size of Russia, which may be relevant in the future, as she seems to be much bigger than Germany (although this may be referring to the size of the countries only).
Source E is from a German broadcast of 1943.
Source F is from a Soviet school textbook.
Why are these interpretations about the end of the Battle of Stalingrad so different?
Explain using Sources E and F and your own knowledge.
Firstly, I think that the two sources are so different because of their different target audiences. The broadcast, most likely aimed at those related to the 6th Army, and the German public, would have wanted to boost morale and possibly to comfort the loved ones of the dead. They would also want to show that they did not die in vain, and that their efforts were not lost – so this would mean that they would need to give a very biased report, and show that they did their best, but that the Russians were unstoppable. The source would have been written to show the Germans in the best light possible, as well as saying that they had done good, etc. F, however, shows almost the opposite view – from the point of view of the Russians – that the Germans were defiant, despite their offers of surrender. It then goes on to show figures for the captures, etc. of the Germans, and these would seem to be reasonably reliable from my external knowledge. However, as in E there are elements which seem to be made up by the Russians, such as the way in which the battle seems to be glorified – there is no reference to the losses suffered by the Soviets, and it seems that the Soviets won all the battles – which I know is not true. I think that both of the sources contain parts of the truth, although neither of them show what really happened without a high degree of inaccuracy. This was because of their target audience – the Germans wanted the broadcast to show the Germans in a good light, whereas the Soviet textbook wanted the schools to read that the Soviets re-took Stalingrad with ease, defeating the Germans easily – and possibly wanting to pro-create hatred of the Germans, amongst younger people – who are easier to ‘brainwash’. I think that both want to show that the other side was in the wrong, and both want to increase morale/make the public understand that the broadcasting/publishing country is correct. E shows that the Russians were wrong by saying that they effectively slaughtered the Germans, whereas F shows that the Russians gave the Germans the chance to escape, but that they were defiant, leaving the Russians were left with no choice. I think that the main reason for there differences is the fact that neither side could accept responsibility for the huge losses suffered, and that both sides wanted to gain support for their argument from the public.
Sources F, G and H give differing views about the battle of Stalingrad.
Why do these interpretations differ?
Explain your answer using Sources F, G and H and your own knowledge
I think that the three sources F, G and H are different primarily because of when they were written, and who by. Without reading the sources, I would say that the textbook written by the Soviets was probably biased, the book by AJP Taylor would be perhaps more biased towards the Russians as he is British, and the source is secondary, and also H is British, but as it is written by a Sir, and is nearer the time – it is possible that this is the most reliable. I think this is the main reason why they differ so much, and also that they are views from what are effectively two different worlds – the east and the west. Also, they are written during the period of the Cold War, during which the Soviets were not friendly with Britain, which is probably why the sources are differing from each other in this respect. I think that the only reason that the two British sources differ is because of the differences in the times when they were written. It is also possible that G may be more sympathetic towards the Germans and the Soviets, as he states that the attack was not in vain (by the Germans). Also is the way in which the sources differ about whether or no Stalingrad really was the decisive battle of the war – the Soviets, of course, think so, although G seems not to follow this line of thinking. H shows a different view altogether, it would seem – saying that for the first time the Germans were broken.
“The Nazi defeat at Stalingrad was more important to the Russians that to the Germans.” – Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation?
Explain using all the sources and your own knowledge
I think that many of the reasons for each side wanting to win Stalingrad are the same – for example, it was not only the city bearing the name of Stalin, but it also provided the gateway to the oilfields badly needed by each side, as well as being a bridge across the Volga. As well as this, whichever side controlled Stalingrad had a reasonably easy fight towards controlling the rest of the each others countries – there were no barriers beyond Stalingrad, and not many between it and Germany. Clearly, Stalingrad was important to the Russians as it meant that they could recover and eventually win the war – had they not captured Stalingrad, Russia may well have fallen. Having said this though, it is unlikely that the Germans could have won in the position that they fell into – had they waited for the supplies, they may have won. I think this may have been another reason why the Russians needed to win – to block the powerful thrust by the Germans. The Germans only needed to gain one thing out of Operation Barbarossa – Stalingrad was effectively a ‘side-show’ – they needed the oilfields, and so Stalingrad was important strategically, but not necessary if they were really desperate for the oil. Also, winning a city bearing the enemy’s name would surely have greatly boosted the morale of the German troops, although these are the very reasons why Russia needed to protect the city – for one, it bore Stalins name, secondly it was still a ‘living city’, with people in, and this encouraged the Russians to win. As B shows, it was important that Russia won to improve the morale of the public, and to prove that Russia was again strong. Sources such as C could suggest that Germany never really stood much chance when it was surrounded, as the Russians used powerful tactics. This would suggest that the Germans were not morally strong enough, and perhaps that the Russians fought harder for the defeat, as it was on their homeland. C also shows the realisation in the soldiers that Hitler was not the great tactician that everybody though he was – they had been deceived by Hitler. The German announcement of their defeat would seem not to care too much for the loss of the actual city and the chances to win the oilfields, but beneath this the Germans knew that without this oil, they could not hold out against the Allies for much longer without these much needed supplies. Also is the view that without the Russian defeat, much more work would have been needed to be done by the Western Allies, which is probably why the Western cartoonist thought well of the Russian attack. It was probably also important for the Russians to win in order that they could spread the ideas of Communism much further, through a badly weakened East.
