Another reason the photograph could have been taken was for Patriotism. The photo shows a Russian solider flying the Red flag of Russia, this would stir up the Russian people and show them how well they had fought against the ‘evil’ Germans. This could also have been a victory not just for the Russians but for all of communism. It showed the rest for the world that communism did work, and in fact it worked better than capitalism, for the Russians were the ones who had defeated the Germans, and what had the rest of the allies done? Nothing. They were having trouble in North Africa. It could also prove to the rest of the world that Russia was ‘out there’ fighting the Germans, and that the allies should come and help them as soon as possible instead of fighting in Italy and North Africa, that wasn’t really doping anything.
The Russians could also have used the photo for Moral uses. It showed the sixth army surrendering to a Russian force. This was the first major victory that the Russians had won so far, and so if the Generals showed this to troops elsewhere in Russia then they would get a Moral boost, and hopefully that would be enough to drive the Germans off all their other major cities.
- Which is more useful to a historian studying the German defeat at Stalingrad?
Both Sources C and D are useful to historians studying the German defeat at Stalingrad. Source C is a letter from a German solider. The solider wrote the letter a month before the Germans surrendered at Stalingrad. The letter was never delivered for it contained too much sensitive information. The letter says that the Germans are losing Stalingrad and that he does not expect to live for much longer:
“So now you know that I am not coming back.”
This means that as he knows that he is going top doe soon, he does not have much to loose by telling the truth about what is actually going on in Russia.
The German army has no more morale. The once proud 6th army, who defeated the whole of France in six weeks, has been stuck at Stalingrad, just one city, for over a year! He goes on to say that if the soldiers do not get what they are promised then the whole of Germany will be lost.
“If what we were promised is not true, then Germany will be lost.”
This really shows that lack of faith they have in Germany and Hitler. The army thinks that if they do not take Stalingrad soon, then the whole war will be lost.
The problem with this source is that it is a highly personal thing. It is all emotional and sentimental, not factual.
Source D is a political cartoon taken from the ‘Evening Standard’ in 1943 this was a socialist Newspaper run by a person called Michael Foot, who was a socialist himself. This means that although it is a contemprey source, it was written far away from Stalingrad and would be biased towards the Russians. The Cartoon shows that the mighty hand of Russia is crushing, what looks like trucks, between its hammer and sickle. The trucks represent the German supply lines and are an accurate representation of what was happening. The Russians, especially the Russian Partisans, were crushing the German supply lines.
But this a political cartoon, so it will have been exaggerated, and it doesn’t represent what actually happened, for there was not some huge Russian standing in the middle do the roads with a giant hammer and sickle crushing German trucks between them. Also this source does not have any facts either.
Overall I think that Source D is the more useful source for discovering why the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad, though I think Source C is more useful for seeing why the Germans lost the War on the whole. For Source D shows the German supply lines being attacked upon. I think that it was the lack of supplies that hurt Germany the most, for they were in the middle of Russia, miles away from anything German, and they had just come out of a long hard Russian winter in which no supplies could get to them anyway. They were out of supplies before the Germans encircled them.
- Why are these two interpretations about the end of the battle of Stalingrad so different?
Sources E and F are so different because they are trying to do two different things. Source E is a German propaganda broadcast trying to say that it doesn’t matter that they have lost Stalingrad, but they had held off the Germans and so the rest of Germany might be spared:
“… it tied down strong enemy forces for a number of weeks of the fiercest fighting.”
But this was not true. The Germans did not hold the Russians down for a number of weeks, the Germans were completely surrounded and they could not do anything. This Source is also completely empty of facts. That is the reason, I think, that they put this notice over the radio. The whole point of the broadcast was to keep moral up; it was to stop the German Citizens and the other soldiers panicking.
Source F is an extract from a Russian history textbook. The point of this was to prove to everyone that the Russians won convincingly. As this is textbook, it gives a lot of facts, most of which are true. This was the first major victory that the Russians had won. Source F is the Russians trying to shout that out. It was a turning point in the war. But it was not the greatest military achievement of the war:
“The battle of Stalingrad was the greatest military achievement of the Second World War.”
This was not true, but the Russians said it anyway. They wanted everyone in Russia to know that they had done the impossible. They had defeated the German 6th army! But from my own knowledge I know that it wasn’t the Russians, who really defeated the Germans, it was Paulus. He gave the order to surrender.
The only thing that the two sources can agree on is that the Germans lost Stalingrad. Everything else is different. The reason for this is because they were both trying to do two different things, that is why the sources differ so much.
- Why do the Sources F, G and H differ?
Sources F, G and H differ for many different reasons. The most important reason, in my opinion, is the fact that they were written for different reasons. Source F was written in the 1960’s by the Russians as a textbook for their children to learn from. It was written for the indoctrination of children, so that they would firmly believe in communism and in ‘Mother Russia.’ There is obviously some Russian propaganda in this source:
“The battle of Stalingrad was the greatest military and political event of the Second World War.”
From my own knowledge of this period I know this statement to be false. This source also makes its self look more respectable by putting in detailed figures, for example it says that 147,200 men were killed at the Battle of Stalingrad, and it is quite difficult to argue with that detailed a figure.
Source G was written in 1975 by a British author who was famous for making history interesting for the general public of Britain. In Source G he was writing a book about the Second World War. If he was trying to make history more interesting he might have omitted a few facts and figures just so the general public will feel more awed. For example in Source G he says that the Russians at Stalingrad captured 91,000 Germans. He then says that 6,000, out of the original 91,000, men made it out of the death camps alive. So by a simple subtraction sum, the average person would be able to work out that 85,000 men Germans, from Stalingrad died in the death camps. However, A.P.J. Taylor (the historian) omitted to mention how many Germans actually died at Stalingrad. For if he had said that 150,000 Germans had died at Stalingrad, then this would make the figure of 85,000, less impressive.
Source H was written in 1953 by a British historian called Sir John Wheeler-Bennett. From his name I can deduce that he was either a baronet or a knight. And so this might also mean that he was an old style conservative. He might have thought that the Germans were actually a good people and were generally very civilised like they were in the First World War. I can tell all of this from the source for in his last sentence in the Source he says:
“To many he was revealed not as a brilliant military strategist, but as a mad corporal whose lucky gambles were no longer paying off.”
This shows what he thought of the Nazi regime. He thought that Hitler was not ‘made of the right stuff,’ in other words he was not a Prussian Aristocrat like most of the German nobles. I think that the point of this book was just to have a go at the German people, but especially at Hitler him self. His book is called ‘The Nemesis of Power’ and as Nemesis means someone or something that is the same as you but the opposite, Wheeler-Bennett is showing just what he thinks.
This why I think that the three sources differed so much.
7) Do you agree with the statement: “The Nazi defeat at Stalingrad was more important to the Russians than to the Germans.”
I think that in the short term this statement is true. I think this for a number of reasons. The foremost of these is that Stalin had ordered all the civilians in Stalingrad to stay there so that the soldiers would fight better. Stalin would not have done this unless he thought that Stalingrad was important. Also Source B is a photograph of a Russian soldier waving the Red Flag out of a tower. This is quite significant for this would have raised the morale of the other Russian soldiers in the other parts of Russia, for they would have seen the photo and they would know that they had beaten the German 6th Army, who overturned the French in six weeks. This would have raised the whole countries morale and so would have made it easier for the Russians to beat the Germans out of Russia.
Source D also shows how important this victory was to the Russians, for it is trying to spur on the other allies to come in and help the so that the pressure would come off the Russians and they could share it around.
This was not the only victory that the Russians got but it was the first one. This was soon to become a trend that would carry on and one that would lead the allies to victory.
Source F shows that the victory was more important to the Russians. It says that it the greatest military and political victory of the Second World War. It says that Stalingrad was where it all started and so must have been more important to the Russians.
But in the long term I think that Stalingrad was more important to the Germans, for it was at Stalingrad that things began to change for the Germans. Unlike the allies who were used to loosing the Germans were not. This meant that when they lost, they just crumbled. Source C says it the best when the German solider who wrote the letter said:
“If what we were promised is not true, then Germany will be lost.”
This shows that even though the Germans had never been beaten, when they were they just crumbled. The Germans believed in their own invincibility and when they were beaten to ‘sub-humans’ they fell apart.
Source A under explained the reason for the German loss; it limited it to the supply problem, whereas I know that it was multiple problems.
Source E is saying the defeat at Stalingrad was not important at all but this was an underestimation of the German morale, for when they were defeated they just fell apart.
Source G agrees with Source E by saying that it did not really matter that the Germans lost, but Source G was just saying this so that he would get more readers.
Finally Source H says that Stalingrad was the reason that the Germans lost the Second World War. He says that after Stalingrad the Germans soldiers realised that Hitler did not know what he was doing.
These are the reasons that I think that in the short term Stalingrad was more important to the Russians while in the long term it was more important to the Germans.