After studying “50 Years On – The Verdict (from Images of War)”, Source E, I believe that it suggests no reasons for the Battle of Stalingrad.
Source A shows us many immediate effects of the Battle of Stalingrad. It was a “terrible battle” in which the Germans suffered the “trauma of defeat”. Six hundred thousand Germans alone died as they found themselves “encircled” by “Ivan”. It was clear that Stalingrad was reduced to rubble. Stalingrad was seen as “the symbolic turning point of the war” as the Soviet counter attack was so powerful.
In addition, Source B suggests that Hitler’s plan was unsuccessful as it says “instead more and more German troops, were drawn away from the defensive wing in order to strengthen the desperate efforts at Stalingrad” which left the Germans stretched at other battles, which consequently left them open to the counter attack.
Furthermore, Source E tells us that Stalingrad was “one of the key battles of the war” as “the tide of the Axis advance was stopped”. It tells us that the “period of German victories had come to an end” which led to the Allies being on the attack which caused the Nazis to be pushed all the way back to Berlin.
Question 3
How reliable is Source J in describing the condition of German troops in Stalingrad?
After studying Lieutenant Gilbert Geisendorfer’s account of the Battle of Stalingrad when delivering supplies there in a plane I have decided that this source cannot be considered totally reliable in describing the condition of German troops in Stalingrad.
Nevertheless, the language used in Source J such as strong words like “scanty” and “desperation” suggests that it is a contemporary source which helps to boost the reliability of the source as we can assume Geisendorfer was actually present at Stalingrad so he would be able to provide an accurate, in-depth account of what he saw.
However, overall this Source is probably not totally reliable in describing the condition of all German troops in Stalingrad as Geisendorfer’s view is that of one German pilot and not everyone. He cannot know the condition of every German soldier as he isn’t on the ground much so he would have limited view of the action below him. This would have meant that, from the air, he would have never been able to make out the in-depth detail that he talks about in Source J unless he was on the ground, which was only for a limited time.
Another factor to consider is Geisendorfer’s nationality. Being German, this obviously is a major point for consideration as he might be trying to stress how valiant his own troops are and he would be open to accusations of bias as it is only natural to be patriotic.
In addition, the fact that there is no specific date mentioned means that we cannot pinpoint when it was written. This means that if it was written closer to the time Geisendorfer may have been overcome with emotion and the facts may have been stretched to emphasise what they were put through. On the other hand, if it was written well after the event he may have forgotten certain facts and been swayed by public opinion on the Battle. Both these points may well affect the integrity of the Source.
Furthermore, another factor affecting the credibility of this document is who this Source is intended for. For instance, if this Source is intended for a family member he may be boasting to try to make himself sound very brave and somewhat of a hero to his country. If this Source was intended for a superior officer it possibly would have contained exaggeration of the bad points of the battle to encourage his superior to push for a withdrawal from Stalingrad. Allied to this if this Source was intended for Geisendorfer’s diary it would add another element of credibility as there would be no point in lying to himself as he knows what really happened.
The language used in Source J is quite aggressive so this suggests to me the Geisendorfer is very passionate about the battle which means that he is possibly getting carried away.
To conclude, I would say that Source J cannot be considered totally reliable in describing the conditions of all the German troops in Stalingrad as there is simply too strong an argument against the trustworthiness of this Source.
Question 4
To what extent do Source C, G, I and J give us a full / accurate picture of life in Stalingrad during the battle?
Source C, G, I and J cannot give us a full and accurate picture of life in Stalingrad during the battle.
For instance, Lt. Gen Rokossovski’s account of Stalingrad tells us little about ‘life’ during the siege so it can be said that it doesn’t give a full / accurate picture. Source C was written by a Russian commander in charge of the Don front at Stalingrad. This would mean that he is open to accusations of bias as he would be hoping to earn Stalin’s favour by emphasising their victories. As he was so high up in the army perhaps he wouldn’t have had a clear picture of what everyday life was like. However it does give us clear figures about how many units were destroyed so it helps to build an image of life during the battle.
“The Ordeal of Total War 1939-45” by G Wright, gives us a sense of destruction as we can see the “acres of ruins” and the “bombed-out building”. We also get an image of how cold it was there as we can see the snow covering everything so this helps give us a picture of how miserable it was there.
However, Source G cannot give us a full / accurate picture of life in Stalingrad during the battle as we cannot see outside the shot so there could be a completely different scene from the one we are shown out of our view. In addition, with the technology available it very easy to doctor images to show what you want them to show. Also, questions need to be asked about who took the photograph. It could be taken to try and make a case to pull the troops out of the city so scenes could be staged to make things look worse than they are. On the plus side, most images give us an immediate idea of what is happening so they could help to give us a full and accurate picture of what is happening during the battle.
Furthermore, Pavel Ivanovich Doronin – a Communist propagandist attached to the Red Army units fighting at Stalingrad helps to describe some aspects of life in Stalingrad as it talks about people living in “cellars, trenches and shelters”. It also tells us about the “military activity” in the area. What’s more it talks about street fighting which would have made life very tough if you were living there during the battle.
On the other hand, Source I comes under the most scrutiny as there is a case of how reliable Doronin’s word is as he is a Communist propagandist so he would be skilled at bending the truth.
Lieutenant Gilbert Geisendorfer - a German pilot who delivered supplies to Stalingrad helps to give us a picture of life in Stalingrad as it suggests that conditions were especially poor. He uses vivid language like “pus and blood” to cast an image of desperation into our minds.
But again, he comes under scrutiny for being German as it is only natural to be biased toward your country. Also, he cannot know the condition of every German soldier as he is only one man. He would have also had a limited view because he would have been in the air most of the time as Gilbert Geisendorfer was a pilot. We also don’t know who it was intended for which could make a large difference on the outcome of the story.
To finish, Sources C, G, I and J cannot give us a full / accurate picture as there needs to be more sources from other areas of the battle such as civilians or a soldier on the front line so we can get a better picture of everyday life in Stalingrad. In addition to this, Sources C and I were written by Russians whereas only Source J is from a German point of view so overall the Russians have more of a say. Furthermore, we are not informed who took the picture in Source G. Therefore, these sources cannot provide a full and accurate picture of life in Stalingrad.
Question 5
Source H states ‘Hitler’s defeat at Stalingrad can be seen as the turning point of the struggle against Russia.’ Use the Sources to explain whether or not you support this view.
Having analysed all the Sources I am inclined to agree with the view put forward in Source H suggesting that ‘Hitler’s defeat in Stalingrad can be seen as the turning point of the struggle against Russia.’ G. Wright, the author of Source H, suggests that Stalingrad can be seen as both the military, (to do with battle tactics, troop movements, Hitler being forced to change his military plans) and the psychological (to do with the impact of the Battle of Stalingrad on the morale of the Germans) turning point of the war as a whole.
I believe that ‘Second World War in Colour’, Source A, agrees with this view as it gives many reasons for considering the Battle of Stalingrad as both psychological and military turning point of the war.
Such psychological reasons are things including how we are told that the Germans ‘suffered the trauma of defeat’ which would have crushed German morale. We are told it was a terrible battle as both sides ordered ‘no surrender’. Stalingrad was also infected with lice and flies. For the Nazis to have to put up with all these hardships and not to come out with a victory would make the Germans doubt themselves and their superiors. Also, we are told that Hitler aimed to cut the Caucuses off from the rest of the country to secure the oil from Germany. When German citizens hear that Hitler failed in one of his key goals they might be more conscious that the Nazis can be beaten.
Source A also gives us military information on the battle as it tells us that the ‘Germans were encircled by the enemy’. More importantly, we are told that Stalingrad was the ‘symbolic turning point of the war’.
However, Source A cannot be considered totally reliable as we are not told who produced the source so it is open to accusations of bias.
‘The Other Side of the Hill’ by B H Liddell Hart, Source B, gives us more of an idea about how Stalingrad was a military turning point of the war. It tells us how, if successful, ‘Stalingrad would set free sufficient German forces to relieve the tense situation. But, instead, more and more German troops were drawn away from the defensive wing’. This tells me that not only were the Germans being beaten at Stalingrad; their defences were compromised by having to remove troops from the defence.
Yet, Source B cannot be considered totally reliable as. It was written in 1951 so the author may still be influenced by propaganda or rumours. Also, we are given no information on the author so we do not know if he favours the Russians or the Germans or if he is totally unbiased.
In Source C, Lt General Rokossovski – a Russian Commander at Stalingrad gives us an idea of how Stalingrad was both a psychological and military turning point of the war.
Once the Nazis hear that twenty-two divisions have been destroyed or taken prisoner they will be very disheartened as some of these men would have been their comrades or even close friends.
In Source C we are told how Russian ‘troops of the Don front… completed the rout and destruction of the encircled group of enemy forces in Stalingrad.’ This tells me that the Russian troops had dominated the Germans as ‘rout and destruction’ are powerful words. What's more, the source was written by a Russian commander who would have had a good idea of the events of the battle.
However, Source C is open to accusations of bias as the author is a Russian commander who could be possibly biased. If he was writing to his superiors he may exaggerate the good points and leave out any information which makes him look bad.
General Siegfried von Westphal – a German Commander at Stalingrad seems to focus more on how Stalingrad was a physiological turning point of the war as he tells us how ‘the disaster of Stalingrad profoundly shocked the German people and armed forces alike.’ I believe that this would break the German spirit of invincibility as this was their first major defeat in World War II. He backs up this point by saying ‘never before in Germany’s history had so large a body of troops come to so dreadful an end.’
However, Source D is open to the same type of accusations of bias as Source C, except on the other side of the scale. Being German, we would guess that if he was talking to his superiors he would try to show how horrific the battle was.
Source E, 50 Years On – The Verdict (from Images of War) gives a mixed account of both psychological and military turning points.
For instance, we are told that there was ‘little doubt that Stalingrad was one of the key battles of the war’ and how they had only suffered minor defeats which they always bounced back from. However, since ‘the encirclement and destruction of the Sixth Army in the nightmare of Stalingrad, the tide of the Axis advance was stopped.’ This would add to the sense of unease the German citizens were starting to feel as they didn’t want the battlefields anywhere near where they live.
On the military side, we are told that the ‘period of German victories had come to an end; from now on, it was the Allies who were on the attack.’ This is a very blatant turning point as the Allies launched a counter-offensive which didn’t stop until the end of the war.
Again, this source is open to criticism as he would not of had first hand experience of the battles and that fifty years on some details my have been distorted. Also, we are not told the nationality of the author which changes the point of view of the source.
The newspaper source from the Daily Mail, Source F, offers a physiological effect as Hitler was made to look ridiculous as he was boasting about how easily it would be to take over Stalingrad as he says ‘Stalingrad will be taken, you can be sure of that.’ He also ‘added that once the city was conquered the Germans would never be dislodged.’ He failed to complete his first quote and thus could not complete the second quote.
Source F has added credibility being a newspaper and that Hitler is quoted.
Lt Gilbert Geisendorfer’s account of the battle of Stalingrad focuses on the psychological turning points as he talks about the severe conditions of the German soldiers such as how they were ‘exhausted and expressionless.’ We are also told how ‘pus and blood seeped through the torn rags of bindings’ which suggests unsanitary conditions. Added to this we are told ‘they were shivering in their scanty uniforms’ which lowers morale a great deal. All this information suggests thoroughly miserable conditions.
Lt Gilbert Geisendorfer’s word could be criticised because he wasn’t on the ground much being a pilot and we do not know who he was writing to which can make a big difference to the exaggeration of the information.
To conclude, the Sources do appear to support the view that ‘Hitler’s defeat at Stalingrad can be seen as the turning point of the struggle against Russia.’
