Hellbeck has now published "Die Stalingrad-Protokolle" (or "The Stalingrad Protocols"), which consist of interviews, including in some cases photos of the interviewed soldiers, along with background information on the interviews. In light of these documents, the history of the Battle of Stalingrad may not have to be rewritten, but it does need correcting on a number of points. These latest findings completely undermine the argument -- put forward by the Nazis and repeated by the West during the Cold War -- that the Red Army soldiers only fought so fiercely because they would have otherwise been shot by members of the secret police.

Anthony Beevor has suggested that 13,000 Soviet soldiers were executed at Stalingrad.

George
--George

Phil,

From what I've read from the Germab perspective they weren't taking significant numbers of POW's or at least they weren't taking as many as expected or as in the previous year. Couldn't Stalin "not a step backward" and hold to the last man" orders, because as the records show he was giving those orders in the "defensive stage," and a line of NKVD machine guns to the rear of positions also go a long way towards explaining why the ratio of KIA to WIA?
--John R. Price

and a line of NKVD machine guns to the rear of positions also go a long way towards explaining why the ratio of KIA to WIA?

"Russians were simply too stupid to run away"

Even if a man's background was that of a British colonial butcher or a Chicago gangster, at least he recognized
the laws of the human race; the Bolsheviks on the other hand refused to recognize when a struggle was
useless, and continued to fight to the last man."

If this is the place to discuss Nazi autrocity during WWII why is it not the place to discuss Soviet autrocity?

. . . Stalin's Order No. 227 (my note: of 1942) required each army to form three to five blocking detachments with up to 200 men each and employ them in the rear of "unsteady" divisions to "shoot panic-mongers and cowards on the spot," in the event they panicked or retreated without orders to do so.

. . . the NKO formed and employed a total of well over 200 penal battalions subordinate to its operating fronts and probably as many as 400 penal battalions and companies subordinate to its operating armies from 1 August 1942 to war's end.

Was this the turning point in the war as many, including the Russians, claim?
--George

I can think of no event in military history more dramatic and desperate.

But that doesn't diminish by one iota the staggering magnitude of the death struggle on the Volga.

I would also point out that it isn't a question of if executions took place or if NKVD machine gun lines existed but how widespread was their use.

George you questioned how brutal the NKVD could be towards their own people or something to that effect in one of your posts. My pointing you towards the gulags, the purges and the Ukraine was to answer that question. With all due respect if you know about those things then the question is answered.

George,

My initial responce was to Phil as to the reason why the disparity between KIA and WIA when compared to other battles. Phil brought that up to "quibble" with the number you used. All that followed is because you and to a lesser extent Toomtabard expanded what i said and took it to places never stated or intended by me.

Don't bother responding I'm done and not just with this thread. This once was a place were disagreement enlivened the discussion but now it just gets you told to go have a stiff drink! If anybody wants to keep in touch PM me and I'll give you my email or FB accounts.
--John R. Price

George,

Who's saying that, threat of execution, was the only reason why they fought? Why is it you take any arguement made to such lengths, lengths that weren't mentioned or intended?

You don't think the NKVD capable of such actions? Who ran the Gulags in which more innocents were mudered than in the Nazi Death Camps? You don't think the Red Army capable of autrocity? Ask the women of East Germany and Berlin.