82 YEARS SINCE THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD

Introduction. Russian historiography provides no comprehensive data on the impact of Kalmykia’s Red Army soldiers and officers into a greatest battle of World War II — the Battle of Stalingrad. A major indicator thereof is data on the numbers of our compatriots awarded different military decorations (orders and medals) for participation in the battle. Some deeper understanding of the process requires a statistical analysis that would reveal common and specific features of the examined group of individuals when viewed from different perspectives. Goals. The paper aims to establish a database of Kalmykia’s residents conscripted into the Red Army and awarded military decorations for participation in the Battle of Stalingrad, and to outline a statistical analysis. Materials. The database employs a wide range of sources, such as 1) the digital bank of documents ‘Feat of the People in the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945’ (Rus. ОБД «Подвиг народа») containing actualized military awards papers of Red Army servicemen, 2) the annotated Index of names of ethnic Kalmyk soldiers and non-commissioned officers deported to Shirokovsky ITL (forced labor camp), 3) lists of Great Patriotic War veterans who resided in Kalmykia in 1965 and were offered to receive jubilee medals, etc. The term ‘compatriots’ here is used to denote both individuals conscripted in the territory of the Kalmyk ASSR and its native residents conscripted in other regions. The chronological framework of the study covers not only the Battle of Stalingrad as such but also subsequent bestowals given that the latter were at least somewhat related to the battle. Conclusions. The compiled database includes 516 bestowals (11 individuals were awarded two military decorations within the Battle of Stalingrad). And even though the database is not universally complete, it can still be considered essentially representative. The statistical analysis was conducted according to the following parameters: age, place and time of conscription, ethnicity, military rank, title of the awarded military decoration, and time of bestowal. The obtained results make it possible to draw several conclusions regarding the participation of Kalmykia’s residents in the Battle of Stalingrad. For example, the analysis shows the bulk of the awarded were young (aged 30 or below) people brought up by the Soviets to Communist ideals. The work concludes residents of Kalmykia who were conscripted into the Red Army contributed decently to the victory in the Battle of Stalingrad.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the participation of military formations from the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic in the Battle of Stalingrad (November 19, 1942 - February 2, 1943) and their role in one of the main strategic operations of the Soviet command during the Great Patriotic War. The scientific problem of the study is lack of knowledge of the operational-tactical actions of military formations from the Kazakh SSR during the defensive and offensive operations of the Red Army forces on the Stalingrad Front. The methodology for studying the topic of the research is built on the basis of historical, military-historical and cultural approaches. Based on the analysis of historical sources and documents, as well as the study of tactics, strategy, and combat operations of Kazakh military formations in the Battle of Stalingrad, there has been revealed the influence of cultural and ethnic characteristics of Kazakh military formations on the course of military operations. The comparative analysis helped to expand the understanding and assessment of the contribution of certain military formations to the course of the battle. The source base consists of the works of Soviet, Russian and Kazakh authors on the Great Patriotic War, as well as historical documents from the Central Archive of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. The study of archival documents allowed the author to present the role of Kazakhstani military formations during the Great Patriotic War. The author has established a list of rifle and cavalry divisions, rifle brigades and individual regiments from the Kazakh SSR that participated in the Battle of Stalingrad from November 1942 to February 1943, which, in defensive and offensive front-line operations, along with other units and formations of the Red Army, contributed to the defeat of a large group of German troops in Stalingrad and the Stalingrad region. The results of the study will contribute to a comprehensive study of the actions of military formations from Kazakhstan at the tactical level, on the Stalingrad sector of the front, and will also help to establish the success achieved and the mistakes made by the command in planning and organizing combat operations from the division level to the battalion inclusive. The documents analysed by the author contain the details about the participation in this section of the front during the period under study: 120, 292, 29, 38, 387th rifle divisions, 81st cavalry division, 152nd separate rifle brigade, 129th mortar regiment and 156th separate bridge-building battalion formed on the territory of the Kazakh SSR. The analysis allows to note that Kazakh military formations participated in the Battle of Stalingrad from November 1942 to February 1943. The author's assessment of the literature and the available documents allowed us to present data confirming the significant contribution of the studied military formations to the defeat of the Nazi troops in the battles for Stalingrad. The results of the victorious battles of the Red Army in the fightings of the third period of the Great Patriotic War ultimately led to the surrender of Nazi Germany in May 1945 and Victory in the Holy for the Soviet people War.

Johannes Hürter/Matthias Uhl Hitler in Vinnytsia A New Document Casts Fresh Light on the Crisis of September 1942 When people reflect on the culminating moments of World War II and its greatest and most important theater, the war in the East between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, they rarely focus on the late summer of 1942 as a key turning point. Given the primary focus on the Battle of Stalingrad in German (and Russian) collective memory, the stalling of the German advance along the Volga and in the Caucasus in September 1942 barely registers. Military historians, on the other hand, have pointed out that this period was enormously important in operational and strategic terms, not to mention its impact on the course of world history. Bernd Wegner, in particular, has persuasively argued that the turning of the tide on the Eastern Front was a cumulative military disaster that unfolded in three principal stages.1 First, the planned Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union (“Operation Barbarossa ”) failed in July 1941, as did the assault on Moscow (“Operation Typhoon”) in December 1941 and then the second German Eastern Campaign (“Operation Blue”) in September 1942. From then on, the German military leadership was “at 1 See Bernd Wegner, Hitlers Strategie zwischen Pearl Harbor und Stalingrad, in: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg (henceforth: DRZW), published by the Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt, vol. 6: Horst Boog et al., Der Globale Krieg. Die Ausweitung zum Weltkrieg und der Wechsel der Initiative 1941–1943, Stuttgart 1990, pp. 97–127; idem, Der Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion 1942/43, in: ibid., pp. 761–1102, here pp. 1094–1102; idem, Von Stalingrad nach Kursk, in: DRZW, vol. 8: Karl-Heinz Frieser (ed.), Die Ostfront 1943/44. Der Krieg im Osten und an den Nebenfronten , Munich 2007, pp. 3–79, here pp. 3–8; idem, Deutschland am Abgrund, in: ibid., pp. 1165–1209, here pp. 1192–1209. Historians disagree as to the relative importance of these three stages. There are good reasons for viewing December 1941 as the most significant of the three dates, with the crisis at the gates of Moscow and the entry of the USA into the war; from this point onwards there was no realistic prospect of the war being won by the German Reich and its allies. See Klaus Reinhardt, Die Wende vor Moskau. Das Scheitern der Strategie Hitlers im Winter 1941/42, Stuttgart 1972; Johannes Hürter, Hitlers Heerführer. Die deutschen Oberbefehlshaber im Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion 1941/42, 2nd ed., Munich 2007, pp. 318–50. Furthermore, quite apart from the loss of men, materiel and operational capability, the psychological effect of the total destruction of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad in January/February 1943 should not be underestimated as a “turning point.” The intriguing theory advanced by Wegner – that, from the autumn of 1942 onwards , Hitler became increasingly fixated on “choreographing” his own downfall in spectacular fashion – calls for more extensive discussion. See also the recent study by Wolfram Pyta, Hitler. Der Künstler als Politiker und Feldherr. Eine Herrschaftsanalyse, Munich 2015. 148 Johannes Hürter/Matthias Uhl its wit’s end” strategically.2 Even before the military catastrophe at Stalingrad, Hitler had no overall strategy for winning the war, either on the Eastern Front or in its totality. His volatile and aggressive reaction in Vinnytsia in September 1942 – the Ukrainian town outside which the Führer Headquarters (“Werwolf”) was located from July 16 to November 1, 1942 – indicated just how far the dictator had come to realize that German military planning on the Eastern Front, which that year bore his personal stamp much more plainly than in 1941, was heading for a total failure that might cost him the war. His disappointment over the military crisis erupted in fierce arguments with his generals, but the man who bore most of the brunt was perhaps his closest military adviser, the Chief of the Wehrmacht Operations Staff (Wehrmachtführungsstab) in the Wehrmacht High Command (OKW: Oberkommando der Wehrmacht), General of Artillery Alfred Jodl.3 This crisis of leadership can be reconstructed in detail from the military files and eyewitness accounts that have survived, but what we know of Hitler’s behavior...

Revealing the specific portrayal of information about the Battle of Stalingrad in the English press during the Great Patriotic War, this article analyzes publications in the newspaper ‘British Ally,’ which was published in Great Britain in the Russian language for Russian readers. The question arises about the necessity of applying a new direction in global science — imagology — for such research. The novelty of this study lies in being the first to examine material from a publication that has not attracted much attention from Russian scholars from the perspective of this field. The relevance of the study is determined by the need to uncover a new perspective in studying the British press during wartime. The contexts of mentions about the Battle of Stalingrad in the weekly ‘British Ally’ are presented. It is proven that although an admiring attitude towards the Soviet victories at Stalingrad slips through in some articles, the publication does not give special attention to the Battle of Volga. It is shown that the newspaper emphasizes the idea of the selfless resistance of the British army against Nazi Germany in Africa and Sicily, as well as their desire to open a second front. The authors conclude that the newspaper presents these events and desires as equivalent to the struggle of the Soviet people, which does not find approval or desired response among the newspaper’s readers (the Russian people).

The Battle of Stalingrad is one of the main battles in the Great Patriotic War.  The line of defense of the Battle of Stalingrad and Western Kazakhstan was separated by only 200 kilometers. The article tells about the participation of the 152nd Rifle Brigade, formed in Uralsk, in the Battle of Stalingrad, which brought a significant turn in the course of World War II, about the valiant and glorious campaign of the 152nd Rifle Brigade to defend the Fatherland and about the selfless feat of its brave soldiers on the bloody front. In general, the basis for the formation of the brigade was the resolution of the State Defense Council and the directive of the People's Commissariat of Defense of the USSR of December 20, 1941. Grave graves and mass graves in the village of Khalkhuta, who died and fought in the bloody battle on the Kalmyk steppes of our countrymen, who fought as part of the 152nd Rifle Brigade during the defense and counteroffensive during the Battle of Stalingrad.

This article is about: The Battle of Stalingrad is drastic turning point in World War II. The Battle of Stalingrad is discussed by western historians in markedly different ways. Methods and techniques of perversion the historical significance of the Battle of Stalingrad. Different ways to expose misrepresentation of crucial events and results of the Battle of Stalingrad.

The article analyzes the place and image of Russia in the French history textbook for the senior class by Guillaume Le Quintrec, which is one of the most popular textbooks in France today and was written in accordance with the new school history curriculum adopted in 2019. Unlike the program and methodological recommendations for it, the textbook presents a fairly balanced analysis of the events that preceded World War II. The author focuses on the European "policy of appeasement of the aggressor" and on the Munich Agreement of 1938 as the culmination of this policy. The Soviet-German pact of 1939 is rightly presented by Le Quintrec as a forced measure on the part of Stalin after the failure of Soviet attempts to create a system of collective security in Europe. As for the description of the events of World War II in the textbook, they are more tendentious. The main events on the eastern front, although mentioned, are presented as an addition to what happened on the western front. Thus, French children may get the impression that the Battle of Stalingrad or the Battle of Moscow did not determine the events on the fronts, but only contributed to the victory of the Allies, which does not correspond to historical reality. However, in describing the events of the Second World War, the text of the textbook seems to be more historical than the content of the program, where the role of the USSR in the victory over Nazism is minimized. Also in the textbook, the main blame for the outbreak of the Cold War is laid on the USSR, and modern Russia is called a "resurgent force" that claims to change the world order. In general, despite the obvious negative trends in the approach to teaching history in European countries, on some key issues of the history of the 20th century, the text of Le Quintrec's textbook looks more balanced than the new French history curriculum adopted in 2019.

: The Batfle of Stalingrad was probably the largest battle in World War II and a key turning point in the war on the Eastern Front. This paper will review on a macro level the German campaign that began in the Spring of 1942 and concluded with the surrender of the German VI Army with an emphasis on the Battle of Stalingrad itself. It then will examine the key consequences and lessons learned from the campaign including lessons of military strategy and leadership. Where appropriate the paper will make observations about lessons from Stalingrad that are applicable to the U.S. military today.

The article is devoted to faculty staff and students of the Stalingrad mechanical Institute who were the participants of the Great Patriotic war and home front workers, considers the destiny of the city and the University as one for two. The authors describe the activities of scientists, teachers and students of the Stalingrad Mechanical Institute during the Great Patriotic War, both during the Battle of Stalingrad and in evacuation in Chelyabinsk. The subject of scientific and applied work devoted to solving a number of technical problems on the creation, improvement and repair of military equipment, mainly the most massive tank of the Great Patriotic War T-34, rocket launchers «Katyusha» and several others. The results of a sociological survey of Volgograd students about their attitude to the Battle of Stalingrad are given. More than 70% of respondents are aware of the names of the heroes of the Battle of Stalingrad, the historic places, streets, squares associated with this event. The young generation carries the historic memory conveyed by the elder generation. The authors believe that it is necessary to develop the historical memory in University students using historic materials, mass media, Internet-resources, family archives, museum expositions.

The Battle of Stalingrad was the greatest battle of the Great Patriotic War, which halted the offensive movement of German troops across our land. The victory at Stalingrad was a heroic achievement not only of the Soviet armies and fronts, outstanding commanders-in-chief, commanders and ordinary soldiers who fought for the Motherland, but also of military and civilian doctors who did not spare themselves to save the lives of wounded soldiers. A huge contribution to the protection of soldiers and townspeople of Stalingrad was made by workers of the sanitary and epidemiological service. In a totally destroyed city, which lacked basic sanitary conditions, they tirelessly fought against infectious diseases that posed a threat to the army and the civilian population. The article is dedicated to the memory of our colleagues of past years, whose selfless work made it possible to prevent the mass spread of dangerous infectious diseases, including cholera, tularemia, and typhus, during the brutal battles near Stalingrad.

The article analyzes modern relevant practices of preserving historical and cultural memory that form a national identity. The phenomenon of oblivion is also comprehended, leading to a distortion of the memory of the past, including the victory of the Soviet people in World War II. Various forms of work on patriotic education in the Volgograd region, the interaction of various educational and educational institutions with the younger generation are considered, among which the leading role belongs to the museum-reserve "Battle of Stalingrad". The work characterizes modern forms of cultural communication in matters of preserving the heroic past of the Soviet people. The activities of organizations offering various socio-cultural projects to preserve historical memory on the territory of Volgograd and the Volgograd region about the events of the Great Patriotic War are also considered.

Introduction. 2022 marks the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Battle of Stalingrad, which became a turning point not only of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet people against the Nazi invaders and their allies, but of the entire World War II of 1939–1945. The Battle of Stalingrad covered the territories of modern Voronezh, Rostov, Volgograd regions and the Republic of Kalmykia. The military and political decisions of the supreme command of the USSR and Germany on the eve of the Battle of Stalingrad in June – July 1942 became the starting point in the future battle. Methods and materials.The study used problem-chronological, comparative-historical, and statistical methods. The study of the materials was based on the principles of historicism and objectivity. During the analysis of documents from domestic archives, memoirs, statistical information, a significant amount of material was processed; the problems of the prehistory of the Battle of Stalingrad in domestic and foreign historiography were studied. Analysis. As a result of the study conducted by the authors, various directives, orders of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command to the Soviet troops in the Stalingrad direction, as well as the enemy’s planning mechanism for the seizure of Stalingrad territory were analyzed. Results. It has been established that the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command, even before the start of hostilities in the Stalingrad direction, took measures to concentrate strategic reserves, create defensive lines, and reorganize the management of front-line troops. The authors’ contribution. V.A. Afanasenko proposed the idea and concept of the article, determined the chronology of the beginning of the preparatory actions preceding the Battle of Stalingrad. M.V. Medvedev analyzed the work of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command on the preparation and use of combat reserves in battles within the great bend of the Don, carried out a scientific revision of the article.

. The article is devoted to the influence of the Russian heroic traditions on characters of the long short story “In the trenches of Stalingrad” (the original edition in 1946) by V.P. Nekrasov, who took part in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942–1943 years. Today the creative legacy of the writer, who had to immigrate in 1974 due to ideological disagreements with authorities, has returned to readers of our country and the story under analyses is included in the school and universities Curricular. It is of big value in patriotic education of the young, because the artistic image of the young commander of the Red Army, the author-narrator in the story “In the trenches of Stalingrad”, clearly discloses the process of the spiritual growth of the defender of motherland. The historical and functional method of research allows to show features of perception by characters, soldiers of the Stalingrad front, of works of the Russian classical literature, primarily those, which were created by talented authors and combat officers – M.Yu. Lermontov and L.N. Tolstoy, who experienced the severity of the front life and the soldier’s duty. The system method of research allows to study all the elements of the work: the title, the system of characters, the author’s position – in unity, leading to the conclusion: in the year of the Anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War the growing readers’ attention to this work is explained by the fact that the characters’ dispositions are viewed in the context of centuries-old Russian national culture, which during the Battle of Stalingrad was more important for the Red Army soldiers than ideological calls and slogans.

Importance. The topic of the Battle of Stalingrad is investigated, the relevance of which is beyond doubt, since any study in our country devoted to the Great Patriotic War was and remains important both for preserving historical memory and for educating the younger generation. The relevance of the study is enhanced by the fact that the stated scientific problem – the peculiarities of the tactics of the Soviet troops in the autumn-winter period of 1942 – is practically not disclosed in the scientific literature. The purpose of the study is to show how the Wehrmacht characterized the changes that occurred in the tactics of the Red Army during the Battle of Stalingrad.Materials and Methods. The research and its source base are captured documents from the funds of the Central Archive of the Ministry of Defense (CAMO). Research methods: attribution of captured documents from the CAMO funds, comparison, content analysis, microhistoric analysis. The object of the study is the tactics of offensive and defensive battles of the Red Army in autumn– winter 1942.Results and Discussion. The specific author’s results of the study are that it shows how Stalin’s order No. 306 on improving offensive combat tactics and combat formations was characterized in the General Staff of German Ground Forces; data on the main changes in the tactics of defensive combat of Red Army are given; it shows what importance artillery was assigned in offensive and defensive battles, what changes occurred in the tank forces.Conclusion. The changes in the tactics of the offensive and defensive battles of Red Army during the Battle of Stalingrad were timely, it was constantly improved and adapted to specific combat conditions, which eventually ensured the final transition of the initiative to the Soviet troops at the front.

Introduction. The paper reviews the Lower Volga shipping industry before the Great Patriotic War and after the Battle of Stalingrad. The goal is to establish the loss inflicted by the invaders upon the facilities of the Stalingrad section of the Lower Volga Steamship Line that suffered most from the hostilities. Methods and materials. The study is based on the objectivity principles and applies general scientific as well as specific historical methods. The paper is based on unpublished archival materials as well as on scientific publications on the Lower Volga Steamship Line. Analysis and results. The Lower Volga Steamship Line was created in 1934. It was a big economic entity. The territory of its operation stretched along the Volga from Kamyshin down to Lagan. The Steamship Line comprised two basic sections – the Stalingrad and Astrakhan ones. Before the Second World War the Steamship Line included five production establishments (ship repairing yards and workshops), 17 transit piers, a passenger river-boat station, two local piers with registered fleet, three crossings and other facilities. The Stalingrad section was the largest. Within its boundaries the principal Steamship Line unit was situated – the Stalingrad transit pier. 90 percent of it was destroyed in the Battle of Stalingrad. The Stalingrad section of the Steamship Line suffered most from the hostilities. The total amount of damage of the Steamship Line has been established.