2 ms·

It was a last stand for Russians in WW2. Stalin was determined not to let the city bearing his name fall. He funnelled a huge amount of soldiers and materiel

It was a last stand for Russians in WW2. Stalin was determined not to let the city bearing his name fall. He funnelled a huge amount of soldiers and materiel in order to keep the city. The Germans tried to blitzkreig it, but the Russians held it and the battle persisted on the streets of the city for a long time. It was a brutal battle. The USSR suffered 1,129,619 total casualties; 478,741 personnel killed or missing, and 650,878 wounded or sick.[1] The USSR eventually won the battle, and it was the first real turning point in the war. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

azernik 9y ago
It also had actual strategic important - as the closest point between the Don and Volga rivers, it was a center of industry and transshipment. (The industry was mostly destroyed during the battle, but its logistical importance remained.) These days, it's still a major transportation hub - only there's now a canal connecting the two rivers, allowing ship transport aong the Black, Caspian, and Baltic seas (and to the traditional population and economic centers around Moscow and Petrograd).
int_19h 9y ago
"Last stand" usually implies that the defensive force is either wiped out entirely, or otherwise basically ceases to exist - or, at the very least, that this would be their likely fate in defeat, because there's nowhere to retreat. That's not what happened in Stalingrad - as you point out, it was an eventual Soviet victory. Indeed, it was ultimately a major defeat for the Germans, with over 700,000 casualties, and far-reaching strategic implications in the theater. And there was certainly the opportunity for the defenders to retreat, if such orders were given. So Stalingrad was definitely a heroic stand - just not a last stand. Ditto battle of Moscow, siege of Leningrad etc. There were many examples of actual last stands on the Eastern Front of WW2, though. Brest is the one that's particularly famous, but some other examples would include the 28 Panfilovtsy,

azernik 9y ago

It also had actual strategic important - as the closest point between the Don and Volga rivers, it was a center of industry and transshipment. (The industry was mostly destroyed during the battle, but its logistical importance remained.) These days, it's still a major transportation hub - only there's now a canal connecting the two rivers, allowing ship transport aong the Black, Caspian, and Baltic seas (and to the traditional population and economic centers around Moscow and Petrograd).

int_19h 9y ago

"Last stand" usually implies that the defensive force is either wiped out entirely, or otherwise basically ceases to exist - or, at the very least, that this would be their likely fate in defeat, because there's nowhere to retreat. That's not what happened in Stalingrad - as you point out, it was an eventual Soviet victory. Indeed, it was ultimately a major defeat for the Germans, with over 700,000 casualties, and far-reaching strategic implications in the theater. And there was certainly the opportunity for the defenders to retreat, if such orders were given. So Stalingrad was definitely a heroic stand - just not a last stand. Ditto battle of Moscow, siege of Leningrad etc. There were many examples of actual last stands on the Eastern Front of WW2, though. Brest is the one that's particularly famous, but some other examples would include the 28 Panfilovtsy,