Talk:Enemy at the Gates/Archive 1

Archive 1

We need this article to be worked on

I'll say first, that I did enjoy the movie, it's up there with my favorites, with Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. I found it to have been a good movie to sit through, and it really did good to show the dark and horrible things that happen in war. In war, one can not expect luxury. It was interesting to watch, and kept my interest through the whole movie, compared to Pearl Harbor. It did a good job showing the bleak conditions and the hellish warzones on the Eastern Front.

Now, the thing that bugged me was not the inaccuracies (Look, they aren't as big as some other movies. Unless your one of those with a keen eye and good background knowledge, it's not that noticable) or the accents, It was the kind of anti-soviet feeling. Specifically in the beginning, it made the viewer think that the Red Army soldiers were forced into fighting to keep Stalin in power, rather than fighting for their country against the invasion. Many Russians could've gone have run off to join the Russian Liberation Army, but clearly, they didn't want to be apart of the tactics and policies, rather defend their country and ultimately, their fates in the Great Patriotic War. Sure, Stalin was evil, but the Russians would've rather kept their country Russian than come under German rule and become slaves. They couldn't stand back while villages were being destroyed, and people being executed or sent off to camps. This feeling kind of went away after the scene where Vasily got his first kills, but I still didn't approve of that, and I don't blame the war vets for their reactions either. Also, the Red Army didn't really do the whole human cannon fodder tactic, and I think the way Order No. 227 was incorrectly shown was the one thing I noticed. The Russians were much more careful and took consideration in their assualts, and soldiers were allowed to pull back to the line if the charge failed, just not past it altogther.

Now onto the criticism part of the article. We know Russians and Red Army war veterans were angered at some parts of the movie, but I'd imagine there were better reasons than the soldiers having a celebration at one point. As for historical inaccuracies, I think we should add mainly about the uniforms, military hierarchy issues (Like Kruschev having a personal meeting with Koniev), and how the volga crossings were done at night rather than in daylight. Those are suggestions, you guys can go ahead and discuss over the other possible goofs. But we should also try to at least highlight some good points about the film as well (It wasn't a bomb, it did get decent to good reviews in the states and actually shed light on a very unknown and rarely touched subject here. My school textbooks have very little information about the Great Patriotic War, just brief mentions of Leningrad and Stalingrad). We shouldn't go too far in either direction. I'll see if I can add some summary information later, as I do have it the film in my possession. --MercZ (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points you raise, Mercz. Personally, I think that the 'anti-Soviet' perspective of the movie was something of a given, in my opinion; after all, a Hollywood movie detailing movie set in Soviet Russia under Stalin was unlikely to depict Stalin's regime favourably, and as has been pointed out above, any Hollywood treatment of the War in the East was likely to raise the conditions unique to that theatre (such as the NKVD machine-gun squads and so on). I agree fully, though, that the article does need a bit more balance; it also needs a summary of the plot as well. Also, it appears to be structured according to the DVD more than it should be (IMHO) - after all, it was a cinema release initially, and yet the article seems to be heavily structured around the DVD. --Joseph Q Publique (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points, Mercz. The whole having-sex-in-the-barracks thing was also highly unrealistic, not to mention the scenes with Khruschev (where he was portrayed as evil, drunk and incompetent). If you want to see the definitive movie about the Eastern front, by the way, I highly recommend watching Come and See. It's rated the fourth best war film on IMDB, and for good reason. --Esn (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mercz. The problem of this movie is that it was done according German wart-time and postwar propaganda accounts, like it or not. Even if the scenery was skillfully based on the real documentary photos, please keep in mind that German memoirists in their turn were perfectly sure that the Soviets were all brain-washed Untermensch, en masse giving away their miserable lives for Stalin and Judenrat under the evil guidance of Jew commisars. What they have written about is what you are getting in this movie, really (Imagine TV-serial based on Hitler's Mein Kampf?). If you want to see Hollywood illustration of Himmler and Goebbels inspired writers, this movie is for you. If not, try something else, like also German movie "Stalingrad", which is way better, bitter and fare to themselves and the former enemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.149.35 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Error

The statement "William Craig's novel Enemy at the Gates: The Battle for Stalingrad..." sounds like a goof to me. Craig's book is a nonfiction history, not a novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.165.87.144 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

article grammar mistakes

Whoever typed most of the goofs has got a serious english problem. I've cleaned up most of it. There were too many commas and incomplete sentences. cleaned up most of it just to let u know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noorkhanuk85 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's probably because the majority of them were written by angry Russians who have a chip on their shoulder about this film. ;) --Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot incomplete

Shouldn't there be more of the plot? A lot more happens after Konig's hand is wounded (a lot of terrible things, unfortunately). Also, should something be said of the character Sacha being based on the actual Sacha and his execution by the Germans? --Ripberger (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:PLOT, there shouldn't be any such thing. I've removed the whole narrative; exploration of themes and so on should be added as a new section, appropriately sourced. --Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

only half a plot here, the movie goes on for AGES after the sex scene. --Iciac (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one who noticed, though i don't really have a flair for writing so... --Ghost175 (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Transliteration

This is a very minor point, but it seems silly to write things like "Tanya (spelled Tania in the movie notes)". Since Russian is not written in the Latin alphabet, "Tanya" is no more correct a spelling than "Tania" is. I changed that once, but it was reverted soon after. --JudahH (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mosin Nagant Rifle

Why is there no mention of it at all in this article? It's in the movie poster and practically part of the entire movie, so it deserves mention since this movie has the most prominent use of this popular rifle in any movie ever. --69.225.38.20 (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Anon

And this information is relevant because...? Honestly, most people who watch this film or read about it on Wikipedia don't care about what kinds of rifle were used in the movie, as long as it's not blatantly anachornistic. --Boffob (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Particularly since it is simply the standard Red Army rifle. --DMorpheus (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

War of the Rats

The film "Enemy at the Gates", Is a screenplay of the book "War of the Rats" by David L. Robbins. It reflects the book "Enemy at the Gates" only in the fact that it takes place in Stalingrad. I have read both books and understand the confusion. --Motorfix (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it should still be linked. I've added brackets for it; if you've read the novel, fancy writing an entry for it? --Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Per the French director, the film is based on the book "Enemy at the Gates" by William Craig, is it not? Craig actually spent some years researching the book, and was priveleged to interview a number of suvivors on both sides....which, sadly, we can no longer do. The book by Craig is very readable and I highly recommend it. --Engr105th (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Craig's book mentions the sniper duel within the larger picture of the battle, which it is a history of. It does give more background on Sasha Filipov and Tania. I've read Enemy at the Gates, but have yet to read War of the Rats, which I've also read that the story is more based on. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia Section

Aren't these not considered appropriate as per Wikipedia guidelines? The points made there should probably be reworked into other parts of the article. --MercZ (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Film vs. Reality

I enjoyed this film, but can't exactly rave about it. What I'd like to see here is some more detail on the differences between the film versus the actual events depicted in it. There are some vague references, e.g., to differences between the Soviet commissar & the German sniper and their historical counterparts, but little detail.

Hollywood "history" is often frustrating in its willingness to play fast and loose with historical fact. To my mind, a disservice is done to the audience and to history itself unless all the historically verifiable details are, so far as possible, accurate. Changing real facts around to fit the story is just plain wrong.

So, someone want to fill in the details? --63.206.94.39 (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Here are just some of the inaccuracies:

1. Soviet soldiers transported to the front in padlocked cars: in reality, train cars' doors were open so the soldiers could hop out in case of an air strike.
2. NKVD machine-gunning retreating troops from behind: in reality, only 120 Soviet soldiers were executed during the 199-day battle by the NKVD.
3. Soldiers being sent across the Volga without weapons/soldiers being issued one rifle for two men, etc: in reality, they were armed before being sent across.
4. Soviet soldiers charging in "human wave" fashion: in reality, they used sophisticated street and house-to-house fighting techniques.
5. Danilov denouncing Zaitsev for being in a relationship with a Jew: in reality, Soviet persecution of the Jews began some years after World War II and such remarks would have been considered treasonous during the war.

There are far too many more examples, ranging from small details to grossly insulting statements (such as the mother's quip about how her son Sasha would be better off with the Germans). I only listed the ones that contained blatant historical falsities. --Kazak (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually many Red Army soldiers were equipped with nothing but the bare essentials. I had relatives and neighbors in the Red Army who said they didn't have any weapons to fight with during the battles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.116.159 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not what is being discussed. No doubt many Soviet soldiers lacked appropriate weapons. The point is that they weren't sent across the Volga without weapons. That's stupid anti-Soviet propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.130.29 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

How about including some of this in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.172.12.253 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Kazak: I don't think Danilov was denouncing Zaitsev for being in a relationship with a Jewish person: he was denouncing Zaitsev for, I think, being a coward and not believing in the communist ideal. Or perhaps I'm thinking of another denounciation? And yes, such a proclaimation was strange and likely to be moderately treasonous: that's why the typist looked at him strangely as he was dictating the letter.

In addition, a couple of fairly important differences that I remember include the following:

• The real Koulikov survived the war. I wonder how he felt, seeing his character killed off in the movie,
• While Vasily and Tania were lovers during the war, their relationship ended because each person believed the other had died. By the time Tania found out that Vasily was alive, he had already married.
• Of course, the duel with Major König never happened. Major König himself (or the person he was likely based on, Colonel Thorvald, I think it was), was probably a fictitious character invented to increase Soviet morale (this is disputed).

--Deathphoenix 05:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this movie is practically the only Western-made movie of the Eastern Front, hence the inaccurate depictions of Human Wave attacks and being unarmed when crossing the Volga. The soldiers sent into Stalingrad over the Volga during the battle were armed: the supply dumps were on the Eastern bank of the Volga, as were the troops, it was difficult to get anything across the river anyway, so soldiers were armed before being sent onto barges.

However, in other areas of the campain (and the whole war), soldiers were sent into battle without weapons or ammunition: in Antony Beevor's book [i]Stalingrad[/i] he states that a company of untrained Lieutenants were sent without weapons against German tanks. That's both Human Wave and weaponless right there, just outside of Stalingrad. So while it is strictly incorrect to depict that in a movie about Stalingrad, given the nature of the movie, a 'historical' movie featuring the Eastern Front, it's not surprising that typical Eastern Front sterotypes like human waves, commissars, 'No Retreat' policies, et cetra are depicted, especially considering up until 1943 they're largely true. Was Enemy at the Gates just one of many Eastern-Front movies made then the inaccuracies would be inexcusable, because Stalingrad was very different to other battles fought on the Eastern Front, notably due in a large part to the General, Chuikov.

In any case, a request should be put up to expand this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.100.154 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed many of the inaccuracies Kazak mentions. In addition:

• The soldiers sent to fight with only 1/2 equipped with rifles. This happened - in 1915. In well known episodes during a period of munition shortages during WW1, some soldiers were sent on infantry attacks and told to scavenge rifles. I have never heard of this in WW2. I thought Soviet small arms caches were fully adequate. I am almost certain the film makers were drawing on the WW1 incident in writing this part.
• The soldiers were armed with Mosin Nagant rifles. In fact, Soviet infantry were far more heavily armed with SMG's, notably the tough and reliable drum magazine PPSh-41, which is shown to a limited extent in the film. It was far more effective than rifles in the close quarters house to house fighting of Stalingrad.
• The human wave attack is shown as completely wasteful of soldiers and totally ineffective at harming the enemy. Even if the Soviet command did not care about casualties, an attack like this was undesireable and harmful to their success in the battle. In actuality, the Soviets attacked and infiltrated in smaller, perhaps platoon sized units, to close with German forces, particularly at night time. The fighting was, famously, house to house, street by street.
• The Germans in the city were actually defeated by the armour, air and artillery encirclement battle around the city, which cut them off. But that is outside of the scope of the film.
• The 1993 German film "Stalingrad" showed the fighting more realistically (although it was not a very good film otherwise).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.73.60 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm... Human wave attacks were in fact widely used by Soviet Army throughout the war. Human wave attack article talks about that. While it may not be pleasent to read about, it is in fact true. Please do not place that as a goof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorus77 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Could someone who's read the book resolve

• "In his book Stalingrad, historian Anthony Beevor suggests that, while Zaitsev was definitely a real person, the story of his duel with König is fictional."

in this article, with

• "According to Anthony Beevor's book Stalingrad, some Soviet sources claimed that the Germans brought in the chief of their sniper school, Major Heinz Thorvald (recent fictional media has created the belief that his last name was König, and that therefore he was termed "Major König"), to assassinate Zaitsev."

at Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.10.58 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The article on human-waving says...

In the modern era, human-wave attacks are often, but not always associated with mass armies of untrained soldiers. When Nazi Germany attacked Soviet Union, the Soviets used the tactic against both advancing and entrenched enemy soldiers, using penal battalions or units of militia. Usually the Red Army soldiers were told to charge directly in a wide berth to strike every possible point in the German lines. In some battles the Soviets defeated the Germans after sustaining battle losses much higher than the German losses. Later in the war the usage of such tactics declined.

In Stalingrad the Red Army was too short on men to do such a thing. Let's avoid myths and stereotypes. --Kazak (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your qoute does not prove that in Stalingrad human wave attacks were not used, at the same time proving that human attacks were indeed used by the Soviet Army. The goof goes out. If you persist with putting it back in it will become a neutrality issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorus77 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is completely arse-backwards. The claim was that the Soviet Union made extensive use of human wave attacks. Therefore the burden of proof rests on those who claim it. It is not necessary for people to disproof such a claim. Otherwise perhaps you'd like to disprove the statement that invisible pink elephants in fact run the country of Angola? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just added neutrality dispute to the page. I am so tired fo the people who would like to portray Red Army in a World War II as a gentlemen's club. I hhave not removed the goofs this time, just asked to cite these astonishing pieces of information, such as only 200 people shot by their own troops. Somehow I doubt that barrier troops were documenting every single soldier shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorus77 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It was no Gentlemens club, it was a real thing in a real world. And in the real world no one fights like that. It is a movie not a real thing. In the real world the soviets used advanced tactical house to house fighting. Just running forward like that is pointless everyone dies. It is just a cold war myth like so many other myths. If you want more details about how the fighting was read David Glantz book "Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War, 1941-1943 (2005) ISBN 0700613536" and also people should learn how to sign their post. --Deng (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Kazak: "NKVD machine-gunning retreating troops from behind: in reality, only 120 Soviet soldiers were executed during the 199-day battle by the NKVD."

I would be curious for the source of this, because that's not what Antony Beevor indicates in his book. On the other hand, the movie does mispotray the Soviet situation as overly desperate, ill armed etc. For instance, the Soviet's had a large amount of Artilery that was often much more troublesome for the Germans than the snipers were. --MarcusGraly (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

200.89.130.29: "No doubt many Soviet soldiers lacked appropriate weapons. The point is that they weren't sent across the Volga without weapons. That's stupid anti-Soviet propaganda."

Says you!: "Those workers not directly involved in producing weapons for immediate use were mobilized in militia 'special brigades' under the commander of the 10th NKVD Division, Colonel Sarayev. Ammunition and rifles were distributed, but many men received a weapon only after a comrade was killed. In the northern industrial suburb of Spartakovka, badly armed worker militia battalions were sent into battle against the 16th Panzer Division with predictable results." Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943, Antony Beevor, p 109, Viking 1998

Here's a map used by the Germans at the time. Note the location of Spartakovka, at the extreme end of the German salient, on the western side of the Volga. --Bhmildy (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, the history channel documentary series "War of the Century" I believe it's called discussed that topic SuperDeng, and the veterans were *very* anal about discussing human wave tactics, and how there was usually only one rifle to two men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.219.236 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Kazak: "in reality, Soviet persecution of the Jews began some years after World War II and such remarks would have been considered treasonous during the war."

Persecution of the Jews? When did that happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.163.167 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, it's high time to learn the history using rather original documents and veteran interviews than history channels and viki-articles. Anyway, it would useful to put here that human vawes and NKVD 'zagradotryady' were not used in Stalingrad (by the way they quite often were not used in case of penalty units as the author of the article stated, even though in all the other points he is correct). Another point for the "goofs" - the civilian population of the city not only had opportunity to leave the city but was also assisted by the Army and Volga river fleet in doing so. One more is the train (it is not Soviet 1930s or 40s model). --91.122.145.48 (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

172.192.73.60, I'd like to comment on your post of 4 January 2006 - best way I guess is o add one underneath each bullet post below..

• The soldiers sent to fight with only 1/2 equipped with rifles. This happened - in 1915. In well known episodes during a period of munition shortages during WW1, some soldiers were sent on infantry attacks and told to scavenge rifles. I have never heard of this in WW2. I thought Soviet small arms caches were fully adequate. I am almost certain the film makers were drawing on the WW1 incident in writing this part.

This is an interesting point - do you have sources for it?? (its not worth much without that:). Its important because many people seem to have come away from watching this movie with the idea that unarmed Soviet soldiers was the norm (half armed/half not).

• The soldiers were armed with Mosin Nagant rifles. In fact, Soviet infantry were far more heavily armed with SMG's, notably the tough and reliable drum magazine PPSh-41, which is shown to a limited extent in the film. It was far more effective than rifles in the close quarters house to house fighting of Stalingrad.

I question that. The Wiki article on the PPSh-41 states 6 million were produced. By contrast, the Moisin-Nagant article says 17 mil M-N's were produced in WW2 - and thats added to all the others left over from WW1 and earlier that were undoubtedly available in WW2. I'd have to say the M-N rifle was far more prolific than the PPSh41. Even allowing that the latest technology was sent to the front lines.

• The Germans in the city were actually defeated by the armour, air and artillery encirclement battle around the city, which cut them off. But that is outside of the scope of the film.

Concur; the biggest problem w/ this film IMHO is the transition form "almost defeated" to "victory" for the Soviets. It is never explained a'tall. But, the German defeat didn't have a lot to do with Soviet airpower at that point, though the Sovs did eventually dominate the eastern air. Armor and artillery - tied to superior numbers and accclimatization - won the day for them in their encirclement. --Engr105th (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Soviets were hopelessly under-armed at the start of Barbarossa- troops often had no ammunition, or maybe a handful of weapons per unit. I believe Antony Beevor talks about this sort of thing in his (excellent IMHO) book Stalingrad- the Russians made extensive use of captured German weapons (and vice-versa); and I recall a quote to the effect of "Your weapons are in the hands of our enemies- go and get them!" in response to Soviet troops wondering how they were supposed to launch counter-attacks without guns. In short, the "One man gets the rifle, the next man gets the bullets" thing did happen, especially earlier on in the war before production caught up with demand- most M91/30 and M44 rifles were produced from 1943 onwards, IIRC, and were generally viewed as being more of a "Spear that can fire bullets" than anything else, at least until the troops could be trained properly. --Commander Zulu (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• 72.229.163.167: "Persecution of the Jews? When did that happen?"

If you're interested: Stalin's_antisemitism (while I don't think the political decisions were so much inspired by Stalin's pesonal dislike for the Jews; Doctors'_plot, Rootless_cosmopolitan, and in some way, Sinyavsky-Daniel_trial.

• 80.172.12.253: "How about including some of this in the article?"

there is Criticism section where the most blatant example is described thoroughly.

• 60.228.100.154 "However, in other areas of the campain (and the whole war), soldiers were sent into battle without weapons or ammunition..."

I tend to disagree. The depiction of the weaponless soldiers sent to battle by the bloodthirsty Comissars (and the EVIL Khrushev) is totally ideological in nature. It is more offensive given the date of the production and the non-political, light-minded approach by the director. Maybe the movie needs to be approached as a kitsch piece, mocking the stereotypes of Russian military of the Cold War era, but it far exceeds these in its vulgarity.

While I won't argue about your citation, I find it unlikely that the whole company of Lieutenants were "sent" "against tanks". Sure, the Russian command made a good share of stupid, non-considerate decisions and bloody mistakes (or again deliberate decisions) during the War, but... --AyeBraine (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Engr105th, it's nice that you brought up that number (6 million). Because the same Wiki (MP-40) tells us that only about 1 mil of the notorious MP-38 and MP-40's were produced. Note that in the Soviet movies almost every German is equipped with it ('cause it's so symbolic and recognizable). And the same thing happens in the Western WWII buffs' minds - the Germans were SMG-toting killing machines, and Soviets were peasants with Mosin rifles. In reality, MP's were initially distributed largely to the NCO's (others put up with K98's). And the Soviet infantry were saturated with SMGs on a mass basis towards the end of the war (again note that the symbolic weapon of the WWI warrior in the USSR was a PPSh - the better SMG, PPD, even didn't make it in the history books). Catch a trend here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyeBraine (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Kazak:

• Soldiers being sent across the Volga without weapons/soldiers being issued one rifle for two men, etc: in reality, they were armed before being sent across.

plenty of historical accounts will confirm that Russian soldiers were often sent into battle unarmed - See Beevor's books for more info

• Soviet soldiers charging in "human wave" fashion: in reality, they used sophisticated street and house-to-house fighting techniques.

again plenty of historical accounts will confirm that Russian soldiers attacked like this throughout the war, even to May 1945 - methinks you have a political agenda - See Beevor's books for more info

• Danilov denouncing Zaitsev for being in a relationship with a Jew: in reality, Soviet persecution of the Jews began some years after World War II and such remarks would have been considered treasonous during the war.

Anti-Semitic comments would have been the norm sadly. Again, you are politically biased, which is disappointing

• There are far too many more examples, ranging from small details to grossly insulting statements (such as the mother's quip about how her son Sasha would be better off with the Germans). I only listed the ones that contained blatant historical falsities.

Large numbers, huge numbers of Soviet citizens preferred the Nazi rule to Stalin's rule. Large numbers fought for Hitler - Again, see Beevor's books for more info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.46 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Goofs

"Danilov is a commissar throughout the whole movie, although in the Red Army this rank was removed on October 9, 1942. Moreover, when he meets Vasily, he introduces himself as 'politruk'. This was a different rank, equal to elder lieutenant, while commissar was equal to the rank of major."

All political officers were usually referred to as "komissar" regardless of rank. So when people call Danilov that it's his job they're referring to, not necessarilly his rank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.240.222 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to restore a goof to the article, please first reply here with your corresponding documentary evidence for discussion.

• Kazak: "NKVD machine-gunning retreating troops from behind: in reality, only 120 Soviet soldiers were executed during the 199-day battle by the NKVD."

"One of the richest sources in the Russian Ministry of Defence central archive at Podolsk consists of the very detailed reports sent daily from the Stalingrad Front to Aleksandr Shcherbakov, the head of the political department of the Red Army in Moscow. These describe not only heroic actions, but also 'extraordinary events' (the commissars' euphemism for treasonous behavior), such as desertion, crossing over to the enemy, cowardice, incompetence, self-inflected wounds, 'anti-Soviet agitation' and even drunkenness. The Soviet authorities executed around 13,500 of their own soldiers at Stalingrad - equivalent to more than a whole divison of troops. The main challenge, I soon realized, was to try to balance the genuine self-sacrifice of so many Red Army soldiers with the utterly brutal coercion used against waverers by the NKVD special departments (which very soon afterwards became part of SMERSH - counter-espionage)." Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943, Antony Beevor, p xiii, Viking 1998 --Bhmildy (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• In the film, the slogans used by the Red Army are along the lines of "For Stalin", and "For our great leader". This was mostly biased to the view of Western powers at the time of Communist Russia. In 1942, different Russian slogans were used. Those were mainly war slogans, such as "We will overcome", "Death to Nazi occupants" or "Everything for the front, everything for victory".

Legislators in the city of Mirnyi in the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic voted on 30 March to erect a bust of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in the city's Victory Square for the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II on 9 May, RIA-Novosti reported. Mirnyi Mayor Anatolii Popov said: "We could not ignore the request of participants in the Great Patriotic War. It's no secret to anyone that our fighters went to battle (with the slogans) 'For the Fatherland' and 'For Stalin.'" (link here)

--Bhmildy (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

*Soviet soldiers charging in "human wave" fashion: in reality, they used sophisticated street and house-to-house fighting techniques.

"An artillery corporal, on the other hand, who had worked for twenty-nine hours without a proper break, was in no doubt about a victorious outcome for the Wehrmacht. 'The Russians can shoot as much as they want, but we'll shoot more. It's a great pleasure when a couple of hundred Russians attack. One self-propelled assault gun is enough, and they all make a run for it.'" Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943, Antony Beevor, p 97, Viking 1998 --Bhmildy (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Prof Beevors books should be taken with atleast 15 buckets of salt and maybe a few fists of pepper. If you want a more onjective view by other britsh professors check out John Erickson and/or Richard Overy and if you want even more info checkout academic David Glantz. --Deng (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You have not cited either of the sources that you reference. Neither have you substantiated your allegations about the quality of Beevor's scholarship. Article restored, per WP: Citing sources 2.4: "Disputed text can immediately be removed entirely or moved from the article to the talk page for discussion," pending further discussion here. --Bhmildy (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yupp so here,

1. Beevor's scholarship [1] read under Criticism.
2. That human wave fighting is not possible is supported by logic this has been argued above but if you want real books by real humans then read Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War, 1941-1943 (2005) ISBN 0700613536 and Companion to Colossus Reborn: Key Documents and Statistics (2005) ISBN 0700613595 in companion you will most likely see more about it. When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (1995) ISBN 070060717X is a good book to and Also Richard Overy In russias war adresses the matter.

The executions are correct but what antony does is take in to account all people killed during that time be it commen criminals or enemy fighters or anyone killed for any matter.

To access the slogans well then you would have to read much much more. --Deng (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The USSR executed something like 200,000 or 300,000 of their own soldiers during the war. That's about the number of US soldiers killed on both fronts, for the war itself. Either Red Army soldiers were more prone to criminal activity (which I think is unlikely), or the USSR killed a lot of their own people for a lot of things.

Beevor argues that the bias was on the part of the Soviet propagandists, and that the Red Army soldiers generally found more sensible things to yell when attacking. I just happened to find the article on the Stalin memorial, where the mayor says that people actually yelled these things, first.

Logic is not evidence. Whether the USSR acted logically or not is not germane. Some countries don't act logically (ie. Nazi Germany). Whether they are or aren't, does not mean that they aren't capable of the occasional atypical logical, or illogical action.

Response of the Russian ambassador: not a scholarly response: he "refuses to believe", and cites "blasphemy." These are legitimate sentiments, and firmly held beliefs, yet have no bearning on the truth of the matter.

Response of the professor: from what I can translate, with difficulty, on a different controversy, he cites orders and reports by army and administrative bureaucracies. This is not evidence of how people act in the field. To cite an example, here in the USA, prior to the civil rights movement, ethnic minorities were denied basic rights of citizenship, despite provisions in the US constitution to the contrary. A selective examination of laws and documents would not give evidence of the widespread discrimination. I would argue that the past-war abortion rate among German women is more compelling evidence. Although, to the credit of critics of Beevor, Stalin has never struck me as someone that gave much consideration to the opinions of others, so that these orders were issued, and reports commissioned, is a surprise to me, and is a compelling argument against Beevor's conclusions.

Then again, Max Hastings, in his book, Armaggedon, makes similar allegations about the behavior of both German and USSR soldiers. --Bhmildy (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok First dont post in the middle of my posts it was hard to read what you meant, look you draw most of your info from a crapy source namely Beevor if you are an american then read what the american military officer who has gone into the soviet archives after the fall of the soviet Union. David Glantz is your man.

Ok why the human wave as shown in the movie is impossible in real life is that one simple jerk of a heavy machine gun and they are all dead. Also the movie itself could not be shown in Volograd (former stalingrad) because it had to much shit in it. The war veterans were really mad. And the reaction was same all over the former soviet union. If you want real information about the war then read books by David Glantz, Richard Overy and John Erickson. Also to prove that something didnt hapen is almost impossible shor of building a time machine. Now that each person sent across the river had a weapon I know I have read most likely in Russia's war and Prof Overy says something like each person was given a weapon and 5 bullets anything more would have to be taken of the dead. --Deng (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Posting in the middle of your posts: sorry.

Crappy sources, Beevor: I don't think it has been established that Beevor is crappy. 1. People taking offense doesn't undermine his credibility 2. Others have drawn the same conclusions, including in the materials that I have read recently, like Sajer, Guy: The Forgotten Soldier (memoir of Wermacht soldier on the Eastern Front), and Hastings, Max: Armageddon (Eastern Front 1943-1945)

I'm very interested in David Glantz, and am grateful for your bringing him to my attention. This conversation has been valuable to me for suggestions for fruther reading. I believe, however, that this conversation demonstrates that these disputed goofs don't deserve to be included in the article as goofs.

Logic is not evidence. Your logic suggests that human wave attacks would never be repeated, ever, by anyone. This is obviously not the case, as in the Iran/Iraq War. Also, people don't always act logically, and sometimes they do, or try to, given the information and resources available to them. "Blood is time," said Chuikov, while defending Stalingrad, suggesting that he understood that he could no longer trade land for time, which the Soviets had done since the beginning of the German invasion, and he deliberately traded lives for time, to amass the men and materials to begin the encirclement of Paulus' 6th Army.

Please allow me to reiterate my utmost respect for the accomplishments of the Soviet peoples, who made sacrifices that the western allies were unwilling to make (cynically leaving the Soviet people to bear the burden), and deserve the lion's share of the credit for winning WW2. Unfortunately, my high regard for many of the accomplishments of the USSR are not related to the issues we are discussing here. This very interesting conversation, in which I have presented evidence from historians respected by many but not all scholars, suggests that these disputed goofs do not belong as goofs in the main article. Thanks, --Bhmildy (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

All of those are goofs, they locked the pad cars so that no one would steal the Soldiers:D They were not locked so that people could jump out people need to understand that a movie is a movie. --Bignra (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You have disputed one goof and brought back disputed goofs. Furthermore, you have brought everything back because the logic of portrayal of events in the movie seemed funny to you, not because of any cited facts. I will be removing them once again and continue doing so. --Lorus (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Look you cant change history what happened happened and a movie is just a movie, this are all goofs and hollywood can make a million movies it dosent change what happened. --Bignra (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened??? Site at least one fact! NKVD was not in charge of barrier troops: *Wikisource: Original text says that army commanders have the authority to create barrier troops, not NKVD, so the fact that NKVD shot 199 people has nothing to do with the portrayal of barrier troops which is supported by documents! Please stop removing goofs. --Lorus (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I wont add that one but you site atleast on source that says that they were locked in the trains --Bignra (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, added a lot of goofs before reading discussion. Open to comments and critics. --Evgenikovalev (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am having some problems with the goofs section. Some don't quite make sense. It may be the way they are worded. Also, at some point it degenerates into a list without explanation of the goof itself. After a while, it starts to sound more like a personal grudge list rather than an impartial list of goofs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.150.226 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with this...I mean, can't we accept that not all films will be perfect historically to the dot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.185.98 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To Russians, the war bears the same significance as the Holocaust does to Jews (or if you go by death tolls, 5x more significant). Russians have absolutely every right to be angry about the innacuracies. And I think pointing out the many accuracies is ultimatley good for education, which is what this site is about. Ever since this film came out, I've seen so many peope used stupid and false arguments like "the Russians send half their men umarmed into lines of machine-guns" or "Russians were cowards who had to be locked up in trains when sent to battle", so basically what this film has done is create a warped image of the Eastern Front. The people of the West absolutely MUST recognise the major contribution the Soviet Union made in toppling Nazi Germany and they can't do that whilst thinking the Red Army was a bunch of cowardly peasants who were sent unarmed into German machine-guns for no apparent reason. Otherwise Westerners will continue to remain ignorant about the largest battle in mankind. It really is a shame that this is the only Russian-perspective Eastern Front film that a Westerner could have had the chance to see.

That's why I think the innacuracies MUST be listed in this article. For the simple purpose of education and allieviating historical ignorance. --CommanderJamesBond (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the enormous list of "goofs" really necessary? It looks rather unencyclopedic. --Cossack (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone notice the turrets and guns on the armoured train? They appear to be identical to those that were used on the definitive version of the T-34 (T-34-85). However, the final version of the T-34 did not appear until late 1943, a full year after the film is set.

Also, when Zaitsev walked into the room full of reporters, in the background was playing a recording of the Soviet National Anthem being sung. At the time of Stalingrad, Internationale was still the anthem of the USSR. The song being sung in the room had not yet been written. It would not be presented until January 1st, 1944 and would not become the National Anthem until March 15th following a vote by the Supreme Soviet.

But before anyone jumps down my throat, I did enjoy the film although I've never considered it to be a serious attempt at re-creating the horrors of the battle. It is, however, a half decent war film, although we could have done without the love story. As if the savagery and appalling conditions aren't enough to convey the human tragedy, the producers then have to insult my intelligence by suggesting that all the female Soviet snipers are total babes (the fat ugly ones obviously weren't allowed near the front line). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.55.159 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

alot of the so called goofs listed are ridiculous. You have to remember this is not intented to be a factual documentary, it is based on a work of fiction that is set during the siege of stalingrad, thus all the claimed historical inaccuracies are irrelevant and need to be removed. --80.41.79.22 (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you'll agree that this is a goof, but it seems to me either the Soviet sniper goofed or the movie did. To wit, when he is pinned down behind a ?stove? and trying to get his rifle, the German sniper takes a number of seconds to get his weapon ready to fire again. In this time, the Soviet could easily have gotten to his weapon and return to cover. (Another thing, that ?stove didn't look too heavy; why didn't the German sniper try to shoot it to move it or penetrate it? - Or weren't bullets very hefty back then?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.124 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cossack: No, it's not. It's completely stuffed to the brim with original research, cruft, un-sourced statements, and biased opinion. It doesn't belong here and has been removed. --Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was reading that as you deleted it, necessary or not, it's an interesting read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.2.34 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear CommanderJamesBond, thank You very much for your statement - it's completely reasonable! I wonder how many Russians having passed Battle for Stalingrad were asked about it by the film creators orr those wiki-users pretending they know everything about the war. --91.122.145.48 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

211.225.34.124: This is not really a goof. Without knowing - for certain - how many opponents were up there, the target would be hesitant to break cover to get his weapon...I also doubt you'd move a cast iron (?) stove with a bullet of approx 7mm ! --Engr105th (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with all the above...but would like to point out that this is a movie, for entertainment purposes and to make money. Its not a documentary. Innaccuracies such as padlocking the troop transport trains and soldiers charging the German line with only a clip, waiting for a fallen rifle, serve to highlight the plight of conscript soldiers. No Hollywood movie should be taken too seriously ! --Engr105th (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Grandpafootsoldier, if you wish to promote your opinion about "Goofs" section, first please present it here, on this discussion page, before doing anything with the scissors and don't shock the audience with fait accompli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.149.35 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this movie is not that it's just fiction, but rather propaganda-stuffed fiction, obviously inspired by German war-time propaganda. However, "propaganda vs non-propaganda" is completely different matter than "fiction vs documentary". Let me give you an example. What would you say if some war movie depicts American soldier, putting pieces of Iraqi girl in the mincing machine to make himself a good morning hamburger? American soldier is real, is he not? Iraqi girl is also real, isn't she? Mincing machine is as real as it gets. Would you think that this movie is just artistic and innocent way to portray some unusual activities in order to entertain and yes! make some money? If yes, good for you. But I personally would think that this is a pure propaganda, designed to induce violence against Americans. That's the reason why some contributors to this page feel themselves obliged to use "Goofs" section as a counter-balance to the German propaganda, even shot by French director. Brainless, robot-like Russian "human waives", running to their imminent deaths under the whips of evil Jewish commissars? Goebbels could not be more pleased. But he is not, since he committed suicide in Berlin, in plain site of those Russian soldiers, which he so liked to compare with insects. Unexplained historical mystery? Not so, just something is always wrong with propaganda and how it depicts reality, doesn't matter, in documentary or in fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.149.35 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, if you think this film is "German propaganda" then you are seriously off your rocker. In fact, it would make more sense to call it "Russian propaganda" as the entire story premise is based on an incident which likely never occurred involving a German marshal who probably never existed. The entire story was most likely made up by the Soviet propaganda machine.

As for this damn "Goofs" section, there was a similar issue on the Saving Private Ryan page a few months back, with a similar conclusion reached: Film pages should not be indiscriminate dumping grounds for non-sourced info on the "historical accuracy" of the story, sets, etc. We do not need a obscenely long list of hearsay and original research from people (specifically Russians) who have a bone to pick with this film because it might not conform to their idea of history. If a credible third-party has raised enough of a ruckus about the historic aspects of this film, and can prove their inaccuracy, only then is it worth putting that information in, and only as a subsection of a "Production" or "Reception" section, not as a gigantic stupid list.

If people keep on putting that section back in, I think protection of this page should be seriously considered. --Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Grandpa, rocker or nor, I wouldn't consider this movie as a Russian propaganda, more like an attempt to de-construct it, which is awesome venture by itself and deserve every encouragement, but putting on top of the ruins German propaganda cliches instead is not something that people may swallow easily.

Please consider why this "damn" section is on again and again. If this film was a comedy or parody, goofs would constitute major part of the movie. But since this movie is not a comedy, goofs and Nazi cliches just successfully undermine the whole concept, and this is not a small production misstep. Imagine "Three musketeers" where D'Artagnian machine-guns cardinal's hit-squads of bloodthirsty Roswell aliens in order to get to the Lord Buckingham, who supplies him with nuclear aircraft carrier to deliver artificial diamonds back to the Queen? Goofs would destroy everything, including credibility of the whole story, won't they? Obviously that was not what director wanted. However reading Kurowski, Carrel, and other renown vets of Reichspropagandaministerium produced what we have seen. The best movie so far, at least by attention to details, is German's Stalingrad by Joseph Vilsmaier, Jürgen Büscher and Johannes Heide, since director was smart enough to understand that under-researching of this still so sensitive subject will disintegrate his best efforts.

Personally I don't care much about "Saving Private Ryan", but I think that Germans, Americans and everybody else are completely entitled to produce any decision they think fit and point to any goofs or exclude this section altogether. Surely, it doesn't mean that contributors to this section should copycat them, we all supposed to live not in Lubianka/PrinceAlbrechtStrasse world of Ukaz/Fuhrerbefehl, but in more happier times where everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.22.51 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why this huge section keeps popping up. It's trivia, filled with possibly original research, and gives undue weight to some users' view of how much "accurate" history should be in a work of fiction. Real film goofs (such as continuity errors within a story...) should be left to IMDB. Original criticisms and essays simply do not belong to Wikipedia. Any user who wants to reinstate that section again should discuss it on this talk page and explain how it doesn't violate all the guidelines mentioned above. --Boffob (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The goof section is important, if only as a few lines explaining that this film had numerous errors in terms of translation and historical detail. Admitably as it stands, it is trivia. However, if it were rewritten into a couple of paragraphs explaining the types of errors, plus a few examples, it would be worth including. If so, it should be written neutrally, and any critisms be removed. The wikipedia guideline is just that, a guideline. If its a small detail, original research could, while not be the basis of the paragraph, contribute to the completeness of it. In other words, keep the goofs, re-write into paragraphs. Any problems with that? --Iciac (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

'Errors' in terms of translation of what? And those who care about historical detail can read the Battle of Stalingrad article, just like those who want to know the real lives of Mozart and Salieri aren't going to take the movie Amadeus at face value. If, somehow, Enemy at the Gates was meant to be historically accurate, I would conceide the point, but it stands as a work of fiction, and the story it tells is not supposed to be a history lesson. The differences between the movie and history are mostly literary, aesthetic or just plain technical choices, not "goofs" (those are usually unintentional mistakes, such as, say, a boom mike in a shot, or a wristwatch on a centurion). --Boffob (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please. return goofs section back. This article is about the movie, not about real Stalingrad siege. Goofs are the part of the movie, so they belong here for sure. Why are you so upset with it? It's so funny to watch this overfed "Pink Cheeks" Sasha, who is talking with strong British accent and moving around wearing boyscout shorts in November. Let's talk about it, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.22.226 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it's giving undue weight to trivia, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And it's pedantic to the extreme. Might as well say that everyone speaking English in the movie, instead of Russian and German, is a "goof". --Boffob (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also clearly original research --LeContexte (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a very large issue, with many edit wars due to it - put it to a poll. If the majority believe that it should be there, then it can be discussed further. If they don't, it only supports getting rid of the whole thing. At the very least, it will give insight to how large this debate is. I'd put a poll up myself...but I don't know how to =). Anyone mind telling me how? --Iciac (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That the movie is mere entertainment does not excuse its failings. As others have said, the movie is based on German wartime propaganda depicting much of the Russian tactics as disorganized and horde-like. Which is bullshit. You could make a far more entertaining (and fair!) movie depicting realistic house-to-house fighting. --201.216.245.25 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What do workers' militias formed from local citizens have to do with the fresh troops coming from the East? Vasiliy Zaytsev came to Stalingrad after transferring from the Navy in Vladivostok (this is why he wore a Tel'nyashka during his days in Stalingrad). --D Boland (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)