English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

yes it was, with over 1,5 million lives lost

BTW, siege of Leningrad was 900 days long, compared to 5 day battle of Stalinrad, so it's not technically a battle

2007-10-16 05:42:48 · answer #1 · answered by krasnoglaz 3 · 3 0

Difficult. The Soviet statistics for the Battle are not very precise, they do not really reflect battle casualties very well as most casualties where unrecorded, it was a patch up and back to the front, otherwise the rear services (medically) where extremley poor.
It would have to be Stalingrad, Berlin, Battle of the Gothic Line (Italy 1944) or the Falise gap battle. Leningrad most of the casualties where from starvation and cold, not direct Military action, the Bulge Battle although quiet nasty never had that many troops involved on either side, Kursk had the forces but the two pincer attacks was the only part that got underway, all the other battles in Russia in 1941 lead more to Captures of millions of troops rather than casualties. And the Pacific / Asian battles did not produce the large casualties like the Russian Campagins.
It would be interesting to see the proper statistics.

2007-10-17 02:03:36 · answer #2 · answered by Kevan M 6 · 2 0

It probably depends on how you determine which casualties are from the battle. Leningrad had more direct casualties, but there were hundreds or thousands of German soldiers captured at Stalingrad that never returned from Russia after the war. So those extra fatalities in the gulags might tip the balance, except some would not consider those battle casualties.

2007-10-16 13:00:03 · answer #3 · answered by rohak1212 7 · 1 0

It would be the battle of Leningrad, not Stalingrad. In the list of battles on Wiki (first link below), the entry for Stalingrad says 1.5 million casualties (combined killed & wounded). Leningrad shows 1.5 million killed, which includes over a million civilians (see second link).

2007-10-16 12:49:20 · answer #4 · answered by Navigator 7 · 1 0

Difficult to say. But among soldiers on both sides the Battle of Cassino has the reputation of being even worse than Stalingrad

2007-10-16 16:30:38 · answer #5 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0 1

Yes in the whole of history there has never been a greater sacrifice of human life to defend a city , but you must remember most of the Russian people did not go willingly to the slaughter many were forced by the soviats to do so , many had two choices go and die later of be shot now.groups of ten men were given one rifle and ten rounds of amunition between them as the one with the gun was shot the man following had to pick up the gun and keep firing untill he died then the next and the next untill all were dead . Millions died , but the terrible Russian winters got the Germans in the end , Thousands of them froze to death and the rest died retreating back to Germany

2007-10-16 12:55:31 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 0 2

The high estimate was 1.8 million, the low estimate was around 800,000 (civilians and soldiers).-

2007-10-16 15:58:51 · answer #7 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

no, several battles in china such as the rape of nankin were worse,

2007-10-17 08:29:34 · answer #8 · answered by Aine G 3 · 0 0

No, the battle of the Bulge was

2007-10-16 12:45:45 · answer #9 · answered by Tony B 2 · 0 4

fedest.com, questions and answers