Talk:Pavlov's House

Got a question

Yes I know this isn't really the place to be asking questions about the event, but there isn't really anywhere else on the internet that I could ask... Why didn't the Germans fly bomber planes over Pavlov's house and destroy it? I'm sure there is a very good reason they didn't, but I haven't been able to find this out anywhere. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.101.68.218 (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They didn't fly bombers over his house because back then getting with in 600 ft of your target was good bombing so if they did bomb there was a good chance they could hit german military forces and kill there own men.

Furthermore, why not 1: just blow it to hell with your tanks' 90MM cannons? 2: Blow it to hell using mortars? 3: Set up copious amounts of smoke so that you could advance safely? 4: Surround the house, cut them off, starving the occupants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.7.68 (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

1) The German tanks would have been great targets for the sowjet artillery (i think it is save to assume that Pavlovs House was able to communicate target information back to their own forces), 2) counterbattery fire, 3) counter-battery fire (as for 2 and 3: could also be availibility of artillery resources) and 4) for that you would have to clear not Pavlovs House but every house with a field of fire on the place and secure these. The Manpower expenditure would have been immense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.94.184.142 (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Pavlov's House was only 2 city blocks from the banks of the Volga. It was a strongpoint on a defensive line, not an isolated outpost, so there was no way to surround it without breaching the line elsewhere. It had an excellent and wide field of view over the square the Germans had to approach from, too much space for smoke grenades to conceal.

As for bombers, a Stuka or two could have done the job, but the Luftwaffe was suffering heavy losses and couldn't really spend enough time over the city for such pinpoint bombing. Their he-111's wouldn't risk flying low enough to hit them either. He-111's were sitting ducks when attacked by fighters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.67.132 (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not a priority target for the Germans. You must remember that there were many other apartment houses throughout this large city occupied by Soviet soldiers with orders to never retreat under penalty of death. German command felt that aerial attacks that target barges filled with hundreds of Russian troops is more prudent than trying to attack a shell of a house with a dozen half-starved soldiers inside. Also you must remember that the city was in ruins. It was not easy to identify one burned out house from another. Meishern (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Pavlov is not cmander of platoon, it was lieutenant Afanasiev, Pavlov is just a myth of our propaganda. No he was a one of house defenders, but he is not comander of platoon. My english is very bad, but i think your understand this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.118.83.113 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

logged off

I got logged off while writing. --Kolt 10:40, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Almost got a picture

As someone requested for picture here, I tried to find a public domain one. I failed, although I was very close. Namely: I found an image in the book published in the USSR in 1975, which is available online. However, the template {{PD-USSR}} is suitable only for images published prior to 1973. :- ( Cmapm 01:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Exaggeration?

Each time German infantry or tanks tried to cross the square and to close in on the house, Pavlov's men took them under heavy fire from within the basement, from the windows and from the roof top. Leaving behind a square covered with burnt corpses and steel, the Germans had to retreat again.

Isn't this a bit too melodramatic?

No it's not. Otherwise it would have been just like any other skirmish of the war that is unknown today.

I think the last sentence is a bit melodramatic, and unfitting for this article. Ravage. 8.mai. 2006

This whole article is too dramatic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.165.228.106 (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, heaven forbid a Wikipedia article portraying the Red Army in any way near heroic instead of the Wehrmacht taking this spot. The andf (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

exagerrtion yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Dramatization

Are these mentions of computer games at all relevant? They could be construed as valid cultural references but look so absurd and unfitting sitting there under history which makes part of one of the most tragic events of the 20th century.

Yes yes I know "gaming IS culture", but can gamers please try for a second not to think about how this event pertains to their wrist reflex training activities but try to imagine the scale of actual real life suffering?

Does 'Saving Private Ryan' bear mention for its depiction of the Omaha landings? It's possible for a game to represent an event just as a movie does; why is an action movie any more appropriate than an action game? It's not just this page that mentions games, they're mentioned alongside movies on the pages of many major battles. I think it is rather inaccurate to imply that gamers are unable to appreciate the gravity of war any more than someone who watches a movie or reads a book on war. In all of these cases isn't it true that the person knows more about the event afterwards than they did before?

sorry my fault - i got the picture wrong and thought it was the mill...sorry.

--I think the general rule is that movies and games are "pop culture" and as such don't really belong in an article that is not about pop culture. Also the last citation in particular is not accurate and does contain humor (crop circles etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeBoldInEdits (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is soon as you delete it, it gets added back by someone else. There are millions of game playing people who run to Wikipedia to make sure the scenario they just played is mentioned. It's a tidal wave of pop that is futile to resist. It's interesting, however, that Pvalov's House is also in many traditional wargames (of the paper variety), but you don't see them mentioned. As well as novels and other forms of pop culture. Again, no mention. Only the video games. In 20 years time this will pass as the video game generation ages out and the games are forgotten. Until then, resistance is futile. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No particular opinion on whether the video game references belong--I guess I would lean towards not, but with the article in its current state, they aren't the biggest issue. I did want to express admiration for your undoubtedly to-be-proven correct prophecy about the faddish transience of video games. Why, in twenty years, perhaps these kids will get over their "talkies" too, and we can return to God's intended light pastime: the admiring contemplation of handsome daguerreotypes. SS451 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

i get real bad douche chills reading this exchange — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.228.189 (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, in any case the Dramatization section has been entirely removed, which I very much agree with. Gomedog (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Chuikov comment

He said that Germans lost more man than they were lost in the "battle" for Paris (not the liberation). rebuke to the French military command virtually surrender without a fight

Somebody changed this comment to read "Battle of Verdun". I editted back to "fall of Paris", because even though the statement is uncited either way, if Chuikov said that the Germans lost more men to Pavlov than at the Battle of Verdun, it is merely a facetious exaggeration that does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, if he said that the Germans lost more men to Pavlov than they did in the fall of Paris, that statement may actually be accurate, and furthermore does contrast the scale of the conflict in a very interesting and succinct manner. - Aprogressivist (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why this comment about 'Battle of Verdun', if true, does not provide an interesting information about the realations with France and the selfpotrait of the Sowjets. As for the 'accuracy': Accuracy is not a point that comes up when you say something pathetic and selfserving as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.94.184.142 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DID CHILDREN DAIYED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.88.2 (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

here ya go folks, a reference with the exact quote. If you don't speak Russki, that's it below.

http://www.volfoto.ru/volgograd/ploschad_lenina/dom_pavlova/

«Эта небольшая группа, – отмечал В. И. Чуйков, – обороняя один дом, уничтожила вражеских солдат больше, чем гитлеровцы потеряли при взятии Парижа».

Ain't no Battle of Verdun about it. As literally as possible, it's "destroyed more enemy soldiers than the Hitlerites killed before taking Paris." "Before" in the context probably refers to the fall of Paris, not the whole war up to that point.

Where did you even get "before" in there? Google translate? It actually says "this little group, while defending one house, has destroyed more of the enemy's soldiers than "hitlerites" lost in/while capturing Paris" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.179.107 (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If anything else needs referencing, the Википедия has got much more detailed Дом Павлова article and it's probably already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.67.132 (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Chuikov was talking about the Capture of Paris in 1940. The Red Army had a policy of constantly shaming the UK and France for their defeat in the Phony War, and UK/US for not opening a Second Front in Europe. Chuikov, who wanted to reward his men who heroically defended Pavlov's House, made that comment about 1940, not Verdun. I've read his biography, and from there, it's really clear that he meant what happened in 1940, because the Liberation of Paris hasn't happened when the comment was made. 71.165.41.100 (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tank Confusion

Article states "once the tanks had approached to within 25 meters of the building, their thin turret-roof armor became exposed to AT rifle fire from above...Pavlov reportedly personally destroyed nearly a dozen tanks using this tactic."

So if Pavlov destroyed 10 tanks and his troops destroyed some more, what did the outside street look like? A parking-lot of burned out tanks? I have a hard time picturing a street with 20-30 tanks littering it and even a harder time imagining new tanks attempting to drive in such an area. German tank driver says "Sargent Fritz, I see 30 burned out tanks in front of us blocking the street, what shall I do?" - Answer??? Meishern (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, though on the other hand if that was true then wouldn't that have happened in lots of places, so perhaps not have been so surprising? My guess is that at night or during a lull one or either side moved them away as to reopen firing lines. But then again I can't really imagine what it was like in Stalingrad in 1942 from London in 2010, so I may be wrong. Prokhorovka ([[User

talk:Prokhorovka|talk]]) 12:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Tanks & Infantry at Pavlov's House (and ATR stuff):

The 24.Pz Div, part of the XXXXVIII. Panzerkorps had at that time had a shortage of tanks ( due to lack of spare parts) roughly a dozen tanks still in working order and the whole Korps not more than 50, therefore all tanks where melted together in a Task Force/Kampfgruppe. The 24.PzDiv which would have engaged the 13. Guards Division in this district makes no mention of "pavlov's house" nor is it reflected in the daily loss reports. It is therefore not likely that many more people than anywhere else in the area were lost trying to take "Pavlov's House". How vehicles were actually lost is also unclear but most likely few if any or it would show up in the daily loss reports.

The description of Pavlov's men trying to depress and move a 20.3 kg (46 lbs) 2100 mm (83 in)PTRS to hit the roofs of vehicles seems far fetched. Also the inclination ability of German tank guns is actually excellent on all their (and even foreign) tank designs its (depression where designers usually mess up) making the whole thing seem suspect. Assuming you can somehow prop up this unwieldy & heavy PTRD rifle on something and aim at the roof armor of a vehicle the angle of impact would be quite steep in essence its like hitting a piece of highly sloped armor, penetration is highly doubtful. I do not believe they issued the "APCR" bullet by this point either. Also exactly how are you achieving these hits? Standing up to get a better depression from the rifle braced on a railing or window... the tank would kill you. There is some embellishment/propaganda here and it would be interesting to get a clearer picture of the whole affair.

-April 17th, 2017

It doesn't seem far-fetched to me. Soldiers did move and depress these weapons, so why is Pavlov's House particularly suspect? I don't know whether Panzer gun elevation angles were as you say (a quick googling was inconclusive, maybe you had better luck?). Maybe they were but the terrain prevented them from maneuvering the tanks in the best position, with all the rubble and under heavy shelling. I agree a degree of propaganda from the Russians was likely involved, and a healthy dose of skepticism is welcome -- thankfully a more clear picture of the war has emerged once historians stopped believing *only* in German sources, which tend to exaggerate their efforts and downplay Soviet victories. As it is, Wikipedia is not the place for original research anyway; if reliable Soviet sources said it happened like this, this is what the article must state. The andf (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Building attacked every day

There are a lot of Russian language sources claiming this. This building was at the major crossroad to the river, so to assume this avenue was left alone by the Germans is unrealistic. All the adjacent houses had Russian army as well, so reaching the house was not easy. It was a difficult house to bomb by air because the whole city was in ruins, and picking out one ruin while dodging fire never worked out. Meishern (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Stalingrad: How the Red Army Triumphed

Could I suggest a revision of this article using information found in Michael K. Jones' book Stalingrad: How the Red Army Triumphed which dispels some of the long-standing myths surrounding Pavlov's House. The book provides some of the only new info on this particular aspect of the battle in a long time with about 17 pages dedicated to the subject and testimony from survivors of the building's garrison. LordCraigus (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure yeah great idea. This article reads like myth. It should be written like "so so scholar said X" or "such and such soldier reported .." or "It's long been reported that.. but XYZ has since found .." Green Cardamom (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)маму ебал

A lot of this article appears to be mythical, see: https://warspot.net/312-unknown-stalingrad-pavlov-s-house-anatomy-of-a-legend Pluke (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation For Attack Everyday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyQ3sRU9pbc#t=7m35s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sioux90 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)