The Sniper Duel Refuted--or S.S. Colonel Heinz Thorvald ??
Dave So
149. Zaitsev, a shepherd from the Ural mountains, was revered by his
comrades for his skill with a rifle. News of each new kill was quickly
passed along the front-line troops. So successful was he that he trained
younger snipers, and a new military doctrine was founded, known as
"sniperism". But German military documents have no record of a Major Koenig
fighting a duel with Zaitsev, says Beevor. "There is no trace of this famous
incident in any reports on the snipers' activities sent by the political
department of Stalingrad front, which certainly would have been sent back.
Nobody has found any trace of the so-called Major Koenig, commandant of a
sniper school, who was sent to Stalingrad."
SEE ALSO:
http://www.snipercountry.com/hottips/SnipersWWII.htm
http://www.snipercountry.com/sniphistory.htm
And, this sounds familiar:
War of the Rats : A Novel
by David L. Robbins
David L. Robbins grimly recounts the merciless determination of the German
and Soviet combatants of the battle of Stalingrad in War of the Rats.
Drawing from real events, Robbins tells the story of one of the battle's
most pivotal contests: the famous sniper duel between Chief Master Sergeant
Vasily Zaitsev and S.S. Colonel Heinz Thorvald. Zaitsev, a cunning Siberian
hunter hardened by Stalingrad's butchery, has formed an impromptu sniper
school in the midst of the battle, training his comrades to kill with
implacable efficiency. The hundreds of bodies left in their wake prompt the
Nazi leadership to send Thorvald, the cold-blooded master of the Wehrmacht's
elite sniper academy, to assassinate the Soviet prodigy. Robbins's
nerve-wracking prose depicts the two adversaries as they pursue their
private war across a twisted hellscape of burning tanks and gutted
factories. In the novel's most impressive section, Robbins leaps between the
thoughts of Zaitsev and Thorvald as they struggle, in their final battle, to
put the crosshairs on each other's head. A war novel that reveals the shrewd
savagery in human nature, War of the Rats vividly reveals why the Germans
referred to the fighting at Stalingrad as Der Rattenkrieg.
Dave So
lose his identity ??
Adam Kippes
> In the flick, the Major's dog tags were taken by his general---perhaps to
> lose his identity ??
That wouldn't affect whether he existed in official documents.
-- AK
--
adam....@pobox.com
PGP keys available from servers
Dave So
fact to bear, that there were no records of his existence....would the
Germans have lost his identity/purged the records ??
"Adam Kippes" <adam....@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:mgncbtc1d4vb3s2v5...@4ax.com...
Henri H. Arsenault
<dav...@home.com> wrote:
> In the flick, the Major's dog tags were taken by his general---perhaps to
> lose his identity ??
Yes, he says that if Thorvald is killed by Zaitzev, he doesn't want the
Soviets to know it. He uses the word "anonymous".
Henri
Adam Kippes
> I guess that's true..was thinking that was the way the movie brought that
> fact to bear, that there were no records of his existence....would the
> Germans have lost his identity/purged the records ??
I suppose so. But does anyone know if this character really existed?
Even if anonymous, was someone actually sent from the German sniper
school for a special mission, etc.?
George Sprague
Adam Kippes wrote:
>
> In <6btt6.121366$t67.1...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, Dave So wrote:
>
> > I guess that's true..was thinking that was the way the movie brought that
> > fact to bear, that there were no records of his existence....would the
> > Germans have lost his identity/purged the records ??
>
> I suppose so. But does anyone know if this character really existed?
> Even if anonymous, was someone actually sent from the German sniper
> school for a special mission, etc.?
>
> -- AK
OK folks, its called Hollywood.
George
Vor
1) William Craig's book "Enemy at the Gates" makes only short anecdotal
reference to Zaitsev, Tania, Sahsa, and Konig. It should be known that
William Craig is a noted & respected historian who did the
impossible-wrote a grunt's view of Stalingrad during the height of the
Cold War. He did not have access to Soviet documents, but relied on
live witness testimonies to write his stories. As far as I know, the
Russian characters existed. The debate only revolves around the German
major Konig. It should be mentioned that Chuikov's book makes mention
of Zaitsev, but not the duel.
2) It was future authors who took the sniper ball & ran with it. I
haven't read "War of the Rats" but it sounds like the author
freehandedly expanded the story which served as the nucleus for this
movie.
3) Beevor, who the press has deemed the sole authority on Stalingrad has
used the spotlight to refute this story as propaganda. Well, he is not
the authority & I'd like to see more than a 'lack' of written evidence
to disprove the story. Remember, Craig was working with memories of
live witnesses from 1942. If Beevor wants to push the propaganda
theory, he is obligated to provide factual proof that would refute
Craig's research, such as a Soviet HQ memo or something.
We know that Zaitzev, Tania, & Sasha exisited. There in fact were
effective Soviet snipers at Stalingrad. It is not a great leap of
imagination to think the Germans would themselves have assembled sniper
killer teams to counter. It is also possible that Craig's witness got
the name wrong. Who knows.
What makes Stalingrad such a hard battle to nail down is the fact that
most German 6th Army records fell into Soviet hands in 1943. Few were
flown out of the pocket. They were not destroyed because the 6th Army
was never given orders to capitulate. The Russians to this day have not
shared them with western historians. On top of that, the Russians have
only recently started to share their own records with us, and sparingly
at that.
Lastly, who cares, it's still a great movie. If you want true history,
read a book.
Mark
Gault
"Vor" <vo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3AB6D1D9...@pacbell.net...
Exactly. The movie is simply entertainment with a historical setting, not a
documentary about Stalingrad. Enjoyable for what it is but nothing more.
Adam Kippes
> Also take into account that some historians may have an anti-Soviet agenda
> and will want to downplay the heroics of the Soviets.
And some just the opposite.
> Is not Napolean credited with saying: "History is the fable that is agreed
> upon by the winning side"?
Yes, but... the Soviets were also the winning side, remember?
-- AK
Henri H. Arsenault
adam....@pobox.com wrote:
> I suppose so. But does anyone know if this character really existed?
> Even if anonymous, was someone actually sent from the German sniper
> school for a special mission, etc.?
>e
Apparently not, according to German records; the argument in support is
Koenig's alleged telescope in the museum with Zaitzev's rifle, but that
could be any German sniper's telescope.
The arguments against are:
1) There are no German records of this sniper or of this incident or of
any sniper being called in from Germany to eliminate Zaitzev (yes the
records could have been lost or destroyed, although the Germans had no
tendancy to destroy embarrasing records);
2) There are no known Soviet records of the time reporting this incident;
considering the importance that the Soviets gave to Zaitzev, it seems
logical tghat they would have exploited this incident to the hilt for
propaganda purposes, and there should be exchanges of documents between
Moscow and Stalingrad.
3) It seems highly unlikely that the Germans would have brought in a
sniper all the way from Germany, they had plenty of snipers in Russia.
So in my view, this incident has all the markings of an "urban legend".
Henri
Henri H. Arsenault
<jp...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
> OK folks, its called Hollywood.
>
Actually this is a French movie...
Henri
George Sprague
Erm, I do apologize...
George
Shawn Wilson
"Henri H. Arsenault" <ars...@phy.ulaval.ca> wrote in message
news:arseno-2003...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca...
> The arguments against are:
> 1) There are no German records of this sniper or of this incident or of
> any sniper being called in from Germany to eliminate Zaitzev (yes the
> records could have been lost or destroyed, although the Germans had no
> tendancy to destroy embarrasing records);
>
> 2) There are no known Soviet records of the time reporting this incident;
> considering the importance that the Soviets gave to Zaitzev, it seems
> logical tghat they would have exploited this incident to the hilt for
> propaganda purposes, and there should be exchanges of documents between
> Moscow and Stalingrad.
>
> 3) It seems highly unlikely that the Germans would have brought in a
> sniper all the way from Germany, they had plenty of snipers in Russia.
>
> So in my view, this incident has all the markings of an "urban legend".
Don't forget-
4) How impossible it is to find one specific enemy soldier in the middle of
a battle as large as Stalingrad.
Vor
been in the 116th Division early in the fight and that the 116 Division
does not appear on the 6th Army OOB?
THIS HISTORICAL INACCURACY OF THIS FILM MAKES ME WANT TO VOMIT. WHAT DO
THEY THINK WE ARE, A BUNCH OF SAPS?! EXCUSE ME,,,WHAT'S THE POINT OF
BLOWING 80 MIL ON A LAVISH STATE OF THE ART SET IF THEY'RE GOING TO
OVERLOOK THIS DETAIL!! OH THE HUMANITY!!
HAUFFFF!
Adam Kippes
> Has anybody noticed that Maj. Koenig referred to his dead son having
> been in the 116th Division early in the fight and that the 116 Division
> does not appear on the 6th Army OOB?
Just curious, but was that really in the movie? The only 116th division
I've ever heard of was the Greyhounds, a panzer unit. It wasn't even
formed until 1944 and, as far as I know, spent its entire career on the
Western Front.
ButSpk
killed fighting with the 116th division. I did not hear him indicate that
the 116th division fought at Stalingrad.
I thought it was an excellent movie far superior to Private Ryan as far a
story and detail-.
Martin Rapier
<st0hbt426mbn2ftim...@4ax.com>...
> In <3AB8672F...@pacbell.net>, Vor wrote:
>
> > Has anybody noticed that Maj. Koenig referred to his dead son having
> > been in the 116th Division early in the fight and that the 116 Division
> > does not appear on the 6th Army OOB?
>
> Just curious, but was that really in the movie? The only 116th division
> I've ever heard of was the Greyhounds, a panzer unit. It wasn't even
> formed until 1944 and, as far as I know, spent its entire career on the
> Western Front.
The 16th Infantry Division became the 16th Motorised Infantry Division in
1941 and fought in the Stalingrad campaign in the Caucasus in 1942,
managing to escape encirclement. It was later reformed as the 116th Panzer
Division!
Perhaps Major Koenig had the gift of foresight? There were also 106th &
160th Infantry Divisions, so poss the division name was misheard?
Cheers
Martin.
Vor
Mark
Martin Rapier
> Nice one Martin, anyhow, guys, I was being facetious. Jeez.
I gathered that, I was just having a bit of fun.
Who knows, I might even get to see this film one day!
Cheers
Martin.
Joerg Lissa
But i guess the 161st ID wasn't also at Stalingrad in 1942/43
Joerg
"ButSpk" <But...@email.msn.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:#gr6THhsAHA.273@cpmsnbbsa07...
ButSpk
point in the movie other than establishing Maj. Koenig's son was killed in
the war.
sergio
Adam Kippes wrote:
> In <7o2ebtgmpg4rivmou...@4ax.com>, Capn Queeg wrote:
>
> > Also take into account that some historians may have an anti-Soviet agenda
> > and will want to downplay the heroics of the Soviets.
>
> And some just the opposite.
*here* in the West are more common those that want to downplay..
Adam Kippes
> > And some just the opposite.
> *here* in the West are more common those that want to downplay..
What half-way house for illiterate morons do you inhabit?
steve podleski
"George Sprague" <jp...@nospam.home.com
> Adam Kippes wrote:
>, Dave So wrote:
> > > I guess that's true..was thinking that was the way the movie brought
that
> > > fact to bear, that there were no records of his existence....would the
> > > Germans have lost his identity/purged the records ??
> >
> > I suppose so. But does anyone know if this character really existed?
> > Even if anonymous, was someone actually sent from the German sniper
> > school for a special mission, etc.?
This could be another good episode for the X-files :-)
agri...@tampabay.rr.com.nospam
> Apparently not, according to German records; the argument in support is
> Koenig's alleged telescope in the museum with Zaitzev's rifle, but that
> could be any German sniper's telescope.
But what if it couldn't be just "any" German sniper's telescope? The
museum piece in question is a rare 6x scope (or so the people who
actually saw it say). An "any" German sniper would be usually equipped
with 3.8x or a crappy 1.5x scope or 4x scope later in war.
H.
Henri H. Arsenault
agri...@tampabay.rr.com.nospam wrote:
I'm not saying it isn't, but it IS the only evidence...
Henri
Peter Fisla
"George Sprague" <jp...@nospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:3AB68E33...@nospam.home.com...
I liked that comment George, spot on ! :)
Peter
steve podleski
<agri...@tampabay.rr.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:3AC14D80...@tampabay.rr.com.nospam...
According to Senich book on German Snipers, 6x scopes were general issue.