Talk:Operation Barbarossa

Add independent state of Croatia

can someone sdd independent state of Croatia? 185.246.164.82 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No “Finnish units” and no “Finnish Army of Karelia” participated in Barbarossa in June, 1941

A correction needed here: “Accompanying the German forces during the initial invasion were Finnish and Romanian units as well.”

This is a bold lie.

Finnish volunteers did participate in Barbarossa, most of these in the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking, but there were no separate Finnish units during the initial invasion or later. All the Finnish units fought as part of the Finnish Army and none as a unit of the German Army.

The volunteers of the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking came from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, the Netherlands and Belgium, so we can hardly speak about a “Finnish unit”.

Also no “Finnish Army of Karelia” took part in Barbarossa in June, 1941. The Finnish Army of Karelia started its counter-offensive only on July 10. This defensive resulted from Soviet air strikes two weeks earlier and had nothing to do with Barbarossa. 2001:99A:200A:E800:21DF:5FE7:9B60:A0B5 (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Change end date to December 8

I don't think this should be too controversial. Yes, there was a Soviet counteroffensive on December 5-6. And it proved to be enormous. But Operation Barbarossa was officially ended with Fuhrer directive #39 on December 8th. Barbarossa didn't magically end when Zhukov issued the orders to counterattack. It forced Hitler to end it - and the date for that directive was December 8th Zagreus99 (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Results Section

Hey there, just checking in the results section of this article like I occasionally do. At the moment I am reverting it back to the Axis strategic failure statement, per the MOS which recommends not redirecting within the article, and I think that takes precedence over the infobox rules. The infobox is a little microcosm of the article and I think it is important to make it clear the Barbarossa is an Axis failure, as that is how the article reads. That said, the infobox is technically in violation, but this discussion was had, something like 5 years ago at this point, and it was agreed that a result was preferable to no result. If there is a change in consensus, this is a good moment to bring it up. Sadly, this silly topic never seems to arouse the spirits of people enough to comment. Oh well. Thanks for reading, looking forward to any opinions. Xenomorph 001 (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

I quite honestly don't know much about MOS itself, but surely when it comes to the military infobox WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX is more important? I mean, it's a guideline specifically designed for the military infobox, MOS only describes the general manual of style, it's quite broad. Personally though, this really is just a wikipedia guideline error, as two infobox guidelines go against each other. Either way, I think the guidelines specifically designed for the military conflict infobox should be the ones used, but if you have a counter-argument I'd be glad to hear.

And as for the archive from supposedly 5 years ago, I did check for them when I made the change, couldn't find any relating to this exact change, but it'd be nice if you could link it!

@Obenritter I don't understand the rather douchey summary for your edit. And just cause it's a GA-class article does not mean changes cannot be made. And I mean, it got GA class status in 2015 and failed A-class listing twice if that matters any bit. Setergh (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Obenritter I'm so sorry, I thought you reverted my edits for some reason. My mistake, don't think you should have anything to do with this conversation then. Setergh (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It was me who reverted somebody's Summary edits, which undid aspects of the previous Summary. GA articles typically merit some discussion before making content (vice copy-edit) changes, whether Summary or Infobox from my understanding. BTW - you are not wrong that the operation was an "Axis failure" as that is the appropriate characterization. --Obenritter (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that you reverted other edits, not mine.

As for you considering me to be right, you mean the other person, not me. I agree that the operation was obviously an Axis strategic failure, but due to other guidelines think it should be left to See Aftermath. However, I have already began to talk about this discovery of the contradicting guidelines on the infobox military template, as this is obviously a problem which needs settling. Setergh (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Woops, further clarification:

The MOS for infobox purpose states avoid links, not do not link. Obviously it advises against it, but doesn't fully disallow it. On the other hand, the guidelines specifically for this infobox recommend (or even perhaps enforce) for "See aftermath" to be used.

Therefore, I think See aftermath should be used, although perhaps the first line of the aftermath should talk about how it was an overall Axis strategic failure with a source attached to it. Setergh (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed lead improvements

I think that the article's lead could be improved in several ways, namely:

• The current lead lacks any description of the events which occurred during the operation itself (such as military formations involved, important battles, or cities captured), except for a single mention that the Battle of Moscow took place "near the end of 1941". This is a glaring oversight. Here is a draft proposal: The invasion began on 22 June 1941 with a massive ground and air assault, and initially made large territorial gains. The main part of Army Group South invaded from occupied Poland on 22 June, and was joined by German and Romanian forces attacking from Romania on 2 July. Kiev was captured on 19 September, which was followed by the captures of Kharkov on 24 October and Rostov-on-Don on 20 November, by which time most of Crimea had been captured. Army Group North overran the Baltic lands and began a siege of Leningrad with Finnish forces on 8 September, which ultimately lasted until 1944. Army Group Centre, the strongest of the three, captured Smolensk in late July before beginning a drive on Moscow on October 2. This reached the city's outskirts before ending on 5 December, when the Soviets began a counteroffensive.
• In connection with the last point, the current lead uses too much space to describe parts of the war besides Barbarossa itself. Things that apply to the Eastern Front as a whole and information on Generalplan Ost and crimes against POWs should be mentioned, but condensed. Here is a draft paragraph: The operation, code-named after the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa ("red beard"), put into action Nazi Germany's ideological goals of eradicating communism and conquering the western Soviet Union to repopulate it with Germans under Generalplan Ost, which planned for the extermination of the native Slavic peoples by mass deportation to Siberia, Germanisation, enslavement, and genocide. The material targets of the invasion were the agricultural and mineral resources of territories such as Ukraine and Byelorussia and oil fields in the Caucasus. The Axis eventually captured five million Soviet Red Army troops on the Eastern Front and deliberately starved to death or otherwise killed 3.3 million prisoners of war, as well as millions of civilians. Mass shootings and gassing operations, carried out by German paramilitary death squads and collaborators, murdered over a million Soviet Jews as part of the Holocaust.
• There is no mention of Stalin's preparation (or lack thereof) for the invasion, which helps explain to the reader why it so quickly captured large swathes of Soviet territory. This is a major part of any summary of Barbarossa. I propose a variation of: In early 1941, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, despite receiving intelligence about an imminent attack, did not order a mobilization of the Red Army, fearing that it might provoke Germany. As a result, Soviet forces were largely caught unprepared when the invasion began, with many units positioned poorly and understrength.

I recently attempted to make changes along these lines in this revision, but it was reverted by User:Obenritter. I understand that the article is GA-rated, but an examination of the version that passed GA in 2015 (Special:Permalink/662629652) shows that the lead (and article) was very different, as well as what I consider deficient in many of the same areas. What do other editors think? — Goszei (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

References