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)

Oh man, some actual replies. Me and the MOS agree that the infobox should fully summarize the article, not require further reading, and that the table of contents will already provide folks with easy access to the aftermath section of the article.

The old discussion should be in the article talk page archive, which I think is this here? I also had another crack at this here but without any major replies. I believe this first came up because Operation Barbarossa, one of the most viewed pages on this site had its infobox result section removed entirely for breaking with the MOS, which remains quite silly to me, and is the main reason I keep an eye on this page.

The results section of this page in particular also has a wild history, mostly from people trying to re-characterize Barbarossa as a Tactical Axis victory, all the way back in 2007. This was a Covid rabbit-hole for me, hence my historiography of something so specific as this, but forgive my digression.

Back on topic.

I have grown to be more firmly against the see aftermath result over the years. The MOS, is mostly just trying to make a standard, not the be an end-all be-all justification. Sorry if I made it seem that way, I was pretty sure this would go without replies again, so I kept it short in my early post.

So I think see aftermath by itself, is not in keeping with the other articles of this importance on this site. I think the classic example these days is Case Blue, which is another major German operation in the Soviet Union, which is summarized as an Axis operational failure, and does not point the reader to the aftermath section, even with an imminent Soviet Counteroffensive just sitting there for folks to read about. Another good one would be Operation 25, which silos off to other articles for further reading, but doesn't direct the reader to the article's own aftermath. The World War II page, also follows the Operation 25 model, or perhaps the other way around. A counterpoint would be this, but even then it qualifies the result as a Union victory before linking internally. I think the Gettysburg model is messy, but acceptable. That said, I'm not sure that Gettysburg and Barbarossa are of comparable importance. I'm sure there are examples of smaller battles that silo off to their own aftermath, but for something as well-trafficked and important as Barbarossa, I think the clarity is valuable. Having a concrete result of Axis failure presents the article the most accurately in my opinion, there is little to support any other result of Barbarossa, and if people are interested in its aftermath, then it is a click away.

Just my two cents though, great to write this out and look forward to hearing back! I'm glad we have a common interest in conveying this event to folks accurately. Xenomorph 001 (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey! Thank you for your response!

I don't have much to say, but I will say a few things. First of all, I do still think the most appropriate guideline to use is the one specifically attached to this conflict infobox, not the general MOS because obviously the guideline specifically for this infobox is a lot more in depth on it.

And I'll agree, I'm not a fan of See aftermath either, but it seems to be the only appropriate result if "strategic failure" is out of the picture. I really think it should stay See aftermath, but I'd like the results to be the first thing mentioned. Obviously Aftermath is always a click away, but the thing is it's much more likely to be clicked if it's in the infobox.

And I'm not a fan of comparing this to other articles, cause I could easily just make a counter-argument of "all of the pages have it wrong then and should be updated".

Sorry if this is a poor response, I'm currently on mobile walking around so perhaps this was a bad time to respond, but it sums up my thoughts on the matter. Setergh (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess my main question would be what is wrong with the current result? You mention a "strategic failure," but what would you rewrite the results section to ideally; free from rules?

When I read this article, to me it comes across as a clear Axis failure to knock the Soviet Union out of the war in one stroke, and since the article's timeline does not include the Soviet Winter Counteroffensive, I don't see a reason to change it to any kind of Soviet victory. If the answer is it's complicated; then I would reread the article and take in to account that this is describing an Axis offensive operation; whose goal was to defeat the Soviet Union, and it failed; it need not be overcomplicated from that.

As for comparing to other articles; I would suggest that if you find most articles to have systemic issues with their results sections then that should be a conversation topic either with the Military History Project, or in the Militaryinfobox MOS talk section.

At the end of the day, I suppose I don't really think see results is right for this article, when the result seems quite clear to me.

Thank you for your response, and I look forward to hearing back! Xenomorph 001 (talk) 01:31, 22 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.
• 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.
• 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 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)

Here is the proposed revision, for the convenience of editors here:

Operation Barbarossa was the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and several of its European Axis allies starting on 22 June 1941, during World War II. More than 3.8 million Axis troops invaded the western Soviet Union along a 2,900-kilometer (1,800 mi) front, with the main goal of capturing territory up to a line between Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan (A-A line). The attack became the largest and costliest military offensive in history, with around 10 million combatants taking part and over 8 million casualties by the end of the operation on 5 December 1941. It marked a major escalation of World War II, opening the Eastern Front—the largest and deadliest land theatre of war in history—and bringing the Soviet Union into the Allied powers.

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. In the two years leading up to the invasion, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed political and economic pacts for strategic purposes. Following the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina in July 1940, the German High Command began planning an invasion of the country, which was approved by Adolf Hitler in December. 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.

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 Center, 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.

The failure of Operation Barbarossa reversed the fortunes of Nazi Germany. Operationally, it achieved significant victories and occupied some of the most important economic regions of the Soviet Union, captured millions of prisoners, and inflicted heavy casualties. The German high command anticipated a quick collapse of resistance as in the invasion of Poland, but instead the Red Army absorbed the German Wehrmacht's strongest blows and bogged it down in a war of attrition for which Germany was unprepared. Following the heavy losses and logistical strain of Barbarossa, German forces could no longer attack along the entire front, and their subsequent operations—such as Case Blue in 1942 and Operation Citadel in 1943—ultimately failed.

— Goszei (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, perhaps should say a tiny bit more about the Battle of Moscow though. Setergh (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Most of that seems fine, but there are some syntax issues with the following paragraph:

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 Center, 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.

It would read cleaner and more complete as:

The invasion began on 22 June 1941 with a massive ground and air assault, resulting in large territorial gains for the Nazis and their allies. The main part of Army Group South invaded from occupied Poland on 22 June and on 2 July was joined by a combination of German and Romanian forces attacking from Romania. 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 on 8 September 1941, began a siege of Leningrad accompanied by Finnish forces, which ultimately lasted until 1944. Army Group Center, the strongest of the three, captured Smolensk in late July 1941 before beginning its drive on Moscow on 2 October. Facing logistical problems with supply, slowed by muddy terrain, not fully outfitted for Russia's brutal winter, and coping with determined Soviet resistance, Army Group Center's offensive stalled at the city's outskirts by 5 December, at which point the Soviets began a major counteroffensive.

Mind you, there are a lot of other editors who may see these edits differently or the trimming too deletionist, so reaching consensus may take some time. --Obenritter (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your additions, and have implemented a tentative consensus based on this discussion. — Goszei (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

rephrasing the part related to the Holocaust in the lead proposal

I suggest rephrasing this paragraph (below) because its phrasing could give the impression that the Holocaust is solely tied to Jewish victims. I suggest rephrasing it (as shown below) to integrate the extermination of the Slavic population into the Holocaust's context. Thoughts?

−

The German armies eventually captured five million Soviet [[Red Army]] troops and deliberately [[German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war|starved to death or otherwise killed]] 3.3 million Soviet prisoners of war, and millions of civilians, as the "[[Hunger Plan]]" worked to solve German food shortages and exterminate the Slavic population through starvation. [[Einsatzgruppen|Mass shootings]] and [[Gas chamber|gassing operations]], carried out by German death squads or willing collaborators, murdered over a million [[Soviet Jews]] as part of [[the Holocaust]].

+

The German armies eventually captured five million Soviet [[Red Army]] troops and deliberately [[German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war|starved to death or otherwise killed]] 3.3 million Soviet prisoners of war, alongside millions of civilians, as the "[[Hunger Plan]]" worked to solve German food shortages and [[Generalplan Ost|exterminate the Slavic population]] through starvation. These actions, combined with [[Einsatzgruppen|mass shootings]] and [[Gas chamber|gassing operations]], carried out by German death squads or willing collaborators, also targeted and murdered over a million [[Soviet Jews]] as part of [[the Holocaust]]'s broader genocidal campaign.

☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 23:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)