Talk:Operation Barbarossa/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Failure to aim directly for Moscow a strategic mistake?

This is what German generals believed both during and after the war, but do historians generally agree? Alan Clark seems not to (but his book is quite old), nor does Bevin Alexander IIRC. Also the comment that Hitler was more interested in destroying the Red Army than in specific territorial gains seems off. I believe that was standard German army doctrine, whereas Hitler was more interested in economic objectives. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Many military historians agree that it was a strategic error to delay the attack on Moscow.--Obenritter (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Really? I was not getting this impression from various sources. If the Wehrmacht pushed onto Moscow, they would have an undefeated South Western Front on their flank / rear. Moscow was being fortified since July and it's not a certainty that the German forces could have taken it, or effectively encircled it. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This fact does not suggest they would have won the war as a result, it was simply a strategic mistake because it gave Stalin time to refortify. Hitler made a fatal error by delaying the drive towards Moscow by diverting needed Panzers to the southern front towards Kiev, which was stalled. What many people fail to realize is that Moscow was THE railway transportation hub of the entire Russian rail system. If the German generals had been allowed to press for Moscow sooner, they could have cut off the city and its rail connections which would have severely hampered the Russians ability to move materials and caused serious logistical problems. Glantz argues of course (like you contend), that had the Russians troops not been occupied at Kiev, this may have changed the situation as well on the German south-western flank. Still, the Russian forces and equipment were qualitatively inferior at this stage, so the Germans very well could have taken Moscow otherwise (siding with German historians here since the facts speak for themselves -- the German forces captured over 665,000 troops near the Kiev cauldron). What makes you think these forces (who were categorically defeated) would have repulsed a more concentrated assault? Anyway, it is all opinion at this point but many agree that while it was likely a strategic mistake to delay the attack on Moscow by redirecting forces, the overall outcome remains the same. Logistical obstacles kept the German under-supplied, they would have still been dealing with severe weather for which they were not equipped and had Moscow been taken, the Russians would have just retreated deeper inland and attacked from the South and East. The Germans could not match the Soviet industrial capacity nor could they overcome the supply stretch deep into the Soviet interior. What we end up with in the end is a prolonged war and not some counterfactual reality where the Nazis outright defeat the Soviets. --Obenritter (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that shows most military historians believe it was a strategic mistake? If not, then we should present the various opinions instead. As an aside, I believe Heinrici wrote after the war that an immediate drive on Moscow was the only chance Germany had, but it would have been much more of a gamble than the generals had realised at the time. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course we should present the various opinions. Having read hundreds of books on the Third Reich, a considerable number in German - my understanding and recollection is that many historians view the delay on Moscow as a strategic error. Heinrici's comment even supports that notion to a degree; when he asserts "an immediate drive on Moscow was the only chance Germany had" but they failed to do it -- doesn't that constitute a strategic error? By the way, Stalin even later claimed that he sacrificed three-quarters of a million men on the southwest front with the intention to delay the German assault on Moscow. That supports the historians who see the delay as a pretty significant error. Anyway - perhaps "most" historians is too strong; many would be more appropriate. Many disagree as well. As you'll note from my commentary above, that did not change the fact that the Russians would have regrouped anyway and Germany was doomed. This is especially the case when Germany declared war on America just a few months later. Nonetheless, the mistake at Moscow notwithstanding, the greatest error made by the Germans was their failure to co-opt the assistance of the Ukrainians and other peoples who were otherwise disillusioned with the Soviet system under Stalin.--Obenritter (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Much of what the German generals wrote post-1945 was of the "blame Hitler" school of thought. Very convenient for them to blame the hated dead guy, who could not of course respond. That doesn't mean that everything they wrote was nonsense, it's simply a word of caution.

The Soviet economy was quite a bit smaller than the German, so it is not correct to say the "Germans could not match the Soviet industrial capacity"; actually it was the other way round. But the Soviets' military/industrial system management was much better at converting raw materials and labor into combat power than the Germans were.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm in the process of checking the books I have on this subject. Mercatante argues that the correct course of action would have been to focus on Leningrad, Ukraine and the Caucasus, just as Hitler had wanted from the beginning. I don't know how serious a scholar Mercatante is however. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

No need to beat this horse much longer Martijm. A very strong case on how the Germans "could have won" is made by Russell H. S. Stolfi (1992) Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted. Nonetheless, I read plenty of earlier studies which were likely tainted by the German general's view (Liddel-Hart comes to mind) of the situation, pro-German authors writing about their own countrymen in the sixties and seventies, and of course, the whole era of the Invincible Wehrmacht which tainted what would have been otherwise objective studies. More and more modern scholars are shedding doubt on the soundness and feasibility of the attack on Moscow. Robert Citino makes a great case that the efforts around Kiev were remarkable and a stunning success, which in his opinion validated the approach Hitler took. Still - I am not entirely sold that they could not have captured Moscow - the question for me is "at what cost and to what end?" given their supply and weather problems. I'd rather see scholarly editors like yourself improving the article (like replacing all the TV documentary citations) in lieu of debating "what ifs."Obenritter (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to keep notice: the IHR is a negationist institution and any paper that gives even 0.1% credibility to the pre-emptive strike hypothesis should be take as serious as one claiming the Moon is made of cheese. Bertdrunk (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. DMorpheus2 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bertdrunk: -- great point, I should have made that disclaimer immediately so thanks for that. I just stumbled across this and found its content worth mentioning since we were debating "what ifs". Nonetheless -- given the often controversial nature and offensive content the journal publishes -- I have removed that link accordingly.--Obenritter (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Twenty years ago (and earlier) this issue would be a completely worthy point. But thanks to the opening of Soviet archives in the 1990s, and the info they held subsequently making their way into English military history literature over the past 10–15 years, the assessment above becomes problematic. There are several piece of information that undermines the entire notion that an attack on Moscow in July/August would have produced a different outcome. The Germans may have captured Moscow, but they would be just as exhausted as they were in the real battle, and they will have to winter in a ruined city and still be forced to face fresh reserves from Siberia. Historians who have wider access to Soviet archives (and conversant with the language), like Glantz, over the past decade have hammered the untenability of the argument (that the diversion to Kiev was the cause of failure) from almost every angle imaginable. EyeTruth (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

And @EyeTruth: drops the mic !--Obenritter (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I share EyeTruth's understanding here. Glantz and the other major recent authors on this topic tend to argue that the Axis forces simply weren't capable of achieving the goals of Barbarossa in light of the capabilities of the Soviet Union, and there wasn't an alternate set of German decisions which could have delivered victory. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

After rereading some of the books I have on the subject, I get the impression that there is less debate on the merits of an attack on Moscow than I thought. The discussion appears to be more about whether Hitler's diversion was the cause of Germany's defeat, which is not the same thing. It's possible to believe the diversion was a mistake, but that Germany would still have lost the war even if they had aimed straight for Moscow. This appears to be what Glantz believes. I'll keep reading and see if I can find a summary of the debate somewhere. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that input @Mmeijeri:. That's been my stance for a long time even though I must confess as a student of history, older than many of you perhaps, my traditional education about this battle was tainted by the German (and British I might add) authors of many years ago. It's always interesting to see progress and deeper comprehension of historical events thanks to enduring research. Ideology and its philosophical influence on history was my focus area so I was not surprised when the Wehrmacht exhibit first appeared in Germany (which wiped away its "clean" myth), with its now permanent, Verbrechen der Wehrmacht. Dimensionen des Vernichtungskrieges 1941–1944 (Crimes of the German Wehrmacht: Dimensions of a War of Annihilation 1941-1944) manifestation in Berlin. Much of their worst was perpetrated during the course of Barbarossa as we all know now. Nonetheless, I appreciate the respectful debate and research that many of you have put into this article.--Obenritter (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Barbarossa invasion was planned for one or two months earlier than it subsequently occurred, the delay being due to the Battle for Greece, and the delay meant that the then-late attack on Russia dragged on into the Russian winter, which the German attackers had originally planned to avoid, as they did not wish to make the same mistake as Napoleon. As a result, the Wehrmacht troops had no winter clothing, nor low temperature oils and greases for their vehicles or aircraft which froze up and became immobile, leaving them only their horse-drawn transport. In addition, some men froze to death or became unfit due to frost bite. This onset of the Russian winter stopped Barbarossa stone dead in its tracks, giving the Soviets time to withdraw to the east and re-organise their industry, much of which had been over-run. While this was taking place Stalin appealed to the British and Americans for aid, which was sent via the Arctic convoys to tide them over until the factories could be re-setup in the east.

Barbarossa was originally planned mostly to take place during the Russian summer, which is why the Germans did not see fit to provide any winter clothing for the troops involved, as they would not need any. The Soviet's industry was almost all contained in areas subsequently captured by the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS, and if the operation had taken place as planned, the Soviets would have lost most, if not all of their war-fighting capability with no way of replacing it, all while facing a still-advancing German army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Closing discussion initiated by banned HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bulgaria assisted with Barbarossa by keeping parts of Greece and Yugoslavia occupied from 1941-44. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:80CC:BAB3:726B:DD1D (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)) Bulgaria was not engaged in Barbarossa. They should not be flagged as a participant. Anything after Dec 1941 is irrelevant to this point. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Bulgaria also kept Axis pressure on Turkey and - for its own sake - kept an eye on Romania, as Bulgaria had occupied part of Romania in 1940. Spain should certainly be listed as Franco sent thousands of soldiers to fight against the USSR in 1941. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:80CC:BAB3:726B:DD1D (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)) The case against including Bulgaria is simply not in question. They neither declared war nor invaded the USSR in 1941. Therefore they were not participants in Op Barbarossa, regardless of what other favors they may have done for the Nazis. It's an open-and-shut case. I admit Spain is far less clear-cut, since they did send one Infantry Division into the campaign. Still: they neither declared war nor committed large forces, and few RSes will list Spain as a true combatant. Spain's contribution was trivial both in terms of overall forces engaged and in terms of Spain's capability. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Error correction request in "Northwest Russia" section

Since the article is protected, i wish to change "negation" to "negotiations", — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dost17 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please ignore the talk. I was able to fix it. Dost17 (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

My Edit on "War Crimes" section mentioning "Wansee Conference" was reverted

Yes, I agree that "Wansee Conference" is not part of Operation Barbarossa. Exactly so is the discussion between Himmler and Hitler on 18 December 1941 which is mentioned on the same section and is part of the article. I can not understand how a "note" taken in a private discussion can be more important than "THE" pivotal event of Wansee Conference in which the fate of the JEWS was discussed ? But still, you are the boss...

I think the 'aftermath' section should probably confine itself to events that were clearly determined or very, very heavily influenced by how Barbarossa turned out. Obviously the holocaust itself falls into that category because, had the Germans not invaded the USSR, many fewer jews would have been exposed/vulnerable to the nazis. A link to the holocaust thus should be there. Was the conference itself prompted somehow by the campaign of invasion or would it have happened anyway? I honestly have no idea. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark Roseman (2003) asserts on pages 31–32 of The Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution that, "...on the eve of Operation Barbarossa...the Nazis were still committed to finding a territory to which to deport Europe's Jews." However Roseman adds that although Operation Barbarossa added an imperative for murder and altered the tone of the war, it is unclear if the systematic plan to eliminate the Jews was part of the original plan which "later widened into something more comprehensive?"(p. 43). Given the uncertainty here and the existence of the Madagascar Plan in this picture, I think we should support Eye Truth's revert.--Obenritter (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Anders?

Currently we have the following content: In particular, relations between Soviets and Poles, whose country was earlier invaded by the former, changed, allowing for the formation of Polish army units within the Soviet Union, such as that of General Anders, to support the Soviet war-effort.

This is mixed up. The Anders-led units were virtually POWs and *left* the USSR to fight alongside the western Allies. The later Polish LWP forces under Berling that fought on the eastern front were loyal to a different government and, organizationally, were completely separate. Polish-Soviet relations were much more complex than this sentence implies and indeed I think it obscures more than it explains. Thoughts? DMorpheus2 (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@DMorpheus2: This unregistered editor's contribution added nothing worthwhile to the Historical Significance section anyway (not surprising given the errors introduced) so I reverted it.--Obenritter (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Obenritter: Thanks, that's helpful. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Not a turning point

Closing discussion initiated by banned HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Germany never had any chance of winning World War II as it did not have the resources like oil and grain to fight a long war against the British Empire. (2A00:23C4:638A:5000:789B:3661:8D12:B380 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)) Paradoxically, Germany was better off for vital resources, such as oil and grain, under the export arrangements of the August 39 pact, than it got through it's failed expansion in the east. After June 41 it certainly was not strong enough. I would disagree with your point that the BoB 'forced' Hitler to invade the U.S.S.R. Hitler wanted to invade the East, as part of Nazism's core ideology. That Hitler was a rubbish strategist does not take away the rather compelling 'what if' that had Hitler followed the Navy General Staff advice, the Nazis may well have dealt a crippling blow to Great Britain by concentrating on the Middle East and the Med, the taking of Malta and severing the Suez Canal lifeline. This could have been done with the resources Hitler had to hand prior to June 41. Barbarossa sucked the Germans into an unwinnable campaign of attrition while losing the million tons of oil a year plus the precious grain, rubber, strategic rare metals, etc that they were getting from the pact. Irondome (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC) The oil crisis in early 1941 meant Hitler either had to surrender or obtain more oil from the Soviet Union. Stalin would have either resisted the demands, or at least made any increase in oil dependent on increased deliveries of goods that Germany would have been incapable of meeting. Focusing on the Mediterranean in 1941-2 would have allowed Stalin time to rebuild the Red Army, making the Soviet Union a major threat to Germany. The point about Malta and the Suez Canal is irrelevant as Britain had already agreed to give up its empire. (2A00:23C4:638A:5000:684C:239A:B1F1:3E0 (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)) This is not a forum for your (nutty) ideas. Do you have some edit you wish to suggest? DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Great Britain supported the Soviet Union?

The Russian Wikipedia lists Great Britain as providing support to the Soviet Union. Is this true or not?--2601:3C5:8200:B79:61F5:6BEF:583B:D12B (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

See for example "British deliveries to the Soviet Union" at Lend-Lease. Roches (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Rape and sexual assault

Mass rape and sexual assault by German forces during the invasion are well-documented, though it seems that there isn't even a mention of this under 'war crimes' - perhaps there should be something written about this. Mellk (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not put your proposal here, i talk, and we can all discuss? DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Mellk, If you have sources, go ahead and edit the article.EyeTruth (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@ EyeTruth Looks like this has already been added afterwards as 'sexual violence', though it seems that a bit more is possibly needed. I will so try to do so later on, where other related articles also have a good amount of information on this. Mellk (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Casualties

Just a few passing notes, as far as I remember Finland lost about 100 000 men in the 1941 campaign - 25 000 dead and missing and 70 000 wounded. This info is from a finnish history website that I can't seem to find. Anyone knowledgeable in Finnish history of the time period? Also, the military records, used for both German and Soviet casualties are likely deflated - for instance, Ruedeger Overmans claims 302 000 dead for Germany on Eastern front in 1941 (as opposed to 227 000 in the medical reports), while there is no such work on the Soviet side, but considerable criticism of Krivosheev's work by demographers (among other things, he greatly deflated the number of Soviet pow's that perished in 1941) does exist. Barmaglyak (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Floods as the main reason of delay

I have changed the article′s ″the actual invasion date of 22 June 1941 (a 38-day delay) occurred for a number of reasons. Most importantly, an unusually wet winter kept rivers at full flood until late spring″ by de-stressing it as ″the most important″ — in compliance to virtually any secondary or tertiary source on the subject. Nevertheless, I am not certain that even in this form floods should be cited as a reason: Where is in fact any source to support it? Apart from citation of a primary source that fails to directly support the claim.Axxxion (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, the following sentence ″The full floods could have discouraged an earlier attack, even if it was unlikely to have happened before the end of the Balkans Campaign″ appears somewhat vague in meaning and hard to comprehend. As i understand, floods made it impossible to launch the operation earlier than mid-May, but the actual postponement was caused by the Balkans campaign.Axxxion (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Without a direct explicit source, deleting is fine with me. I've never heard that the wet spring was even a reason, let alone a primary one. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Guderian cites the flood-level conditions of the Bug river and surrounding low-lying areas becoming "almost impassable." The point is also made by Bradley & Buell.

Greece did not delay Barbarossa. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Greece had been planned, but the coup in Belgrade changed the overall plan for the Balkan campaign. Anyway, this is what the RS say. Where are sources to justify floods as the main reason?Axxxion (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Guderian is not RS: a primary subjective source. Also, he obviously talks floods make the operation impossible in April. But we talk about delay to June.Axxxion (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with A D Monroe III that we need a concrete secondary source for retaining floods as a reason at all for the delay from May to late June: obviously the sources mentioned are talking about spring, namely April, when the Balkan operation was being executed.Axxxion (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's follow BRD. The promotion of floods was added, reverted, and so we discuss. Editing the article about this while the discussion is going on doesn't look like trying to reach consensus, it looks like EW.

I certainly can't say flooding isn't a reason for delay, just that I haven't seen this in sources, yet. The quote from Guderian is very interesting, but it's a primary source, which generally means it can't be used to make statements in WP's voice. Other sources were mentioned: "Bradley & Buell". I would think we can gather info from all such sources, pro and con, present them here, judge them together, and state flooding's relative importance in the article per DUE -- standard WP stuff. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I too have never come across flooding in German, or perhaps more tellingly, Soviet/Post U.S.S.R era sources. I would say remove provisionally. If a flood (geddit?) of new sources mentioning unusually wet weather is discovered, then we should reconsider. Irondome (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

We have two issues at play here: one is whether delaying the operation from mid-May to late June was fatal to the German goal of taking Moscow. The second issue is the question of what caused the May–June delay.

Making this more complicated is the historiography of the operation, with writers in the 1950s and '60s saying it was the Battle of Greece that caused the delay, while later writers dismiss this conclusion as simplistic, based on wartime comments made by Churchill who was serving the British interest of propping up Greece.

Regarding the May–June delay being fatal at all, there are several respected writers who say that it was not a problem. One of them, Dr. Richard D. Hooker, Jr., writes in the US Army journal Parameters that the Germans expected to get to Moscow by mid-August at their normal rate of advance, starting as they did in late June. Hooker writes, "Aside from the vastness of Russian space and numbers, the German foray into the Balkans in the spring of 1941 is often advanced as a primary cause for the failure of Barbarossa because it delayed the invasion into the early summer. Yet the rates of advance shown throughout the campaign refute this charge handily." Hooker says that flood conditions on the Bug and other rivers and streams in the area of Poland would have made a big problem for the Germans if they had started in May. Hooker says that the Germans, starting in late June, should have taken Moscow in September 1941 if it were not for Hitler's shifting of focus between Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev, and the Caucasus, when it was Moscow that was by far the most important goal.

Clyde Edward Wood writes in Mud: A Military History (Potomac Books, 2006) that flooded fields, streams and rivers were the reason for delay of Operation Barbarossa from mid-May to late June. See pages 30 to 35. He also writes that mud slowed the German advance throughout the operation, until winter froze the ground.

David M. Glantz is a prominent writer who says in Barbarossa Derailed (Helion, 2012) that the May–June delay was not fatal to the operation. Instead, Glantz writes that, but for their losses at Smolensk, the Germans should have taken Moscow in October.

Dr. Robert Forcyk writes in Moscow 1941: Hitler's First Defeat (Osprey, 2006) that logistical problems (especially shortage of fuel) and poor generalship were the fatal flaws of Barbarossa, not the start in late June. Forcyk says that weather was not a fatal factor. Forcyk agrees with Glantz that Kiev was not a fatal diversion, as it greatly weakened Soviet forces that would otherwise have come to the aid of Moscow. Forcyk counters the mud theory: "The standard German lament, 'we were stopped by the mud' is nonsense..." since the main thrust of Army Group Center was stopped by Soviet defenses four days before any snow fell.

In The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranean (Square One, 2002, p. 101 "Why Was Barbarossa Delayed?") Bradley and Buell argue that German troops advancing further into Greece in March–April were not a cause for delaying Barbarossa. Instead, the Barbarossa plans were modified so that Army Group South was not required to attack on their right flank, where the Twelfth Army would have been. And Greece was garrisoned lightly with only two mountain divisions and one infantry division, allowing the other units to participate in Barbarossa. The German infantry was not worn out by the invasion of Yugoslavia, only the armored units required a few weeks to refit afterward. Bradley and Buell say that the delayed date of June 22 for Barbarossa was caused primarily by two things: the fact that Finland and Rumania needed more time to prepare their forces to fight alongside the Germans, and "a late thaw in spring 1941 caused flooding and wet conditions well into June." Neither Hitler nor his generals were concerned about the delay, as everybody thought Moscow was within reach.

Stockings and Hancock write in Swastika over the Acropolis: Re-interpreting the Nazi Invasion of Greece in World War II (Brill, 2013) that the late spring thaw of 1941 certainly delayed Barbarossa, but they also conclude that Operation Marita in Greece was the primary reason for delay. Stockings and Hancock write that the May–June delay of Barbarossa was not a fatal flaw, that it is a mistake to say that the Germans could have taken Moscow if only they had started in May. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I was not raising the issue of fatality of the delay; my beef was that there is no RS to justify our saying categorically that floods were "the most important reason" for it. I amnot an expert on the issue and i do not have any particular opinion; but the fact is that most of the authoritative contemporary sources point up the Yugoslav operation (the decision on which was made as late as 27 March) as the primary reason (and that the armored units did need a few weeks for refit after that, as pointed out above by Binksternet, is quite important). And i think i have been very timid in my editing by saying that it is merely "the most commonly cited reason", which I think is warranted.Axxxion (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm focusing only on the one heading this section: Floods as the main reason of delay. Whether the delay caused the failure of Barbarossa is certainly of interest, but a separate subject. I agree that there was no one single cause for the delay. I've even had the impression that the Germans were so confident of victory that they let several relatively minor matters delay them without a sense of urgency, but saying German overconfidence was another cause for delay is SYNTH on my part, and would be another separate discussion anyway.

Focusing only on the delay caused by spring flooding, I haven't seen a source that justifies it as most important.

• Wood's Mud: A Military History pages 30-35 is mentioned, but I don't see how the delay of Barbarossa fits. The chapter is about the significance of Russian Rasputitsa in late 1941.
• Bradley and Buell's The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranean page 101 is mentioned. The quote "a late thaw in spring 1941 caused flooding and wet conditions well into June" is missing the first two words of that sentence: "In addition"; the spring flooding is presented as a secondary, not primary, cause. Also, the paragraph admits all evidence for causes of the delay is scarce, and that they only "suggest" what the causes may be. Per DUE, the article making a statement using this would have to be qualified to be much less than sure.
• I've noted that Guderian's quote is a primary source, and can only be used with care. It may well be the only source for Bradley and Buell's qualified statement.

Based on the above, I'm fine with spring flooding being listed as a possible secondary cause for delay, qualified with "debated", or attributed to Bradley and Buell rather than WP's voice, or something similar.

If there are other changes to consider, I'd prefer to have those as separate discussions, so we can make definite incremental improvements of the article.

--A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

I propose we leave the floods and keep the text as it stands now, but insert one word ″debatable″ in the opening sentence: ″The postponement of Barbarossa from the initially planned date of 15 May to the actual invasion date of 22 June 1941 (a 38-day delay) occurred for a number of reasons.″ → ″The postponement of Barbarossa from the initially planned date of 15 May to the actual invasion date of 22 June 1941 (a 38-day delay) occurred for a number of debatable reasons.″ Thus we would indicate that the whole subject is far from any definitive clarity (as per A D Monroe III).Axxxion (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd go a bit further in a few ways. I'm being a little picky here, but debate on this is lively among armchair generals, so I think it's good to go into details, mostly including B&B's primary reason: Finland and Romania asking for time to catch-up. Something like this:

The reasons for the postponement of Barbarossa from the initially planned date of 15 May to the actual invasion date of 22 June 1941 (a 38-day delay) occurred for a number of reasons are debated. The reason most commonly cited is the unforeseen contingency of invading Yugoslavia in April 1941.[91][92][93] Also, Bradley and Buell indicate that Finland and Romania, who weren't involved in initial German planning, needed additional time to prepare to participate in the invasion. Bradley and Buell add that an unusually wet winter kept Russian rivers at full flood until late spring.[B&B ref][h] The full floods could have discouraged an earlier attack, even if it was unlikely to have happened before the end of the Balkans Campaign.[95]

Note that in the article's section before this, Operation Barbarossa#German invasion plans, in the 4th paragraph (starting with On 5 December 1940), its last sentence would have to corrected to summarize this (and also correct its math: 38 days isn't 7 weeks). Something like:

The invasion was set for 15 May 1941, though it was delayed for about 7 weeks for over a month, in favor of further time for preparation[65] because of the war in the Balkans and bad weather. allowing for further preparations and possibly better weather.[B&B ref]

I think ref [65] as used here can be dropped; it's a source covering the secret life of Stalin, which wouldn't sound authoritative here.

We might also add a link from the summary in German invasion plans section to an anchor to the more complete explanation in the Preparations section paragraph as updated above.

--A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Perfect by me, A D Monroe III. Go ahead, if no one objects.Axxxion (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, all. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Spain

Spain should not be listed as a combatant. Spain never declared war on the USSR, and no Spanish military unit fought against the USSR. Spanish citizens were permitted to join the German Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS as volunteers. They wore German uniform and conformed to German, not Spanish, organization. Obviously all this was done with the active support of the Spanish government. It is worth noting, however, that the Spanish government's support was veiled precisely to avoid the entanglement of actually being at war. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Please ignore the trolling by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes it's correct. But perhaps it would be necessary to mention the Blue Division for greater accuracy of the article.--Bocaccio70s (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Upon thinking about this more, I am still really opposed to any mention. In a conflict that involved hundreds of division-size units on each side locked in high intensity combat for four years, mentioning one otherwise-undistinguished unit is undue weight.

The only way I can see mentioning it would be perhaps to put it under some umbrella such as "minor combatants" and then include such units as the Blue Division, the Normandie squadron, maybe the nominally Latvian and Estonian Red units, the French and Belgian waffen-SS brigades, the German-aligned anti-partisan units of Latvians, etc.

regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Germany and Italy never declared war on the USSR either. Both Spain and Norway took part in the invasion in 1941. (5.81.222.237 (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)) Banned user HarveyCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

One (not you, since you are banned from editing Wikipedia) would need to provide citations from reliable sources which specificially says that Spain and Norway sent troops or officially declared war, one or the other. Otherwise, they are not "belligerants". Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Three Soviet Directives from 22 June 1941:

I tried to put this into the article, however my edition was deleted:

It probably was. You aren't supposed to make direct articles to a document. Rather, you should make your suggestion here, and if it is a good suggestion, then it will be added to the original document. --174.24.53.158 (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Mint

Geographically challenged

Since when Uman is located within the Central Russia? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The title was not correct: to reach Central Russia, the Germans had to conquer northern Ukraine or southern Byelorussia. I modified the section's title, and everything is correct now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Image layout

Please explain how this is a better layout (assuming that is what you meant). This is a GA, and the image in question was in the relevant section before you moved it without giving a reason. There is plenty of room in the pertinent section for the image, and the previous size was consistent with the other maps on the page, which are also in the sections they pertain to. So please explain why this image should be moved into a position inconsistent with the MoS guidelines. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you've elevated MoS to policy without the drudgery of getting community approval to do so, how convenient for you.

Have it your way, chief, the article is a visual disaster; I'm surprised you can't see that it looks what falls out of the back end of a bull. It's a shame that Wikipedia has such a bad-looking article on such an important subject -- but, as I've said frequently, there's a distinct difference between a Good Article and a good article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Result

I've restored the "result" section in the infobox, because it is ridiculous not to have it. Whereas the concrete wording can be a subject of discussion, we definitely need some "Result". I also find misleading to list all available reserves in the Soviet column, because that creates a wrong impression that all 14 million troops were involved in the later stage of Barbarossa (which was not the case).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I see what You mean I just Shortened it Jack90s15 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I've edited the infobox to be in keeping with the style of other operations and battles in World War II (see Battle of Kursk's infobox for a standard example). The inclusion of the failure to reach A-A line was added as that was the operational goal of Barbarossa, hence an operational defeat. Also I removed the reference to the Soviet Counteroffensive Victory, since the period covered by this page ends on December 5th, 1941 the day the Soviet Counteroffensive began, which I thought precluded the result of that counteroffensive, but I may be wrong on that count. Hope this edit helps somewhat, have a great day! --Xenomorph 001 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That edit looks good to me, though I've just changed "operational failure" to "failure". I'm not sure what an "operational" failure is, and historians (especially modern ones) are pretty much all in agreement that Barbarossa was a clear-cut failure for the Axis. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The failure of Operation Barbarossa proved a turning point in the fortunes of the Third Reich.

The sentence , "The failure of Operation Barbarossa proved a turning point in the fortunes of the Third Reich" seems to be misplaced. Shouldn't it be the lead to third paragraph rather than the 4th? The rest of the 4th paragraph discusses the magnitude of the offensive and the atrocities committed by the germans. All true, but not really what makes it a turning point. The third paragraph is about the Soviets absorbing the German attacks, and the Germans never being able to mount an operation of this scale again. Normally I would just make this change but this is a GA and I've never edited this article.---- Work permit (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I made the change. Arguably, it could also end the third paragraph. But I don't see it opening the fourth.---- Work permit (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I can also see swapping the third and the forth paragraph. Any thoughts? ---- Work permit (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps the forth paragraph should be rewritten to discuss the atrocities committed during Barbarossa, and how these atrocities continued throughout the war in the east. As it currently stands, the forth paragraph introduces information not in the main article. The article is over 80,000 characters of prose, so there is a lot already to cover without introducing new information. ---- Work permit (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 August 2019

Add at the top of the article:

For the game, see Operation Barbarossa – The Struggle for Russia.

Destrey57 (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done However, @Destrey57: this page is no longer protected and you may edit it directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

United Kingdom as a belligerent?

Should the United Kingdom be added as a belligerent on the Soviet side since they directly fought against Axis troops trying to reach the A-A line: Operation EF (1941), Operation Benedict the 1941 Arctic convoys of World War II and Lend-Lease? This is certainly equal or greater as to the some of the minor Axis belligerents listed in the article. --Pudeo (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed the really minor belligerents per template:Infobox_military_conflict.---- Work permit (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I object this, the list no so long, but very informative, would decrease accuracy (anyway the two major belligerent would be just Germany and the Soviet union).(KIENGIR (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

By extension, I assume you would like to add the UK, since their contribution has an entire wikipedia article?---- Work permit (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Your assumption is false, I wish not to intervene in the UK question. By my opinion is the "Operation Barbarossa" does not really include UK, conceptually and factually by it's own interpretations, it is another issue the time Germany with how many other countries were belligerent or how much they would partially intervene or influence Operation Barbarossa. However, if the user claims for accuracy and wish to include, I am on the side of the most accurate content possible.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

Soviet Tank Casualties

How the USSR could have suffer 20 000 tank casualties If the entire count of the Soviet tanks on the Eastern Front in 1941 was only 11 000 - 15 000? How reliable is Steven Zaloga as a source? --Kovanja (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Steven Zaloga is reputable Steven J. Zaloga received his BA in History from Union College and his MA from Columbia University. He has worked as an analyst in the aerospace industry for over two decades, covering missile systems and the international arms trade, and has served with the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federal think tank. He is the author of numerous books on military technology and military history, with an accent on the US Army in World War II as well as Russia and the former Soviet Union. https://ospreypublishing.com/steven-j-zaloga Omeglesub (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Zaloga is one of the world's most outstanding armour historians. The discrepancy is between the sum of actual operational peak strength of the various units and total tank fleet losses.--MWAK (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This number is used in pretty much every book about this topic; this is because its drawn directly from the Soviet archives which were released in 1990. You can check them in Krivosheev's book. Dead Mary (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

David Reynolds, historian , not considered a RS

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter, using a new IP same editing pattern.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
David Reynolds (historian) is a Cambridge University historian, yet 'driverofknowledge' says he is not a RS. What is going on at this article. 78.144.87.79 (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Could you quote what exactly the source says? Do you have a link to the documentary? Another question, why did you add "some historians"? Are there other historians who disagree? It seems WP:Weasel. There is an editwar. You are introducing a change. You are the one who should seek consensus if your change was challenged. Read WP:BRD and WP:QUO.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC) o.k - take out the 'some historians' if you like. Reynolds would obviously be one historian who doesn't take the line suggested in the article but take that out ' some historians' if you like. As for the Reynolds sourced content I have quoted exactly. Apparently the documentary is viewable on You Tube so you could/should check it there. Its very near the start. ( the content I added is at about the 5:00 minute mark). The editor saying Reynolds is not a RS - this is worrying stuff. 78.144.87.79 (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This entry reads as propaganda.

The tone of this article is that of political propaganda and evinces profound bias.

This article characterizes the intent of persons not afforded the opportunity of competent and adversarial examination: in essence, it asserts as matters of fact, motives that cannot be with certainty determined. However popular are the opinions of the author, such bias does neither overcomes nor satisfies the demands of academic rigor. Anecdotal rants, however inflammatory the language thereof, can hardly be construed as genuine evidence.

Proper war is inherently horrific; the quest to limit the violence of war has unquestionably made much easier the decision to go to war, and such has caused the proliferation of war.

However, and with respect both to the specific facts alleged in the article, and to the characterization of the same: modern Western standards of proper military discipline were throughout the course of World War II much better in general kept (viz.: "adhered-to" or "upheld") by Germany than by the Allies. Nothing about this statement is intended either to minimize the condemnation of gratuitous bad acts or to prefer an alternative end to that war: the scope of this rant is limited to the patently propagandistic nature of the page in its present form.

Having so stated, two principles vital to the reader's understanding of the truth should be made apparent: (1) resources are always limited, and in the course of this particular combat operation, resources were extremely limited; the apportionment of resources was such that German troops starved to death at the same time their prisoners were starving; and (2) occasional breaks in proper discipline are inevitable, and were witnessed on both sides, but it is simultaneously both untrue and unfair to characterize as common the egregious abuses of rare bad actors.

Wireflight (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, the article is not going to be re-written to reflect Nazi propaganda. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Care to respond to any of his points? I don't see reason to brush him off as a Nazi propagandist. 2601:645:C000:AE10:9C7C:23FD:B029:3F26 (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course he doesn't. Nick D. is the self-appointed guardian of those who dig inside the minds of every deceased combatant or decision-maker, and he is ready to dismiss every refutation of such analyses as "Nazi propaganda" - even though that in itself is a fallacy because of how few of the deceased actually had an opportunity to pen their thoughts. But that is what Nick was trained to do. Good boy, somebody toss him a treat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B021:FEE:70A3:A30B:428:3A7A (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Operation Barbarossa Infobox.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Opposing forces

I redid this section to hopefully make it a little more informative and reader-friendly. Hungrydog55 (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hungrydog55: I've just removed this as no references were provided, and it's unclear what point of time it refers to (which is important, as the order of battle varied considerably over time). Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

@Nick-D:,

excuse me, edit warring was not the case yet, discussion would have come anyway. So again, the infobox should be consistent, without cherrypicking. In case some entities are listed, the corresponding datas should be identified in all places, and it not just repairing stylistic as I referred but increases accuracy. In case by Belligerents and Casualties and losses something is highlighted to some corresponding countries, then the Commanders and leaders and Units involved should not be left without them (to say nothing of they are collapsable lists, so as well not even any stylistic argument would stand against them as well). All in all, professional and accurate solutions needed and wanted, without WP:Cherrypicking.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Regarding commanders, it is not cherry picking, it is simply sticking to commanders of certain level and independence. Romania and Finland were only Axis allies which contributed army level units to campaign. Antonescu was actually formally a commander of entity known as Army Group Antonescu (Romanian 3rd and 4th army and German 11th army) during conquest of Bessarabia, and Finnish army operated completely independently from Wehrmacht chain of command. On other hand all other Axis contributions to Barbarossa were sub-army level forces, attached and under command of specific German armies which commanders who we already don't include.--Staberinde (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Also at the belligerents we list all the countries, shall they have any other classifiable relation to Germany, so it seems quite logical we list also the commanders of each, since by each affairs regarding they own country they were the boss.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC))

No, it is not logical. Countries are all listed because they are all formally independent entities. On other hand commanders follow specific chains of command. There is little logic in listing Ferdinand Čatloš for commanding Slovak expeditionary force, when he was directly subordinated to German 17th army which commander Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel we aren't listing here for obvious reasons. And this method is widely applied in WW II articles, like Battle of France, Operation Overlord or Western Desert campaign which include fairly diverse lists of combatants, including extremely minor ones, but limit commanders to those who actually held some reasonably relevant top commands, instead of giving every country their own representative. Also it is a good principle in general, simply because otherwise those commanders lists have ugly tendency to keep bloating up.--Staberinde (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Why would be Mannerheim or Antonescu treated differently? Btw. anything that is by another articles are not necessary binding here. A top commander by country is ok, if they are listed above.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC))

I agree that the commanders of small national contingents shouldn't be included in the infobox, which largely includes Army Group level commanders. The "Slovakian" general named served on the Eastern Front for only two months before he and the ineffective small corps he led were sent home by the Germans (the Slovakian force started as a poor performing brigade and ended up as a division which was used for rear area security tasks after the corps and its commander was sent back to Slovakia - all per Rolf-Dieter Muller's book The Unknown Eastern Front pp. 90-92). I'd note also that the Slovakian state being noted here was actually a puppet regime. Including such leaders in the infobox artificially inflates the Axis forces, and gives the false impression that the small country contributions were significant. If the same principle as is being suggested here was extended to the Allied side, the head of No. 151 Wing RAF would need to be included, which would be absurd. Nick-D (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Nick, this is cherrypicking now, evaluation of some states is dubious, some regard it as a client state, but now you grabbed just one example. Like in the WW2 infobox debate, not the measure of contributions decide membership, this is uncommon to infoboxes. Who participated, participated, in this manner you could argue why the country is even listed? I understand it is hard to be utterly consistent given fixed form templates, but overall still my solution is converging to the maximum accuracy, meanwhile not breaking inconsistency as far as possible.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC))

I'm not suggesting that the puppet country of Slovakia be omitted, but that the commander of its insignificant force not be presented to readers as being one of the key commanders of this campaign. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, since even if the World Championship in Group A United States, Brazil, Liechtenstein and Nicaragua is present regarding soccer, they are listed and treated equally, even if Liechtenstein is so-so small...you know...well, lets ask @Peacemaker67:'s opinion, I am willing to hear that...(KIENGIR (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC))

That analogy makes no sense. Liechtenstein's coach is not subordinated to US or Brazilian coaches... --Staberinde (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

According to me no, sure. But to deny each countires had a commender...here multiple factors has to be taken into account.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC))

Nobody is denying existence of those commanders, just that those commanders weren't important enough in overall big picture of Barbarossa to be included in infobox. If you look around at wikipedia conflict infoboxes, then one can see that in case of significant number of combatants it is quite common to include only the most important ones, instead of listing one for every involved country. Anyway, if you want to ping Peacemaker as you earlier suggested then feel free to do so.--Staberinde (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, as I said, other articles may have differents issues, there is not an universal rule, and about importance, I already expressed my opinion above, disagree, or see the useless debate on the World War II page on this. I've made the ping.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC))

Responding to ping. I tend to set a level of command floor for inclusion in infoboxes, depending on the size of the campaign, operation/battle. In this case, I think the rationale for only listing army commanders is a good one. It is important to set parameters for inclusion, as it means that editors can point to a talk page consensus and protect the infobox from stuffing by people with an agenda to highlight one nation or another. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, my solution lists all army commanders for each part-taking country.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC))

They aren't army commanders. They are contingent commanders of contingents often far below army-level. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Aims of invasion

Block evasion by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Surely the main aim was to destroy Communism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.209.42 (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Sort of. It was a pre-emptive strike as well, although historians that want to keep their careers do tend to deny or downplay this.--105.4.3.10 (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Hitler also wanted to create Lebensraum. ShauryaOMG (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede

The article states "...and highest casualties (for Soviet and Axis forces alike)...", while I have no doubt that it is true, it seems a bit odd to have a country compared against an alliance. Wandavianempire (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If you know about the composition of the "German" invading force, you'd know that listing "German" casualties was only part of the story given how many non-German participants were fighting with the Nazis. See for instance: Müller, Rolf-Dieter (2012). The Unknown Eastern Front: The Wehrmacht and Hitler’s Foreign Soldiers. New York: I.B. Taurus. ISBN 978-1-78076-072-8. You can also review the related Wikipage Non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II. --Obenritter (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Operation Barbarossa → Invasion of the Soviet Union – More descriptive of the actual event, in line with most other invasion articles, name Barbarossa no longer well known among younger generations and is not a primary topic by itself without Operation. Facts707 (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Facts707 (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:Common name and many reasons I can't think of now (too early in the morning). --Denniss (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is the common name. As for the recognizability argument, per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY: "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Someone familiar with WWII history will recognize this title. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support  The current is contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. Searching reliable sources by WP:GOOG favours the move by 1,060,000 to 74,400 (14:1) in G Books, 8,460 to 8,330 (1.02:1.00) in G Scholar. The proposed name is a plain-English and universally understandable name, even when isolated, say, as a list item. —Michael Z. 15:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Mzajac: The current title is a plain-English and universally understandable name... So why are you supporting a move? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Looks like I lost a sentence when I wrote that. Corrected, thanks. —Michael Z. 15:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Given the fact that the first sentence explains this military operation as the invasion of the Soviet Union, this change is unwarranted. Would we then change Operation Overlord to "The invasion of France"? Nope, that would be silly and not even make sense considering who the actual belligerent forces were in the end. The title Operation Barbarossa describes the name of a very famous military operation. Perhaps (if it does not already exist) a redirect link for "Invasion of the Soviet Union" should point to this page, but that is it. --Obenritter (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm undecided on this one at the moment, but I would note our article on D-Day is titled Normandy landings and not Operation Neptune, its code name. -- Calidum 22:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Obenritter is describing some principle, or anti-principle, that has nothing to do with our naming guidelines. We have the invasion of Poland for example, despite the existence of a dozen of them, and its code name even has been removed to a separate article Fall Weiss (1939). —Michael Z. 14:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, the fact that a separate article for the Invasion of Poland and another for Fall Weiss exist in this manner is exactly the kind of redundancy we don't need. What you will possibly create here is one article titled "Invasion of the Soviet Union" and another named "Operation Barbarossa." Why is a redirect not sufficient? The Google Scholar results below make it clear that the Boolean search preponderance favors Operation Barbarossa.

Hmmm...the more I consider this, the more it could be argued conversely—that a redirect could go the other direction. Still my Google Scholar results produced 24,500 for Operation Barbarossa and 8,850 for Invasion of the Soviet Union.--Obenritter (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting creating another article and I agree with you about redundancy. I am pointing out that you are not referring to any guidelines, but you seem to be indicating some principle in article naming, which I can’t figure out what it is because your example has counter-examples. Your Google Scholar search is a very uneven comparison. —Michael Z. 21:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Sorry if I am no expert in Wikipedia naming conventions, but I am a professional historian. If you were to compare the number of book titles or scholarly articles, you'll find that Operation Barbarossa wins out, hands down. However, I understand your point that non-expert readers might more easily identify the expression "Invasion of the Soviet Union." Nevertheless, if a redirect takes them to this page, why is this such an issue? --Obenritter (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what “such an issue” means. There’s a proposal to move, and it seems to better meet our guidelines, so I’m supporting it. You are right, more books re titled with Operation Barbarossa, but Google tells us it is only 31 to 3 in total, so it doesn’t seem significant compared to the overall usage. —Michael Z. 16:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, reluctantly. As a military history buff, I find Barbarossa the most readily identifiable name, but I realize that the typically uninitiated reader probably won't, and such readers are our target audience. However, the proposed name, Invasion of the Soviet Union can be confused, as it was invaded a few times after it first formed in 1917. Yes, these other invasions were much less significant, so any such named article would go to this subject, but it still diminishes the overall helpfulness of the proposed name. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The Soviet Union was created in 1922, and was invaded exactly once. (Ask any military history buff ;) Let’s keep the titles as simple and accessible as possible to help prevent the confusion. —Michael Z. 14:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Again, our target readers are not history buffs, but uninitiated on the subject. They are likely equate the Soviet Union with the communists coming to power during late WWI. Many nations acted militarily to prevent this and preempt their threat. Relying on readers knowing details like official names of governments is similar to relying on them to recognize Barbarossa. I feel the latter is more likely, and therefore more helpful. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, they are, but we don’t have to pretend we’re ignorant when we justify our choices! Your argument is simply factually wrong. Anyway, it makes no difference, because the one and only “Invasion of the Soviet Union” redirects directly here, so your uninitiated looking for some other invasion won’t find it by not changing this title to the more commonly used one. Renaming satisfies our guidelines for both titling and redirects. —Michael Z. 21:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment A proposal like this needs to be supported by an assessment of the terminology reliable sources use. Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I did provide that above. Fourteen to one ratio in books, and that’s just the precise phrase without variations of it. —Michael Z. 14:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Frankly, I am not sure what exactly Mzajac is for: Barbarossa or "Invasion of ...", because he did not present the search results, and it is not clear what he means under "current title", and does he support in or oppose. My own search results are here:

ngram

Scholar: [1] vs [2]

In addition, it seems these two terms have somewhat different meaning: "Barbarossa" is a military campaign, which had a concrete start and end date, whereas "invasion of ..." it is just an act of invasion: it started on 22nd of June, 1941, but when it ended?

In summary, "Barbarossa" is more specific and more suitable for this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That’s a completely slanted search. Of course three words in free text will get you way more results than a precise phrase in quotation marks! Why on earth are you even adding “failure,” which is not part of the title? And please don’t present searches without following WP:GOOG. Here:

Google Advanced Book search, filtering for English-language sources, title in quotation marks, excluding Wikipedia. Actual search results are only accurate on the very last page of results. You will probably get slightly different numbers because Google adjusts for your language, location, and the phase of the moon (as mine have changed from the above, but you can certainly gauge the relative usage):

• "Operation Barbarossa" -Wikipedia about 59,600 results
• "Invasion of the Soviet Union" -Wikipedia about 1,040,000 results

Google Scholar, title in quotation marks, excluding Wikipedia:

• "Operation Barbarossa" -Wikipedia About 8,330 results
• "Invasion of the Soviet Union" -Wikipedia About 8,460 results

The Ngram, improved with an appropriate range and smoothing off, also shows that “invasion of the Soviet Union” appears in significantly more sources in about 75 of the last 80 years. —Michael Z. 21:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Michael, it is ridiculous, because these two terms have different meaning: military operation vs the event. The first source in the "Invasion of the Soviet Union" -Wikipedia list is: Operation Barbarossa: The German Invasion of Soviet Russia. Yes, many sources that write about WWII use the term "Invasion of the Soviet Union (Russia/Soviet Russia)", but they refer to the date: the moment when the USSR joined the war. But this article in not about that, isn't it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Sentence 1 of this article literally says Barbarossa was the invasion. Your cited source’s title seems to make the exact same equation using the colon, and if there’s any doubt, the first sentence of its introduction makes the same one-to-one equation: “Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on June 22, 1941, Operation Barbarossa, has no equal in military history.” Sure, many sources use both phrases. But Google seems to tell us that about 980,040 more use only the one. I’m clearly missing some important nuance of your argument. Which “event” are you referring to if not the military operation? My dictionary defines an operation in the military sense as a “piece of organized and concerted activity” and an invasion as an “instance of invading,” and to invade as “to enter”: they are both intentional actions, not simply events nor dates. —Michael Z. 00:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source for itself, so it does not matter what the first paragraph says.

Invasion of Poland started at 1st of September, 1939 with the Battle of Westerplatte and ended at 6st of October, 1939 when last Polish garrison surrendered. Invasion of the USSR started at 22nd of June, 1941, but when it ended? In December, 1941, when Soviet troops counterattacked? In 1944, when the Red Army reached the USSR border? In May 1945? In contrast, Barbarossa has much more concrete time frames, and that is why that name must be used.

With regard to "980,040 more", I have a strong feeling that they just mention the event that drawn USSR into WWII, not the military campaign called "Barbarossa".--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Simply counting Google hits isn't useful, especially for the reasons Paul notes. A proper analysis needs to look into how the term is used in key sources to determine common usage. I suspect that 'Operation Barbarossa' is the common term for the 1941 invasion and subsequent campaign. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: We're singing the same music. Also, if one looks at the number of book titles -- it's not even close; Operation Barbarossa is predominantly given by far. Deep down, I don't really care which of these we end up with ultimately, since both should redirect to one another. My preference is to leave the title as it stands, nonetheless.--Obenritter (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. If anything, it could be renamed to German invasion of the Soviet Union. But I think the current title is good. The page is obviously about Operation Barbarossa. This is a specific military operation, and a famous one. Yes, the operation is usually used as a synonym for the German invasion, but the current title is better as more specific. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it is known most commonly like this name (I don't enter in that debate if that would only be in professional circles, neither other issues), per Operation Margarethe and Operation Panzerfaust, Operation Overlord, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC))
• Oppose per Paul Siebert. The current title better fits the scope. Why should 5 December 1941 be regarded as the end of the invasion of the Soviet Union? Srnec (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear common name and best title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Operation Barbarossa was the name given to the battle plan by Hitler. Perhaps Invasion of the Soviet Union could cover more than the scope of Barbarossa itself? KevinNinja (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Axis invasion of the Soviet Union ?

Yes, there was a kind of military alliance named Axis. Nonetheless, one would prefer a statement like invasion of Nazi Germany and her [some of her] axis allies, just because the absolute central role & weight of Nazi Germany should put in the right proportion (what was the "Axis" in fact, a full-sense military alliance - or rather an association of countries linked in differently important grades to Nazi Germany. Think of Finland or "half-neutrals" like Bulgaria...Or think of Japanese Empire, an absolute 'axis' heavyweight in contrast - but missing out in this particular "Operation Barbarossa" !). --213.172.123.242 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Soviet losses?

The source from the soviet losses (Krivosheev, G. F. (1997). Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century. Greenhill Books. ISBN 978-1853672804.) is not considered correct now.

Can we update it to something more credible.

Maybe (The Price of Victory: The Red Army's Casualties in the Great Patriotic War Book by Boris Kavalerchik and Lev Lopukhovsky) would be a better source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.120.191.60 (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Include Sweden and even Switzerland

The map where dark grey represents countries in firm Nazi control should include their business partners too, namely Sweden which even offered Nazi passage via North Sweden to attack USSR. Who made the map could edit it to include Switzerland and Sweden to be fair. Or take away Finland whose marshall vehemently opposed Nazi doctrines despite opposing communists. ToniTurunen (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Citing the Germany and the Second World War series

@GeneralizationsAreBad:@Kierzek:@K.e.coffman:@Diannaa:@Beyond My Ken:@Nick-D: Since there is a disagreement between myself and sbb about citing the series Germany and the Second World War (which I own and reference regularly on Wikipedia) which consists of 13 volumes, I am recommending the title to be cited in accordance with the Chicago Manual of Style (preferred by academic historians), whereas user Sbb insists that it be treated exclusively to Wikipedia guidelines. My recommendation also takes into account that the volume titles are not listed separately in catalogs or even on Amazon for instance. When scholars (historians) cite this work, it appears this way: Germany and the Second World War, Volume IV: The Attack on the Soviet Union. Sbb is insisting that the title be "The Attack on the Soviet Union" which is the volume title, vice the series. My solution of including them both in this case alleviates confusion for the average reader. Nonetheless, I am always amenable to consensus opinion so with that in mind, I raise this to other editors so we can reconcile this one way or another. Please annotate your support or rejection of either proposal.

• Support Germany and the Second World War, Volume IV: The Attack on the Soviet Union as the title per my contentions above.--Obenritter (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are the differences between the two forms of citation:

per Obenritter

Förster, Jürgen (1998). "Operation Barbarossa as a War of Conquest and Annihilation". In Boog, Horst; Förster, Jürgen; Hoffmann, Joachim; Klink, Ernst; Müller, Rolf-Dieter; Ueberschär, Gerd R. (eds.). Germany and the Second World War, Volume IV: The Attack on the Soviet Union. Translated by McMurry, Dean S.; Osers, Ewald; Willmot, Louise. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822886-8.

per sbb

Förster, Jürgen (1998). "Operation Barbarossa as a War of Conquest and Annihilation". In Boog, Horst; Förster, Jürgen; Hoffmann, Joachim; Klink, Ernst; Müller, Rolf-Dieter; Ueberschär, Gerd R. (eds.). The Attack on the Soviet Union. Germany and the Second World War. Vol. IV. Translated by McMurry, Dean S.; Osers, Ewald; Willmot, Louise. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822886-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |series-link= ignored (help)

(Note: the |series-link= field in the 2nd form is not currently generating a link to the text in the |series= field. I believe |series-link= has only been added recently to the citation template module; it will soon be generating wikilinks to the series—in this case Germany and the Second World War. In the meantime, it has been wikilinked directly in the |series= field.)

The |series= and |volume= fields in the {{cite}} templates provide semantic information, describing the individual pieces of bibliographic information in an exchangeable manner via COinS metadata. We should describe what the information is. If the CS1 or CS2 citation style is confusing or illegible to readers, we should petition to change their generated output, rather than drop semantic distinction, misuse, or malform data in the fields to format it how we wish it to be seen. sbb (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with sbb: the series name should not be included as part of the title, since we have a dedicated field for that information. I say this even though WorldCat lists it the other way, and the cover of the book has the series title in a larger font. — Diannaa (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Tresckow

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "Tresckow does not belong -- unclear why a particular officer should be singled out, + his role in Barbarossa is ambiguous". It's worth noting that Tresckow was a staff officer, so he did not have soldiers directly under his command to begin with. In his staff role during Barbarossa, he reviewed and signed off on the reports from Einsatzgruppe B, and was certainly aware of the atrocities perpetrated behind the front lines of Army Group Centre. It's undue to single him out in the manner that the article did. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The line about Tresckow certainly needed to be removed, but it's possible that Evans 1989 actually does say this. Unfortunately I don't have a copy so cannot check. I do remember reading accounts that before the invasion Tresckow was part of a group of high-ranking staff officers who received verbal instructions concerning the implementation of the impending criminal orders, and worked with other officers inside Army Group Centre to sabotage them. In the light of more recent revelations about the implementation of these orders in most units this looks like a probable post-war fabrication designed to make Tresckow and his associates look good. It would be good if we could find a recent source that summarises the current state of scholarship concerning this matter. Our understanding of the military 'resistance' and the complicity of the Wehrmacht in almost all war crimes has evolved considerably since 1989. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Historian Christian Gerlach points out that Tresckow and Knoblauch had "agreed to place the command staff and all its units under the authority of Army Group Center, specifically under Army Corps XXXXII (9th Army), not at the front, but specifically "to be used for purging and security duties." [See: Christian Gerlach, "Men of 20 July," in War of Extermination: The German Military in World War II, 1941–1944, eds. Hannes Heer and Klaus Naumann (New York: Berghahn Books, 2000),131.]

Despite Tresckow's involvement in the "resistance" and the 20 July plot there is concern among historians that he may not have been acting as altruistically as first believed but simply changed his position once military defeat appeared a real possibility.(See for instance: Graml, Hermann. 2006. “Massenmord und Militäropposition. Zur jüngsten Diskussion über den Widerstand im Stab der Heeresgruppe Mitte.” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 54 (2006): 1–24. / Hürter, Johannes. 2004. “Auf dem Weg zur Militäropposition. Tresckow, Gersdorff, der Vernichtungskrieg und der Judenmord. Neue Dokumente über das Verhältnis der Heeresgruppe Mitte zur Einsatzgruppe B im Jahr 1941.” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 52 (2004): 527–562 / Ringshausen, Gerhard. 2005. “Der Aussagewert von Paraphen und der Handlungsspielraum des militärischen Widerstandes. Zu Johannes Hürter: Auf dem Weg zur Militäropposition.” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 53 (2005): 141–147. / Römer, Felix. 2005. “Das Heeresgruppenkommando Mitte und der Vernichtungskrieg im Sommer 1941. Eine Erwiderung auf Gerhard Ringshausen.” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 53 (2005): 451–460.). --Obenritter (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Phrasing

It's a bit of a minor gripe of mine but in this article "Germany's Eastern Front" is used once instead of "the Eastern Front" which is the standard way of referring to the Eastern Front. The phrase just stood out as being out of place in the article. Originalcola (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to "the Eastern Front" throughout the article although, as I said initially, it is a very minor issue. Originalcola (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Result

Hey there folks. This is probably the third or fourth time this has come up since I started paying attention to this page, but I'd like to check-in on how everybody feels about the result section of the infobox. Back in February[3], the result was cut down from the results that me and whoever else was paying attention came up with back in March 2019, citing that it did not meet the template parameters. That has since been edited up to Axis strategic failure. According to the template parameters, infobox results sections should be limited to the standard terms of "X victory or Inconclusive," which this page remains in violation of. That said, I am not in favor of shifting the result to Soviet victory. The lead section for Operation Barbarossa describes the result of Barbarossa as an Axis failure, which is certainly true, and there is precious little in the article that points to this being a Soviet victory, beyond not collapsing under immense pressure. Perhaps expanding this article's section on the Soviet Winter Counteroffensive could make this read more like a Soviet victory, but that seems like a topic that deserves its own page instead. I also don't think the result should be shifted to inconclusive either, that would fail to capture the role that Barbarossa had on shifting the tide of the Second World War in favor of the Allied powers.
So with all that said, my real question is should the Infobox be shifted to comply with the template parameters or is it fine as it is? Personally I think the main reason this is even a question is because Operation Barbarossa is too large to fit under the military conflict infobox. Operation Barbarossa was so vast that it has 18 separate battles underneath it in the Eastern Front campaign box, yet it has the infobox of any other battle. I think the infobox should instead be shifted to the military operation infobox where there is more leeway to describe an operation's outcome, rather than its result. But that also seems like a lot of work for such a minor change. My concern is that the Infobox here gets hit for not following the parameters every couple years, which then results in silly talk page topics like this one. Maybe changing it to a new format will allow the page to call the Operation a failure, without remaining in violation. Interested to hear any thoughts on the matter. Xenomorph 001 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe the original statements were balanced and fine so they should be restored. I do not really care about these claims of some buerocratic reason to remove/alter these statements.--Denniss (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Operation Citadel

The German translation contains an error in the penultimate sentence before section 'Background' . Only the number 1943 [ from 05 July to 17 July 1943 ] is correct. Uazt (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

On the size of captured territory

It says that the Axis captured a total of 600,000 square kilometers during the operation. I do however believe the number is closer to around 1,300,000 or even 1,500,000 square kilometres; mostly from my own calculations. I looked at some old maps and I came to this conclusion. I also checked some sources like the one I linked below. It adds up if you look at the percentage of occupied territory and look at the size of the Soviet Union at the time of the operation. I might still be wrong obviously, but I'm just putting this out there. But I do know that it is more than 600,000 square kilometers as it says in the article though. Thanks for reading!

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1260027/occupied-territory-and-population-during-wwii/

Only one of the sources I used, but it's pretty reliable.

MeManBlaze (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed the 600,000 number cannot possibly be correct. Perhaps there was confusion with square miles. Ukraine alone covers 603,628 km2. Belarus measures 207,595 km2, Estonia 45,339 km2, Latvia 64,589 km2, Lithuania 65,300 km2 and Moldova 33,843 km2. To this one million square kilometres surface, the area in Russia should be added.--MWAK (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep! I might change it to 1,500,000 square kilometers, or more if I find another more telling source. Even if it's not 100% accurate it's still way closer to the actual size of it, and I'm using the source I linked (statista) to back it up.

Anyone that has more knowledge about this should feel free to change it too. MeManBlaze (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

For the time being, I change kilometers into miles.--MWAK (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)