Talk:Operation Barbarossa

total numbers on all fronts

it is there any articke or book which list numbers of all forces , year by year on all fronts ? i mean, here we have numbers in which germany invader ussr, but we dont know how much forces germany did left on other theatres. be it guarding france or other conquered territories or used in other campaigns at same time. 2A00:1028:96D0:36CA:973:3405:6F9E:8104 (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Belarussia vs Belarus

I see that there's a dispute about the section name. "Belarussia" is not something used in literature. To use the naming from the Soviet times, it would be "Byelorussia", to match Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. However, I personally prefer "Belarus" as more common in contemporary literature. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Depends. Byelorussia/Belorussia refers to the republic. Belarus was also divided between the USSR and Poland until the former occupied the rest of it. Similarly we use the term Moldavia to refer to the Soviet republic. I don't think it would make sense to use "Moldavia" and "Belarus" at the same time. Mellk (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I had a look and an IP changed the heading from Belorussia to Belarussia on 22 May 2022.[1] I think at least for now this should be reverted and then discussion about changing this can continue. Mellk (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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)