Talk:Operation Barbarossa: Difference between revisions
cmt |
|||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
[[User:Wireflight|Wireflight]] ([[User talk:Wireflight|talk]]) 09:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC) |
[[User:Wireflight|Wireflight]] ([[User talk:Wireflight|talk]]) 09:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
:Nope, the article is not going to be re-written to reflect Nazi propaganda. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC) |
:Nope, the article is not going to be re-written to reflect Nazi propaganda. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/2601:645:C000:AE10:9C7C:23FD:B029:3F26|2601:645:C000:AE10:9C7C:23FD:B029:3F26]] ([[User talk:2601:645:C000:AE10:9C7C:23FD:B029:3F26|talk]]) 12:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== The failure of Operation Barbarossa proved a turning point in the fortunes of the Third Reich. == |
== The failure of Operation Barbarossa proved a turning point in the fortunes of the Third Reich. == |
Revision as of 12:00, 26 April 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Barbarossa article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | Operation Barbarossa has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 22, 2017 and June 22, 2019. |
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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)
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)
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
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add at the top of the article:
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))
- 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)
- 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))
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)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class Soviet Union articles
- Top-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- GA-Class Germany articles
- High-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class Balkan military history articles
- Balkan military history task force articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- GA-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- GA-Class Italian military history articles
- Italian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- GA-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- Failed requests for military history A-Class review
- GA-Class Russia articles
- Top-importance Russia articles
- Top-importance GA-Class Russia articles
- GA-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- GA-Class Ukraine articles
- High-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- Selected anniversaries (June 2017)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2019)
- GA-Class Nazi Germany articles