Talk:Operation Barbarossa

Map

The Map is incorrect. The border of Finland was like that only after 1945. The real map look likes this: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:Operation_Barbarossa.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.190.30 (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

vichy france

i've added the france flag, actually i wanted the vichy france flag. anyway they were fighting with the tricolore flag and wearing french flag on shoulder patch. the vichy french unit is called LVF Légion des volontaires français contre le bolchevisme (638.Infanterieregiment) evidences are pretty easy to find. here's a batch. free and vichy french are overlooked in ww2. i'm actually working to fix that. Cliché Online (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Issue Soviet army strength and losses

Here are currently the numbers for the Soviet/German strength and overall losses on the first table of Operation Barbarossa Wikipedia page:

SOVIET STRENGTH : ~3.2 million initial (later 5 million more)
SOVIET OVERALL LOSSES : 7,1 millions (802,191 killed; 3,000,000 wounded; 3,300,000 captured.)
For me it is not consistent (5 millions giving 7.1 millions). Unless you mean 3.2 + 5 millions giving 8.2 millions overall ?

Even if a beginning of explanation is given in the section "Soviet preparations", precisions need to be added on the overall table to avoid an irrational feeling. Maybe a precision can be added on the timeframe of the numbers explaining the addition of different soviet reserves and milices during the operation

GERMAN STRENHTH : ~3.9 million (including reserve)
GERMAN OVERALL LOSSES : 775 000 (250,000 killed; 500,000 wounded; 25,000 missing)
For me it is consistent. A.Frenkel (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexandre Frenkel—Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Frenkel (talk • contribs) 11:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy

In section Soviet preparations there is some redundancy:

Stalin's distrust of the British led to his ignoring the warnings, believing it to be a trick designed to bring the Soviet Union into the war.

and

Last, he also suspected the British of trying to spread false rumours in order to trigger a war between Germany and the USSR.

--Mortense (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Two sentences for review

These two sentences did not make sense. What should they be?

"a standard linear defence tactic on a line with other nations. " (Section Soviet preparations)

"Anti-German partisan operations intensified when Red Army units that had dissolved into the country's large uninhabited areas re-emerged as underground forces, and under the German repressive policies." (Section Outcome)

--Mortense (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No. of tanks

The "Strength" section in the infobox states that the Soviet Union had "12-15,000 tanks". The subsequent "Casualties and losses" says that the Soviets lost "20,500 tanks lost". Something wrong here? utcursch | talk 05:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

In Appropriate Information

The second paragraph of the section titled "Soviet preparations" starts by stating some number given in Taylor and Proektor (which, for some reason, is cited in text rather than cited through reference). The paragraph continues by criticizing the accuracy of this source.

Why is this here? Why do we have a criticism of some published work in the middle of an paragraph which I assume is suppose to tell us the number of troops the Soviets had available. Moreover, the "corrected" numbers given here (which are supposed to be far more accurate than the numbers given by Taylor and Proektor) have absolutely no citations to back them up. Was this original research? If someone has a problem with the accuracy of Taylor and Proektor, their criticism should be written elsewhere. This second paragraph should simply contain the most accurate information we have available. Perhaps someone who has spent years studying the subject could cite what he or she believes to be the most accurate source. 76.120.195.191 (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)