Talk:Operation Barbarossa

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[1], 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)

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)