# Talk:Operation Barbarossa

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)
Oh man, some actual replies. Me and the MOS agree that the infobox should fully summarize the article, not require further reading, and that the table of contents will already provide folks with easy access to the aftermath section of the article.
The old discussion should be in the article talk page archive, which I think is this here? I also had another crack at this here but without any major replies. I believe this first came up because Operation Barbarossa, one of the most viewed pages on this site had its infobox result section removed entirely for breaking with the MOS, which remains quite silly to me, and is the main reason I keep an eye on this page.
The results section of this page in particular also has a wild history, mostly from people trying to re-characterize Barbarossa as a Tactical Axis victory, all the way back in 2007. This was a Covid rabbit-hole for me, hence my historiography of something so specific as this, but forgive my digression.
Back on topic.
I have grown to be more firmly against the see aftermath result over the years. The MOS, is mostly just trying to make a standard, not the be an end-all be-all justification. Sorry if I made it seem that way, I was pretty sure this would go without replies again, so I kept it short in my early post.
So I think see aftermath by itself, is not in keeping with the other articles of this importance on this site. I think the classic example these days is Case Blue, which is another major German operation in the Soviet Union, which is summarized as an Axis operational failure, and does not point the reader to the aftermath section, even with an imminent Soviet Counteroffensive just sitting there for folks to read about. Another good one would be Operation 25, which silos off to other articles for further reading, but doesn't direct the reader to the article's own aftermath. The World War II page, also follows the Operation 25 model, or perhaps the other way around. A counterpoint would be this, but even then it qualifies the result as a Union victory before linking internally. I think the Gettysburg model is messy, but acceptable. That said, I'm not sure that Gettysburg and Barbarossa are of comparable importance. I'm sure there are examples of smaller battles that silo off to their own aftermath, but for something as well-trafficked and important as Barbarossa, I think the clarity is valuable. Having a concrete result of Axis failure presents the article the most accurately in my opinion, there is little to support any other result of Barbarossa, and if people are interested in its aftermath, then it is a click away.
Just my two cents though, great to write this out and look forward to hearing back! I'm glad we have a common interest in conveying this event to folks accurately. Xenomorph 001 (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Hey! Thank you for your response!
I don't have much to say, but I will say a few things. First of all, I do still think the most appropriate guideline to use is the one specifically attached to this conflict infobox, not the general MOS because obviously the guideline specifically for this infobox is a lot more in depth on it.
And I'll agree, I'm not a fan of See aftermath either, but it seems to be the only appropriate result if "strategic failure" is out of the picture. I really think it should stay See aftermath, but I'd like the results to be the first thing mentioned. Obviously Aftermath is always a click away, but the thing is it's much more likely to be clicked if it's in the infobox.
And I'm not a fan of comparing this to other articles, cause I could easily just make a counter-argument of "all of the pages have it wrong then and should be updated".
Sorry if this is a poor response, I'm currently on mobile walking around so perhaps this was a bad time to respond, but it sums up my thoughts on the matter. Setergh (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I guess my main question would be what is wrong with the current result? You mention a "strategic failure," but what would you rewrite the results section to ideally; free from rules?
When I read this article, to me it comes across as a clear Axis failure to knock the Soviet Union out of the war in one stroke, and since the article's timeline does not include the Soviet Winter Counteroffensive, I don't see a reason to change it to any kind of Soviet victory. If the answer is it's complicated; then I would reread the article and take in to account that this is describing an Axis offensive operation; whose goal was to defeat the Soviet Union, and it failed; it need not be overcomplicated from that.
As for comparing to other articles; I would suggest that if you find most articles to have systemic issues with their results sections then that should be a conversation topic either with the Military History Project, or in the Militaryinfobox MOS talk section.
At the end of the day, I suppose I don't really think see results is right for this article, when the result seems quite clear to me.
Thank you for your response, and I look forward to hearing back! Xenomorph 001 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I suppose I understand what you mean. To be fair, wikipedia guidelines aren't amazing anyway. Fine, I think leaving it as Axis strategic failure is fine, especially because it's still obvious they gained a lot through the territorial changes box. Thank you for the discussion! Setergh (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest rephrasing this paragraph (below) because its phrasing could give the impression that the Holocaust is solely tied to Jewish victims. I suggest rephrasing it (as shown below) to integrate the extermination of the Slavic population into the Holocaust's context. Thoughts?

☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 23:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Goszei, u reverted my edit. now that u don't want to voice ur take and explain why u reverted it, I will return it if u don't mind. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 18:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The first paragraph on our article The Holocaust makes clear that it is the genocide of Jews, though acknowledges that separate persecutions against Slavic people and POWs are sometimes included under the term. Considering that Generalplan Ost, genocide, and intentional starvation are already explicitly mentioned in this lead in addition to the Holocaust, I am not sure that tieing them together in the way you propose adds much else. Keep in mind that this is an article focused on the military Operation Barbarossa itself, not these persecutions. — Goszei (talk)  18:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this is an article focused on the military Operation Barbarossa itself, not these persecutions
I get it. It's not me that added the persecution part in the lead so plz don't blame me for trying to tweak it.
The first paragraph on our article The Holocaust makes clear that it is the genocide of Jews
I didn't know that. Now I'm genuinely confused. But still that article and this one are separated articles with different contexts. Considering that this operation happened in USSR, it's directly related to the Slavs and so are the consequential persecutions.
Considering that Generalplan Ost, genocide, and intentional starvation are already explicitly mentioned in this lead in addition to the Holocaust
Why in addition? They are integral part of the Holocaust. Why are you trying to separate them? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 12:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Historians treat the Holocaust separately from other Nazi atrocities. This is because Germany had distinctly different policies for different groups. The Hunger Plan and the like were aimed at the entire population while Jews were persecuted and murdered through separate measures that specifically targeted them. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Someone already removed the part related to The Hunger Plan, so I guess your problem was solved... But we can agree that the deliberate starving to death or otherwise killing 3.3 million prisoners of war is part of the holocaust. And considering the context of the article, I don't find a reason to object the change. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 23:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
So... Is that a deal? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 21:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
No, both myself and Nick-D have stated here that the Holocaust was the genocide of Jews and that the other persecutions are separate and should be treated as such. — Goszei (talk)  21:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
But that isn't the only definition there. Here's one for example. You're not denying that it's not the only definition right? So if I may ask, what makes you think that your preferred definition is more suitable and fitter than the other one?
For me as I said earlier, the article's content and context makes my definition more favorable to the article's content and context considering that it is about Slavs and ussr pows. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 00:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Plz answer. I know this is getting boring but this is why we should close this discussion. And if you just dissappear, then where does that leave us? I need to know what is your complaint in order to know where we can compromise. Plz cooperate with me. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 21:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
To be frank, lumping the Holocaust in with other Nazi crimes is often considered a form of Holocaust denial. Historians treat the Holocaust (and other Nazi campaigns targeted at specific groups, such as those against LGBTQI people, Roma people, people with disabilities, etc) separately as they were largely separate. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article you have provided is actually a good example of this, as it starts with a sentence that explicitly defines the Holocaust as the murder of jews by Nazi Germany and and its collaborators. The Holocaust was not a broad genocidal campaign: it was targeted at Jewish people, so the text you are proposing is simply incorrect. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Got it. So, your argument is that there is no RS that include other victims in Holocaust definition because it is "considered a form of Holocaust denial", correct? But in fact this definition is not the only definition available. Yes many experts only include Jewish victims in the Holocaust definition but many others include other victims. In fact, in the 20th century, the commonly accepted definition of The Holocaust was the one that included other victims. Please check the article Victims of the Holocaust for a starter. Including other victims was never considered a Holocaust denial.
Also, The Britannica defines the Holocaust as the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II.
Here's a few examples of RS I found, plz check them if you have time:
BBC defines it as:
The Holocaust was a period in history at the time of World War Two (1939-1945), when millions of Jewish people, and people from other backgrounds, were murdered because of who they were.
And lists the victims as:

Who was killed or persecuted in the Holocaust? We know that the victims included:
Jewish people
Roma and Sinti people
Slavic people, especially in the Soviet Union, Poland and Yugoslavia
Disabled people
Gay people
Black people
Jehovah's Witnesses
Political opponents

Cambridge dictionary defines it as:
the killing of millions of Jews and others by the Nazis before and during the Second World War ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 12:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

What is the point of trying to 'dissolve' the Barbarossa Plan proper in brief description of Eastern Front operations? Moreover, stated in the article goal of Barbarossa is not the same as in the plan itself - Das Endziel der Operation ist die Abschirmung gegen das asiatische Russland aus der allgemeinen Linie Wolga – Archangelsk. 91.230.101.219 (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Were there really only nine victims below the age of 15, from a total of 26 million?
"Mass shootings and gassing operations, carried out by German paramilitary death squads and collaborators,[h] murdered over 26 million Soviets, of whom around 14 to 20 million of the murdered victims were Soviet civilians, and around nine of the murdered civilians were children under the age of 15."

“Historian Thomas B. Buell indicates that Finland and Romania, which weren't involved in initial German planning, needed additional time to prepare to participate in the invasion.”
No. Finland famously NEVER even planned to participate in Operation Barbarossa. Finland launched her counter-offensive against the USSR only on July 1, 1941, i.e. after the Soviets’ attack against Finland on June 22-25, 1941.
“Germany therefore sought to provoke the Soviet Union into an attack on Finland.”
The opposite happened. Germany had famously refused Stalin’s plea to attack Finland already in 1940 (on several occasions) and even warned him about doing so.
Finland's declaration of war on the USSR on June 25, 1941 had nothing to do with Operation Barbarossa. Finland not only had refused alliance with Germany but also participation in Barbarossa. In addition to that Finland had forbidden the Germans to use the Finnish territory for military strikes against the USSR. This changed only after the USSR attacked Finland on June 22-25, 1941.
Also, well before the June 1941 attack against Finland, the USSR had already made a plan on September 18, 1940 to attack Finland again. The document no. 103203 was signed by the defense ministers Semyon Timoshenko and Kirill Meretskov. (source: Solonin, Mark (2008). 22 июня. Анатомия катастрофы [June 22. Anatomy of Catastrophe] (in Russian). Moscow: Eksmo. ISBN 978-5-699-30295-6.) 2001:99A:200A:E800:68BF:DC4C:5210:4E10 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Already explained here. Mellk (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
No, it’s not explained there at all.
Quoting the phrase “Finland had already mobilized its armed forces which were better equipped than ever” you are changing the meaning of the phrase by adding the adjective “secretly” and along with it a non-neutral interpretation of the situation.
The phrase means that Finland had mobilized her defense because it seemed like she would be invaded. Earlier in June the USSR had already concentrated her best breakthrough forces on the Finnish border. These were not any secondary defense forces in case of a Finnish attack, but the best armored forces of the USSR.
The Germans, too, had warned Finland about Stalin’s forthcoming attack (decided already on 9/18/1940) against Finland, yet even a couple of days earlier President Ryti was quoted by the Soviet intelligence saying he wasn’t sure there would be a war. Finland only launched her counter-offensive on July 1, 1941. No "Finnish invasion" beginning June 25 took place.
Kindly correct your multiple false allegations. It's unbelievable you're editing an article either with a bias or poor knowledge about the topic. 2001:99A:200A:E800:68BF:DC4C:5210:4E10 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
You're citing primary sources here, so this fails WP:OR. The books I've read on Finland's role in the war note that it signed up to Barbarossa in advance. There were substantial German forces in Finland at the start of Barbarossa, which invaded the USSR. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Those books can't note anything of the sort, because Finland never, ever "signed up to Barbarossa". I wonder how is it even possible to distort such an important information or make a false interpretation.
Shouldn't you check your sources?
We know the Soviet allied British media lied on June 23, 1941 that Finland had attacked Russia on June 22, but that never happened in real life. The U.S. media (New York Times etc) on the contrary never reported anything of the sort.
During the spring of 1941, the Soviet Union had concentrated 21 divisions on the Russian—Finnish border in accordance with the previously mentioned 9/18/1940 plan to invade Finland, which meant over 300 000 men.
(Sources: Ohto Manninen: The Hidden Backgrounds of Winter War, 1994, and Mark Solonin: June, 22, Anatomy of a Catastrophe.)
The troops on the Finnish side were concentrated in defensive formation, and the formation was changed into an offensive only after Finland declared war on the USSR on June 25, AFTER Russia had begun bombing Finland on June 22, 1941 at 6:05 a.m.
The Soviets hadn't even anticipated Operation Barbarossa despite the German troops in Finland, because they had intelligence on what the Finnish government had decided. The Soviet intelligence had documented e.g. President Ryti saying around June 20 that "he didn't know if there would be a war".
The German troops in Finland were not allowed (by the decision of the Finnish government) to perform strikes from the Finnish territory against the USSR. That is not even when Barbarossa started on June 22. This only changed after the USSR had attacked Finland. Finland and Germany had signed a transit agreement that enabled German military transports from northern Norway, but there were no troops transported from the north to the southern Russian border.
No Finnish or German troops in Finland were positioned to be ready for an attack against the USSR on June 22 (Source: Earl F. Ziemke, German Military Operations in the North, p. 194). No Finnish or German troops invaded the USSR from Finland on June 22 when Operation Barbarossa started.
It's time to correct the article, which represents historical fabrication rather than actual history. 2001:99A:200A:E800:E0BF:4F2D:B9E4:7D4D (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Yet another bold lie in the article: "Finland slated 14 divisions for the invasion, and Romania offered 13 divisions and eight brigades over the course of Barbarossa."
No Finnish divisions participated in Operation Barbarossa at all. This has been common knowledge for 83 years, rather than a new explosive information. 2001:99A:200A:E800:C4C0:2A2E:5414:6DC (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
And what is your position on the Driftwood theory?--MWAK (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The Driftwood theory was built on the false premises that Finland would somehow have been able to avoid the Soviet invasion of June 22-25, 1941, so it’s not based on the realities of the then situation. There’s plenty of documented evidence (detailed and signed plans) the Soviets had decided to subjugate Finland under their rule, no matter what, already in 1939 and again since the 1940’s. 2001:99A:200A:E800:3D5C:C5C3:D528:20B2 (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
The German troops in Finland planned and intended to execute an attack on Murmansk, Unternehmen Silberfuchs, fully expecting the Finnish Army to participate, which army was aware of the plan, had mobilised and was deployed in coordination with the German army. The Soviet-Union 22-25 June airstrikes were largely seen by them as pre-emptive. Would they not have taken place, would then the Germans not have attacked? Would the Finnish have remained neutral if the Germans had attacked? In view of these considerations, a consensus has grown among historians that the Finnish used the 25 June airstrike as a pretext to enter the war. Wikipedia merely reflects this consensus.--MWAK (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The most recent additions turn a neutral summary into a coatrack for a sweeping geopolitical narrative built on primary quotes, fringe voices, and rhetorical flourishes—while even linking to an unacceptable site. My inclination is that we immediately strip it back to the prior concise, secondary-sourced consensus GA narrative prior to these changes. Policy anchors: UNDUE, SYNTH, PSTS/PRIMARY, FRINGE, RECENTISM, MOS:QUOTE, MOS:LINKING, ELNEVER/COPYLINK. Hopefully, an admin sees this and does so right away.

In any case, the changes fall short of the present Wikipedia quality standards. We don't have to wait for an administrator but perhaps user Alexander Makarov 1 would like to offer some suggestions how to insert the acceptable and useful parts of his essay into the original text. Without quotes of course :o).--MWAK (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
In general I agree with your judgement. Constructing new passages in a neoeurasianist viewpoint in complete silence, on what is one of the most trafficked pages on this site, is generally an odd decision. While I don't find the writing to be of poor quality, I would second that this not concise, not in compliance with the MOS, and seems a lot more like the conclusion of an essay than a passage in an encyclopedia. I would also keep an eye on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact's page, which was also the subject of mass editing by this same user in the last two weeks. If questionable extrapolations of Russian conservative neoeurasianist third way strangeness recently became the accepted theory and praxis for the world's population to unpack the consequences of Barbarossa, in the significance section of a Wikipedia article no less, I'm turning in my library card and buying a one-way ticket to the moon. Xenomorph 001 (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Xenomorph 001 Your commentary actually made me laugh aloud. We'll see how an admin handles this; when and if one ever shows up.
Well, the fact that the contentious topic procedure is applicable means that any editor has a mandate for firm protective measures. But we can change the article ourselves after reaching consensus.--MWAK (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Original status restored. Period. Too many of us worked for way too long to get this to GA status with the best scholarship to allow the page to be ruined by an unregistered user's fringe soapbox. --Obenritter (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
The user is registered.
* Most arguments are mainstream, sourced and by mainstream authors (George Kennan, Liddell Hart, Ian Kershaw...).
* Barbarossa decisively altered the geopolitical balance in the war - mainstream.
* The US shifted from defensive to offensive policy following Barbarossa - mainstream.
* Barbarossa contradicted Geopolitik - mainstream.
* The Eurasianist view is fringe but notable.
*  Not up to Wikipedia standards - you have a stab chapter on historical significance below any encyclopedic standards. Alexander Makarov 1 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Being registered is a good thing but an anonymous user's contributions have to meet the same criteria. All the points you make are correct but seemed to be combined by you to justify an exaggerated expose of Eurasianism, violating WP:Undue Weight. Your writing style is pleasing but fits an essay better than an encyclopedia. All those quotes were utterly redundant.--MWAK (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Undue weight is not zero weight. Fringe views are mentioned at the end of articles in proportion to their weight. Xenomorph unreasonably sent himself one way to the Moon. Please, return. (Second lough aloud?). In this case, I wrote 3 sentences on the Eurasianist view at the end. The Eurasianist school is notable with notable representatives, for example, Putin. He works closer with Dugin than Hitler worked with Haushofer. Hence the due weight is above zero = deserves mention.
Essay involves personal arguments. Give me one such argument I published.
Link to an unacceptable site - no such link exists.
I said that I was a registered user all the way but you keep insisting that I am not.
Your reason for reversion is content rather than any of the above pretexts you use. You suppress all sources, including most reliable Western sources, implying that the Democracies would not win the War without Barbarossa, that the United States was focused on the hemispheric defense before Barbarossa, that the victory of the Democracies was the product of German decision contradicting Geopolitik and involving epic miscalculation. You suppress these sources in order to maintain the image of invincibility and you prefer a stub chapter on historical significance as long as it saves this image. Not encyclopedic.
Alexander Makarov 1 (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I certainly agree that unpacking how Putin and Dugin explain Operation Barbarossa's significance is a valuable endeavor. It is something I am not immediately familiar with, but the processes by which people reach different conclusions with the same sources is a valuable portion of historical production. I applaud efforts to analyze and extrapolate these viewpoints. I would highly recommend familiarizing yourself with the manual of style, packing your sources and analysis into a more concise piece, and introducing it to Wikipedia's Eurasianism page, or if you find the rules here stifling publishing an article elsewhere. I do not find most of your sources disagreeable in their content, but the deployment of them bereft of their conclusions is questionable. To pretend that B.H. Liddell Hart, a man who made a career of whitewashing German generals, is on board for a reinterpretation of the Second World War as a skirmish in the 21st century memory politics of Russian Nationalism is really funny to me, I enjoyed that in particular. Time heals all wounds?
On the topic of personal arguments, closely read your own posts on this talk page.
I don't particularly believe that anyone attempting to keep the Operation Barbarossa Wikipedia page coherent in their free time is trying to tell you "that the Democracies would win without Barbarossa." I would firmly state that we are interested in the reality of the Soviet Union's vital contribution to the defeat of Fascism, as part of a global coalition of Great Powers, rather than your assumption that we seek to remove the Soviet Union's role. This is not a Call of Duty World War 2 criticism forum post, this is an article describing Operation Barbarossa as one of the most important military events in human history.
In terms of hemispheric defense I would suggest acquainting yourself with the intricacies of the United States' role as a global power in the interwar period, the Pacific War's escalation, and the Battle of the Atlantic. Unless, of course, Eurasianism has decided that oceans are irrelevant, in which case, I do not seek to dissuade you. I found it valuable to write out my thoughts in the same way you wrote out yours, and I welcome the exchange, but I would not post them in this article without some discussion, it comes across as quite strange. To be clear; I do not wish to infringe on your capacity for independent thought on this matter, I am not interested in this debate, and most importantly, both of our postions are immaterial to an article about Operation Barbarossa.
For Geopolitik; great, I would recommend reading the article "Operation Barbarossa" on Wikipedia that prescribes to your viewpoint that Nazi Germany made a serious mistake in invading the Soviet Union. If this article is too poisoned for you to read, then taking a good look at percievable reality will do as an acceptable alternative.
My personal recommendation is to post your thoughts unedited on Conservapedia's page for Operation Barbarossa, I suspect you will find the reactions you are seeking there. If you do so, please report back on this endeavour, it will be comedic gold. Other than that, I consider this topic closed.
I'm very happy to be back on Earth, thank you all. Xenomorph 001 (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
alright who reverted my changes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusKosciuszko (talk • contribs) 05:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)