Talk:Operation Barbarossa/Archive 1

message: On my computer, in mp3 audio format, I possess the official German announcement of the attack on the Soviet Union. The announcement is made by Josef Goebbels, who reads an address from Adolf Hitler. If I can find a website to host this file, would a link to this file be considered relevant enough to add to the "Links" section? Yours sincerely and respectfully, --Cormac Canales 08:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, it would be quite appropiate here. — Monedula 09:29, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds important enough to upload directly to the Wikipedia I'd say. Oberiko 12:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Of course, this mp3 belongs to the article! May this mp3 be GFDL-licensed? If yes, it definitely would be better to upload it to Wikipedia! Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 12:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not an expert on the international copyright law, but it seems safe to assume that this recording don't have a copyright, i.e. it's public domain (not GFDL) in the same way as laws don't have copyrights. Goebbels might have held the copyright because it was his performance, but even that's unlikely since he was acting as a public official. Encoding the speech to a new medium is not covered by copyright laws. Gene s 11:54, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The speach itself is not copyrighted, but this specific .mp3 can be. It's like the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1913 is not copyrighted, but its modern reprints are. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 12:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright law protects only creative works.  Simple copying is not creative, so it does not create copyright.  Therefore, converting a record to mp3 does not change its legal status. Monedula 12:11, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text:  I am not sure you are correct on copyright status of modern reprints of EB1913. Can you provide any links? I am quite certain the copyright does not cover the exact reprint. It may cover something else, added to the modern reprint. It's impossible to extend the copyright by simply republishing a copy. Gene s 12:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  official German announcement 

message: First section (German preparations) has this paragraph:
"Stalin's own bloodthirsty reputation made the Soviet Union a tempting target for the Nazis. During the late 1930s, Stalin had killed millions of people during the Great Purge, including large numbers of competent and experienced military officers and strategists, effectively leaving the Red Army weakened and leaderless. The Nazis often emphasized the brutality of the Soviet regime when targeting the "inferior" Slavs in their propaganda."
While at the end (causes for the Soviet defeat) we have:
"However, all this caused a shift in Soviet propaganda attitudes. Whereas in prewar years it stated that Soviet army was very strong, already in the fall of 1941 it began to tell people that Soviet army had been weak, that there had not been enough time to prepare for war, that the German attack had come as a surprise etc. All this continues to be preached in Russia's schools today (with the extra embellishment that Stalin's purges of 1930s have destroyed the best officers). At the same time, almost everything concerning the Soviet army in 1939–1941 remain secret even today, many years after the war is over."
So did Stalin's actions during the Great Purge leave the Soviet army without good officers or not?
jagripino
:Opinions differ.  Some say that indeed the Great Purge has killed the best officers.  Others think that, quite contrary, the Great Purge has eliminated the unloyal and the incompetent.  See Viktor Suvorov's book "Очищение" ("The Cleansing"). — Monedula 15:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What Jagripino here sees as a problem is in my view one of the compelling strengths of a Wikipedia, that tries to present attributed opinions rather than a selected version of many alternative truths. The wordings can of course be improved, but there is absolutely no reason for us (Wikipedia) to make a choise in the text of which theory to believe in. --Johan Magnus 16:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, it does seem a bit confusing.  Perhaps it'd be best to leave discussion of the effects within the article Great Purge and only make a passing reference to it here.  (With the amount of officers taken out though, it does seem pretty difficult to believe that it wouldn't have caused some mass confusion though). Oberiko 16:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problems with the contradicting views on the effects of the Great Purge on Operation Barbarossa. If both theories are supporter/disputed, pointing both POVs should be done on the article alongside with a link to the Great Purge entry. Jagripino 16:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry contradicts itself? 

message: A comment: In the article it says: "Drilling into the solid permafrost was impossible, and tents couldn’t even be staked into the ground." I am afraid the permafrost is not found anywhere along the front line. A sole exception could be the very north, next to Finland and Norway. I guess the writer meant an ordinary frozen ground which thaws completele in spring, as opposed to the "real" permafrost.
:Thank you for the comment, the article has been corrected. Wikipedia is an open encyclopaedia which anybody can edit. If you spot more inaccuracies, we will be grateful if you correct them by clicking the "edit this page" at the top of the window. Just leaving a comment, like you did, is appreciated, too :) Zocky 10:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thick scrub dotted the landscape, and Russian troops, usually on cavalry, used this to sneak up on Germans and open fire, unnoticed.
ROTFLMAO. Sneaky bastards these Russians.
 
I am removing the whole this silly paragraph. The only possible way it can be in a serious article is as an exact quotation from some German general looking for each and every excuse to drive the blame off his ass. Mikkalai 20:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really permafrost? 

message: This article seems to lack any description of what actually happened. It goes from preparations to tangential matters (Siege of Leningrad, the Continuation War) to analysis with only a couple of paragraphs about the greatest military engagement in history! No order of battle. No names of commanders. No mention of the encirclements at Bialystok and Minsk. Nothing about the Baltic states. Nothing about the Soviet counter-offensives at Gomel and Korosten. What about the reinforcement of the Smolensk pocket? The battle of West Ukraine and the encirclement at Uman? The siege of Odessa? Gdr 10:22, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
:Some people have got too much of that kind of history already. You, who obviously have not, are free to fix the shortcoming! :-) /Tuomas 10:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the beef? 

message: I'm not suggesting that Russia's victory should be credited to the United States, but even Zhukov credits the American Lend Lease policies as helping the Soviets overcome their logistical problems.
:"Operation Barbarossa" only refers to the events of 1941.--MWAK 08:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Lend Lease? 

message: Quotes from article:
modern tanks only accounted for 7.2% of the total Soviet tank park (or 1861 T-34 and KV-1 tanks
: Guys you will make me die of laugh. "Only" 1861 T-34 and KV-1? This is more than Pz-II, Pz-III and Pz-IV combined (1226 + 98 + 211 = 1535)!
: Let me also remind you that Pz-I was parody on a tank (two 7.62 mm machine guns, no gun - that's why I didn't count it, but if you prefer, I will - along with nearly 10 thousand Sovied T-26 light tanks...thats why 7.2% is true - not because there were few heavy tanks, but because there were insane amounts of light ones! - but I digress),
: Pz-II is 9.5-ton machine with 29 mm gun, Pz-III is 22 tons, 37 mm gun, and Pz-IV is 23 tons, 75 mm gun, whereas KV-1 is 45-ton with 76 mm gun, T-34 is 26-ton with 76 mm gun! And wait for KV-2 specs...
: In my book, it's Germans who look pitiful in comparison, not Soviets. Think about less insane explanation please.
The Soviet armed forces, in contrast, lacked leadership, training, and readiness.
: Isn't Winter War a good training?
No, Winter war was NOT a good training, since it was different type of war. Also, Soviet commanders did not really learn anything in Winter War, they could simply rely on numbers and much better quality of equipment to win it, without bothering to use any sophisticated or effective tactics.
Attack came at a time when new organizations and promising, but untested, weapons were just beginning to trickle into operational units.
: So, ~200 monster 52-ton KV-2's with 152mm gun were "just beginning to trickle"? ~600 45-ton KV-1's were "just beginning to trickle"? They were in production since 1939 - and Germans had nothing even close to these!
a large part of the Soviet Army in Europe was concentrated along the new western Soviet border in former Polish territory, which lacked significant defences... The initial tactical errors of the Soviets in the first few weeks of the Axis offensive proved catastrophic.
: Now this sounds closer to truth. Soviet forces were amassed at the border. That's why they were destroyed.
Without tanks and lacking sufficient motorisation
: Again old myths
: 195.212.29.179 07:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've raised some good points (not 100% accurate but close enough for argument's sake). The number of KV and T-34 tanks is indeed non-trivial. However, these types were not in production from 1939 - nto that that matters much to the point you're making. The Pzkw-II had a 20mm gun, not 29mm. Many (most?) of the Pzkw-III in June 1941 had short 50mm guns, not 37mm. Again though that is not critical to the point you're making. Even the lighter Soviet tanks could knock out the German tanks. The reasons for inital Soviet defeats are related to readiness and training, not equipment. Soviet equipment in June 1941 was pretty good. Some of it was excellent. The training was awful and readiness was worse. This was a classic case of an Army that looked good on paper but not in reality. DMorpheus 14:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tanks and planes can be so totally destroyed in a few first days only if they are all close to the frontline. Thus you assert that Soviets put nearly all their tanks, and all their planes - note! ~10000 planes! - on the West border, including freshly conquered Poland, - and then just sat there, waiting to be slaughtered? No training? No readiness? No defensive preparations? Why? Do you think Stalin was an imbecile? 88.102.92.202 15:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I haven't asserted that at all. But, not to oversimplify - yes, Stalin was an imbecile in some ways. DMorpheus 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd rather think that Stalin wasn't idiot at all (idiots didn't survive ruthless struggle for power inside Communist Party's higher echelons), and he had a reason to have so much of military power amassed at the border. What this reason could be, is left as an excercise for the reader. 195.212.29.163 08:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Causes of initial Soviet defeats"?

message: Why the hell does in the box stand: estimated soviet strength: 2.6mil; does noone here know that the   Germans made about ->3 million<- prisoners of war in the first months (before December); the soviet numbers were much higher. Noone can deny this. I`ll edit it, when i have found some serious sources.
Flosi 02:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet numbers are definetely wrong

message: Taking on the Soviet Union! lol, you dumb bastards!
-G
    at the time, few of those guys cared much about any smart alec's laughs ...
: It's all the Italians fault. They attacked Greece, and Germany had to the help Italians out of that misery. Because of that, Hitler lost a few weeks. The invasion of the Soviet Union started too late. Germany could have won the war against the SU, if they had occupied Moscow.
So, right is: lol at Mussollini and all the Italians that stayed behind
Taking on Greece! lol, you dumb bastards! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.255.1.100 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: lol at Hitler and all the Germans that stayed behind

message: Russian original of Zhukov's proposal (May 15, 1941): 
The notes for the future article on the theme (I've included mostly planning, so the article does not reflect actual troops concentration etc). Constanz - Talk 16:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A section/article for Soviet assault plans 

message: Theres absolutely no stated plans to wipe out the urban populations of the soviet Union.  At Nuremberg it was stated and put on record, seemingly substantiated with Von Dem Bach-zelewskis admittance of.  Which he rescinded years later in front of a German court.  His excuse was that he was in a survival mode, only worried about saving his own hide.  There also a quote by Goering that seems to posit a declaration of this intention.  But, only as it was taken out of context. As you read it in full, he clearly states that the Russian campaign could result in the starvation of several million people.  Not that they were going to invade Russia and kill everyone.
:Well, you also removed the pasage about enslaving the Russian population. I suppose you agree in putting that back? As regards the starvation, things are very simple. Farmers produce a certain food surplus. Urban populations can only exist by eating that surplus. The Germans planned to move the surplus out of the occupied territory (apart from the amount the five million resident Germans and allies would eat). Therefore the urban populations would have ceased to exist. And the Germans knew that full well, not caring because this process was favouring their enslavement plans. So I'll put that part back too. And people don't just lie in court. They often lie in books also, after having succumbed to the evil side of their nature, which is very strong in any human being. Many revisionists use Stalin as an easy excuse to justify not becoming aware of their own moral degradation...--MWAK 10:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet genocide 

message: The following text on Finland and the Continuation War is not part of Operation Barbarossa. I'm moving it here until I merge anything unique into the existing entry for those events
StephenMacmanus 08:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving off-topic section on Finland 

message: "The Red Army was the largest in the world: this menace had to be removed before the British Isles could be invaded."  It is commonly believed that since the Battle of Britain and the canceled invasion of Britain in the Summer of 1940 caused a stalemate on the Western Front, Hitler decided to go ahead for the ultimate task, in the invasion of Russia.  Perhaps Britain WAS next, but Russia came AFTER an attempt at subdueing the British failed.  Just my opinion in the end, but many books would back that up.
Jmlk17 10:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good edit, thanks for doing it. DMorpheus 18:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue of British Invasion

message: The big blu graph says 2.6 million Soviets and 3.2 Million Germans but then if you scroll down you see that another graph says 3.3 million Soviets and 4.3 Million Axis so things should be changed (Deng 15:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed what way? It needs some work, doesn't it? Let us not hurry with such estimations. As 3.3 million Soviets and 4.3 Million Axis is sourced, this one looks as more reliable, doesn't it? --Constanz - Talk 16:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If my graph is sourced and the author is reliable, then I'm not going to change it by request of a certain editor with obvious pro-Soviet bias. I pointed out before that the figures that you of course like more are not sourced, we do not know which source do these come from. --Constanz - Talk 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What then? As i've said, my source is available for everyone  (table 47 there in Russian). Why shouldn't we believe this graph (Meltyukhov's sources according to footnotes 1519, 1520 etc)? To dispute it, pls show alternative version, and pls not from pre-1990s time. Until you've no proof for your claim -- Mund halten und weiter dienen!--Constanz - Talk 14:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look there are diffrent graphs in this article and none of the match as you can clearly see. There are 2 diffrent sets of numbers and both sets cant be right. So someone needs to find out which numbers are right and change the other graph is that both match. In this specific article as can been seen in the graphs that are in this article one graph the big one in blue says Germany 3.2 million and SU 2.6 million but the small one also found in this article says 4.3 million axis and 3.3 million SU and both cant be right so find out which of the sets are correct and change it so that the graphs match. (Deng 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally think Meltyukhov is reliable, as his research work (yr 2000) is one of the newest and comprehensive; new information and finds by different Russian historians have been taken into account. DMorpheus noted on Eastern front talk page that ratios are similar to those presented in previous (Western) works.--Constanz - Talk 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but the problem is Meltyukhov is not available in english. Hopefully it will be soon, but until then it is very difficult for the rest of us to reply on this source. The V.A. Nevezhin article (Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Dec 1995) has no statistics although it is helpful in other areas. DMorpheus 13:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Let someone then draw the alternative graph and let's discuss it here. --Constanz - Talk 14:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes let us discuss how my pointing out that the 2 graphs dont match is pro-Soviet bias explain to me how pointing out that 2 graphs in the same article show 2 diffrent things is pro soviet bias let us discuss that. (Deng 01:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I claimed that your previous edition to Eastern Front (World War II) (here  it is obvious exaggeration, extremism and nonsense) is biased and that's why I gave the link as well. --Constanz - Talk 08:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  No no you claim that me posting that 2 diffrent graphs in the same article is pro soviet bias this is ofcurse a personal attack on me. Showing that 2 graphs in the same article show 2 diffrent things can in no way be pro soviet bias but your comment shows that you have no intrest in makeing a correct article the only thing you want to do is attack me and make articles that contradict each other so stop with your personal attacks on me or I will report you . And I say it again showing that 2 graphs in the same article show 2 diffrent things is in no way pro soviet bias do you understand?
And you still havent explained how postin that 2 graphs show 2 diffrent things in the same article is pro svoiet bias explain it to me that when I say 2 graphs in the same article show 2 diffrent things is pro svoiet bias. Also let us never forget that I have proven you wrong time and time again and when I do you just stop replying for example when I proved that the axis produced more raw materials then the Soivets with real sources and real numbers what did you do--> you did nothing and then after a few weeks you say; oooh well i dont want to waste time running around in libraries. This ofcurse proves that the only reason you are in wiki is to attack me and make as many as possible articles contradict each other.
(Deng 15:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Graphs dont match

message: Stalmate =  A situation in which further action is blocked; a deadlock.
There was no stalemate, the offensive on 5 of december cant be called a stalemate
A victory means that there are no opponents on the victors country?
So then according to you the Soviets lost the battle of stalingrad they also lost according to you the battle of Kursk.
There was no Victory for the axis they failed to achive their objectives, which were.
The ultimate strategic goal of the Germans was to subjugate the European portion of the Soviet Union.  The initial attack (by German forces and those of her allies, including Finland, Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia) would seek to encircle the bulk of the Red Army in Belarus (in the northwestern portion of the Soviet Union), and capture three key cities - Leningrad (the birthplace of Soviet Communism), Moscow (the seat of power) and Kiev (capital of Ukraine, with its riches of wheat and grain, and also gateway to the oil-rich Caucasus region).
The eventual goal  would be a 3000 mile long line from Archangel in the north to Astrakhan in the south, with all ruled by up to 100 million settlers from Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia.  Geographically, the eastern boundary would fall along the Volga River and the Ural Mountains.
And looking at the goals you can see there was no Victory and the fact that The Soviets counter attacked on the 5th of december proves that there was no stalemate.
And most importantly there is a section that describes the failure of the operation in this article there wouldnt need to be such a topic if the axis hadent failed. Also Wiki wouldnt exist if the axis hadent failed.
(Deng 03:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Deng....you can't call Barbarossa an Axis victory. Hitler tried to conquer the Soviet Union in 1941....and failed. Therefore, its not a victory. By the end of 1941, the Soviets where on the offensive.....so the Barbarossa invasion at best was an indecisive result, with the Germans trying again in 1942.  One could also argue that by stopping the initial invasion of the Germans, the Soviets won the opening campaign. From then on, the Germans were in big trouble. -- Drogo Underburrow 11:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree also. There's no question the German offensive plan failed to gain its objectives. It's a Soviet defensive success, although I would hesitate to call it a 'victory' since they lost virtually their entire pre-war Army and so much territory and civilian population. What this really points out is the trouble with using simplistic terms such as 'victory' for such a huge operation.  We need to find another word. DMorpheus 12:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I didn't change the result to say a Russian victory, but changed it to "no victory for either side" until we can figure out a better way of saying it. I wanted to call it a Soviet victory, but .....the Soviets got blasted so badly....I figured some editors wouldn't like it. Perhaps the negative statement "German defeat" is most appropriate. The Soviets didn't "win"....but the Germans failed. Furthermore, they were never again strong enough to attack along the entire Eastern Front at the same time. What do you say? Drogo Underburrow 12:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't know what word to use; it's complex. Maybe "see below" or something like that in the campaign box, then a paragraph similar to what has been written here explaining the outcome? This just doesn't lend itself to a simple one or two-word statement. DMorpheus 14:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just added the term "See Article" to the campaign box as a placeholder until we can develop a better term. User Kurt Leyman has reverted the page a number of times today to show it as a 'tactical german victory'. I am not tied to the term "See Article" but I suggest we leave some neutral term there until we can come up with something better. DMorpheus 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like DMorpheus "see article" because just as DMorpheus says it is a complex matter and needs a complex explanation so "see article" is the best solution to this specific problem. (Deng 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There was no stalemate

message: Barbarossa was German tactical victory. If it was not, by that logic the Battle of Jutland ect was not a tactical victory either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_jutland
Germans did not achieve their goals in neither operation, but inflicted much higher losses to opposing side.
::: That is an odd definition of 'tactical victory'. Most armies will define victory as accomplishing your mission, period. In a defensive operation, tactical victory consists of preventing the enemy from accomplishing his mission. It's got nothing to do with losses on either side. Heck, by that definition, you might as well claim the Germans won WW2 - after all, they inflicted more casualties than they took. In the USA, the Federal forces lost more men in our Civil War than the Confederacy. But the Confederates decisively lost the war. These examples simply point out the absurdity of using losses as the sole or primary measure. 
::: Also, 'tactical' considerations are not paramount. The strategic level is far more important than the tactical level. I don't know enough about Jutland to comment on your example, but there are other examples. At Dien Bien Phu, France inflicted more casualties on the Viet Minh than they themselves took, yet no one claims it was a French victory. They failed to prevent enemy offensive success. That's all that mattered. The fact that they won a lot of firefights on the tactical level didn't prevent a strategic loss. 
::: You are also ignoring the operational level, which lies between the tactical and the strategic. 
::: In the case of Barbarossa, as several editors have pointed out, the Germans failed to gain any of their strategic objectives. The Soviet armed forces and government survived and denied the Germans success. Thus on the strategic level the Germans lost and the USSR 'won'. On the operational level, generally the Germans won the major battles. On the tactical level, again they tended to prevail in most actions (not all, but the pattern is clear). It is precisely in the inability of the German armed forces to translate tactical and operational success into strategic success that a major historical question lies. DMorpheus 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add that Barbarossa ended with a "tactical defeat" for the Germans... when the Soviets pushed them back in December and went on the counteroffensive. Drogo Underburrow 15:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical victory 

message: "the Germans failed to gain any of their strategic objectives"
Germans had several strategic targets which they managed to capture. Smolensk ect.
"by that definition"
That is not my defination. I only pointing out (not claiming that it's a defination) that Soviet Union had suffered massive losses during Barbarossa, losses that can't be compared with German losses, in case someone would be thinking about "Soviet victory". 
"yet no one claims it was a French victory"
No, to my knowledge no one has done so, but it is not the same with Barbarossa.
"tactical defeat for the Germans."
Hardly. Strategic defeat? Yes.
::: OK, if you agree it was a German strategic defeat, kindly stop putting "German tactical victory" in the campaign box. It would also be very helpful for all of us if you would sign your posts. Thanks. DMorpheus 15:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, it was a German strategic defeat. That makes three of us, a majority. Drogo Underburrow 02:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also of the opinion that it was a strategical defeat: remember that german aim of the operation barbarossa was to deliver a decisive blow against the red army and to defeat/destroy it for once and for all. As we know, they failed to do this. All in all, many have claimed that this 'stalemate' by december 1941 actually meant strategically inevitable defeat for germany.--Constanz - Talk 07:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm 

message: If anyone would agree with this result being mentioned in the article, please post. Or discuss if you do not. For I would certainly classify going hundreds of miles into enemy territory, forcing them to move their industry east and capturing key cities (not to mention the Ukraine's huge supply of grain) as a "tactical victory". Sure, the Germans failed to capture Leningrad and Stalingrad, and did not cause the Soviet Union to collapse. Yet they were only pushed back beyond the Soviet borders in 1944, and the campaign was quite popular in Germany. laddiebuck 05:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are in the minority on this issue, so leave the majority opinion in the article while its discussed here. I would not call achieving those things you mentioned as any kind of victory; its not any kind of victory to strike first and bloody someone's nose, after which they beat you to a pulp and then burn your house down and enslave not only your children, but your children's children. Cheers :-) Drogo Underburrow 05:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't play games here. There was a certain huge strategic goal of the operation (you don't know which one?) set wit lots of boasting to be achieved in 2-3 months. The goal was not achieved. Period. `'mikka (t) 05:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Individual battles...say, the 1941 Kiev pocket....were tactical German victories. The Barbarossa Campaign as a whole was a strategic defeat, period. Not a "Tactical Axis victory; Strategic Soviet victory" Drogo Underburrow 06:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel that "strategic defeat" conveys an entirely different view of the actual outcome. Operation Barbarossa ended in Dec '41, yet the Germans were not repulsed until 1944, and as I argued previously, inflicted huge human and economical damage on the USSR. Thus I feel that "Tactical Axis victory" is a perfectly justified addendum to the outcome. 128.95.15.78 01:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also feel the need to add "Tactical Axis victory", as the outcome of the whole war wasn't decided until Kursk. Of course we could compare the outcome only to how it was planned, but previous writer is correct that if it is omitted, it doesn't present correct picture at the end of 1941. --Whiskey 08:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we please discuss this further? laddiebuck 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And another point... If we put here only "Strategic Soviet Victory", then it will create a number of problems in other articles. F.ex. the Winter War could be described "Strategic Finnish Victory", as Soviets failed to achieve their objectives. Not that I'd have warm feeling with that modification, but it doesn't present the correct picture of the outcome. --Whiskey 07:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So shall we make the addendum in default of any other comments? laddiebuck 02:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No you shouldn't. Only two people feel the way you do, while several feel that the invasion was not any sort of Axis victory, none, nada, zip. Drogo Underburrow 02:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, then at least respond to the posts. BTW, "feel" doesn't enter into it, since Wikipedia aims to be factually accurate, this is a purely historical and/or semantic argument. laddiebuck 17:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical Axis victory; Strategic Soviet victory 

message: The battle was tactical Axis victory.
"There was a certain huge strategic goal of the operation.... The goal was not achieved."
...which is exactly the why it was not strategic Axis victory...
The question has been answered many times if you would have bothered to look you will see that (Deng 10:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Learn to sign your posts and it seems that the majority agrees with what is stated  and if you would have bothered to read what other people say then you would have noticed that (Deng 14:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical victory 

message: Something was the table: soviet strength is equal to losses. If someone is going to put any number, please cite sources or be reverted. `'mikka (t) 06:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  battlebox numbers 

message: I've made the case in previous sections that this needs to be changed. The duration of the campaign was June-Dec '41, during which the Soviet Union launched not a single successful counterattack. During June-December '41, the USSR was routed, and that is very hard to dispute. If you look at articles such as Attack on Pearl Harbor (which also failed its strategic objective of destroying aircraft carriers and delivering a "crippling blow") or the Winter War article (the Soviet campaign failed its strategic objectives), you will see that the "Result" field always consistently describes the immediate outcome of the battle with respect to position gained. It does not measure how the battle turned out relative to the attacker's expectations, nor whether the grounds gained were later reversed. For further examples, see Operation Compass (reversed by Rommel in '41-'42), Operation Market Garden (the Germans were eventually defeated, right?), Battle of Dunkirk (ambiguous), Battle of Crete (it was "very costly" for the Germans, just like Barbarossa), Battle of the Philippines (1941-42) (counterattacks retook it in '44, so it must have been a Japanese failure, right?), Battle of Normandy (the Allies failed to capture Caen on D-Day, so it was clearly a defeat for them, right?), or the Toropets-Kholm Operation (the Soviets did not achieve their strategic objectives, so label that a failure too?). I think I've made my point adequately. laddiebuck 19:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also please, that Operation Barbarossa is not the entire Eastern Front (World War II); they are different in scope. Barbarossa is only June-December '41, so the eventual outcome does not apply to it. laddiebuck 19:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After December 5, 1941 the Germans were retreating. It seems a funny kind of victory to me where you are going backwards. Drogo Underburrow 19:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Conversely, it seems a funny kind of defeat to me where you gain 300-400 miles of land in a few months. I know that they were retreating in '41, but that wasn't decisive as you seem to imply. The battle wavered on, with each side taking the offensive, and not until November '42 were any real permanent victories achieved on the Soviet side. Barbarossa ends in Dec '41. (If you want to change the date on that, that could be an alternative solution, although I prefer that much less.) laddiebuck 19:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  laddiebuck, I think you're actually making a much more important point, which is that these campaign boxes oversimplify a sometimes complex issue. Some of the examples you cite are for relatively short battles/campaigns, or are (deliberate, I know) oversimplifications of complex actions. Since I've been working on Market/Garden, I'll pick on that one. In a short battle it is pretty easy to assess a clear cut winner and loser; I don't expect a lot of reverts on that one. But in a six-month campaign with the scope and complexity of Barbarossa, it's another ball game. There's some discussion of this up above. I would say the number of reverts on this issue confirms, in part, this notion. Rather than revert this endlessly we should consider a different campaign box for such large operations. DMorpheus 19:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  DMorpheus -- I'm not qualified to assess that situation. But that seems to me to be a large undertaking, require something like a WikiProject to complete. In principle, I agree that some other method of indicating results must be undertaken, maybe something like (Next Battle in Campaign), similar in style to "Successor/Predecessor" for Prime Ministers, etc. laddiebuck 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Who says when Barbarossa ended?. 2. The campaign box in this case is not adhereing to the NPOV rule. Proof: we are arguing over who is right and wrong, instead of presenting the sides of the issue as given by published secondary sources. Drogo Underburrow 20:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, disputing the duration of Barbarossa is an entirely separate issue. As it stands, the duration June-December 1941 given implies a German victory for that period of time. If it is found that secondary sources describe Barbarossa as lasting for a longer period of time, then naturally the outcome needs to be modified as well. As I'm saying, that is a separate issue, and please change it first before modifying the outcome, because naturally the outcome is directly a function of knowing what period of time we're talking about. laddiebuck 20:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  By the way, this is why I proposed "Axis tactical victory; Soviet strategic victory" as a compromise earlier on in this thread, which was rejected. laddiebuck 20:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barbarossa wasn't any kind of victory. Nobody won. However, the Germans did fail to reach all their objectives, so it is accurate to call it a "German strategic defeat" and let it go at that. I don't see why you insist on this "tactical victory" stuff. Its jargon. Nobody knows what it means, except you; you have your own pet definition for it, which is why other people won't accept it. Nobody cares that the Germans gained lots of ground and killed lots of people. That isn't victory, since the Russians at the end of the campaign had more people, and more ground, and were on the offensive. I'll repeat, its not a victory to punch someone in the nose, if they then smash you to pulp. Drogo Underburrow 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, "tactical victory" is not my term, if you look at the pages I linked to, several have that term in their Results boxes. It's not as if I'm tyring to push my own private terminology. laddiebuck 14:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I am not trying anything like original research. In high school (in Hungary, circa '99), I learned that Barbarossa was a German victory. Now whether that evaluation was correct or incorrect, the fact is, the only way to settle this dispute is to cite sources. So will you cite your "widely recognized" sources? (Naturally, if you do, I won't argue the point.) And thanks for reverting my edits without doing so. laddiebuck 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for textbooks from 1990-ish times in post-Communist states, I will not say a word and only laugh sadly. No matter what harm brought Soviet Union to Hunrary, Ukraine, Egypt, etc., historical revisionism, especially done in haste, is sad thing. `'mikka (t) 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't seem to realize how much progress can be made in only 10 years. The Soviet regime fell in '89, and Hungary overtly turned violently anti-Communist, as it had covertly been. If you look at textbooks used today (and in '99, when I studied), you will realize that in they are very objective, and frequently more objective than textbooks produced in the West, as Western history has its own (admittedly much smaller) share of historical revisionism. laddiebuck 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sources: it was your obligation in the first place to provide sources when you changed what was written before you. However in this particular case the table (and the article summary) should match article text. The first thing I saw when opening the page was section title: "Causes of the failure of Operation Barbarossa". So, if you want the word "victory" in the table, you better replace the section with "Causes of the victory of Operation Barbarossa", and thenn we shall talk. `'mikka (t) 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I'll research the matter more before editing again. laddiebuck 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axis tactical victory 

message: I checked the foreign-language Wikipedia articles on Barbarossa -- not research, obviously, but interesting nonetheless. I've sorted the viewpoints based ont the number of languages supporting them. I was unable to determine the gist of the articles in 3 languages.
Treats Barbarossa as the entire '41-'45 conflict: (hence unambiguous Axis defeat <`'mikka (t) 16:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so much diversity as you are trying to pretend. `'mikka (t) 16:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What other languages think 

message: "With regards to German counterparts, as Viktor Suvorov claims, preliminary designs of first German heavy tank date back to May 26, 1941(!)[1" Umm, this seems kinda unconnected to anything in the article. I don't see its' relevance here - and any case it's incorrect, since there were several German heavy tank projects before that date. --Mikoyan21 08:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may look irrelevant, but as for it's incorrect, since there were several German heavy tank projects before that date pls bring source as well (also, I wanted to remind you already a while ago to take a glance at WP:No original research and WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox -- without sources for one's interesting claims, a doubt of violating these rules may arise). --Constanz - Talk 13:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst Hitler indeed did not officially order Tiger until May 26th 1941, both Henschel and Porsche had already started development of which was to become Tiger much earlier - Henschel projects date back to 1937. Also, Germans were developing NbFz-series before the war, five were built and some saw action in 1940-41, although the tank did not enter mass production. See details at AchtungPanzer.com. So whilst Tiger itself was not ordered until May 1941, the design itself already existed and was not even first German heavy tank project. I propose that above sentence is modified to be more accurate - and I don't see why Suvorov needs to be mentioned at all there. --Mikoyan21 17:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: German heavy tanks

message: Can anyone extrapolate? As far as I remember, it was "the doctrine of small actions" or something like that. --Theocide 15:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The english translation I have seen of the term is "Deep Battle" , but since I do not read Russian I can't comment on whether that is a good translation. The doctrine was formulated in the early 1930s and formalized in the 1936 field regulations.  DMorpheus 16:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Very modern Soviet doctrine" 

message: There is no way that the invadeing army was 5.5 million. Because there were only 3.2 million germans and that would mean that 2.2 million were axis allies which is impossible. To see that there were only 3.2 million germans go here http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Chew/CHEW.asp
And you will see this
"Hitler's plans also miscarried before the onset of severe winter weather; he was so confident of a lightning victory that he did not prepare for even the possibility of winter warfare in Russia. Yet his eastern army suffered more than 734,000 casualties (about 23 percent of its average strength of 3,200,000 troops"
So the number 5.5 million must be wrong (Deng 18:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Krivosheev gives an estimation of 4.6 mln german troops + 0.9 mln Axis allies. He says that German 4.6 mln were: 119 infantry and cavalry divisions, 33 motorized and panzer divisions and two brigades.
The Axis allied had 29 divisions and 16 brigades.--Theocide 15:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now someone changed the numbers again an ip adress. But if you can support the 5.5 million and source it I see no problem with it. Now since someone changed the axis number to the old number I will change to Soviet number to the old number and if you want to change them both it is fine as long as you can source it. (Deng 17:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Germans had hardly more than 3 million men see e.g http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2timeline/BARBAROS.HTML --Constanz - Talk 11:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is either a very flawed interpretation of Clark, or Clark is completely outdated (never read him) for some of the most popular wrong cliches are there - Russians are given the overall number of tanks while Germans - only the number of tanks on the Eastern front; 10 to 1 estimation of losses; failure to count the number of division on Soviet-japanese border (the author of the page seems to claim that ALL divisions were relocated from Siveria to fight for Moscow), etc. One mistake or fake after another. And I seriously advise you to stop reading Web-pages. --Theocide 11:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and I seriosuly advise you to note other people's sources, which all seem to give 3.2 million. --Constanz - Talk 14:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Dont use internet links as sources anyone can make an internet page. Such pages that you link to can be made by anyone and they have no burden of proof in any way what so ever. And dont forget to mention the axis allies and not just talk about the germans (Deng 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alan Clark and his book are probably not 'no-one.' I think one might look up the numbers by mr Glatz, the hailed historian of the west.--Constanz - Talk 13:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  John Erickson in "The road to Stalingrad" -page 142-  -line 15-  -word 2- puts the number at 3.2 million Germans but dosent give any number for the axis allies. Stop useing internet pages as references they have no burden of proof what so ever. (Deng 14:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Len Deighton's translation into Russian mentions 3.2 million as well. The original is probably Blood, Tears and Folly: An Objective Look at World War II  ISBN: 071266226X. The official Russian table is something that hardly a serious historian takes seriously; let us remind you that the official Russian history taught in schools tells us that the Baltic states freewillingly 'joined' the USSR in 1941 etc. I really wouldn't realy on these sources.--Constanz - Talk 09:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you a "serious historian"? I don't think so. Serious historians study Russian sources and numbers given by modern Russian authors with extreme interest - latest research on GULAG, for example. Also, what you are trying to "remind" Superdeng of, is false. You are either a liar, or a cheap blabber. Russian history does NOT teach in schools that the Baltic states freely joined the USSR. And it never did since the crumble of the Soviet Union. You are deliberately mixing Soviet historiography with Russian historiographty. Thus what you would or wouldn not rely on is completely irrelevant, since you seem not to have a clue on the subject. --Theocide 11:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for seriousness, you know as well as I do, that different Russian historians have presented radically different thesis on this respect, as well as alleged intentions of the Soiviet side. And the fact is, that Western historians do not seem to repeat the high German and low Soviet numbers. --Constanz - Talk 14:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you mixing in Russia??? The source I gave was from a british professor and he states the size of the GERMAN force, he got the numbers from the german archives not from the Russian or any russian source, also the link above is to an american military study who also looked at the german numbers of the german forces and both of these, the study and the book by the professor, give a number of 3.2 million germans. (Deng 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was emphasising that many sources give 3.2 mil Germans (plus allies?) at front instead of 5.5 mil offered by the official source cited.--Constanz - Talk 07:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: You are a liar, User:Theocide, not me. According to a study I recently read (Magnus Ilmjärv, Hääletu alistumine, (Silent Submission), Tallinn, Argo, 2004, 
) a lot of the Russian official historians DO teach such nonsense. Mr. Ilmjärv cites book by Vilnis Sipils (Tayny diplomaticheskiye, Kanun velikoy otechestvennoy 1939-41. Moskva, 1997, c.242) which says: In mid-July 1940 elections took place. In that way Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, being taken away from Russia as a result of military intervention, joined her again, by the will of the peoples. Also cited: 'Noveyshaya istoriya otechestva. XX vek. Uchebnik dlya vuzov. V dvuh tomah. T.2. Pod red. doktora istoricheskih nauk, proffessora A.F.Kiselyova, doktora i.n., prof. E.M.Shchagina. Moskva, 1998, s. 111. This nice students' book teaches us that the so-called treaty of military bases forced by the USSR to the 3 Baltic states was a free step taken by the latter ones, concluded in order to guarantee their security, their boundaries. The annexation of the Baltic states was said to have taken place as a result of inner developments in these countries (whichm, consequently, led to 'socialist revolutions'). According to authors of this book, the July elections were free, no occupation ever existed, and the representatives of 3 states decided to join USSR. Other books represeting similar views: S.V.Chernichenko. Teoriya Mezhdunarodnaya prava, t.II. M.1999, s. 72-79 and also: 'Mezdunarodnoye publichnoye pravo. Uchebnik [students' book!]. Izdaniye vtoroye, pererabotannoe i dopolnennoye. M. 2001. 
Fortunately, other views are present (e.g Meltyukhov depicts the same subject differently), M.Semiryaga's book (Tainy stalinskoy diplomatiy 1939-41. Vyshaya shkola [for universities/colleges] Moskva, 1992, s.226) reflects a bit more objective view, even condemning the occupation (but somehow not condemning the ultimatum and threatening by force in 1940). --Constanz - Talk 14:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong accusations by [[User:Theocide]]

message: I'm curious about the discrepancy between the Reichskommissariates listed in this article and the ones under Reichskommissariates (see also Alfred Rosenberg) - in particular this article shows Turkestan as one of the Reichkommissariates planned, but that is missing from the article dealing specifically with the Reichkommissariates.  Does anybody have any sources to check to determine which article is correct? ThreeBlindMice 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reichskommissariates

message: On the info box, I'd classify this as a tactical Axis Pyrical[sp?] victory & Strategic Axis defeat. The Axis powers gained a lot of ground during this operation which is tactical. But it was also (especally in the November & December portions of this operation) too costly for the Axis in terms of casulaties and as such is pyrical[sp?]. (The ancient quote "One more such victory, and we are ruined" comes to mind.) From a strategic standpoint, this was very much a major strategic defeat for the Axis, starting with the date it commenced (Around time of Summer Solistance instead of Spring and also a failure to get Japan to at the very least launch a feint into Russian Siberia at the same time. Jon 14:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the word you are looking for is 'pyrrhic'. This issue has been debated at length in the discussion page. The fact that the operation was a strategic disaster for both sides makes any tactical-level assessment nearly irrelevant. Since the Axis did not achieve their strategic objectives, it must be classified as a defeat for them.  DMorpheus 18:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Winner

message: -- just a note - the explanation of an inadequate logistical system is open for debate. Once the battle of Smolensk was completed the rail head was well past Minsk. The German General Staff of Army Group Center did not report any lack. In the middle of July 1941 they halted at Smolensk to refit and resupply. If they had jumped of in early August they may well have reached Moscow because the Soviet units before them had been savaged badly and the defense system in front of Moscow had not been developed. Instead the Germans developed the Kiev pocket to assist Army Group South. However the distance to Kiev from Smolensk is more than the distance to Moscow, and the Germans accomplished that move with ease. Therefore if they had the logistics to drive to Kiev, they had the logistics to drive to Moscow and quite probably could have captured it. But then what? The winter would have still come and the Germans would have been that much further East away from their supplies, so taking Moscow may not have done much good. The Tzar didn't collapse when Moscow fell, and it is open to debate that the Communists would have. Organizing the counter offensive might have been more of a problem, but it would have come. Plus with all those Far East reserves around, who knows what a street battle in Moscow would have been like. added by ip 69.179.181.79
::Dont add such bad explanations. It is bad for many reasons, not only does it ignore that the flanks would have been way open it assumes to much. Ever heard of Stalingrad what do you think the Battle of Moscow would have been. (88.191.22.62 23:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't attack other editors, 88.191.22.62. Be civil. As to the merits of the argument, it has some validity. US Army studies show that the Wehrmacht had the time to make it to Moscow well before winter if they had merely traveled at the same pace as napoleon. A huge open German flank wouldn't matter much if there are no mobile, well-supplied Soviet forces to mount a counteroffensive. For example, in August 1944 the US 12th Army Group had a massive open southern flank - and it didn't matter, because there was nothing there. This very decision (the turn south) may have saved the Red Army. This is not just amateur speculation or original research. 
DMorpheus 23:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a note

message: I added a table on 1941/39 Red army comparison. Divisons calculated was in original 'Дивизии расчетные' - not very sure about the translation.--Constanz - Talk 10:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A new table added

message: The article records the participation of Italy, Slovakia, etc but I can't find info about their deployment. Folks at 137 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Axis partners

message: ...have been changed several times recently, and do not make sense for me. OK, there are Stalin and Hitler. There are also Antonescu and Mannerheim. But if Italy, Slovakia and Hungary are listed just above, why their respective leaders not mentioned? Then, who was Zhukov on the 22nd of June, 1941? Right, the Chief of General Staff. So why his German counterpart isn't here? Mannstein commanded a Panzer corps at the time, didn't he? What he's doing here? Should we list all commanders of Soviet and German armies? Sorry, guys, it's a mess now.—Barbatus 04:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced Mannstein with Brauchitsch. Mannerheim I added because Finnish army at north was all the time at his command not simply expeditionary force loaned to germans. Antonescu i added because as far as i remember at earlier part of barbarossa Romanian forces acted quite independently at south, also of Germany's allies Romania sent most troops to eastern front.(Staberinde 16:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why Brauchitsch and not Keitel then? The latter was higher in the hierarchy, wasn't he? ... I'd suggest to leave only the real supreme commanders: Stalin on the Soviet side, and Hitler on the German; if memory serves me, Rumanian troops were subordinated to German command (though Finnish troops, probably, were not).—Barbatus 17:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting, seems that i was wrong about Romanians(atleast first source what i found showed so). My apologizes i will remove Antonescu immidiately. I reverted manstein to Brauchitsch as then i first saw this article he was there behind hitler(haven't made any other changes about german and soviet generals myselfly). But you may be right. That would leave Hitler and Mannerheim to axis and Stalin to soviets. Agree? (Staberinde 17:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.—Barbatus 18:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.—Barbatus 18:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commanders listed in "infobox" ...

message: There are still two different tables, I looked up the 'official figures' - the author hadnn't apparantly bothered himself to give any sources for the figures (unlike the author of the table I added). In fact, I only managed to see some Soviet era books, incl infamous Zhukov memoirs, as Kirosheyev's sources (but not for the table concerned). So I think I'll remove these 'official figures' as unfounded. As already mentioned, someone could add a table by Glantz, Overy or a guys of the kind, if counter to Meltyukhov is needed. Constanz - Talk 08:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: June 1941; figure

message: Apparently, when the Soviets blocked the Nazis in Stalingrad, they've removed all factories in the area and moved it to Serbia in order to rearmed themselves after rebuilding the factories and mills for their military production. Due the resistance of the troops in Stalingrad, the Soviets had several months to increased their military power in which they've suprised the Nazis afterwards.--JForget 18:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Battle of Stalingrad took place a full year after Operation Barbarossa. Many Soviet factories were evacuated eastwards, but not the ones at Stalingrad, which continued to operate on the very eve of the battle. Indeed, Stalingrad-produced T-34s were for a short period the only new T-34s reaching the Red Army. DMorpheus 18:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that, we should notice also that the army wasn't quite ready at the start especially because of Stalin's complete dismantling of its army in the 1930's (1936 I think). In my notes, it doesn't make any mention of factories in Stalingrad been moved (of course of the battle) so you've pretty much confirm my thoughts. --JForget 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Complete dismantling"? Where did you hear such nonsense? Have you ever seen a single book on the development of the Soviet armed forces? Also, I think you might check you geography textbooks and refresh your memory on where Serbia is located and which way Soviet factories were evacuated.--Barbatus 23:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably meant "Siberia". BTW, I also thought that some Stalingrad factories continued to operate until they were overrun, producing tanks that were immediately used. Is this true or not? Folks at 137 19:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But of course it meant "Siberia"! My point is, how even a supposedly educated person (and I believe JForget is educated, just take a look at his (her?) user page), can be so ... er ... inaccurate and — how should I put it? ... I don't know how to say it nicely! ... — to utter something like "complete dismantling" of the Soviet army in the 1930's!!! As Russians say, "слышал звон ...". As for the factories in Stalingrad, I believe you can find useful information here, if not in the article itself, then in recommended books and links.--Barbatus 18:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes of the failure of Operation Barbarossa - Additionnal info

message: In this section it is said the Vyazma Pocket took 663 000 prisoners, I'm pretty sure it is far from the truth they took maximum 350000 - 400000 prisoners, or maybe less. Anyway I'm curious what are the sources for this, and if there's no sources, it should be corrected. I'm not correcting it, because I'm not an english native speaker
:I got it from the PBS Documentary Series, Battlefield: The Battle of Russia. Mercenary2k 04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not certain what the Vyazma pocket is, but if it is Kiev area then the number 663 comes from German numbers which are all MALES between 16-60, the number of captured soldiers was 450 and out of those 180 broke out. Wheelsnake 11:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drive on Moscow 

message: Italy is listed as a participant. While they did declare war on the USSR I don't think they sent any units until 1942. Also the map is wrong - it shows the main force of Army Group Center attacking toward the lower Dneiper. Plus it shows Army Group North's main advance as running south of Pskov which I think the main thrust was more along the coast. It also shows the Finnish drive to Lake Onega as about the size of a German army group drive, which is pretty misleading. Herostratus 07:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about Italy. But that isn't Army Group Centre, it's Army Group South :o). AGN's main effort was indeed south of Lake Peipus, towards the Luga.--MWAK 09:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy? Map? 

message: This article is, quite frankly, a bit of a mess. Lots of repetition, contradictory statements, waffling, and failure to emphasize key points. It could really do with a cleanup. I'm not going to bother adding it to the cleanup list though, that's already far too long and a cleanup of this article probably requires some specialized interest in the field. I wouldn't mind having a crack at it myself but I have other priorities at the moment. Gatoclass 07:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I would have done it myself if, I hadn't despaired of reconciling the revisionist and traditional versions of events.--MWAK 09:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs cleanup