Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SuperDeng (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 31 May 2006 (→Numbers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1: 2004-2005

A section/article for Soviet assault plans

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)

Soviet genocide

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 Which he rescinded years later in front of a German court.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)

Cause of Delay of the start of Barbarossa

The cause of the delay differs from what I have read. I read that the cause of the delay was the Balkan campaign (though I do not remember where I read that), not the squabbles over strategy as stated in this article. Andries 19:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Balkans campaign did not delay Barbarossa, although it has often been cited as a cause in older sources. It has sometimes been further claimed that this delay was responsible for the German loss. Not so. Even given the start date, the Germans had plenty of time to make it to Moscow had they moved, say, at Napoleon's pace. They didn't, for a whole bunch of reasons. DMorpheus 20:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If the Balkans campaign is often cited as a cause of the delay then this must be stated in the article as per Misplaced Pages:NPOV policy, unless of course, this is now a totally discredited view. Andries 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's an obsolete viewpoint. I admit I have no reference for that handy at the moment but I could dig up a few. I believe it's an artifact of the immediate postwar era and has since been discredited. DMorpheus 21:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is obsolate. But as it is presented in older, standard, books about Barbarossa, it still surfaces in discussion every now and then. I propose that it would be presented here like: "The Balkan campaign was often given in older books as a reason why Barbarossa started so late, but newer research has discredited the view." Because otherwise every now and then someone comes and resurfaces the claim. --Whiskey 22:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this competing view should be treated. In general in Misplaced Pages, popular misconceptions should be treated, I believe. I have no idea whether this is obsolete, regarded as obsolete by a minority, or still widely accepted. If somebody have sources then this would be great. thanks. Andries 23:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, if we do add this then we should also make it clear that the delay, regardless of its cause, did not matter. The US Army's view (linked on the page already) is: "Napoleon's Grand Army, which crossed the Russian frontier at Kovno on 23 June 1812, arrived at Moscow in early September after halting at Vitebsk for 15 days. In 1941, the German troops were marching and fighting at a rate of 15 miles a day, with every seventh day set aside for rest; at that rate the mass of Army Group Center would have arrived before Moscow in mid-August, six to eight six weeks before the autumn rains. (These rates of advance were routinely achieved by German foot and horse-drawn units in the race to the Marne in 1914, and in Russia in 1941 up to the point that Hitler stopped the forward movement of the armies.) The mobile formations could and did achieve prodigious rates of advance which easily supported the generalstab's timetable. Even with a start in late June, the arithmetic easily supports a decisive campaign against European Russia in summer 1941. "

Thus neither the weather, nor the Balkans campaign, nor the "impossibility" of the campaign should be given as reasons for the eventual failure of the German invasion.

DMorpheus 19:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but the US army view on the cause of the failure of Barbarossa is only one view on the matter. Other views in reputable sources assert that the delay caused by the Balkan campaign contributed to the failure of Barbaross and hence these views should be treated here too in a neutral Misplaced Pages:NPOV way. Andries 21:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

'Neutral' and 'accurate' are two different things. Some context is necessary here. For many years myths have been perpetuated about this subject. Surely we should present the most accurate current scholarship possible, to the extent our abilities allow us to do so. While I personally think the whole issue should be left alone, if it is included it should be written in such a way that a non-specialist reader can evaluate the evidence and draw a supportable conclusion. In this spirit, I don't think the US Army's viewpoint should be so easily dismissed - it is rather more reputable than some other sources. They know a thing or two about logistics. DMorpheus 01:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I never meant to say that the view of the US Army should be dismissed, but even if popular, but now obsolete and debunked theories have been told about Barbarossa then they should be treated here, otherwise semi-knowledgeable readers, like myself, remained confused and uninformed. I cannot write myself about this, because I do not know up-to-date scholarship on this subject. Andries 17:43, 4

February 2006 (UTC) Well, I wouldn't see the US Army as the most qualified source on that. If you look at the number of divisions on the Russian border prior to Barbarossa it is the case that in March, April, May it was at about 120, and went up to about 150 in June. Many divisions that participated in the Balkans campaign were designated to participate in Barbarossa as well. Kleist Panzergroup participated in the Balkans campaign and in Barbarossa. So, it wasn't available for a possible Barbarossa in May, because it just finished the Balkans campaign. It surely might been possible to started Barbarossa anyway, but it is fact that some division couldn't participate in it, which did in June. I wouldn't go so far to say that it changed the outcome, but it surely was a cause for the delay. --Lucius1976 12:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, there are two points here: One, did the Balkans campaign cause a delay in the opening of Barbarossa? Two, if it did, did it matter to the outcome?

On the first question, we need to see some data. The fact that some units were not available in May may be compelling, but only if we can show that, had they been available, the offensive would have been launched earlier. I haven't seen anything that shows that.

On the second question, the opinion of professional military officers must certainly be given weight, especially those who have studied the logistics of other campaigns. DMorpheus 17:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving off-topic section on Finland

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)

Well, the German divisions on Finnish soil were surely part of Barbarossa and not part of the so called "Continuation War". --Lucius1976 12:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Pre-emptive Soviet attack on Finland

After the attempted Soviet invasion of Finland, that was fended off in the Winter War November 30 1939 – March 12 1940, the ensuing German invasion of Denmark and Norway, and then the Soviet annexation of Balticum, Finland and Sweden were enclosed by German-held territory in the south, west and north, and Soviet territory in the east. Soviet policies vis-à-vis Finland during the months following the Moscow Peace enhanced a Finnish perception of being seriously threatened by a continued Soviet invasion as soon as the international situation allowed. The Kremlin had also expressed an emphatic veto against a defensive union between Sweden and Finland. Hence the Finns saw no alternative but to improve the relations with Nazi Germany: first of all trying to obtain munition that the Third Reich had withheld on transfer to Finland, and later to buy badly needed munitions directly from Nazi Germany. In return, the Germans requested rights to transit troops between Norway and Germany over Finnish territory, which the Finns greeted as a balance to the transit rights that Soviet Union had pressured after the Moscow Peace, but also as a sign of hope that Nazi Germany would not once again sell out Finland to the Soviet Union. There was also a domestic opinion arguing that the previous policy geared at the League of Nations and the ideologically akin democracies had been put to the test during the Winter War — and failed. That opinion gained in popularity, that argued for Finland's choice no longer being between association with democratic peers and submission under dictatorial empires, but at least temporarily had to be the lesser evil of the Soviet and German dictatorships. A German hegemony appeared much less of a threat against the national survival of Finland than a Soviet occupation.

At the time of Operation Barbarossa, Finland's defence forces were mobilized and reinforced by five German divisions stationed in the north, allowing Finland to deploy 13 of her 16 divisions along the new border in the south, where a Soviet attack was deemed most likely and also most dangerous, well balancing the seven Red Army divisions stationed in the newly won parts of Finnish Karelia. Despite a Finnish declaration of neutrality, Finnish naval forces had participated in mining of the Gulf of Finland. The Luftwaffe was also granted permission to land in Finland when returning from missions against Soviet targets.

On June 25, Soviet air forces bombed half-a-dozen towns in Finland, thus commencing the Soviet-Finnish Continuation War (June 25, 1941 – September 5, 1944). This attack is often given as an example of a preemptive attack: If a military conflict with Finland was deemed unavoidable, it might have been advantageous for the Soviet Union to gain initiative on that front.

On June 28 joint Finno-German forces advanced over Finland's northernmost border in direction of Murmansk. The mission was however badly prepared, and stalled halfway. From southern Finland, a purely Finnish offensive on July 10 was more successful, and resulted ultimately in almost three years of occupation of East Karelia.

Tank classification

This content is questionable: "As for the question of the qualitative relationship of military equipment of sides, each power had its own system of classification of armored equipment. In the Red Army the tanks were classified according to the combat mass. In Wehrmacht there was their own classification of tanks based on the caliber of tank gun. Thus, the straight comparison of sides, as this usually occurs in the historiography, is impossible (Meltyukhov 2000: 483-4). Viktor Suvorov has suggested using American classification of armament for the comparison. According to this, all tanks up to 20 tons are considered light tanks, up to 40 tons - average tanks, and from 40 tons on - heavy tanks. Taking into account the difference in the layout of tank in the USSR and Germany, he reached the conclusion that all German tanks were light tanks (Suvorov 1995: 408—432)." Throughout wikipedia and in tank literature in general, the tanks available in 1941 are routinely classified as light, medium, heavy, cruiser, etc. in a very consistent manner - that is, there is a generally-accepted classification for most tanks. The notion that we can draw arbitrary lines at 20 tons or 40 tons is ridiculous. It is useful only if a certain POV is being pushed. Look at any ten sources on the Panzer IV, for example, as see how many call it a light tank. DMorpheus 01:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It may very well be POV (as previous ideas of 'obsolete' Soviet tanks etc were POV of Soviet myth creators). I would emphasise, it is not my personal POV, but mr. Meltyukhov's (yes, he admitted this classification is closer to Soviets')

Nevertheless, the same author explains: “The comparison of tactical-technical data of Soviet and German tanks show that the German technology had no essential superiority. Some parameters were better in the tanks the enemy had, while still others - in Soviet tanks. High speed and best passability made it possible to use the Soviet "obsolete" tanks for dealing with the German on the equal. The motion of war fare in 1941 showed that if the Soviet "obsolete" tanks approximately corresponded to German technology, then T -34 and KB substantially exceeded all types of the tanks Wehrmacht had.”

And Meltyukhov has presented table, in which all the major characteristics are compared. Please see table 57 (p.484) in his (Meltyukhov's sources according to footnote 1534 -- РГАСПИ. Ф.71. Оп.25. Д.4134. Л.1—8; Hahn F. Waffen und Gecheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres. Bd.2. S,2H—212.)

I think the table would suit in the article; its rather detailed though. Constanz - Talk 12:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Issue of British Invasion

"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)

Good edit, thanks for doing it. DMorpheus 18:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

They never was a serious plan of invasion before the French defeat. Even than HItler believed that he could come with Britain to some sort of accomodation. Only after realizing that the won't a invasion was considered. Either as pressure or as a real invasion. --Lucius1976 12:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Graphs dont match

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))

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)

I have no clue of what you are yapping about but the graphs should be changed so that they match. (Deng 19:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

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)

Look these 2 graphs dont match

Operation Barbarossa
Part of World War II, Eastern Front
Date June 22 1941 - December 1941 Location Belarus, Ukraine, Western Russia. Result Tactical German Victory; Strategic Stalemate
Belligerents
Germany	Soviet Union
Commanders and leaders
Adolf Hitler	Josef Stalin
Strength
~ 3,200,000	~ 2,600,000
Casualties and losses
unknown	unknown

BOTH ARE FOUND ON THIS PAGE AND THEY DO NOT MATCH SO STOP YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS AND WAKE UP IN REALITY THEY DONT MATCH DO YOU UNDERSTAND THEY DO NOT MATCH (Deng 18:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

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)

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))

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)

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)

Let someone then draw the alternative graph and let's discuss it here. --Constanz - Talk 14:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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))

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)

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))

There was no stalemate

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

Tactical victory

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/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)

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)

Tactical implies short-term; strategic implies long-term. The Germans advanced hundreds of miles into enemy territory: surely that is a short-term victory? I propose we make it "Tactical Axis victory; strategic Soviet victory". 140.142.174.27 16:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

1215 Hours 1 April, 2006

The great unwashed and unread!

Both of you are seriously confused about the terms "tactical" and "strategic."

I suggest that you take the time to read Jomini, Clausewitz, Motlke, etc. (Hint: They are experts on strategy and tactics.)

Best of Luck! Philippsbourg

Hmm

"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)

See my comment above: "Tactical Axis victory; strategic Soviet victory" (or "strategic Axis defeat"). BTW I'm User:laddiebuck but this computer doesn't like cookies. 140.142.174.27 16:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it was a German strategic defeat. That makes three of us, a majority. Drogo Underburrow 02:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think not.

"OK, if you agree it was a German strategic defeat, OK, if you agree it was a German strategic defeat,"

Yes, I agree that the battle was a Strategic Soviet victory, but not that the operation was not a Tactical German victory.

"kindly stop putting "German tactical victory" in the campaign box."

No, and Soviet Strategic victory is mentioned.

Tactical Axis victory; Strategic Soviet victory

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Could we please discuss this further? laddiebuck 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

So shall we make the addendum in default of any other comments? laddiebuck 02:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well, then at least respond to the posts. BTW, "feel" doesn't enter into it, since Misplaced Pages aims to be factually accurate, this is a purely historical and/or semantic argument. laddiebuck 17:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tactical victory

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))

If you expect everyone here to agree with you then you are terribly wrong.

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))

battlebox numbers

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)

Axis tactical victory

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)

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)

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)

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) (References at Eastern Front). laddiebuck 20:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The scope of the operation was strategic, hence the overall evaluation "tactical victory" is simply inapplicable here. It was not, like, Battle of Shittown (Geroicheskaya Oborona Mukhosranska). It is widely recognized that Barbarossa flopped, flunked, went down the drain, so these attempts to get just a tiny bit of victory here are quite ridiculous. Also, I find this duscussion quite strange. Where are any respectable sources that say about any kind of overall victory of Barbarossa? Am I smelling original research here? `'mikka (t) 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As for the duration of the operation, it ended precisely because it fizzled. `'mikka (t) 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, I'll research the matter more before editing again. laddiebuck 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What other languages think

I checked the foreign-language Misplaced Pages 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)>)

• de
• fi
• nl (starred article)
• pt
• sv
• pl: Cleanup tag. Does not mention outcome mentions that it was German defeat (section title: "Reasons of german defeat")<`'mikka (t) 16:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)>, just dwells on the fact that the Eastern Front was doomed for the Axis, and that that was already evident in Barbarossa.

Unambiguous Soviet victory:

• hr
• en
• es
• it

Axis tactical victory; strategic stalemate:

• fr (in as many words)
• ro (in as many words)
• ja (no "results" box, but that is the gist of the "Results" section)

Unambiguous Axis victory: (cautious phrasing: "although German actions during the operation may be evaluated as victorious, these victories were insufficient to break Soviets" <`'mikka (t) 16:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)>)

• cs

Misc:

• da: Currently the article is marked as having quality issues.
• id: Stub. (seems to equate Barbarossa and the entire Eastern Front)

Can't tell:

• he
• no
• th

The diversity of opinions on the subject makes it clear that the matter is not as clear-cut as some try to present it. It seems that most just lump the whole thing together with the Eastern Front. In any case at least 5 other languages are against labeling the result as a clear Soviet victory. Anyways, tell me what you think (or send me to hell already). laddiebuck 01:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not so much diversity as you are trying to pretend. `'mikka (t) 16:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

German heavy tanks

"With regards to German counterparts, as Viktor Suvorov claims, preliminary designs of first German heavy tank date back to May 26, 1941(!)

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)

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)

"Very modern Soviet doctrine"

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)

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)

Numbers

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))

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)

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))

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)

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)

... 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)

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))

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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))

Wrong accusations by User:Theocide

You are a liar, User:Theocide, not me. According to a study I recently read (Magnus Ilmjärv, Hääletu alistumine, (Silent Submission), Tallinn, Argo, 2004, ISBN 9949415047 ) 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 . 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 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)

Reichskommissariates

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)