Talk:Operation Barbarossa/Archive 5

Copypaste
Can anyone confirm that https://books.google.com/books?id=JzXtBgAAQBAA is copying off of this article instead of the other way around? The Google preview is too limited and doesn't show whether or not this article appears in that book's references. Lowercase sigmabot III (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The entire book seems to be a collection of Wikipedia material.--MWAK (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright; that works. 204.234.74.238 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Article update
Hey everyone. I stumbled across this article a few days ago and was shocked about how poorly it structured, giving its historical importance! Having a huge interest in Barbarossa, I spend the last two days significantly improving this article in my sandbox with the purpose of getting it to GA-status. The main problem I faced was the sheer length of this article, which went way beyond 10,000 words. It would be fair to say that 70-80% of all my recent work on this article has been copyediting, collection sources, converting everything to Harvard references and reformulating long sentences. But I have also, of course, as every copy editor does in large projects, omitted large parts of this article. Namely, I have removed the section "Events" as it contained a bunch of mixed information which importance I failed to see sometimes. It also contained information which was already in the article somewhere else, reformulated. I have removed the section "Reasons for initial Soviet defeats" because the reasons behind the Soviet defeats are explained early in the article. It seemed to me to be, for the most part, a section of extended material which was already stated. For pretty much of the same reasons, I have removed the section "Outcome", although placed some parts of the information from there into other ones. Lastly, I have removed the section "Causes of the failure of Operation Barbarossa" because, like the one with the Soviets, the reasons behind the German defeats are explained early in the article, but I have also copied parts of that section and used it elsewhere. It's also worth noticing that some of these sections simply had to be removed per WP:MOS which calls for articles to be under 10,000 words. With that being said, I have managed to source everything in this article and made some other not-to-important changes here and there to make the article look better. I'm totally aware that nobody owns pages on Wikipedia and that the project is a collaboration of millions of editors. Therefore, I would be more than happy to discuss re-adding any material which was removed in my improvement, but I also suggest you click here to see how the article looked before my changes if you haven't already. Regards, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 02:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the result is not too bad and you have respected much of the previous text. However, there are (still) some issues with your change:


 * 1) WP:Length (not MOS) does not impose a strict 10,000 words limit. It just suggests that this is normally "beneficial". Certainly, you should not block any substantial future edits by other users arguing that otherwise the mandatory maximum length would be exceeded. There isn't any :o).
 * 2) The general narrative is too "Germanocentric". The Red Army had a strategy too, involving a tactic of active defence. Much of the lack of fortification and the abundance of dispersion can be explained by this. The strategy horribly failed. In this context the enormous tank battles in the Western Ukraine should mentioned. You refer to Kirchubel a lot and his work is indeed excellent, the best popular-science books available on the subject. But you don't seem to have grasped the essence of it.
 * 3) The maps! Where are the maps? There is room for maps. Most people can read maps. Put the maps back in.--MWAK (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, MWAK, I've made further changes accordingly. I've also added some maps back in. I've gone ahead and nominated it for GA-status. I'm sure any other, if any, issues with the article will be voiced there. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been eyeing this page for some time now but I never achieved much except with the infobox and a few paragraphs. I like what you've done with it so far. You can count on my support. I own an 1100-page treatise on the operations of Army Group Center from the start of the invasion till the start of Operation Typhoon (Barbarossa Derailed Vol. 1 & 2 by Glantz), just in case sources for info are needed. EyeTruth (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much EyeTruth. I see you did some minor changes as well, those are much appreciated. I, out of my GA experience, suspect that some sources will be questioned or asked to be removed, and in such an event, any Barbarossa-related books you have would be useful. With that being said, I double-checked about 1/3 of all sources used in the article when I rewrote and significantly improved it, and I'd say it has good chances of passing the GA-criteria. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad source
led me to, which states Source #36 in this article is a fraud.


 * Edit: "Hitler Speaks: A Series of Political Conversations With Adolf Hitler on His Real Aims" by Rauschning seems to be an unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.74.238 (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Never mind; I discovered what the IHR really was. 204.234.74.238 (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen inclusion?
As the article stands now, there is only one passing mention of the Einsatzgruppen units, and only in the context of anti-partisan operations. Should we include more on the Einsatzgruppen killings in the East? I'd be interested in working on it in cooperation with any others interested.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Good catch. The Einsatzgruppen backed by the Orpo battalions were a major terror instrument behind the front lines. I'm puzzled how this article existed for so long without even one proper paragraph about them. Poeticbent talk 00:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Will include a paragraph or two about Einsatz involvement in Barbarossa as soon as I've finished my dinner. Well spotted guys. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

While you're at it, the article provides no coverage of the mass murder of Soviet civilians or POWs. This should note that the regular Germany Army was heavily involved in these atrocities. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. Will add a whole section for war crimes. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, I have added a whole section regarding war crimes. Tell me what you think. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence, which implies that the Germans could do whatever they felt like with Soviet POWs, is really troubling: they could not (legally, or morally - see ). It also doesn't note that Hitler ordered that all of the political representatives who routinely formed part of Soviet military units (the Commissar Order) and many officers were to be murdered when taken prisoner: both were judged to be major war crimes after the war. Covering the massive number of murders of civilians which were an integral part of Operation Barabarossa in a single and inaccurate sentence ("Special SS killing squads like the Einzatsgruppen and Reichssicherheitshauptamt murdered tens of thousands of people behind the front lines") is also not sensible. Modern literature on this campaign notes that the mass murders were planned well ahead of the campaign and formed an important feature of it, and that the German military and local civilians played important roles in the murders. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, the opening sentence does not indicated that the Germans whatever they felt like with Soviet POW's. It states, as it did before my improvement, that the Russians could not count on the protection stimulated in the Geneva Conventions. Regarding your other comments, I have added some words about the Commissar Order and made some other changes as well. Let me know what you think now. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Russian POWs might not have had the legal protections provided by the Geneva Conventions, but they were protected by other laws of war (not to mention basic standards of humanity). The coverage of the crimes conducted against civilians remains grossly inadequate: this was a core part of the German invasion plans, but are accorded less space in the article than the Luftwaffe's activities in the first few weeks of the war gets. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Television documentaries as WP:RS
To avoid confusion during the GA-review and also to clarify for others who might be wondering, I'm going to explain why I confidently believes that the television documentaries I've included in this article during my improvement are reliable.


 * Hitler Strikes East (2009) is a documentary made by World Media Rights which documents the Eastern Front between 1941 to 1943. The documentary helpfully shows in the end credits that it's sources include the Imperial War Museum, the Library of Congress and the Ministry of Defense in London. It's primarily researcher is Benjamin Schwarz, notable American historian with a B.A. and an M.A. in history from Yale University.


 * General Wilhelm Keitel: The Lackey (1998) is a documentary made by respected German historian Guido Knopp. The documentary includes plenty of interviews with surviving veterans and other surviving POW's, giving a very reliable picture of the events in question. Furthermore, it reveals original SS and OKW documents signed by Keitel and other top Nazi chieftains when referring to controversial matters.


 * Operation Barbarossa (2011) is a hugely detailed documentary citing the events before, during and after Barbarossa. It's written by Russian historians Anna Grazhdan, Artem Drabkin and Aleksey Isaev for Star Media. It also shows plenty of original Hitler-signed documents as well as other OKW orders when referring to controversial subjects. The documentary focuses mainly on military factors, not political factors and therefore does not included any certain bias.


 * The Battle for Russia (1994) is a 2-hour long documentary citing battles in Russia from 1941 to 1942, written by John Erickson, a British historian from University of Edinburgh. It's also hugely detailed. On of it's primary sources include the Russian Central Military Archives in Moscow.


 * The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler is a documentary that examines Hitler's life from his years in Munich to the Führerbunker 1945. It's written by respective historians Laurence Rees and Ian Kershaw, both regarded as experts on the subject.


 * The Fatal Attraction of Adolf Hitler (1989) is a documentary about Hitler's life from birth to death, made by Bill Treharne Jones and Christopher Andrew from Cambridge University for the BBC. Some of it's outside sources include Yad Vashem.

Given the reasons stated above, I put my faith in these specific television documentaries and considered them reliable. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * John Erickson... I've read one of his works (but never finished it). He is a thorough historian. Anyways, the problem with documentaries is that they are often not created by experts on the subject, rather the experts are consulted. The filmmakers of 300 also consulted historians during production. The point is that getting advise and/or interviews from experts doesn't make the work anywhere as credible as a work created by the experts themselves. But I want to believe that many of us will agree that in the complete unavailability of more reliable sources, documentaries can suffice. EyeTruth (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the vast, and generally high quality, recent literature on this topic, I doubt that there's a need to consult TV documentaries. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. In the meantime though, there should be no haste in removing the documentaries, but they'll need to eventually go as more reliable sources are added. EyeTruth (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any World War II books at my house, and therefore is depended on what I can find on Google Books. However, there is no need to actually replace these documentaries; if you, or someone else, happen to fall over a source which can replace one or two cites to the documentaries, then by all means, but no need to actively seek other sources as these specific documentaries should be considered reliable. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 02:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Albert Weeks
I am a little confused over the citation to Weeks 1998. The ISBN given belongs to an other book by an other author. Perhaps the correct citation should be an article Weeks wrote in a journal the given year.  With the following abstract: "Reports on the assertion of historians that Adolf Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941 during World War II was motivated. Agreements signed by Hitler and Josef Stalin in their joint initiatives of 1939 to 1940; Views of revisionists that aggressive actions by Stalin and Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov alarmed and infuriated Hitler; Discussion on the issue of the motivations for Operation Barbarossa."

But then the current page numer is incorrect. I am thinking that maybe the correct book is , where information that could be the cited content is presented, per this review. Any thoughts? P. S. Burton (talk)  14:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A lot of errors were introduced into the citations during Jonas Vinther's huge revamp of the article, but don't hold it against him /her . Go ahead and correct any citation that looks misplaced. EyeTruth (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can openly say that most of the new sources I brought to the table where television documentaries (as I don't have access to a whole lot of books), and only converted the sources and page citification's that were already implemented into Harvard references. Regarding Weeks 1998, I suppose stand correct Burton. I agree with EyeTruth, be bold and correct away! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All your edits were clearly done in very good faith. And I believe other editors appreciate them as much as I do. EyeTruth (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The error is now fixed. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Kirchubel 1997
Hi. There is a ref in the artikel to Kirchubel 1997. But we do not hade any book published by him that year in the list of sources. Should it perhaps be Kirchubel 2003? Kirchubel 2005? Kirchubel 2007? or maybe Krivosheev 1997? P. S. Burton (talk)  10:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Will look into this, give me a sec. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, can see through the article history that it's meant to be Krivosheev 1997. A typo I caused during my improvement; now fixed. Well spotted. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * God job. I could not find it in the article history myself. There is also a Kirchubel 2012 that needs to bee corrected.  P. S. Burton  (talk)  14:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Will check into this. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is now fixed. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Soviet offensive plans
I'd suggest that the "Soviet offensive plans" section be removed. This was a hot topic for discussion in the 1970s and 1980s, but is no longer taken seriously. The leading western historian of the World War II-era Soviet military, David Glantz, demolished it in his 1998 book Stumbling Colossus by demonstrating that the Red Army was in no way ready for war (as the events of the summer of 1941 clearly demonstrated) and other historians have demonstrated that Stalin had no intention of invading Germany, and was actually going to great lengths to try to avoid a war. I haven't seen this argument taken seriously in any recent histories of the war: it's agreed that the Soviets had a doctrine of attacking or rapidly counter-attacking in the event of war, but that this wasn't close to being imminent in 1941 and that the cause of the war was clearly Hitler's desire to conquer the USSR. As such, there are no good grounds to give weight to Suvorov's discredited views as this section presently does. The matter-of-fact sentence "Immediately after the German invasion of the USSR, Hitler put forward a thesis that the Red Army made extensive preparations for an offensive war in Europe, thus justifying the German invasion as a pre-emptive strike" is also unsatisfactory: this was a deliberate lie put forward by Hitler to justify what was actually a war of aggression which he had been preparing for since the late summer of 1940. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. Lutie (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, so I suggest we take it to a vote. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Remove the section, or present it as successfully rebutted by Glantz. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the successfully would be at odds with NPOV :o). Removing the section entirely is unwise. It isn't as if this issue is dead and forgotten: such theories are very much alive on the internet and not mentioning the subject would give the impression that the article simply follows tradition and is naively unaware of the "new" revisionist ideas. So it's better to present their essence, indicating that they are generally considered refuted. Also, Zhukov's plan of 15 May must be mentioned somewhere and this is just the place to do it. And it offers a good opportunity to make a connection with that "doctrine of attacking or rapidly counter-attacking in the event of war".--MWAK (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The section right now is basically WP:FRINGE, but it could be worked if clearly stated how its cold war nonsense. Lutie (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's fringe but it is notable fringe. And a bunch of Russian writers supported it in the nineties.--MWAK (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The way it is now, it looks like a valid argument. Lutie (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's one of my concerns. I'd also note that this is a dated fringe argument which, from what I've seen, no longer receives much attention given that it has been rejected by post-Cold War historians (who have had much greater access to the Soviet archives than those of Suvorov's era). Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Glantz demolished any notion that Stalin had any real intention of invading Nazi German territory in 1941 or even 1942. And I completely agree with Glantz's analysis. But I'm yet to see any author that claims that Stalin had absolutely no long-term intentions of dominating Eastern Europe, and probably beyond. I've not read any of Suvorov's works, but judging from various summaries of his work on the net, his argument partly makes sense. EyeTruth (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the consensus among modern historians is that Stalin was developing the capability to attack Germany and may have done so in the future (in line with the Soviet doctine of fighting their wars on other countries' territory, as well as being a logical response to the threat posed by Nazi Germany), but was not intending to do so in 1941 or soon after. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One way or another, this is more of a discussion of the historiographical perceptions of the Barbarossa than the Barbarossa itself. Lutie (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but the only thing we are allowed to do here is to reflect the historiographical perceptions, that is, the secondary sources. I agree that Glantz is a very notable source, an authoritative expert, and that his interpretation of the issue must be mentioned. But we are not allowed to conclude "Glantz is right and therefore we shall ignore any other historian". No, we should conclude from the fact that such an esteemed expert takes the possibility of a Soviet pre-emptive offensive plan into critical consideration, that we are obliged to mention this as well.--MWAK (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that we can: Suvorov's thesis is no longer at all prominent. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with MWAK. Had it only been one or two historians who believed Stalin was planning to attack Germany before Barbarossa, there properly wouldn't have been much in it, but since this article list five historians by name, who are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, I think it's important to keep it. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm searching JSTOR for references for a replacement para, and am only finding experts saying that Suvorov was wrong, and has been proved as such. I'll propose something new later today. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, only three of those five historians were actually named in the source... I've corrected accordingly. Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * JSTOR may not be the place to find papers written by Russian historians probably in their own language. And from what I've read here and other sites, majority of the proponents of this theory seem to be Russian historians, and this theory doesn't claim that Stalin was going to attack Germany specifically in 1941, or have I missed something? EyeTruth (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've found sources discussing the general state of the debate, which note Russian viewpoints. Suvorov's thesis boils down to a claim that Stalin was actively preparing to invade Germany during the summer of 1941. Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggested new wording
My reading today confirmed (at least to me!) that Suvorov's views are not taken seriously by many historians, and have been comprehensively discredited. My preference is to still remove this material outright as its dated WP:FRINGE which is of virtually no relevance to modern readers, but if there's a preference to have something in the article I'd suggest the below as a basis. I've deliberately written it as a discussion about historiography only, as the current approach where the events and historiography are discussed together is confusing and unhelpful for readers - especially as there's a pretty solid consensus among historians that Suvorov got it wrong. Stalin's intentions can, and should, be discussed as part of the narrative. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Historians have debated whether Stalin was planning an invasion of German territory in the summer of 1941. The debate began in the late 1980s when Viktor Suvorov published a journal article and later the book Icebreaker in which he stated that Stalin had seen the outbreak of war in western Europe as an opportunity to spread communist revolutions throughout the continent, and that the Soviet military was being deployed for an imminent attack at the time of the German invasion. This view had also been advanced by former German generals following the war. Suvorov's thesis was fully or partially accepted by some historians, including Valeri Danilov, Joachim Hoffmann, Mikhail Meltyukhov and Vladimir Nevezhin, and attracted public attention in Germany, Israel and Russia. However, it has been strongly rejected by most historians of this period, and Icebreaker is generally considered to be an "anti-Soviet tract" in western countries. David Glantz and Gabriel Gorodetsky wrote books to rebut Suvorov's argument, and most historians believe that Stalin was seeking to avoid war in 1941 as he believed that his military was not ready to fight the German forces.


 * Citations


 * Works consulted


 * Nick-D, I like the this proposed wording. I'm in favor of implementing it. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ EyeTruth (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On a side note, doesn't the origin of the controversy date back to Hitler? EyeTruth (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nick, thankyou for inviting me to comment. This is connected with the controversy over the writing of history in current Russia (see but also Scholar  and ) and a quick note on the Russian, not just majority English-speaking, view needs to be added. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for commenting: can you suggest some wording for this? Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just moved the new para into the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Background section too long?
I'm with the opinion that the background section doesn't need to make up nearly 50% of the article proper. Two of its three subsections seem somewhat too long. German invasion plans unfortunately doesn't have a parent article that covers the subject. It could be an advantage for such to be created. Racial policy of Nazi Germany has a parent article, and therefore it should be very easy to shorten that subsection while still maintaining the current punch it carries. The preparation sections are also very long; currently longer than the section that covers the actual invasion. But I guess nothing can be done for those since they are utterly indigenous to this article. EyeTruth (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that Racial policies of Nazi Germany and overall background could be shorted. In relation to this, please join the discussion directly above, as that, to a certain degree, is also about the length of the same section. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, please join new discussion, now below. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict
I have now revert Hashi0707 edits here again. I have done this because the article already has many quotes and WP:QUOTE and WP:LONGQUOTE says you should use as less quotes as possible and keep them short. Besides reverting it, I replaced it with this edit, which, in my opinion, more or less states the same. Also, the brutality of the war as well as war crimes committed by the Germans are stated in more detail in the section entitled "War crimes" further down. Please join in with some opinions so we can settle this before the GA-review starts. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If we look at the two quotes, they contrast very much with the former covering much more than just the latter:

"The war against Russia is an important chapter in the German nation's struggle for existence. It is the old battle of the Germanic against the Slavic people, of the defence of European culture against Muscovite-Asiatic inundation and of the repulse of Jewish Bolshevism. The objective of this battle must be the demolition of present-day Russia and must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity. Every military action must be guided in planning and execution by an iron resolution to exterminate the enemy remorselessly and totally. In particular, no adherents of the contemporary Russian Bolshevik system are to be spared."

"Your struggle must pursue the objective of turning todays Russia into ruins, and must be carried out with extreme severity."

The reason I feel its necessary to include the former full quote is because it covers the two main points which were big causes behind Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union. Firstly, the "old battle" between the Germanic and Slavic people predates the Nazis by centuries and in the early 20th century the pan-Germans and pan-Slavs were against each other to a draconian degree, especially given the former was striving for Lebensraum which Hitler outlined in his book Mein Kampf including dedicating a full chapter to the necessity of German expansion in the East. An idea that Hitler never changed and continued to repeat throughout his whole political life. Secondly, Hitler and the Nazis viewed the Jews as being behind Bolshevism and several of them made many statements equating Jew with Bolshevism, most notably Goebbels exhibit The Great Anti-Bolshevist Exhibition in 1937. Hitler said as early as 1939 in his infamous prophet speech said:

"Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!". Throughout the whole war, several top Nazis and even German generals made statements referring to the Jews as being the cause of Bolshevism."

Forward two years to 1941 and we find the same sort of rhetoric being said by Hitler in his attempt to justify the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union:

"For more than two decades the Jewish Bolshevik regime in Moscow had tried to set fire not merely to Germany but to all of Europe…The Jewish Bolshevik rulers in Moscow have unswervingly undertaken to force their domination upon us and the other European nations and that is not merely spiritually, but also in terms of military power…Now the time has come to confront the plot of the Anglo-Saxon Jewish war-mongers and the equally Jewish rulers of the Bolshevik centre in Moscow!"

The quote that you added merely just says Russia must be turned to ruins, this doesn't really imply why and the actual causes for this objective.--Hashi0707 (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Much of everything your saying, like the German vs. Slavic people battle, is already fully covered earlier in the section. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Prior text touches on the point the Germans were indoctrinated with a vaguely anti-Slavic ideology but this was not the reason for the invasion or what the war was about.

What does making Russia into ruins have to do with the racial policy of Nazi Germany anyways?--Hashi0707 (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, but I was initially in favor of removing your addition as a whole, but thought if I replaced it, it would not start an edit conflict; clearly, I was wrong. Anyway, let's get some other opinions from other editors on this. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: if you intend to comment on this, please do it in the new section down below. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing all the block quotes. None add any value, and they break up the article. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Article length
Even though the article was vastly shortned in my initial improvement, I suggest trimming it even more per new comments and suggestions as well as conflicts. As noticed above, the "Racial policies of Nazi Germany" is too long. I suggest we trim all this:

In my opinion, these paragraphs goes into too much detail. They also talk about events which began after Barbarossa, which should obviously not in be in Background section. What's everybody take on this? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that the entire purpose of Barbarossa was to conquer the western portion of the USSR and brutally suppress (and, over time, kill off) its inhabitants, this topic needs substantial coverage. I agree that the material in the article could be presented more concisely by concentrating on high level issues. Modern historians do not consider Barbarossa only in terms of its military objectives. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So, Nick-D, regarding removing these paragraphs, are you in favor or against? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Both: there's some good material in there, as well as some surplus details. You couldn't possibly discuss this campaign without covering Generalplan Ost and the brutal way the German Army planned to treat civilians for instance. My point is that this entire section could be re-written in a more concise and useful way. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, General Ost is covered further down (I'm sure, haven't really checked as of this moment, but quite sure) and I would strongly oppose re-writing the section, but would strongly support rewording large parts as well as omitting other parts. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think any section that already has a main article should be as brief as possible. Only after that, should we start considering to cut out content that are unique to this article. The toxic racial motivation for Barbarossa and its outcome absolutely needs to be emphasized, and there is one subsection and a section for it. The subsection Racial policy of Nazi Germany doesn't need the many paragraphs it currently has since it already has a main article. The war crimes section, however, needs serious expansion, especially since it doesn't have a main article. The invasion section is still badly cluttered. I have reworked its subsection phase one into a cleaner summary with a high-level perspective. The other three subsections are in need of major revamps, as currently they go into micro details while mostly excluding the big picture. As for quotes, I'm not against them, but I think their current format is disruptive. Not all of them though, for example the one in the German preparations seems fine. EyeTruth (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

How about trimming it down to:

It keeps it short and sweet and includes virtually everything that is said in the more larger quotation whilst still hitting the key points. What do you say?--Hashi0707 (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the significance of Himmler's memorandum? I don't think that he had carriage for planning Germany's occupation policies, and that's what the focus should be on. Quotes for their own sake aren't useful. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Since we're discussing the racial policy, the content in this memo is very relevant.

Here is a snippet from it:

The full memo can be read here viewtopic.php?t=63400, the memo outlined what the future plans of the East would have been for the non-Germans, other key points were to find all the ethnic groups as possible and to split them all up, find the "racially valuable" people and to assimilate them in Germany and the remaining population to be just slave laborers without leaders for Germany.--Hashi0707 (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But did it have any influence? Nazi Germany was a mess of competing bureaucracies, with the senior figures being pretty much free to come up with schemes that they couldn't really implement, and memo each other and Hitler with them. It would be better to just say what the Nazis plans were. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think saying that a lot of sections need "major expansions" or "complete rewarming" is exaggerated. I agree, however, that the war crimes section needs expansion, but believe that the phase sections are A-Okay. Many quotes can be removed, but I think the Molotov and Goebbels quote should be kept. They don't, however, need to be in a quote box. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It certainly did have influence and is correlated with the Generalplan Ost. Hitler read the memo and agreed with it completely ("The Fuehrer read the six pages and considered them very good and correct"). The memo was part of the Nazi plans during the war, it can be seen by the massive expulsion of Poles and others from the German-occupied territories, the segregation between Germans and the populations in the East and all the decrees issued against them.--Hashi0707 (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, Nick-D, I have shortened all quotes and removed the quote boxes. I have, however, kept the Molotov and Goebbels quotes as stated above. Don't you agree that with all the others removed they can stay? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 11:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement. I'd cut the quote from Blumentritt: he's obviously only referring to his associates, and this doesn't add anything. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Jonas Vinther, I've also shortened the racial policy section and minimized it as far as possible whilst still covering the main points.--Hashi0707 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sweet! I've also removed Blumentritt quote per Nick-D's suggestion. Good job. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion this could be shortened:

To just simply:

The latter two parts that speak of the Russian woman being executed and a Russian man being executed are already covered by the regulations issued against the Eastern Workers and there is no real need to emphasize this point when its already stated quite clearly.

What do you think?--Hashi0707 (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kNsg8VBGs8AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hitlers+war+of+extermination+in+the+east&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d3oqVYDXGIPqaKf6gegL&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hitlers%20war%20of%20extermination%20in%20the%20east&f=false This is an excellent source. Not just for Barbarossa but potentially for reworking some aspects of the World War II article as well. As Nick says above, most modern historians have moved away from the purely military aspects of Barbarossa, and are concentrating and exploring more the ideological and racial aspects. IMO the early manifestations of the holocaust, the hunger plan, generalplan Ost, the commissar order and Barbarossa are inseperable. Many of the darker aspects of the war in the east are not fully grasped. Hitler was fighting 2 wars. The "war" in the East is perhaps an inadequate term. I think we should recast some sections of the article in that light. Irondome (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Irondome, it would be very good if you could name some specific sections or certain points. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Too early to grab specific quotes or wordings yet. It is just a "feeling" that we are underplaying certain aspects. I would need to think a bit more.User:Jonas Vinther and all who are interested, Please do check the link to Fritz's book if you have not already seen it. I do not think we use it in the article and it has some superb insights. Irondome (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Irondome, I agree we need to mention the most important aspects as possible and to make sure everything is covered. From what you have just previously said, the Hunger Plan, the Generalplan Ost and the Commissar Order are all mentioned throughout the whole article. What parts do you feel need more emphasis?

I disagree that "war" is an inadequate term, what else could you call it? Even Hitler called it as such but a "war of annihilation".--Hashi0707 (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was being rhetorical. We only have "war" to describe it, but it still seems somehow inadequate for this. Strategic genocide?. I am aware that good links are there. The ideological background section is good. I suggest expansion and the usage of other material. Fritz and Tooze could be used more. In fact, the linked articles, Hunger plan etc, could do with revisiting. There is always room for improvement. It was just a feeling that we were not sufficiently reflecting the unity of ideology, Hitler's feeling that this was his main "career" task, the Holocaust. If the reader wants to see Nazism, it's clearest manifestation is the war in the east. Ian Kershaw calls it "The genocidal whirlwind". Irondome (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with calling it anything besides "war", calling it stuff like "strategic genocide" or anything else is too subjective and is not really necessary to add. The Hunger Plan is already mentioned in the text and is pretty much covered adequately. The statement by Kerhsaw you quoted was not about Nazism but rather Hitler's military options and his overall aims that were to be the outcome of the war: "For Hitler, military operations against the Soviet Union designed to gain Lebensraum and political-police measures aimed at the extermination of ideological and racial enemies were simply different facets of the same war. As Ian Kershaw aptly observed, "The genocidal whirlwind was ready to blow.""

It would be a non-sequitur to suggest that Nazism's manifestation was the war with the Soviet Union. Anyways, lets just focus on main points of the article and not Nazism itself.--Hashi0707 (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Shaky reference in an inappropriate section?
This is in the Racial Policies section; "Before World War II, observers believed that in a war with the Soviet Union, Germany would attack through the Baltic states while the Kriegsmarine (Navy) would seize Leningrad from the Baltic sea. They assumed that possessing the entire Baltic basin would satisfy Hitler, who would not repeat Napoleon Bonaparte's mistake of concentrating all his forces and energy on taking Moscow.[26]" It's sourced to a Life Magazine article from 1936. I think we can find a more modern source for prewar assumptions as to German strategy, although I admire the ingenuity it digging it out. It appears to have been shoehorned in, and is not relevant to the section it has found itself in. Consensus on moving it? As a continuation of the preceding thread above, I think the Racial policies section can still be improved a bit. I will have a go. Obviously will discuss any additions and new sources found before inclusion. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't even think it belongs in the racial policy section.--Hashi0707 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't belong to that section. It probably got moved in there from another section during the recent big edits. EyeTruth (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think it's a fossil remnant of a long disappeared and re-arranged section. It happens. Even if moved, I think it needs to be sourced better. Irondome (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Chopped. We've more than enough material like that Irondome (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree; doesn't belong in racial section, belongs, most likely, in German preparations section. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Change text
The article states:

The problem is, Hitler never said he would invade the Soviet Union in Mein Kampf.

Hitler did say the Germans needed Lebensraum and he focused in the East:

It's a non-sequitur to think this means he wanted to invade the Soviet Union.--Hashi0707 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks a poor translation. I would go no further than replacing "declared" with "intimated". It is clear that H was strongly alluding at the very least to eastern expansion at the expense of the Soviet Union. I would like to see a better translation of that passage, and others in MK talking about eastern expansion. I would argue that the underlying assumption is quite clear. Irondome (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that its a poor choice of wording. Hitler was wanting to go to war to acquire Lebensraum. I've tweaked the article with references, hopefully it's a bit better now and more clear.--Hashi0707 (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Better. Irondome (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, much better wording now. Good job. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Picture in racial policy section
Could there not be a better image used instead of just the cover of Mein Kampf?

File:Einsatzgruppen_Killing.jpg

A member of Einsatzgruppe D is about to shoot a man sitting by a mass grave in Vinnytsia, Ukraine in 1942.

Would this not be more relevant?--Hashi0707 (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion on this nor do I believe it's of any real significance. What I'm basically saying is, be bold and implement it! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It brings the reality home. Support. Irondome (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added two images that I feel are much more relevant to the article than just a cover of Mein Kampf.--Hashi0707 (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think these images will fit in much better in the war crimes section. EyeTruth (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther, do you not feel the image is better suited on the right side?--Hashi0707 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because the images used in this article are supposed to swing left, right, left, right, left right, left right, left and so on. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Barbarossa&curid=22618&diff=661129742&oldid=661087778

Can this edit be sourced? If not, I am not sure what it is doing there.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union has a lot of discussion, with sources. The statement as it stands is not a good summary of that article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

GA nomination
G'day all, I see this article has been nominated for GA. Just checking whether it is the consensus of the active editors of the article that it is ready. It is a large article, and it wouldn't do for someone to start a GAN review and find out half-way through that it really isn't ready. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We need a good detailed review, that's my take at the mo. It's getting there, but contributors badly need a steer i'm thinking. Good intervention PM67 Irondome (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, Jonas. A quick look makes me think it isn't ready. Suggest you withdraw it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't ready but it's getting there. I think the active editors are just busy outside WP at this time. EyeTruth (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67, I actually believe the article is a very qualified GA-nomination; don't want to withdraw it. Further, I believe it's been ready since I nominated it. Would be helpful if you would mention specific points in the article that makes you convinced it's not ready and we could discuss that in detail. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And frankly, I've written and review enough articles to know what quickly fails as an acceptable GA-nom and this article is definitely not that. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jonas, we all appreciate a quick learner, but the talk page SINCE you nominated it is an indication it was clearly NOT ready. Even on the stability criteria, if nothing else. At least one (perhaps two) other regular editors, who have made really significant contributions to this article appear to agree. You might have checked with them first, that would be not only polite but also completely appropriate. You might like to consider other editor's opinions, esp those that have made FAR more edits on this article than you . OK? EyeTruth is the main editor, you don't even factor in the top 10 . Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 15:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67, of course I don't appear in the top 10 because I improved the complete mess in my sandbox and first implemented the lot only when I believed it was finished; made several hundreds of edits to this article in fact! (you think this was all one edit???) Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article belongs to the community. The article is not ready yet Jonas. It is not your decision alone. I am sure you have the clue and grace to recognise that. Irondome (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Irondome, in regard to my latest comment, I'm merely correcting Peacemaker67's comment about me not being a significant contributor... that's a bad joke! I'm not saying I "own" the article or is the main editor - just clarifying that I indeed have contributed to this article a freaking lot and that my opinion should also be valued, which I believe contradicts Peacemaker67's will. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Jonas did the important edit that spurred everyone into action. All the edits I did before his overhaul were just information getting dumped into a very chaotic article, which didn't bring any order to it. Even though he has contributed/reworked less content (which is how the X!'s Tool determines top editors) than the top ten editors, many of whom already gave up on the article, his overhaul brought a sense of direction to the article, something that cannot be measured but priceless. EyeTruth (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am just asking for patience. I was involved in getting Battle of Prokhorovka to GA status, and that took several months. We literally went over it line by line, weighing the best sources. Even commas. You all know the score. I was responsible for some considerable wording of the final product, much of which still extant. It still gives me pride in a difficult but successful shared outcome. This is a vast subject and has vast potential for improvement. I urge patience and much groundwork. A call out on the Milhist TP on the story so far and our future intentions I believe would bear great dividends. We have time. Irondome (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I know the article is not ready. I said it in one of my earlier posts. My last post wasn't a reply to yours, but rather an addition to Peacemaker67's comments. My bad for causing confusion with the outdent from your post. EyeTruth (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the consensus is that it is not ready. The take-home lesson is about nominating an article that has multiple significant authors without consulting them first. It is critical to the success of any nomination, whether GA, Milhist ACR or FA. I have struck out my comments about Jonas' edits, but that doesn't make the nomination ok. Please re-consider the nomination. I won't review this article myself because I would probably quickfail it for lack of stability since its nomination, without really getting into the nitty gritty. I'm going to butt out here. Good luck with it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Peacemaker67. A brief look at the revision history statistics shows that the article is currently in breach of criteria 5, which states: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute" of WP:GARC. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by T16T17T12345
This edit made by T16T17T12345 seems problematic. The first issue is that some of the new information that were injected into the article are not supported by the cited sources attributed to them, which are cited sources that were already there in the affected passages. I have access to these sources and contributed in writing those passages. The second issue is that he deleted a whole paragraph, one that was just recently shaped up by the combined effort of at least two editors (not including me), and he replaced it with his own completely new version. EyeTruth (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey hey


 * First may I say thank you for posting on the talk page first and not starting with reverting, that was very civilized of you, so I thank you deeply for that.


 * Now about the edits


 * The part of not having intercourse, that is technically correct that it was something Himmler said, but during the war, the Germans raped over 10 million Soviet women, plus several million Polish, and by 1942 the Germans themselves pointed out that there were between 750k to 1 million rape babies, and what should be done about them.
 * So to have that text about illegal to have intercourse is very misleading, so better just to remove it, like I dont know 95% of the text that was removed, and replace it with something more accurate.


 * Here are the sources for the rapes
 * Wieviorka, Olivier; Warring, Anette (2006). Surviving Hitler and Mussolini: daily life in occupied Europe. Berg Publishers. p. 90. (ISBN-10: 1845201817)
 * Gertjejanssen, Wendy Jo (2004). Victims, Heroes, Survivors: Sexual Violence on the Eastern Front during World War II, (PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota, 2004)
 * Sultan, Christopher. "Nazi war crimes as described by German soldiers", (Article Spiegel online international, April 8 2011)
 * Seifert, Ruth, War and Rape. Analytical Approaches, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, ( Publication for Women's International League for Peace and Freedom)
 * Pascale R . Bos, Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 2006, vol. 31, no. 4, p.996-1025 (DOI: 10.1086/499441)


 * About the document connects to the last ref, and here is what that ref says; "A 1942 Wehrmacht document suggested that the Nazi leadership considered implementing a special policy for the eastern front through which the estimated 750,000 babies born through sexual contact between German soldiers and Russian women (an estimate deemed very conservative), could be identified and claimed to be racially German. (It was suggested that the middle names Friedrich or Luise be added to the birth certificates of male and female babies.) Although the plan was not implemented, such documents suggest that the births that resulted from rapes and other forms of sexual contact were deemed beneficial, increasing the "Aryan" race rather than as adding to the inferior Slavic race. The underlying ideology suggests that German rape and other forms of sexual contact may need to be seen as conforming to a larger military strategy of racial and territorial dominance."


 * Now about the text I added, here are the sources for the extermination of the Slavs as a primary goal by the nazis.


 * Operation Barbarossa: Ideology and Ethics against Human Dignity, by André Mineau, (Rodopi, 2004) page 180, (ISBN: 9042016337)
 * Shelley Baranowski. Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler. Cambridge University Press, 2011. P. 141 (ISBN: 9780521674089)
 * Mark Mazower. Hitler's Empire: Nazi rule in occupied Europe. Allen Lane, 2008. P. 63, (ISBN-10: 0141011920)
 * I can give more but 3 is plenty


 * About the lack of small arms and such was what the original text said, before 95% of it was deleted in march by 1 guy because somehow deleting 95% makes the text better, so it was massively deleted and altered a bit where some thing were omitted or changed, so that is what the sources originally said. And if needed a specific source can be given for the lack of small arms during operation barbarossa.


 * And again I really appreciate that you went to the talk page first T16T17T12345 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree; it's problematic. That being said, if reliable sources can be produced to support every new peace of information added in the edit, and a strong consensus about the exact wording can be reached, I would happy to discuss about adding it. But find the sources first. Also, I too see no reason why the paragraph in question (which I thought was fine) should be deleted. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the sources right here in the text that I wrote above, and explained in the text above why that part should be deleted it, read it and seeT16T17T12345 (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Got ISBN's or OCLC's to the individual books? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now added ISBN, there are also academic journals and phd thesis which I have added which is which. T16T17T12345 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Let's have someone else's take on this to reach a broad consensus. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 16:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @ T16T17T12345. The paragraph (in the racial policy section) that you excised is technically correct, so you could have just simply added the extra bit of information to it, instead of totally removing it for no good reason. But I'll leave that issue to the editors that shaped up that paragraph (Irondome, Hashi0707, and Jonas Vinther). The other problematic insertion is this: 1.5 million were deployed in the far east, 0.5 million were deployed in vicinity of the Turkish border and the Caucasus, with the rest being stationed around the country. Which of the 3 cited sources supports this information? Note that the information is not necessary incorrect, but it needs correct citations else it would be unverifiable. EyeTruth (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * About the racial policy, since 95% of the article was cut, it seems illogical to have such a misleading and space consuming quote, yes Himmler wanted it to be illegal for racial mixing, and then the nazis invaded, raped 10 million women, and by 1942 there were 750,000 rape babies, so having that quote is misleading and space consuming. About the deployment of Soviet troops, that is what the text originally said, before 95% of the text was cut in march of 2015, the source is David Glantz, Also I gave 8 (eight) sources, not 3 (three), out of those 8, 5 are for the rapes, and 3 are for the exterminationT16T17T12345 (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You already know what you need to do and have said it yourself: "Yes Himmler wanted it to be illegal for racial mixing, and then the nazis invaded, raped 10 million women." That's a more complete read, I suppose. Anyways I'll leave the racial policy stuff to the editors that were primarily involved in contributing it. As for the thing about deployment of Soviet forces, I already told you that none of the cited sources support that information, at least not in the cited page numbers. EyeTruth (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AS I wrote, the racial part makes no sense of having in, since it is obviously misleading, 95% of the text has been cut away and this misleading part has been added, that makes no sense. About the deployment here is the last version before 95% of the article was deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Barbarossa&oldid=651816347, as you can see it says "2.6 million in the west, 1.8 million in the Far East, with the rest being deployed or training elsewhere" And it gives these 2 sources "A. J. P. Taylor and D. M. Proektor, p. 98" And "Glantz, David, The Soviet‐German War 1941–45: Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay. p. 9" In addition I did other smaller changes such as changing the words "other fates" to extermination when it the text said "expulsion into the depths of Russia, and other fates," Other fates is very misleading. T16T17T12345 (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You should discuss the racial policy stuff with these editors: Jonas Vinther, Irondome and Hashi0707. I've already said my take on it. The problematic insertion that I'm currently concerned about is this: "1.5 million were deployed in the far east, 0.5 million were deployed in vicinity of the Turkish border and the Caucasus, with the rest being stationed around the country." You still haven't cited a source for it. EyeTruth (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@T16T17T12345

Isn't your edit not just a shorter version of what is already explained underneath in the paragraph about the General Plan East?

If we look at your proposed edit and the current article:

"It was the stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic people. Both Moscow and Leningrad were to be completely physically destroyed, the cities were to be replaced by the massive lakes."

"The Nazi secret plan Generalplan Ost ("General Plan East") which was prepared in 1941 and confirmed in 1942 called for a "new order of ethnographical relations" in the territories occupied by Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe. The plan envisaged wholesale removal of the majority of the populations of conquered counties with very small differing percentages of the various conquered nations undergoing Germanisation, expulsion into the depths of Russia, and other fates, the net effect of which would be to ensure that the conquered territories would be Germanized. It was divided into two parts; the Kleine Planung ("Small Plan"), which covered actions which were to be taken during the war, and the Grosse Planung ("Big Plan"), which covered actions to be undertaken after the war was won, and to be implemented gradually over a period of 25 to 30 years. Verification of the belief in German ethnic predominance is discernible in official German records and by pseudo-scientifically validated articles in German periodicals at the time, works which covered matters like "how to deal with alien populations"."

The removal of the vast majority of the indigenous populations in the occupied territories is already mentioned and the policy of Moscow and Leningrad being physically destroyed was nothing to do with the racial ideology.

@ EyeTruth, thank you.--Hashi0707 (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No mention of Stalingrad in the intro?
74.60.161.158 (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC) may 11, '15


 * The article deals with the German invasion of the USSR, up to when the Soviets stopped the Germans at Moscow. Stalingrad would fall under the renewed German advance in the south, Fall Blau. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with GeneralizationsAreBad. Also, the Battle of Stalingrad is linked in the "See also" section which links related events. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Tanks destroyed
In the infobox under the casualties section there are two numbers for tank losses on the axis side:

2,839 tanks destroyed

2,464 tanks destroyed

Which one is accurate?

Also neither the soviet nor the axis tanks lost numbers are sourced. Ugly Ketchup (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot and well spotted. The Axis error is now fixed. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Soviet error is also now fixed. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Failed Verification – Hitler Strikes East
I just watched the first half of the documentary Hitler Strikes East (which narrates the invasion in a very chronological order), and a lot of the content in the article attributed to it is not in it. I marked two of them with tag in this edit, but there are a lot more. Almost all the content of the section Phase Two is cited with the documentary as reference; but in reality, when they are not entirely unfounded in the documentary, are at best very loosely inspired by the information in the documentary. I didn't check past that point in the article, but I'm guessing that this problem persists through the rest of the article. Hi all, we've got work, this needs to be fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

EyeTruth (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC). I've replaced the tags with  tags, only for passages that I've confirmed not to be in the documentary. EyeTruth (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Last night I removed the note in the infobox about Finland which was tagged as not being verified by this source. Aside from the problem with referencing, the argument being made (that Finland somehow needs to be treated differently from the other German-aligned countries) seemed dubious and of little importance in the context of the infobox. If this material is preserved in the article somewhere, it needs to be supported by a strong citation. While it's true that Finland wasn't part of the Axis alliance, it cooperated extensively with the Germans during preparations for Barbarossa and the early stages of the war, and allowed very substantial German forces to launch attacks on the USSR from its territory which were integrated with Finnish operations. The difference here seems semantic. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth, I did not see this talk page section until now! Please let me know if the problem(s) are fixed. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC). Not yet fixed. Everyone is encouraged to contribute. I plan to give it a go next weekend. Most of the uncited content are veritable or close enough. They just need sources that they can be attributed to. EyeTruth (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Problem solved, see section right below this one. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Photos (?)
Just wondering... should we put some photos in for the sections on racial policy and Nazi-Soviet relations prior to 1941? I recall there being pictures there before. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC). There used to be photos there, but they also kept changing often. EyeTruth (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support adding lots of small photos instead of one big one in several sections, but they should be Bundesarchiv images. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Harv refs!
Please, when adding sources to an article that unmistakably uses harv references, you should also convert your sources to harv refs, like so. Cheers in advance, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Failed documentary verification
Okay, the failed verification problems is solved - I've cited everything with the documentaries I brought to this article in the first place. To avoid a situation similar to the section right above, I'm going to explain exactly where in the documentaries everything is so you can check them for yourself.


 * "In contrast, Soviet artillery observers based at the border area had been under the strictest instructions not to open fire on German aircraft prior to the invasion" - The Battle for Russia minute 01:04:12
 * "However, a rainstorm typical of Russian summers slowed their progress and Russian defenses stiffened" - The Battle for Russia - minute 01:25:07
 * "The delays gave the Soviets time to organize a massive counterattack against Army Group Center" - The Battle for Russia minute 01:26:11
 * "On 6 July, the Soviets attacked the 3rd Panzer Group with 1000 tanks. The Germans defeated this counterattack with overwhelming air superiority" - The Battle for Russia minute 01:17:35
 * "The 2nd Panzer Group crossed the Dnieper River and closed in on Smolensk from the south while the 3rd Panzer Group, after defeating the Soviet counterattack, closed on Smolensk from the north" - The Battle for Russia minute 01:28:20
 * "When the Panzer Groups finally closed the gap, 300,000 Red Army soldiers were captured" - Hitler Strikes East minute 11:45
 * "but 200,000 Red Army soldiers escaped to stand between the Germans and Moscow" - The Battle for Russia minute 01:29:03
 * "Four weeks into the campaign, the Germans realized they had grossly underestimated Soviet strength. The German troops had used their initial supplies without attaining the expected strategic freedom of movement" - The Battle for Russia minute 01:29:30
 * "Hitler by now had lost faith in battles of encirclement as large numbers of Soviet soldiers had escaped the pincers. He now believed he could defeat the Soviets by economic damage, depriving them of the industrial capacity to continue the war" - The Battle for Russia 01:30:10
 * "Fedor von Bock, the commander of Army Group Center, and almost all the German generals involved in Operation Barbarossa argued vehemently in favor of continuing the all-out drive toward Moscow. Besides the psychological importance of capturing the enemy's capital, the generals pointed out that Moscow was a major center of arms production, the center of the Soviet communications system and an important transportation hub. More importantly, intelligence reports indicated that the bulk of the Red Army was deployed near Moscow under Semyon Timoshenko for an all-out defense of the capital" - The Battle for Russia minute 01:31:04

Lastly, I would like to point out I don't just randomly add a bunch of documentary cites to support facts or statements, I'm not like that! I only add it if I'm confident it's supported by the documentary. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * EyeTruth (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC). So it was a mix-up to cite Hitler Strikes East, and it should have been Battle of Russia (Battlefield season 2). That would make sense I guess. Thanks for fixing that. EyeTruth (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * EyeTruth (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC). What about this: "The Luftwaffe quickly achieved air superiority in all sectors facing their army groups, and they would maintain it throughout the course of Barbarossa." It is not in Hitler Strikes East nor is it in Soviet Storm, but you randomly re-added the citation. EyeTruth (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's supported by Hitler Strikes East. It clearly says the Luftwaffe achived total domination of the air and didn't lose this until Kursk 1943. If you haven't, watch the whole documentary instead of just half! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC). It was actually mentioned in the first half, but what you claim here and what the article claims is not what the documentary says. The documentary's narrator, while narrating specifically the events of the Battle of Białystok–Minsk, simply says that "the Luftwaffe had total domination of the air" (minute 6:55). Every thing from minute 6:15 till 7:40 of the documentary, starting with the crossing of River Bug on the Polish-Soviet border to the liquidation of the Białystok–Minsk pocket, was exclusively about the Battle of Białystok–Minsk. Nothing was said about air domination in the entire front, nor its maintenance until the Battle of Kursk as you claim. Moreover, that latter claim is incorrect. In fact, the originally cited source for that passage in the article says the same thing the documentary says (see this edit): air dominance/superiority in the Minsk sector. Moreover, the fact that the VVS of the southern fronts were able to launch airstrikes into Romania in the opening weeks of the war, casts serious doubts on the validity of such a broad claim of total air dominance in the entire eastern front. EyeTruth (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth, as you mentioned yourself, it says at minute 6:55 that the Luftwaffe archived total air domination at the start of Barbarossa. This means they achieved air superiority over all the sectors of the front, otherwise the "total" word would not have been used. Then, at minute 49:23, says the Luftwaffe lost air superiority at Kursk. Kursk was an 1943 event, and if the Germans didn't lose superiority until then, then they certainly dominated the skies throughout Barbarossa which was a 1941 event! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, having air superiority doesn't translate into meaning that the enemy can't lift their aircraft into the air! Yes, the Romanian oil fields were hit, but that doesn't mean the Germans didn't dominate the air in the southern sector. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. See Operation Bodenplatte and Black Friday. Air superiority is not the same as air supremacy. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC). GeneralizationsAreBad, the documentary suggests air supremacy instead of superiority with the phrase "total domination of the air"; which is a fishy claim if we assume it was over the entire front. But it will actually be correct if we recognize the logical context the documentary cast that statement into: The Luftwaffe did utterly dominate Pavlov's Western Front. EyeTruth (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC). Jonas Vinther, the documentary was narrating specifically the events of the Battle of Białystok–Minsk. Every thing from minute 6:15 till 7:40 of the documentary, every single beat of the narration, was exclusively about the Battle of Białystok–Minsk. Singling out the air dominance phrase to apply beyond that framework would be us making an exceptional exception. Also "total" is an adjective to describe the degree of air dominance. As for Kursk I'll prefer we don't digress, but after December 1942 the Lufftwaffe could only achieve local superiority by concentrating their air power in narrow sectors usually in support of a ground offensive or a tactical withdrawal; and even after Operation Citadel, the Lufftwaffe was still able to achieve local superiority, like during the Fourth Battle of Kharkov. EyeTruth (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Kursk is a pretty interesting case. (I'm also hoping to get it to GA, on an unrelated note.) In any event, it's frustrating if the documentary isn't specific enough. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC). I think Kursk article is ready, or at least almost ready, for GA. I worked on it a couple years ago. The documentary was written as an entry-level introduction to the eastern front, so abundance of details would've only derailed that goal. For example, the doc states "6000 German tanks." What did they include in their count: tankettes and armoured vehicles? EyeTruth (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (I nominated Kursk for GA. My fingers are crossed.) Antony Beevor puts the German tank strength at 3,350 in "Stalingrad" (page 13). GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC). I believe you mean in his book Stalingrad, not in the Battle of Stalingrad. Around 3,350 (3,000–3,500) is the most cited number for the German tank strength in recent works. What matters the most with numbers, in fact with anything, is the context: What units are included in the count, what kind of related vehicles were excluded, what primary (or secondary) sources were used, or what kind of original analysis was used to established the number, etc. EyeTruth (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant "his book, 'Stalingrad,'" sorry for my idiocy. I was just putting that number out there; it seems that Beevor is in line with Clark and Glantz on the question of German tank strength. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the 6000 tanks mentioned, it referred to Germany's tank number in total, not just those committed to the Eastern Front. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

EyeTruth (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC). Jonas, the German tank inventory in June 1941 was about 5500 tanks (of which only about 4000 were combat-ready) and about 400 assault guns. (I'll comeback with sources to ensure that I remember these correctly). So the documentary must have included combat-useless machines and assault guns in their count, but they didn't clarify this. This lack of clarity and specificity in their narration makes it imperative to recognize the logical context that their narration is cast into. This is why we can't just assume that the documentary meant that the Luftwaffe had total air dominance (air supremacy) in the entire eastern front. That statement needs to be viewed in its proper context, the very one painted in the documentary. Besides, I don't know of any credible historian that has made such a claim in a recent work, but then I only know a fraction of the many. If there are, then that will be something worth mentioning. EyeTruth (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

EyeTruth (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC). The correct numbers. On 1 June 1941, German tank strenght stood at: 377 assault guns and 5,262 tanks (of which 4,198 were combat-ready). The breakdown of the 5,262 tanks are: 187 panzer 35(t) tanks, 330 panzer Befehl (command) tanks, 877 panzer I tanks, 1,072 panzer II tanks, 85 panzer II flamethrowers, 754 panzer 38(t) tanks, 1,440 panzer III tanks, 517 panzer IV tanks. Source: Pier. P. Battistelli (2008), Panzer Divisions: The Eastern Front 1941-43, p. 65. EyeTruth (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth, I would be happy to take the wording out and replace it with something different, such as simply saying the Luftwaffe achieved air domination during the Battle of Białystok–Minsk. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC). I'll see what I can put together from Von Hardesty's Red Phoenix. EyeTruth (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)