Talk:Operation Barbarossa/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 17:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm undertaking to review this with input from my dad, who's a big history buff with a passion for WWII. We've done this several times, e.g. with Winter War. But don't get discouraged by the massiveness of the review, I'll mention things I think need improvement, but I'm certainly willing to listen to reason if you disagree, and I won't insist that everything be changed in order to meet GA standards. Comments coming soon! delldot ∇. 17:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much! GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Delldot, thank you very much for taking on the review. Glad to hear you will receive some help from your father - the more eyes on the article the better. Also, given the historical importance of this article, a thorough review would be greatly appreciated. Lastly, I got a lot of things going on right now so I would appreciate if you, or someone else, would ping me when my attention is needed. Cheers and happy holidays. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem, I should have something in an hour or two, I'll drop you a note though. delldot ∇. 18:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

First part

Here's my first part of the review. I'll have to do the rest later, but figured I'd give you a chance to start looking at these first. Don't be dismayed, this is mostly cosmetic copy-editing issues that will be quick fixes.

It's already really top-notch. Very well organized and flows well, impeccably cited. I have not been able to detect any problem with bias (although my dad points out after every sentence that it has all been exhaustively debated by historians). There’s a tendency toward long, difficult-to-follow sentences, so watch for that as you’re copy editing.

Racial policies of Nazi Germany

• ‘’ Hitler in Mein Kampf said Germany's destiny was to "turn to the East" as it did "six hundred years ago".’’ Maybe there could be a footnote here to explain what he’s referring to.

Good idea. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Run-on: ‘’ 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.’’

Sorry, I don't understand this? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that this seems like a long, meandering sentence that's hard to understand. Could you maybe split it into two sentences? Maybe a period after 'fates'. delldot ∇. 01:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sure no problem. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 10:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

German-Soviet relations of 1939–40

• try to avoid easter egg links like here: ‘’ As a result of the pact, Germany and the Soviet Union had reasonably strong diplomatic relations and an important economic relationship.’’ This exists throughout the article, so try to make the links as unsurprising as possible for a reader who follows them as you’re editing.

Will do. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

German invasion plans

• The colors of the map in the image should be explained in the caption. The image itself is in German. And occupied countries like France and Belgium are grey.

How right you are, will fix ASAP. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• If this quote is from Hitler, shouldn’t it be in the first person? Or you could take off the quotation marks. Or is the quote from the general? ‘’While no concrete plans were made yet, Hitler told one of his generals in June that the victories in Western Europe "finally freed his hands for his important real task: the showdown with Bolshevism".’’

Good idea. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Split up this run-on sentence: ‘’ Although German generals warned Hitler that occupying Western Russia would create "more of a drain than a relief for Germany's economic situation", the Führer anticipated additional benefits, like the demobilization of entire divisions to relieve the acute labor shortage in German industry, Ukraine becoming a reliable source of immense agricultural products, forced labor under German rule vastly stimulating Germany's overall economy, and the expansion of territory to improve Germany's geostrategic position which would further isolate Britain.’’

Will do. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why is the table restricted to 50% width? It looks kind of squished up and too tall, with a lot of whitespace. I’d make it 80 or 90% and centered.

Tweaked. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Soviet preparations

• ‘’Defense expenditure also grew rapidly: from just 5 percent of gross national product in 1913, to 12 percent in 1933, and by 1940 it stood at 18 percent.’’ Isn’t it a bit weird to include 1913 in this comparison? It was a totally different society before 1917.

Totally right, removed. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• This sentence needs cleanup: ‘’ The Soviets held a clear numerical advantage in tanks that numbered more than 20,000, of which about 11,000 were in the western military districts that faced the German invasion forces, which had about 3,350 tanks.’’

Done. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Is this apostrophe placement correct, making tank singular? ‘’ "If I had known about the Russian tank's strength in 1941 I would not have attacked".’’ Or should it be tanks’?

Well spotted, fixed. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• if you decide to go for FA status it might be good to turn the table “Development of the Soviet Armed Forces” into a chart, like a bar graph, to have an easy visual representation. I wouldn’t demand that now though.

Temping suggestion, but lets make it pass GA-review first. :) Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• This sentence doesn’t flow well into the rest of the paragraph: ‘’ Prior to the invasion, the Soviet Air Force (VVS) was forbidden to shoot down Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft, despite hundreds of prewar incursions into Soviet airspace.’’ I want to hear more about why not: because of the pact? Intimidation? The rest of the para is about relative numbers.

Added more detail. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Invasion

• ‘’ Joseph Goebbels announced the invasion to the waking nation in a radio broadcast, "At this moment a march is taking place that, for its extent, compares with the greatest the world has ever seen. I have decided today to place the fate and future of the Reich and our people in the hands of our soldiers. May God aid us, especially in this fight!"[’ This must be a quote from Hitler, right? It’s confusing.

Quite right, it is Hitler, have tweaked. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

EyeTruth has informed me that it actually was Goebbles who made said the quote in question. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, ok, it was the 'I have decided' that threw me. delldot ∇. 01:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Phase one

• Is this correct? ‘’ with the aid of Abwehr troops operating in the Soviet rear paralyzed its communication lines’’. Looks like Abwehr were spies. Wouldn’t it be paratroopers or airborn?

Its actually legit. Added, however, detail on other helpers. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Historical significance

• This is such a small section. I wonder if the info could be incorporated elsewhere and this section dissolved. It does seem like a good way to wrap up the article though. Any chance of fleshing it out? It would still be GA-worthy either way though.

The indeed is very small; could do good with an expansion. I will keep it a section for itself and do my best to expanded it add some more detail. Cheers. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me know your thoughts on these remarks and I'll add more in a bit. delldot ∇. 20:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Delldot, thank you very much for your thorough review. I have responded and made edits according your comments. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic work, remarkably fast! I hope to have the rest reviewed tomorrow. delldot ∇. 01:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 10:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Second part

Thanks Jonas Vinther and GeneralizationsAreBad for the excellent work so far. Here's my last set of comments.

Phase 3

• 4th Panzer Army had penetrated to within 30 mi (48 km) earlier it used just kilometers, spelled out. This should be consistent. There are lots more instances of this usage, sometimes with mi first, sometimes km.

Quite right, fixed. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

There are still some instances of 8 km (5.0 mi), 200 mi (320 km), sixteen kilometres, 48 kilometers, and so on. I bet WP:MILHIST has a style guideline for which of these to use. delldot ∇. 00:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• This was confusing to me: These attacks drew Hitler's attention back to Army Group Center and its drive on Moscow. This is the first we’re hearing about Moscow since the drive was suspended at the end of phase 2. Does this sentence mean that the attacks changed Hitler’s mind and caused him to decide to go for Moscow? Or did that happen earlier?

Long story, but, as the article explained in "German preparations", Hitler regarded Moscow as relatively unimportant, but the stubborn resistance by the Red Army compelled him to shift his attention back to Moscow after some months of fighting. Good job, however, in noticing its the first time this is mentioned after that early section; will tweak it for clarity. Y :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• weather conditions grounded the Luftwaffe from conducting any large scale operations. Is large-scale supposed to be hyphenated?

Tweaked. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• This sounds a little awkward but I can’t figure out how to fix it: over 830,000 casualties in killed, wounded, captured or gone missing in action. It’s the ‘in’ I don’t like. Maybe over 830,000 German soldiers were killed, wounded, captured or missing in action and the Germans had lost the Battle for Moscow. It’s not perfect though.

I agree, tweaked it per your suggestion. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

War crimes

• The Soviet Union had not participated in the Geneva Conventions and therefore their troops could not rely on the protection the Conventions guaranteed soldiers during times of war. Is this to suggest that signing the convention would have protected them? Is there evidence that Hitler had honored the convention with signatories elsewhere?

Well, Germany did not kill the vast majority of the 2 million French troops imprisoned in Germany throughout the entire war. Personally, I don't think Hitler would have held the convention in high regard even if they had signed it, but the Geneva Convention was the biggest and most notable treaty of war before the start of Operation Barbarossa so its important that they had not signed it - what would have happened if they did sign is a matter of speculation. Let me know if you want some specific tweaks or points made. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I’m not sure ‘industrial’ is the right word here. Organized crimes against civilians, including women and children, were also carried out on an industrial scale by the Germans and local supporters.

Tweaked. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I’d like to see a little more info in this section. How many civilians were starved? What happened to the people in Leningrad in the siege? How many civilians were killed and in what manner?

I've expanded it as best I could; let me know if you're satisfied. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Leningrad material has been added. Y GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath

• I think this section should come right after Phase 4. It’s still giving chronological info, while the War crimes section is more general about the whole campaign. I would switch the order of these two sections.

Quite right. :) Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, despite this setback, the Soviet Union had suffered heavily from the loss of large parts of its army and industry, allowing the Germans to mount another large-scale offensive Maybe despite this success? or Nevertheless, despite this setback for the Germans?

Tweaked. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• So what was the precise end of Barbarossa? Did it end with the defeat at Moscow, so all of 1942 is ‘aftermath’? It says here they started calling it Case Blue in July 1942. Did that mark the end of Barbarossa, or was there just nothing going on from December to July? Did the operation of moving all the troops toward Stalingrad have a name?

Barbarossa ended with defeat at Moscow. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Would it make sense to explicitly state this at the end of phase 4 or the beginning of aftermath? Or does the fact that it's called 'aftermath' make that clear enough? delldot ∇. 00:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• By then, the Soviet war economy was fully operational and was able to simply outproduce Germany, which was not prepared for a long war of attrition.[37] The war ended with the total defeat and occupation of Nazi Germany in May 1945. The juxtaposition of these two sentences makes it look like losing Case Blue lost Germany the war. Maybe there could be one transition sentence between them about how these defeats affected Germany and set the stage for the rest of the war, if it’s possible to speculate.

Tweaked per your suggestion. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg is a fair use image without a rationale for use on this page. I don’t think you’ll be able to use it since it says on the page this event took place in 1942; it’ll be hard to justify why you need it to illustrate an article about 1941. All of the rest of the images are legit.

Removed. Y Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that’s all I got! delldot ∇. 17:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your great review. To deal with the stuff I can answer...

-- Yes, I think hyphens should be put in.

-- As for the Geneva Conventions, I'm not sure. However, it's an important statement, so I will keep an eye on it.

-- If "industrial" isn't doing it, "systematic" might work.

-- I can add material on Leningrad if you like.

-- Case Blue was a separate operation entirely, launched in 1942 with the aim of conquering the oil fields in the Caucasus. This would be considered the operation that led to Stalingrad. From December to July, there was continued fighting in the Rzhev area, plus major battles at Demyansk and Kharkov, as well as myriad others that need not be dealt with here. That can be added, if you want.

-- Yes, I agree, more needs to be written on Case Blue and its aftermath and effects. As the article already says, Moscow marked the end of an "easy" victory for the Third Reich, and while some might argue it effectively meant total defeat, it was still not the end.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Delldot, I believe me and GeneralizationsAreBad have replied and acted according your comments. Please let us know if there is anything else, and thanks for the very helpful comments. :) Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Delldot and Jonas Vinther, what are your opinions on where the Leningrad starvation paragraph should be located? It has been tentatively placed in Phase three, but I will move it elsewhere if need be. Best of luck, GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad, I think Delldot wanted something about Leningrad in the "War Crimes" section which I already added before your addition; if this is case, I doubt yours is really needed. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I can delete it if you like. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, after reading it thoroughly through, I think its best if stays in. But lets hear Delldot's opinion. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's great info and it adds a lot since there's not a lot from the perspective of the soviet civilians. But it doesn't really work where it is, since that section is mainly about German troop movements, and the previous para is about Kiev. Would it make sense to add that info to the war crimes section too? Or would that make it too long? delldot ∇. 00:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and good call. I'll move it to the bottom. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Can we just get this last thing cited? The most advanced Soviet tank models, the T-34 and KV-1, were not available in large numbers early in the war, and only accounted for 7 percent of the total Soviet tank force.[37][not in citation given]

After that, I think this thoroughly meets GA criteria, so I'm going to go ahead and promote it. I hope you will keep improving it (e.g. adding that footnote about the 600 years, the sentence about how the operation set the stage for the rest of the war before the final sentence in aftermath, continuing to fill out EGG links like 'never returned alive') but that can happen over time. Great work, folks! delldot ∇. 01:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Delldot, I have been informed Ridder 2007 is not a reliable source; I will therefore replace it, and also find a source for the sentence you listed above; will ping when I'm done. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Delldot I'm confident everything about the article is now in fine order and no further source or content issues exist. Please take a last glance at the article and let me know if there is anything further. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ugly Ketchup pointed out that there are two separate numbers provided for Axis tank losses, neither of which are sourced. That might be worth fixing. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That would indeed be worth fixing. Will get right on it! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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!) 18:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, great work, this is easily up to par. There are still inconsistent uses of 90 mi (140 km) and 10 km (6.2 mi), that would have to be fixed before an FA bid. Thanks for all the hard work folks! delldot ∇. 18:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)