Talk:World War II

RfC: Is the non-free Reichstag photo permissible in the infobox?

A non-free photograph (File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg) depicts Soviet solders raising the Red Banner on the Reichstag roof. This event symbolized both the end of the Battle of Berlin and a military defeat of Third Reich in World War II. No free images of this unique historic event exist or could be created. The photograph itself is iconic, it is highly recognisable and can be found in most WWII history books and, arguably, is the single most famous picture of the entire WWII collection.
Can a non-free status of this photograph be a reason for its removal from the article, and will its replacement with some free image have a detrimental effect on the article?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As this question has also been raised at Talk:Battle of Berlin#RfC: Is the non-free Reichstag photo permissible in the infobox? I suggest that the debate takes place there for both articles. A summary of the debate can be posted here after the RFC is ended. Otherwise there is going to be a lot of overlap between the two debates which will be a waste of time for all concerned. -- PBS (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The result of the infobox debate really will not affect this article, as the use of the image is completely different in both articles... J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is not free it cannot be used, has there been any change of policy I am not aware of? A very symbolic picture indeed, but... GK1973 (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Many non-free images are used on wikipedia, see WP:NFCC. Hohum 12:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the Beer Hall Putsch?

Could the Beer Hall Putsch be added as a possible starting date for World War II? -The Lone Wiki (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's ridiculous. What sources give that date as the start of the war? Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that was just personal opinion which I guess doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for a credible source. The Lone Wiki (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC) The Beer Hall Putsch in Munich took place in 1923 and Hitler did not come to power until 1933.--92.230.232.136 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Until September 1, 1939 there was no "actual war". Although the Nazis trampled on the Treaty of Versailles by, the re-militarization of the Rhineland, the Anschluss of Austria and the "annexing" of the Sudetenland, (all of which should have been reason for the allied powers to act militarily against Germany) Great Britain and France did not declare war on Germany until September 3, 1939. Technically September 3, 1939 could be the date given for the start of WWII, but the action of the Nazis against a sovereign state, is generally considered the cause of the war. Austria was a sovereign state but Hitler bluffed the Austrian government with the threat of war to get them to cow-tow to his wish for the reunification of the German people.Gctskippy (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Gctskippy (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gctskippy (talk • contribs) 03:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Importance of North Africa

There is a lot of confusion about what happened when and who was in charge. Some people believe that we were fighting Germans but we weren't for the most part. The attacks on Morocco and Algeria were all French fighting and in Libya and Egypt, we were fighting Italians. We didn't meet the Germans until we were pushed back in February of 1942 by Rommel and the Afrika Korps. The main assault where we faced Germans was in Tunisia. Patton wasn't the main General of the 3rd or the 5th army at the time. He filled in for II Corps for three weeks in Tunisia. He didn't actually have a command position with his men until Sicily and Italy. Divisions like the Fighting First under Terry Allen and numerous other divisions are the reason places like Oran, Casablanca, El Guettar, Kasserine, Sidi Bou Zid, Tobruk, and El Alamein turned in our favor and the reason the Germans, Italians, and French were pushed out of North Africa. The battle consisted of Australians, Britons, Americans, New Zealanders, Free French, Poles, Greeks, and Indians(From India). The Axis were outdone and Rommel had gotten sick near the end. The Germans were suffering retreat in Russia and this was the beginning of the end for the Nazi's. They may have lost at Stalingrad, but they would ultimately lose the North African Campaign which was really the spark for the allies who were not yet into Europe. They would be the First foot troops to set foot in Europe with the invasion of Italy and Sicily. Until D-Day, the North African Campaign was the largest victory for the allies and the first chance into Europe. Yes, England is in Europe but the campaign would be the first steps into the Nazi realm. The importance of the North African Campaign is seen as unimportant to some people, but it is one of the most important campaigns of the Second World War and was really the first won allied campaign with things only starting in the Pacific and with the lone Russians in the east. This was the first win for the British and American forces. It really is Important.205.124.226.3 (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought Russia was part of Europe. I need a new atlas... Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

86.184.239.19 (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of its importance, but its chronologically in the wrong place in the article. It's included thematically in "Axis Advance Stalls". But chronologically, it belongs in the section "The War Becomes Global". The facts are sacrificed to fulfill a more satisying narrative.

I would recommend renaming "Axis Advance Stalls" to something else. It's not a good title, because the Axis advance had already stalled before the period concerned in at least two instances (Battle of Britain preventing invasion, and North Africa campaign).

That would then allow North African campaign to be placed in its proper chronological place.

In fact, the title "The War Becomes Global" is a bit wierd too. The war was already global. I think these titles have been conjured up to provide narrative, but they don't really stand up to close examination. Furthermore, the detail within the titles often bears little or no relavance to the title itself. It would be better to properly group and title the course of the war. For example, "The War Becomes Global" should be split something like "German Invasion of Soviet Union" and "Japan and USA Enter the War".

Photos

I think that the article has become overloaded with photos, and the encyclopedic value of some of the current photos is rather low. I'd suggest that the following changes be made:

• File:Truppe italiane in viaggio verso l'Eritrea.jpg - remove, this photo is low quality and this section doesn't need a photo
  • Agree. (Hohum ^@)
    • Remove--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• File:German plane bombing Warsaw 1939.jpg - remove, low quality. I'm not sure if a replacement is needed as the photo of the German and Soviet officers standing together is a reasonable illustration
  • As a thumbnail, passable, although I don't much like the officers standing together either - it has very little impact. How about File:Fall of Warsaw in 1939.jpg ? (Hohum ^@)
    • Agree with Hohum--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The citation to File:Fall of Warsaw in 1939.jpg states that it may actually be a photo of the Warsaw Uprising, so it's not a great replacement Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG - replace as this is a staged German propaganda shot. I'm sure that a better replacement can be found which more accurately captures the nature of the war on the Eastern Front.
  • Agree (Hohum ^@)
    • Dissagree. I think that the phote si very "nice" even if it is a staged photo. Your not going to find anything better.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • How about File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-020-1268-36, Russland, russischer Gefallener, Panzer BT 7,.jpg ? (Hohum ^@)
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-L20582, Charkow, Strassenkämpfe.jpg - might be a good replacement for the above, but it's still not a great photo
  • Good action shot IMO.. already included? (Hohum ^@)
    • This is already used.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• File:UmpCABKYXM0.jpg - replace with File:Bosbritsurrendergroup.jpg or File:Singaporesurrender.jpg - a photo depicting one of the few Allied successes in the Malayan Campaign doesn't accurately represent the campaign's course and outcomes, which were disasters for the Allies and the photos of the surrenders at Singapore are better known. Also, the article doesn't have any photos of Japanese troops!
  • Agree. Prefer 1st replacement suggestion. (Hohum ^@)
    • Agree.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B28822, Russland, Kampf um Stalingrad, Infanterie.jpg - replace, possibly with a map - this is a very uninteresting shot which doesn't really depict anything
  • Disagree, nice armour/infantry shot imo - although the context doesn't show Stalingrad. (Hohum ^@)
    • Keep.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• File:U995 2004 1.jpg this is a very poor choice for the 'Advances in technology and warfare' section - the Type VII submarines weren't very advanced for their time at the start of the war, and rapidly became obsolete and death traps for their crews. I'd suggest something like a photo of a B-29 (the most advanced bomber of the war), Me-262 (first operational fighter), a radar station, T-34 tank (as the most common tank of the war), Essex class aircraft carrier (mass produced fleet carrier), etc. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • V2, computer, atomic bomb... (Hohum ^@)
    • Agree--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who added most of them. I have to agree that we need to remove some of them. But do we need to remove all of them?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-L20582, Charkow, Strassenkämpfe.jpg. Do we need two similar photographs showing the German troops? Imo, the photo of the Battle of Moscow is needed in this section.

Re: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B28822, Russland, Kampf um Stalingrad, Infanterie.jpg Stalingrad was primarily street fighting, so the picture should show something of that kind. In addition, since Stalingrad was the Soviet success, I think the photo of Soviet military is needed in this section.

I noticed two new photos have been added to a collage, so now it is composed of one Axis photo (Ju-87) and four Allied photos (Keitel's photo relates to both). I believe by doing that the balance has been violated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Moscow - Perhaps File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B17220, Sowjetunion, Panzerangriff bei Istra.jpg, or File:Battle of Moscow.jpg

Stalingrad - Perhaps File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-W0506-316, Russland, Kampf um Stalingrad, Siegesflagge.jpg ? (Hohum ^@) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Moscow. Probably yes, although the picture of the Soviet counter-attack would be (possibly) more appropriate.

Re Stalingrad. Yes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is the UK first ?

Why is the united kingdom first in the list of allies powers in the infobox ? THEQUEEN99 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that they were in the war first or the longest.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the war escalated into World War 2 when the UK declared war on Germany in 1939. That would partly explain why these two countries are at the top of the lists of Allied and Axis countries, respectively. Britmax (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah but china and japan were at war long before... THEQUEEN99 (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

However, major WWII participants should go first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that now the USSR tops the list of allies, which reads oddly to me, since they aren't usually considered as joining the war until 1941 (Winter War notwithstanding). I'm guessing that someone feels they should be top based on their importance, but I can't help feeling that's a subjective judgement. Trouble is, if you do it strictly by chronology, you get Poland at the top of the list of Allies, creating the impression that it's primarily a German-Polish conflict. "Common sense" tells me that the major participants on either side are UK/USSR/USA and Germany/Italy/Japan - but was there any sort of tiering in the alliances that might make that "official" enough to order the list that way? Brickie (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If we go "by importance", which is an arbitrary choice by itself, than for the allies the only two reasonable contestants for top spot would be USA (largest economy in the world, largest production of almost whatever (tanks, airplanes, canned food) and USSR (decisive damage to the Wehrmacht, THE allied participant in the largest front (in terms of numbers of men, tanks, guns, miles covered, civilians butchered) of world war 2 (about 50% of overall life lost, at least 65% of land combat (statistically). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk)

The war was declared by the United Kingdom and France. The later involvement of the United States is down to their alliance with the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.42.31 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

the role of France

Allied powers presented France as a Allied power (including allowing for the occupation of Germany) to save face. Was France in fact an allied power? Vichy France was an axis power and recognized so by even the Americans at the beginning of the war. The portray of France as Allied power is just not true. There needs to be more comments regarding this collaboration with the Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.14.60 (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties -France Military deaths: 217,600 (include 20,000 French resistance fighters) -Civilian deaths: 267,000 (not include Jewish Holocaust deaths: 83,000) -Total deaths: 567,600 (USA: 418,500 (Japan and Europe); UK: 449,800) -Deaths as % of 1939 population: 1.35%

And The pro-German Vichy France forces lost 2,653 killed...

You ve got the right to hate French, but don't be so irespectfull... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.226.75.34 (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with disrespect? It is a fact. While the majority of the French population including Alsatians and Lorraine supported the anti-German movement and were "pro-French" it can not be denied the French Govt. collaborated with the Germans. The Allies even considered occupying France after the war. There should be a flag of both Vichy and Free France on the flag chart.

Germans do not hate French people. The French neither confiscated land nor did they expel anyone. French people are far more forgiving than people in Eastern Europe, who took away land, expelled people, but still hate Germans. The German-French friendship is God-sent and should be a role model for other countries of the world.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Relationships with Eastern Europeans are getting better. Time will heal the wounds. As a matter of fact the French attempted to annex the Saarland but had the foresight to give it back. Holland also considered taking German land but did not. The Poles and Czechs were under the guidance of the Soviets but also the Free Polish wanted to take the Prussian lands!

The French government collaborated with the Germans, but Vichy France was neither Axis nor a "de facto Axis power". It was militarily neutral and fought any invaders of its territory (including Japan in September 1940 and Thailand in 1940-1941), not just the Allies. As a government, it collaborated with the Germans for the sake of seeking concessions and functioned diplomatically as an independent state until 1942. It deported its Jewish population and stripped them of rights, allowed German usage of Syrian airfields in 1941, etc., but it also consolidated its military strength (especially in Africa) by stockpiling weaponry contrary to the terms of the armistice, and the Vichy army kept the potential resumption of war against Germany as a primary topic of strategic discussion and war planning beginning in 1941. The LVF, often cited as a Vichy unit, was not organized by Vichy but rather by the Paris collaborators who had no official connection to the Vichy government. The Vichy of 1940-1942 was a very gray entity, and the Americans DID NOT recognize it as an "Axis power", maintaining diplomatic relations until Operation Torch. Vichy's completely black reputation comes from its collaboration in the 1943-1944 period, after the rump free zone had been occupied by the Germans in November 1942. However, the conquest of the free zone in November 1942 ruptured the armistice of 1940 and, under Vichy constitutional law four the fourth of 10 February 1941, dictated that the constitutional successor government was actually that formed under Admiral Darlan in Algiers. This Algiers government was the true legal "Vichy" government under Vichy law, and, despite oversimplification in modern history texts, was NOT by any means "Free French", the organization with which it merged in June 1943 after the Tunisian campaign. The Vichy government that remained in metropolitan France was neither legal nor legitimate following 11 November 1942. In sum: Vichy should not be classified as an "Axis power". Its story is far more complicated than that, and its split into two separate governments in November 1942 contradicts any simplistic classification, as the "Vichy" represented by Darlan was not only legally (by Vichy law) the government of France, but was de facto treated as such by every major power in the war (even if the Allies only officially recognized it as a regional power in control of French Africa) until it merged with the Free French in 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.145.187 (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Dates

It says that this page is written in British English (proper English in other words). Why are the dates written in the American formatt? Dapi89 (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Back in November 2009, the GA review decided on British English spelling, so I added the talk page template. The date format appears to have been overlooked. (Hohum ^@) 14:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

True. If you all see any date that says September 1, 1939 or anything like that, please reword it.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Altered to "D Month YYYY". However, the infobox uses a separate template which uses "Month, D YYYY". (Hohum ^@) 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If British English is proper than why do more people in the world use and speak American English? Learn and respect both. Expand your mind. format is not spelled "formatt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.81.128.121 (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Who said British English is proper? What's wrong with American English? I agree with the IP. It's "format" and NOT "formatt". Caden ^cool 07:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Shouldn't the Spanish Civil War be mentioned in the pre-war events? Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Could someone please change this great article for "materiel" to "material" ?

Thanks

Joncle (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Jon

 Not done Materiel seems to be used correctly both times it appears in the article. Algebraist 23:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct. "Materiel" means "military materials and equipment", and that is exactly what the article's text means.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Country list of Allies and Axis

Can we please have a better organization of the table which shows the involved country's. Please organize Alphabetically. That way your not stepping on anyones toes regarding involvement. Ie Canada or Australia who were involved in the war from the get go. Canada liberating Holland, landed on D-day etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.46.102 (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfect opp. to include a flag of Vichy France in the Axis section and years of switching sides like previous Axis allies Italy, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Romania etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.81.128.121 (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Please organize Alphabetically. That way your not stepping on anyones toes regarding involvement." By listing all participants alphabetically we are stepping on the toes of just a handful of countries. I mean the "Big Three" (plus ROC) and the major Axis members. In actuality, the WWII was the war between these countries, so other numerous "United Nations" or "Axis countries" were just the entourage. Alphabetical listing would be highly misleading, because it would prevent a reader from understanding of who in actuality fought during WWII.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents: Allies

I think its rather illogical and misleading to have the United States and Soviet Union ahead of the United Kingdom, let us not forget the US did not enter the war until December 7, 1941, this goes the same for the Soviet Union, who did not enter the war until 22 June 1941. Whoever is keep changing this needs to check their history. --SuperDan89 (talk) 01:25, 01 April 2010 (UTC)

As the Soviets occupied Eastern Poland in 1939, and later also other territories, the column "Axis and Axis-aligned" needs to show "Soviet Union (1939-41)", too. The early attempts at expansions and later flipfloppiness of the Italians is also not properly represented. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The USSR was not a Germany's ally (and, formally, even not a co-belligerent, because no war was declared on the USSR by any country after Sept 1939). Interestingly, as I already pointed out, Soviet invasion of other Eastern European states was interpreted by Hitler as a violation of the Soviet-German pact, and was used later as a pretext for "Barbarossa".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen a reliable source classify the USSR as "Axis or Axis-aligned" from 1939 to 1941. When Germany and the USSR invaded Poland in 1939 the UK and other allies declared war on Germany only, thus though the USSR could be argued to have played an important role in triggering the Second World War, it is not considered to have entered the World War until 1941.

Disappointing bias and Propaganda

There was no "Axis Pact".
It was a creation of PROPAGANDA at the time to infer a fictitious threat like our modern day variants on "Axis of Evil".
The "Tripartite Pact" was NEVER activated.
I promised myself I would keep this short but China and Japan did not declare war on eachother in 1937 either.

It's all explained in the Discussion sections under Wikipedia's own the "Axis Pact" and "Tripartite Pact",
complete in the debate with properly sourced, book, author, publication dates, page numbers and out-right quotes.
I did end up reading some of the books the teachers there suggested and they were right.

You see I learnt that the others in those discussions were sent the same emails from Wikipedia asking me why I wasn't contributing anymore, and what would it take for me to rejoin, but naive me, I see nothing's changed.

But since I found I completely changed my mind on some major stuff after reading some of their suggested books, thought anyone here more interested in factual history than this propaganda might like to take a peek. Hope someone saves me the trouble in the future too.DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok what are you saying you would liked to see changed? The "Tripartite Pact" although not implemented was clearly the corner stone for other plans that were to follow ..lets face it even though it was not implemented it was the work that got the Axis powers talking to each other and to militarily assist each other in the future? ...As for China and Japan there has always been an argument that it really started during the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. (is this what you mean?)....Moxy (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

Is the word "organized" spelled "organised" for a reason? I think that it might possibly be because of the author's nationality, but it might be an overlooked spelling error. I seriously doubt it, as it would be a very obvious error for someone to miss in an edit.

British English, see WP:ENGVAR. David Underdown (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Nuclear Bombs on main page of World War II

I wonder why the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not deemed important enough to mention separately from other bombings of Japanese cities during 1945. They are, after all, the onle known instances of nuclear weapons during war in world history. I feel that it's misleading, maybe grossly so, to lump them together with out non-nuclear bombings. Lordmusea (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

World War II#Axis collapse, Allied victory - "the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August." Plus a very notable picture of the Nagasaki cloud.

This seems to be quite enough for an overview article about the whole of WWII, as with every other notable event, there are links to more detailed articles. (Hohum ^@) 00:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Kursk

the article calls kursk a important turning point. This is disputed by Frieser and other historians also dont use this words. Frieser points out that german inflicted 5:1 casualties in men and 8:1 in tanks. so he concludes that it was no turning point because its simply the normal eastern front in bigger propotion. The turning point in the east was earlier. Turning point would imply that Kursk maybe could end with a victory for german. But this is unlikly regarding the fact that wehrmacht inflicted so much casualties and the soviets could launch bigger offensives easy. Many recent historians dont see Kursk as a major turning point anylonger. Even with german little victory there was no real chance of victory . if 100.000 men more lost for soviets was irrelevant for red army.... . So this should be changed. The story of the "turningpoints" is very controversial in general. Blablaaa (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Many recent historians dont see Kursk as a major turning point anylonger." Who?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Frieser like mentioned above.Blablaaa (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Frieser is not "many".--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, why u wait for other authors? why do u not respond to what is written already??? iam not at home and dont have glantz here so dont take this to serious: i think i glantzs also dont thinks kursk is a crucial "turning point" like the article implys. like i already said this indicates a possible german victory of eastern front at summer 43. most recent historians will dispute this possibily ---> no "turning" point. i will search for more Blablaaa (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

the problem is that the article is a short overview for people with no or less knowledge about this topic: And the article implies that summer 43 kursk was a crucial point of the war. it sounds like the winner of this battle will win eastern front. this is indeed wrong. in 2010 8 out of 10 experts will not claim kursk was a turning point. Blablaaa (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"The portents of the outcome at Kursk were enormous. Demonstrably the Red Army could strike for Berlin "with no outside assistance,"setting off alarm bells in the West." (John Erickson. Reviewed work: Kursk: Hitler's Gamble, 1943 by Walter S. Dunn Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 3 (Jul., 1998), pp. 664-665).

"For more than fifty years, historians have been fascinated by the battle of Kursk, its scope and ferocity, and its importance of one of decisive struggles of World War II." (M. K. Dziewanowski. Reviewed work(s): The Battle of Kursk by David M. Glantz ; Jonathan H. House. Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 106, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), p. 687)

"Kursk was Hitler's last attempt to seize the initiative in the east and, as he stated, the victory would be a signal to the rest of the world that Germany was still winning the war." (Walter Dunn. Reviewed work(s): The Battle of Kursk by David M. Glantz ; Jonathan M. House. Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 887-888)

"The last part of the book contains some original essays that attempt to resolve some of the historiographic controversies surrounding the Battle of Kursk. One Book Reviews essay argues, for example, that it was German mistakes on the tactical level that caused their failure rather than the depth and strength of the Soviet defensive system. Professor Newton then ends the book with an essay discussing whether or not Kursk was a decisive battle and he argues that, given the irreplaceable material and manpower losses suffered by the Germans, it was." (Michael Marino. Reviewed work(s): Kursk: The German View by Steven H. Newton. Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jul., 2004), pp. 999-1000)

"The book covers operation Barbarossa and the debacle of the Soviet troops in Belarus, Ukraine, Western Russia and south-western Russia; the battle of Stalingrad is seen by Merridale as the first turning point of the war; the battle of Kursk, which gave a definite blow to the image of invincibility of the German troops; operation Bagration (the second turning point of the war) which turned the Soviet military endeavour from a war of liberation into a war of revenge; and finally, the end game, the battle of Berlin." (Electronic reference Joris Van Bladel, « Catherine Merridale, Ivan's War, the Red Army 1939-1945, London: Faber and Faber, 2005, 396. pages. », The Journal of Power Institutions in Post-Soviet Societies [Online], Issue 4/5 | 2006, Online since 25 novembre 2006. URL : http://pipss.revues.org/index471.html)
I believe, that is enough.
With regards to your "the normal eastern front in bigger propotion", please, remember that the overall Eastern Front ratio was less that 2:1 (except those Red Army solders who were captured during first months of the conflict): the Axis lost about 5 million KIA/MIA during the EF, whereas the Red Army less then 9 million. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Proportion of unrecoverable losses were 1:1.3. Germany and its allies lost about 8.5 million, USSR lost about 11 million. Captured soldiers are also unrecoverable losses.--El gato verde (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

dear Paul, the battle of berlin was also a enormous battle and decivise but no "turningpoint" !! i dont talk about the significance of this battle Blablaaa (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"With regards to your "the normal eastern front in bigger propotion", please, remember that the overall Eastern Front ratio was less that 2:1 (except those Red Army solders who were captured during first months of the conflict): the Axis about 5 million during the EF, whereas the Red Army less then 9 million." red army 18 million wounded wehrmacht 6 million. wehrmacht lost most of their men in end battles. "normal" battles between functional soviet and german armies had indeed this high ratios. but this is not the point . i only wanted to talk about the word turning point. Blablaaa (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

your posted texts do not use the word turning pointBlablaaa (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "red army 18 million wounded wehrmacht 6 million." Maybe the issue is in the difference of Soviet and German statistics (similar to their different approaches to the tank loss calculations)? Anyway, I provided sources (and I am able to provide much more sources testifying that Kursk was a turning point. I believe it would be helpful if you supported your claims with exact quotes and citations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

hm sorry i dont see u providing sources that kursk was a turning point. no one of your sources claim this ( like i said very few recent will claim this ). to be a turning point there must be a change in the overall situation. german inflicted enormous casualties but lost anyway how can it be turning point? can u provide a source which claims this battle a real turning point? a battle which "changed" the outcome of war? i can provide at least one who deals exactly with this issue. your posts simply explain that the battle was huge and a big step to victory...

Before Kursk Germany had hope to inflict big casualities to Soviets by establishing Kursk pocket. Don't forget that in total war success of battle is calculated not only by losses, but by the captured terrain and amount of surrounded forces. Before Kursk Germany had big tank armies. After Kursk it hadn't. So it's turning point.--El gato verde (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

iam not at home so i cant at the moment. in some hours. but u can trust me hes simply saying what i said ( i will give later ) . how can it be a turning point when germany could not win the battle? and even when they win it changes nothing. PS i dont think the counting system is the problem 41-44 when u compare KIA... Blablaaa (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

the article now cites this claim with an book about italy and war, and a book published in 92 ( without soviet sources). its dangerous to use pre soviet document era book for eastern front... Blablaaa (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"...the German defeat has since been recognized as a the turning point in the most vicious war mankind has ever experienced."(The battle for Kursk, 1943: the Soviet General Staff study Volume 10 of Cass series on the Soviet (Russian) study of war. Authors: David M. Glantz, Harold Steven Orenstein, Soviet Union. Raboche-Krestʹi︠a︡nskai︠a︡ Krasnai︠a︡ Armii︠a︡. Generalʹnyĭ shtab Editors: David M. Glantz, Harold Steven Orenstein, Publisher: Taylor & Francis, 1999 ISBN 0714644935, 9780714644936, p. xiii)

With regards to numbers, as well as to Frieser's views, the following quote may be helpful:

"It is fairly well established that the effectiveness of the Blitzkrieg has been exaggerated by commentators who remain excessively under the spell cast by the sheer shock and drama of the German offensives, and have therefore overrated the impact on war of military methods which represented more of an improvisation than the fruition of a coherent doctrine. The potential of motorised internal combustion engine-based weaponry and logistics was less fully grasped than talk of Blitzkrieg might suggest. Aside from this analytical issue, there is also a question whether the fighting quality of the Wehrmacht has in fact been exaggerated. Both were to become apparent with Operation Barbarossa. On the German side, there is still a tendency to regard their defeat as due to being beaten in "the production battle in the factories,"12 and to minimise or ignore the extent to which they were outfought. All-too-much of the work on the German side is based on postwar analyses of their own campaigns by German commanders and staff officers. This places the responsibility for defeat on resource issues, the size and climate of the Soviet Union, and, above all, Hitler's interventions, leading to a situation in which "the quasimythical level of excellence attributed to German operational and tactical planning" persists in the face of extensive archival evidence that highlights battlefield mistakes by German commanders.13"(Jeremy Black. Reviewed work(s): The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War One by John Mosier. The Blitzkrieg Myth: How Hitler and the Allies Misread the Strategic Realities of World. War Two by John Mosier Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 69, No. 3 (Jul., 2005), pp. 827-832)

Interestingly, the ref 12 in the Black's review is the K.-H. Frieser's "Kursk-Turning Point of the War?". Obviously, Black's point is that the idea of Soviet numerical superiority as the major factor that decided the fate of the EF is mostly the German POV, and that the Frieser's works are a pure example of this POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

dont see the relevance of your second text. to glantz. the sentence is strange "a the" , and the battle has been recognize, means he says that many saw this battle as turning point. and indeed the soviets made the battle to an turning point with the help propagande. is this glantz opinion that this was a turning point? i guess not. to your other post i will not discuss the annoying and unlogic claim that the german lost because they were "outfought". Blablaaa (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC) that the battle was regarded as turning point by historians pre 1990 is a well known fact. they all copied the soviet text. they had no data of soviets they were not even able to decide if this battle was a turning point. they simply had no data. i repeat my point. no recent historian will claim that this battle was a turning point and that that germany could had win the war in the east ( these fact is importand because its neccessary to be a turning point ) Blablaaa (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "a the". Fixed. I typed it manually from books.google.com. With regards to the quote, the relevance seems to be obvious: Frieser's ideas are the German POV and should be treated as such. Let me also point out that Anglophone version of the Eastern Front's history represents a rare example when the history of a war is being written by the loser, nor by the winner. Due to the Iron curtain, language barriers, and since most Western Germany archives, memoirs, etc (by contrast to the Soviet ones) became available to the Western scholars, the history of war appeared to be written mostly from the German, not Soviet point of view. Therefore, I believe additional efforts to represent the Greman POV here are redundant: it is already presented in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

the actual question: was kursk a world war II TURNING POINT. glantz frieser are sure the battle was lost before he was begun. german inflicted enormours casualties and lost. now i ask u : was this battle a turning point of world war 2. had the world get another ending when german inflicted some 100.000 more casualties on the soviets? ( even though this is highly unlikly ) Blablaaa (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Glantz is a contemporary historian (and arguably the most prominent one). With regards to "they all copied the soviet text". I don't think so. As I already wrote (see above) German sources were much more available for pre-1990 Western historians than the Soviet ones.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Frieser dont talks about POV, he says german could not win. this is no german POV, glantz says the same, the german were not stoped at prokhorovka or something else. german lost before they started to attack because the war was lost earlier this simply contraticts the myth of the kursk turning point. at the moment iam the only one with a recent historian who deals with thie exact problem. can u bring an historian who really talks about the issue. at the moment i think u copy the first pages of the book which should get customers to buy the book with words like "enormous" and biggest battle of all time. have u an historian explaining the kursk was a turning point? Blablaaa (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• " With regards to "they all copied the soviet text". I don't think so."

i bought his most recent book about kursk after i saw the "nonsense" which is sourced with him, and indeed glantz copied heavyli from soviet propagande and changed this in his newer books. :-) but paul i only want to say that it was no turning point ^^ i dont want to be blocked for making this a forum can we stick to this issue? Blablaaa (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

perfect example that even historian are sometime a bit strange. From Glantz book description:

• Glantz and House's fresh interpretations demolish many of the myths that suggest Hitler might have triumphed if Operation Citadel had been conducted differently"

and then

• "that marked the turning point of the war on the Eastern front "
• No possible german victory because the war was lost earlier but a turning point ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

your interpretation of turning point now brings some different factors. i dont know how much soviets victory changed the situation of the allied. i only know that is was no turning point regarding who will win. regarding Glantz. yes i can show u its very funny, he also tries to tarnish his heavy mistakes in his newer book. i went to the discussion board of reliable sources and claimed his book "when titan clashes is bad for kursk" i listed some things which look strange and a propaganda nonsense. i was overruled everyone explained to me how excelent glantz ist, than i bought his book and saw all of my points were correct. he changed many of his failures and some things were not mentioned again. i will changed my location i can provide friesers words later and glantz 2Blablaaa (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence to end the dispute, although I personally don't think it changes anything.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

at least the text now dont claims kursk was a turning point of eastern front or world war 2. the soviet had the iniative even before kursk, but they didnt knew.... Blablaaa (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Initiative is not a Schroedinger's cat: you cannot possess it and be unaware of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure? think about again.... :-) Blablaaa (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Casualties of WWII - Only white people count?

This article continues the usual omission of the perhaps millions of people in the colonial world who were killed as a result of the dispute between colonial masters. What about the 2-3 millions of Indians who starved to death as a result of artificial "famines" caused by wartime requisitioning by the Brits and hoarding countenanced by British coloninal authorities? What about the 2 million Vietnamese starved to death by the Japanese/French colonialists? What about the millions of "subjects" forced to fight or more often serve as slave labor for the various armies? What about the millions more family members who died as the men were taken away as forced-laborers to build roads, railroads, battlements, etc. or to fight in Asia and Africa? What about the Pacific Islanders slaughtered by the U.S., U.K., French and Japanese forces? A similar issue is the usual tearful accounts of the suffering of white soldiers at the hands of the Japanese but no mention of the truth that the vast majority of those who died were Indians or Philipinos. Your figure of 70 million is several tens of millions short. Let's try to get some real accuracy and away from the racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.238.146 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Same rules as ever; if you can reliably source it, it can go into the article.Britmax (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Are Japanese and Chinese white in your book?

15 million expelled, raped and killed Germans after the lost war do not count, too. Many of them were women, children and old people. No matter if Nazis or not. Maybe we should look at war from a different angle. The winner takes it all.--92.230.232.136 (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-determination for colonial peoples? Not hardly.

The statement is completely false: "Meanwhile, the acceptance of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa..."

There was no acceptance of a principle of self-determination or independence by the colonial and imperial powers. They opposed all moves to actual independence before, during and after the war. They opposed it with brutal bloody force sweet proclamations aside.

In fact all the imperialist and colonial powers agreed that no colonial peoples should be allowed freedom. Thus, the French and Japanese collaborated on keeping the people of Indo-China under their respective boots. Thus, the Nazis, U.K., and French all collaborated on keeping the peoples of North Africa under control.

Roosevelt cynically bleated for a few years about self-determination only because the U.S. rulers saw this as an opportunity to strip their foes, the French, British and Japanese, of exclusive access to the raw materials and markets in “their” colonies, and because they knew that the colonial peoples would try to seize the moment to free themselves. However, as soon as it became clear that the colonial peoples really did intend to free themselves, all the solemn promises by the U.S. and others were tossed out the window.

Perhaps the best example is the case of Vietnam. A French colony seized by the Japanese, who allowed their Vichy allies to administer the colony up until the final months. Once the Japanese surrendered the Vietnamese indeed seized the opportunity to declare independence. Within weeks a British expeditionary force (comprised of Indian troops under white British officers) landed in southern Vietnam, disarmed the Vietnamese (through the perfidy of Stalin and Ho Chi Minh), and proceeded to free the French colonials. Realizing they were too weak the British and French then proceeded to FREE and REARM the "terrible" Japanese in order to help them suppress the Vietnamese people. So the French, British and Japanese all collaborated together to oppose self-determination. Needless to say the U.S. then proceeded to do all it could to help the French retake "their" colony. The same took place in North Africa, and countless other colonies.

So, please let's cut the "noble white democracy" high school textbook propaganda and get some facts out there. All of the above has plenty of "cites" to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.238.146 (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The war greatly strengthened the position of and domestic support for decolonisation movements in their own countries/colonies, and so is correct. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

History is written by victors.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

World War II Page

In the first paragraph of the World War II page, mobilized is spelled wrong. It is spelled "mobilised" as of right now. Someone who can edit semi-protected pages should fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpector (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere on this very talk page, the article is written in British English, in which "mobilised" is correct. Brickie (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

China - 1937 ??

What?

"World war II, date: 1939-1945"

"China (1937-45)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.54.80.247 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

china was invaded by Japan in 1937. actually china was a third party until japan joined the axis in 1940 so basically incorrect to a certain sence.--67.67.222.191 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding this entry in the infobox at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#China / Japan, entry date (Hohum ^@) 01:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Eisenhower in the infobox

I understand that the list of all World War 2 commanders box lists all of them, but he was a vital general in the war and I think it would be best if he were added.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, see a discussion on the template talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Expulsions

This article doesn't cover expulsions.Xx236 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Main article has a link to Aftermath of World War II which covers expulsions.

In any case the German losses in the expulsions occurred mostly in 1945 flight during the Soviet military offensive and deportations to the USSR, so they are part of WW2. The number of dead in the actual expulsions was 160,000 according to the German Archives, the balance of the 2 million dead occured in the war and the famine caused by the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean flight and deportations during WWII, started in 1940 (the flight of Polish civilians including Jews took place already in September 1939, when thousands of them died bombed by the Luftwaffe, eg. in Sulejów). It's not the problem of the Aftermath. It seems that German propaganda is very effective, if anyone who reads "expulsions" believes to read "expulsion of Germans". Generalplan Ost was created before Teheran or Potsdam. Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "...during the Soviet military offensive and deportations to the USSR..." AFAIK, the Germans were deported to Germany (from Eastern Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania, etc), not to the USSR.

Re: "if anyone who reads "expulsions" believes to read "expulsion of Germans"." It is generally correct when we talk about post-war expulsions. However, most deportations, including, deportation of Jews, Poles, other central Europeans took place during WWII, not after it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The war flights and expulsions aren't described in this article.

when we talk about post-war expulsions - the problem is that the German idea of Vertreibung includes both WWII looses and post-war deportations and several articles of this Wikipedia partially present such POV.

"the Germans were deported to Germany (from Eastern Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania, etc), not to the USSR" - the majority of them yes, but hundreds of thousands were deported to Soviet Union and many of them died there. Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

About 15 million Germans were forced to flee or expelled from mainly Poland and the Czechoslovakian Republik, after 800 years there.This was the biggest ethnic cleansing in Europe. Lots of them were old people or children.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.240.139.201, 21 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

change mobilised to mobilized 74.240.139.201 (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done since this article uses British spelling. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 13:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

World War Two Timeline Project

I was hoping to add a link to my mashup project at World War Two Timeline Project to the external links on this article. The link has been identified as having an conflict of interest and I was wondering if there was something I can do to resolve that conflict (and also what the conflict was)?

I think the site has real value and because of it's close ties to Wikipedia would be a good candidate for the external links section (each data point in my mashup links back to the appropriate Wikipedia article as the authoritative source on that topic). The dataset I am building is (as far as I know) a unique resource for World War Two:

• WikiPedia ww2 article
• Geographic location (region)
• chronological period

Would love to hear what you think. Cannonade (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting website, but I'm afraid that I don't think that linking to it isn't in line with the guideline Wikipedia:External links. This is because it doesn't provide anything beyond what is covered in this and other high-level World War II articles as it essentially re-uses Wikipedia content. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The conflict of interest was very simple: as its author, the person adding the link had a personal interest in the link. A conflict of interest does not automatically prevent a person from adding material to Wikipedia, but will shine a brighter light on his actions. In general, editors here will want to see significant, high value in the link, beyond what is already offered. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me and explaining the conflict. That makes perfect sense and as the author, I won't re-add the link. I would argue on Nick's point that the site "re-uses Wikipedia content". In most cases I have added data points independently and then associating that data with the appropriate Wikipedia article (In fact, I added the Wikipedia link to the system retrospectively). In some cases an appropriate article doesn't exist. In some cases geographical data isn't associated with the Wikipedia article. Even with those two points aside, even if I was using Wikipedia content verbatim (which I very rarely do), I think the context of time and place on a map is a very useful (and compelling) learning tool for people interested in the War. Zooming in on the map of the Cherbourg Peninsula and then dragging the timeline to June 1944 gives a view of events that the same collection of Wikipedia articles simply cannot do (in my opinion of course). Thanks again for your very useful feedback and I will leave the matter in your very capable hands. Cannonade (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate to labor my point that the site doesn't re-use Wikipedia's content, but I forgot to mention that many of the datapoints include regions or lines on the map, something that can't be represented by the single latitude and longitude on a Wikipedia article. Cannonade (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

ROC in the incorrect "participant" group

Whilst reading this article, I have noticed a glaring mistake.ROC is on the wrong side. During world war II the ROC aided the Japanese against the communists(as there was also a civil war at the timr),and there is a large amount of evidence showing active collusion. Indeed, thousands of kuomintang soldiers served in the military, invading their own country in the process.

I am well aware of wikipedia's bias towards Japan/ROC so expect this to be deleted or left unchanged. However,I have taken a screenshot and will get my point across sometime

http://www.roc-taiwan.org/ct.asp?xItem=456&CtNode=2243&mp=1&xp1= (Link)located under title Japanese colonisation

ROC in the incorrect "participant" group

Whilst reading this article, I have noticed a glaring mistake.ROC is on the wrong side. During world war II the ROC aided the Japanese against the communists(as there was also a civil war at the timr),and there is a large amount of evidence showing active collusion. Indeed, thousands of kuomintang soldiers served in the military, invading their own country in the process.

I am well aware of wikipedia's bias towards Japan/ROC so expect this to be deleted or left unchanged. However,I have taken a screenshot and will get my point across sometime

http://www.roc-taiwan.org/ct.asp?xItem=456&CtNode=2243&mp=1&xp1= (Link)located under title Japanese colonisation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.54.72 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

i thought WW2 was caused by WW1 not the actual invasion of poland. --Stephendwan (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The large German minority in Poland and in Czechoslovakia was promised home rule and people`s votes by the American president Wilson after World War 1, but the newly- founded nations wanted a homogenous ethnic population and did not fulfil this promise. This was one of the reasons for Hitler´s success.--92.230.232.136 (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Billigerents List

May I ask how the order of the lists of belligerents are decided? Is it based on force sizes? Thanks --Half Price (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath - deaths

Considering the number of people who died in WWII, the following might be considered too insignificant to include in an encyclopaedia article, but I'd like to raise it for consideration any-way.

Even after the war was officially over, many people died. Som of them died from wounds incurred during the war, others died due to radiation, and some died from late explosions (e.g., in 2010: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,699124,00.html). Obviously, there are also retributions, executions, and health problems leading to death, but I think these are too indirect to consider. Kdammers (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

focus lede on summary of article

I trimmed the lede to drop footnotes that do not beliong in an article summary (like texts of declarations of war by some countries), a false statement about Ethiopia (that war was long past) and added a better cite (.C.B. Deaf and M.R.D. Foot, eds. The Oxford Companion to World War II" (1995) p. 290) of overall casualties. 20:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cannot agree. There is no agreement among scholars about the WWII start date. The previous version reflects a consensus that was achieved after hard and prolonged debates, so your changes will ignite a new disputes where all old arguments will be re-iterated again (with the same result). However, I agree that the war in Ethiopia should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The number of killed is hardly in agreement with what other sources say (27 million death in the USSR plus ~20 millions in China is already 47 million, whereas your source states only 50 million died), so this source is hardly better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki's job is to report the best scholarship-- in this case the Oxford Companion is widely accepted as the best source on such issues. It replaces a popular source with no expertise on WW2.

Rjensen (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not the only scholarship, and it is hardly a scholarship at all. I would say, it is a tertiary rather than a secondary source. One way or the another, since other sources that provide different numbers exist we have either to present all of them (which is unacceptable in the lede) or not to show any figures.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Großdeutsches Reich

Just a suggestion, shouldn't the name for Nazi Germany be changed to "Großdeutsches Reich" or "Greater German Empire" This is to represent the Austrians, Czechs and Poles that also we're part of the Nazi faction and not to confuse the army as only Germans Partizanfighter1944 (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Partizanfighter1944

As this is the English-language Wikipedia, we use the most common English language names for things. The common name for Germany and its pre-war additions is either 'Nazi Germany' or 'Germany'. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

British English question

If the article is wrote in British English, why is the American term for the war used i.e. World War II? :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.87.120 (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

One doesn't depend upon the other. Presumably "World War II" is the most commonly used English name of the conflict per WP:COMMONNAME, while consensus during the article's life has made British English the preferred style of the content. (Hohum ^@) 16:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The stickmen say otherwise :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.87.120 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is 'World War II' American? I hadn't notice! --Half Price (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have always been surprised that the tile is not the full proper name "Second World War" . Itsodd to have the abbreviation as the title in an encyclopedia, but "First World War" is the same. Moxy (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"googlefight stickmen" isn't the suggested method according to WP:COMMONNAME. A wikipedia search for "second world war" -wikipedia gives 7.9 million, "world war II" -wikipedia gives 35 million. On google books, the same search gives 2.4 million and 6 million. (Hohum ^@) 21:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Although how many of the wiki search hits are articles using the incorrect local variant? ;) :p

Hmmmm...intersting question! Technically, we're supposed to be using the most common name in English used by reliable sources. Sorry I can't provide a link for this, but according to my Reliable Sources Search Engine, I get the following number of hits:

World War II - 430 (apx)

Second Wold War - 300 (apx)

World War 2 - 260 (apx)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

With my above reply said it, i would bow to the inevitable based on reliable sources.

Eh, anytime you use a search engine, the numbers are going to be crude. And now that I think about it, "Second World War" is a terrible search term since it will also return hits for articles where it's used as a phrase, and not a name. For example, "World War II was the second world war" uses "World War II" as the proper noun and "second world war" as a phrase. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just quickly...

Could be wise to add a link to the wikipedia pages on The Cold War to the 3rd paragraph? "setting the stage for the Cold War, which lasted for the next forty-six years". Ta! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.224.89 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mass rapes

When I worked on the Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army article I found some sources that claim that the number of rapes of Soviet women by German military " amounted hundreds of thousands, if not millions case", i.e. was at least of the same scale as mass rapes of German women by Red Army. In connection to that I am wondering if we need to make a stress on the 1945 rapes leaving German and Japanese crimes beyond the scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but why would the rapes conducted by German and Japanese troops be out of scope? The soldiers of both countries conducted rapes on a huge scale, and the Japanese government ran a massive sex slavery operation until the end of the war. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis forbade the raping of Eastern European women, as they considered it demoralizing for the army. Besides Nazi ideology felt superior towards Slavic people. It was considered a racial shame. So maybe there were not so many rapes. Stalin, on the other hand, ordered his soldiers to rape German women as a sort of humiliation.--92.224.207.177 (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To be useful here, your assertion must have an expert source. What author wrote that? Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis organised a system of military brothels where captured women were forced to work. Source: Kaputt by Curzio Malaparte, 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.88.119 (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing WWII People Pages for Decorated Veterans

While searching for biographical information, I found that Wikipedia has no reference for Decorated WWII veteran Charles Scheffel, is anyone working on filling gaps in WWII content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil lindsay (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If he meets the relevant notability criteria (see WP:BIO) then you may wish to start the article - DIY normally works best! ;) regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Article protection

As a note, I've turned off pending changes for this article and reinstated the semi-protection. The result of the pending changes trial for this particular article has been to increase the workload for editors (due to the need to review large numbers of IP edits) for no benefits as all the IP edits appear to have been rejected. As such, semi-protection appears to be more appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.189.232.170, 10 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Causes: Militarism Alliances Imperialism Nationalism

24.189.232.170 (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AJCham 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Allied Belligerents WWII

The Indian flag is missing from the information box under allied belligerents. Considering India's deep role in the war from beginning to end(1939 - 1945) the gallantry and bravery in her soldiers wherein Indian personnel received no less than 4,000 awards for gallantry, and 31 Victoria Crosses, and painfully with between 1.5 million and 3 million casualties 5 to 7 times larger than Britain, and larger than the total casualties of Britain, USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Italy (the third power in the axis) and the rest of the commonwealth this is a grand oversight in the flag of india not being included (almost as if it to suggest and infer that india played no part when it gave it's soul to the allied war effort. It is also all the more disappointing when the likes of Greece and Yugoslavia have their flags included and the belligerents who I have listed as having a combined smaller total number of casualties have their flags displayed whilst India the sword arm of the British Empire and jewel in the crown is missing. India fought on both the German and Japanese fronts and was vital to the allied success in WWII and served in both WWI and WWII. PLEASE RIGHT THIS WRONG AND DISPLAY INDIA'S FLAG OF THAT TIME, THIS INJUSTICE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, DO NOT DISHONOUR INDIA'S HEROES, MARTYRS, AND GLORIOUS DEAD WHO FOUGHT FOR A PEACEFUL AND FREE WORLD !!!

User - Righteditor(Righteditor (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

I'm not sure why you devolved into shouting and demanding. The area including modern India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar wasn't independent since it was under British dominion as the Indian Empire until 1947. So, I'm not sure a separate flag is appropriate - and if it is, it would probably be this one: Star of India (flag). This doesn't devalue their efforts, which stand for themselves. Also see India in World War II. (Hohum ^@) 18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

India was not a sovieriegn state during ww2, it was a possesion of the british empire and as such falls under their flag since persons living in that colony were subjects of the british empire.XavierGreen (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

order of the thingys

why are us and ussr first?? surely it should be china,then britain, france, ussr, U.S, then the commonwealth and the others, china were at war for the longest so why are they near the end?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianp321 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Allies are in order of "importance", not how long they were at war. The Big Three are ranked at the top because they simply were the three largest and most influencial members of the Allies. China is the fourth country listed in the Allies section and is nowhere near the bottom like you claim. --PlasmaTwa2 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i disagree but whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianp321 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The usa, ussr, and uk dictated to the other allies basic strategy and the l.ike, as such they need to be listed at the top. China was the fourth most important and influential of the allies for most of the war so thats why its listed fourth.XavierGreen (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Link to www.truth-hertz.net

Some time ago I provided an external link to the site www.truth-hertz, which was almost immediately removed by Binksternet who sent this message to my user page: "Please do not add non-neutral material such as links to essays at" www.truth-hertz.net "to Wikipedia articles, as you did to World War II and Strategic bombing during World War II. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. " Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC) The "essays" to which Binksternet refers are in fact seven or eight downloadable CHAPTERS from the non-fiction book Between the Lies (2nd edition, London:2007), which include several hundred primary and secondary sources, footnotes and extensive bibliography. The book, which remedies some prevailing historical myths about WW2, was published by a reputable academic publisher. So it was presumably subjected to academic peer review prior to publication. I doubt if Binksternet actually took the trouble to read those chapters, the appropriateness of which might be a subject for discussion instead of arbitrary deletion. Wiki's rule is that external linking to a website is acceptable if and when the site provides "significant and reliable additional information on an article's topic", and certainly the link to www.truth-hertz.net meets that requirement. As for allegedly violating neutrality, I think that's a matter of Binksternet's own less than neutral personal point of view. As I understand it, Wiki's definition of neutrality does not mean the absence of a point of view, but rather a judicious and unbiased mix of sources cited. Between the Lies seems to do that rather well, but I could be wrong. Nobody's perfect. Communicat (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The link looks unsuitable to me. It appears to be a self-published website, and there's no need to give prominence to a single book, particularly in such a high-level article as this one. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I just answered this same post at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, where I noted that the book, the author and the web link are all dismissed by the guideline at WP:FRINGE. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer Nick-D: Appearances can be deceptive. Why not assume good faith? Alternatively, why not verify whether or not it's a self-published site by contacting the publisher Southern University Press via the contact link provided at the site in question?

To answer Binksternet: I think you should be referring to WP:EL and not WP:FRINGE as you've done. This discussion was meant to be about an external link, not an article, which is the function of WP:FRINGE. But since you've raised WP:FRINGE, I'm okay with broadening the discussion. Interestingly, WP:FRINGE with regard to real or perceived fringe / minority / alternative / revisionist / other (call it what you like) positions, states: NPOV requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. Why is it that content of the main WW2 article and all its related sub-articles deal exclusively with majority i.e. Western positions? (Strikes me as a major flaw in an otherwise excellent and high-level article). WP:FRINGE also rules that In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical ... prominence. And: ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. So, it follows that the existing WW2 article and sub-articles seem to have a serious NPOV problem in so far as they exclude all reference to "other"-type positions which deviate from those of dominant majority-position type editors. But to return to the question of reliable sources, WP:FRINGE further rules that "reliable sources on Wikipedia include ... books published by university presses (and)published by respected publishing houses. The download-linked book in question and under discussion is published by Southern Universities Press, London. Enough said.

By the way, it might be worth bearing in mind that today's "fringe" position can sometimes become tomorrow's majority position. Take the Battle of Britain for instance, which was once described by mainstream historians and others as "a heroic victory of the few against the many", when in fact, as latter-day historians have now established beyond doubt, RAF fighters at the time of that battle vastly outnumbered those available to the Luftwaffe (Sources available on request). It might also be worth bearing in mind that what is seen as a fringe / minority / "other"-type position in the West can also be a consensual mainstream / majority position outside of the Western cultural and political sphere of influence, i.e. in socialist countries. Communicat (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to determine who is behind Southern Universities Press in London. They appear to me to have published a handful of scholarly psychology texts, and Winer's book, but nothing else that I can find. They are not very prolific. Certainly, the press has not published any WWII histories, or any other histories, so I do not see their ability to properly manage a work such as Winer's. I wonder if the press has been compromised.

Here's a flavor of the wild-eyed prose in the book: "Many historians and ideological managers of Western society—teachers, journalists and the like—would in future years attribute the commencement of the political Cold War between East and West to the Berlin blockade of 1947. They are all wrong, though the myth survives to this day. The fact is, the origins of the Cold War are firmly embedded in World War II, when Churchill and his elite cabal secretly waged a shadow war against communism under the guise of fighting the Nazis and 'helping' the Soviet Union."

Winer gets many of his facts and figures wrong, and draws conclusions that are flawed. In other scholarly works, Winer is not cited at all; a poor indication of his reputation among other historians and scholars. I still say the book is not appropriate for this article. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO says not to include "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting."

A quick look shows the contents massively differ from what respectable sources say, so I believe it is factually inaccurate. So, what can you provide to support Stan Winer being a respectable historian, and that book in particular being reliable? A review by a respectable body would do. (Hohum ^@) 20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Far as I'm aware, Winer's book Between the Lies does not aspire to be a history, but rather an investigative work. As the site in question explains: "... Between the Lies, has exhumed a large body of evidence that somehow managed to escape the censors and the incinerators." Several hundred references to reliably published and impeccable sources, and an extensive bibliography are provided to support his thesis. But never mind all that for the moment. More noteworthy with regard to the editor's comments above is the dexterity with which they've managed to evade the cogent WP:FRINGE issues raised in my preceding post, which I don't have time to repeat again. Read them for yourself. The fact of the matter is that significant fringe / minority / alternative / revisionist / theories do exist, and since their existence is an indisputable fact, it should as a matter of NPOV be stated in the WW2 article or sub-articles. Apart from Winer's effort, there are many other reliable, well-researched books etc about WW2 that deviate radically from the lame, so-called "respectable" and officially endorsed accounts of grand strategy and of what happened and why. (Titles and authors available on request, in the unlikely event that you're interested). I suspect that the reason why editors such as yourselves prefer to pretend such works don't exist, or to simplistically dismiss them as "propaganda" is because recognition of those works would mean a whole lot of extra work to remedy the omissions and correct the "NPOV" of the existing WW2 and related articles. Trying to engage constructively with editors of that ilk is an excercise in futility. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. This discussion in now closed from my end. Communicat (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the sources used appear far from impeccable, and the conclusions deviate so far from those of high quality sources that it is misleading and factually inaccurate, so per WP:ELNO it's not suitable. I haven't called it propaganda or pretended it doesn't exist, I have just pointed out its flaws, and the lack of credibility of the publisher - which you either ignore, embrace, or even seem to think of as benefits.

Cogent and fringe are mutually exclusive, by definition.

You can try and feed a horse with coal, but it's unlikely to eat any. (Hohum ^@) 21:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your pedantry does not merit a thoughtful response. Communicat (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

WW2 origins of Cold War

Binksternet, in his posting of 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC) in the talk section above, headed Link to www.truth-hertz.net, ridicules the proposition contained in Winer's book Between the Lies, that " ... the origins of the Cold War are firmly embedded in World War II, when Churchill and his elite cabal secretly waged a shadow war against communism under the guise of fighting the Nazis and 'helping' the Soviet Union." In fact, that historical premise has been around for a long time. Not only does it reflect a majority position in Russia, which bore the brunt of the fighting in Europe during WW2, but it is view shared to one degree or another by a substantial number of very well respected Western historians as published by very well respected Western publishers. They have drawn much the same conclusion, namely that the roots of the Cold War were buried deep in WW2. They agree on the basis of impeccable documentary research that by land, sea and air, the Western Allies generally failed to deploy their overwhelming military advantages to good effect while Russia suffered appalling losses as a result, on the eastern and decisive front of World War II. See Vladimir Petrov (ed.), Soviet Historians and the German Invasion, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press 1968, p.286; Y Larionov, N Yeronin, B Solovyov, V. Timokhovich, World War II Decisive Battles of the Soviet Army, Moscow: Progress 1984; Gar Alperovitz, "How Did the Cold War Begin?" in Walter LaFeber (ed.) The Origins of the Cold War 1941-1947, New York: John Wiley 1971; DF Fleming, The Cold War and Its Origins: 1917-1960, New York: Random 1961' Wilfred Burchett, Shadow of Hiroshima, London: Verso 1983. Stan Winer, in Between the Lies, in Chapter 4 titled "The Missing Front", elaborates that position further in citing, among others, the memoirs of Red Army commander Georgi Zhukov to support the proposition that the roots of WW2 are firmly embedded in WW2. Wiki editors, in their "wisdom" and without being able to provide any concrete evidence whatsoever to support their allegations, arbitrarily refute all the foregoing documentation as "flawed", "unreliable", or "fringe". Which brings us to the issue of [WP: FRINGE], as first raised by Binksternet in his posting of 00:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC). [WP: FRINGE] rules that NPOV requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. And since wiki editors concur that the matter at issue concerns a "fringe" position (in the West, where wiki is based), this "fringe" position must therefore be included in the WW2 article or a related sub-article. Rules are rules. I didn't make them.

In the meantime, I'd be much obliged if discssion participants support their arguments with concrete evidence when they allege "unreliable" or "flawed" sources, or similar facile remarks that lower the tenor of what's supposed to be a serious discussion.

Incidentally, and at the risk of digressing, the question of the roots of Cold War being embedded in WW2 relates essentially to Grand Strategy, yet the Grand Strategy of the Western Allies (nor anyone else) seems to be conspicuously absent from the WW2 article. This is with the exception only of a brief passing reference (see ref no.104 in the article), which speaks about Britain having to "reconsider its grand strategy", but curiously without saying what was their grand strategy in the first place. Communicat (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: Britain's wartime Minister of Aircraft Production, Colonel Moore-Brabazon (Lord Brabazon), is on record as stating Britain's grand strategy: "Let the German and Soviet armies tear into each other. We will pick up the pieces." McClaine, Ian, Ministry of Morale: Home Front Morale and the Ministry of Information in World War II, London: Allen and Unwin, 1979 Communicat (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you to prove that sources that you want to use are reliable, not for other editors to prove otherwise. This article is an overview of WWII, not the Cold War, so it probably isn't the best place to try and include your pet theory anyway. Even if it is accepted, it is very unlikely to get more than a sentence. (Hohum ^@) 18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a high level overview of World War II, and certainly not the place to push fringe theories on the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You are evading the issue by voicing opinion instead of fact. My postings are not to "push" any theories but to insist that the rules of WP:FRINGE be properly adhered to. WP:FRINGE was evoked in the first place by military history task force member Binksternet on this WW2 talk page, and I assume he knows what he's doing, which is why this "discussion" for the sake of continuity remains on this page. I assume also that the military history task forcers are the same for both WW2 and the CW. I hope to avoid complicating or obscuring matters by now having to move or duplicate the discussion to CW talk page. I also hope to avoid declaring a full-blown dispute, which may be my next logical move. A further logical move would be to invite the authors of WP:FRINGE to elaborate their rules. As already stated twice above, WP:FRINGE, rules that all majority and significant-minority (i.e. "fringe") positions be included in an article for consistency with NPOV. Communicat (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't being evaded, it's being responded to head on. You are exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and wildly misinterpreting WP:FRINGE. Please do go and ask for clarification. (Hohum ^@) 15:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

At the article Long War (20th century), the idea that the Cold War started within WWII is completely and totally subsumed by the assertion that all the great power wars of the 20th century are basically the same one, extended. The concept that the last century held one long war is not brought up in this WWII overview article, nor does it appear at Cold War, and I think that is appropriate. The proper place to put Winer-et-al's fringe theory is in other articles, ones such as Aftermath of World War II or Effects of World War II (the two possibly merged.) Another possibility is to create a new article about it, like the Long War editors did. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response, (It makes a change from the gibberish that HoHum keeps posting). My own inclination for appropriate placement, and for reasons not yet elaborated, was more in the direction of "WWII in Contemporary Culture" article. That was where I did originally place the external link to Between the Lies some time ago, which someone then promptly deleted without discussion. My preference for placement in the WW2 article of what you describe as "Winer-et-al's fringe theory", is also based on three factors: (1) The WW2 overview article, in the right-hand panel of the top-page, attributes the "Beginning of the Cold War" to the Allied victory, which "Winer-et-al's minority position contradicts. (2) In the 3rd paragraph of the top-page there is the unsourced claim that WW2 "set the stage for the Cold War", which Winer-et-al's minority position similarly contradicts. (3)WP:FRINGE rules that, for consistency with NPOV, all majority and significant-minority (i.e. "fringe") positions be included in an article (parity of sources).

Various editors including yourself have variously tried to rubbish Between the Lies as "unreliable", "unverifiable", "flawed", "self-published", etc, etc. In view of those dismissive remarks, and to make a point (since the "Burden of proof" of reliability etc evidently rests on me), I submit the following: In recent correspondence between myself and the author and the publisher in question, I've established that Winer's Between the Lies was not self-published. It was published by an independent publisher, Southern Universities Press. Independant publishers are by definition publishers that are outside the mainstream commercial publishing industry, in so far as commercial mainstream publishers employing their own editors etc are profit-driven (they publish essentially books that sell); whereas independant publishers are not profit-driven, their print runs are small, and editing is usually outsourced to specialist freelance editors in their respective fields of expertise. From a quick review of the WW2 overview article's reference sources, I've identified no less than 28 citations to independently published works, (and at least two self-published works, including one item published by an obscure outfit calling itself The Kurdish National Congress of North America). This suggests that double standards are being applied, i.e. it's okay cite independently published / self-published sources in some instances, but not in others, such as myself. (I have also noted at least 15 citations to tertiary sources, which seems rather strange, given that wikipedia is itself a tertiary source citing other tertiary sources).The allegation that Winer's book is not cited in other works, proves nothing. Not all books have been digitised, and digital citation figures apply only to digitised works. I rest my case, for the moment. Communicat (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please respect WP:CIVIL. Your explanation of Southern Universities Press is dubious at best. There is nothing to suggest they are reliable, or that Winer is. Have you got clarification of WP:FRINGE? (Hohum ^@) 02:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, Winer's book Between the Lies and the proposed external link to it are no longer the key issues here. What is at issue (see new section head) is the WW2 origin of the Cold War. You are exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU. As regards WP:FRINGE, I don't need any "clarification". WP:FRINGE makes quite clear the distinction between unreliable fringe theory and substantiated significant-minority position, namely my position, from which I'm not surrendering. If or when necessary, I'll invite opinion from authors of WP:FRINGE as to resolving the merits or otherwise of this ongoing dispute.

As regards civility, discussion pages are intended to improve an article. They are not supposed to be a forum for flippancy about horses eating coal, or for incoherent remarks such as yours at Section "Flawed overview? -- Battle of Britain", below. Communicat (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The "flippancy" about horses eating coal followed your apparently premature announcement that you were done with this discussion, where you alluded to the other editors here being horses led to but not drinking [your] water. The civility has been thin on both sides. Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When I claimed I was done with this "discussion", I meant I was done with discussing it under the section head "Link to www.truth-hertz.net] ". I then started this present "discussion" section headed "WW2 origins of CW", because the discussed issues had evolved into a rather more complex and multi-faceted scenario. This was largely as a result of your disparagement of the relevant source's "wild-eyed" conclusion that the roots of the Cold War are embedded in WW2, and which I have since shown to be a majority position in the former Soviet Union and a currently significant-minority position among a substantial number of published Western historians and researchers. And as a significant-minority position, it merits serious consideration in terms of NPOV / WP:FRINGE rules as already cited but not yet (if ever) resolved satisfactorily through reasoned discussion. You might have noted my use of the word "discussion" in parenthesis, this because of the very limited number of actual participants, and because "discussants" such as HoHum indulge in provocative criticisms that are not supported constructively by concrete fact or citation. Not forgetting Nick-D who seems fond of passing terse and dismissive one-line judgments that are either similarly unsupported and/or just plain erroneous. Communicat (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, your posts are tl;dr and unclear. Can you please summarize in a line or two what you want changed? I can't tell exactly what you have a problem with here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed all the tags..as its seems there is no need for them since there is no references to back any claims made and most believe only small changes might be needed .Moxy (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of my claims have been backed by references. Granted though, my epic gripe has by now become so filled with multiple issues under various section heads that I can't honestly blame anyone at this point for not being able to see the wood for trees. To save everyone the time and trouble of reading the whole damn thing, I'll just say it's not "only small changes" that are at issue. There are of course some relatively minor syntax, grammatical and factual edits needed, but the main proposed changes are significant ones, hence my efforts at achieving consensus via discussion as per wiki rules. To keep it simple:

(1) Entire para 3 needs reworking / correcting and parity sourcing, while retaining brevity.

(2) A minor but significant external link is proposed to a Selective WW2 bibliography regardless of whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with the actual thesis of the CC-licensed online book from which the bibliography is lifted. It's the accurate, concise and objective Bibliography that matters here, not the subjective thesis (which thesis has given rise to some editors' disapproval, and so it won't be cited, unless others want it to be). Communicat (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Flawed overview? -- Battle of Britain

The Spitfire caption "The Battle of Britain ended the German advance in Western Europe" together with text statement "Germany began an air superiority campaign over Britain (the Battle of Britain) to prepare for an invasion"[63] do not reflect a consensus position. Richard Overy "Battle of Britain 70 years on", in dispelling the David and Goliath myth, states: "Britain had more fighter aircraft and more fighter pilots than the Germans over most of the Battle of Britain". And, "At the end of the Battle of Britain Hitler’s armies still dominated much of Europe, and were poised to dominate more." Communicat (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The UK was the only place left in *Western* Europe that Hitler had designs on. Trying to gain air superiority with an idiot in charge of the Luftwaffe, against a force that managed to maintain larger numbers of pilots and aircraft doesn't mean they didn't try. (Hohum ^@) 15:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see an argument to tone it down. What halted the advance was the English Channel, the BoB denied the German forces the opportunity to gain the Air Superiority, Control of the Air or even Favourable Air Conditions that would allowed any effort to establish an amphibious landing force.

ALR (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I raised the BoB issue mainly because it illustrates how a false premise or a lie (i.e. RAF outnumbered by GAF), when repeated many times in official propaganda and regurgitated endlessly by self-styled historians etc, eventually becomes in the public mind a settled and unquestioned premise, though it can be proved to be a myth. There are many such myths, (at least one of which is currently the subject of dispute on this page). Communicat (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: when I said "agreed", I should have added "with reservations". What bothers me is the misleading Spitfire picture caption that claims the BoB "ended the German advance in Western Europe." Much better, since after all it really is a picture of a Spitfire, would be something along the lines of: "The RAF's Spitfire fighter won the Battle of Britain." As the caption presently stands, unenlghtened readers are misled into thinking the BoB was something to do with Western Europe. As rest of us know, RAF victory in the BoB was essentially about preventing the GAF from destroying English airfields. The BoB text statement (accompanying reference 63) is very simplistic and similarly misleading for ordinary readers. Maybe you'd like to expand and fix it with your above observation? Communicat (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Another Myth is that the Spitfire won the BoB I think you will find there were more Hawker Hurricane squadrons. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, you're quite right. Maybe also worth mentioning that neither the Spit nor Hurricane were anywhere near as fast and effective as Mosquito in nightfighter mode. Communicat (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Flawed overview -- para 3

The unsourced paragraph 3 at top-page is flawed as regards "... acceptance of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonisation movements in Asia and Africa ...".

"Acceptance" by whom? Certainly not by the main colonial powers, Britain, France, Portugal. When the war ended, Britain and America promptly reneged on their 1941 Atlantic Charter which had lured partisan movements around the world (including Poland) to side with the Allies against Germany and Japan, in return for the promise of "freedom" from colonial rule. When this "freedom" failed to materialise after WW2, indigenous independence movements, with Sino-Soviet help, mounted fullscale liberation wars in Kenya, Malaya, N.Korea, N. Vietnam, Philippines, and later in southern Africa. Not to mention a violent mutiny and bloody rebellion in India.

Para 3 is further flawed by omitting any reference to the crucial, immediate post-war Bretton Woods Agreement to reform international financial institutions, tariffs and trade, etc, which had been identified as among the main economic causes of WW2. Communicat (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to its self proclaied "good article" status, the ww2 article is riddled with other errors and ommissions and double standards in accepting or rejecting citations. The milhist panel -- HoHum, Nick-D, Blinkster etc -- seem to be suffering from an ownership problem The article is "their" turf and anyone who trespasses on it, especially Communicat of late, is trampled upon in jackbooted nazi style. There are many examples in the talk archives. Milhist panely w2ould be put to better use by actually improving-correcting-shortening the artile instead of acting like a bunch of nazis. A more couteous and open minded atitude would be nice. Besides, none of the milhist panel appear to have any historical or editorial qualifications listed on their user pages. At best they seem to be self opinionated computer geeks and not much else. 41.145.238.141 (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You will find that calling people names will not get you far here...Pls simply point out what YOU believe is wrong and find a source for it...We dont care about opinions here only verifiable sources. Moxy (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

USSR AND USA AT THE TOP?

I find this insulting that they have been put ahead of the UK and France in the belligerents list considering that they joined in 1941 I urge that this should be changed back to something that makes more sense, France and the UK fought much harder in the War than that of the USA And Russia despite what numbers of casualties say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of placement, saying who "fought harder in the war" is an inherently subjective judgement, and has no place in an NPOV article. Length of time involved, casualty rates, scope of involvement, even alphabetical are orders that can be objectively stated. Any one would be fine as a potential scheme for ordering. Subjective boasting of "who fought harder" is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me disagree with the statement that "saying who "fought harder in the war" is an inherently subjective judgement". It is possible to measure who fought harder simply by counting the losses sustained by some belligerent and, more importantly, by losses inflicted by him on its opponent. By both these criteria Britain (and, especially, France) cannot be placed on the top. More importantly, I would say that placement of France along with Britain would be insulting.--188.123.242.211 (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

you fortify Davido488's point here "Length of time involved, casualty rates, scope of involvement, even alphabetical are orders that can be objectively stated" Who was involved in the war longest? Who was most involved, Who Turned the tide in the African campaign at El alemein, who stopped the German advance into the west and maybe even the USA, who repelled the Japanese in Burma, who stopped the German advance in the middle east, in terms of Involvement, Length, and casualties it is no doubt that the UK should come top of the allies belligerents list

It's only fair that France should come Second as France fought extremely well for liberation from the start as one of the first to declare war involved in battles in Vietnam to Africa, losing over a million people. Please take it into consideration86.135.58.219 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I couldn't of put it better myself really, the UK and France deserve to be above the Russia and the US do to a longer duration and and Span of conflict around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break. Enough of this nationalism going on here. 8 out of every 10 German soldier killed in the war were killed by the Russians.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 22:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost any metric of involvement will be argued to death. i.e. inflicted casualties, casualties inflicted versus casualties taken, amount of territory taken/recovered, size of forces, resources devoted to warmaking; all the previous factors relative to GDP, length of time engaged in the war, order of joining, most important battles, most distributed global involvement, etc. To argue about any of them simply for the "terrible outrage" of the order shown in an infobox would seem to indicate people are willing to devote more time to arguing than to improving the article.

My suggestion would be to identify the main combatants (for which there will be argument enough), and then list them alphabetically; and then get on with some proper editing. (Hohum ^@) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Enough of the nationalism. Let's keep this article NPOV (FWIW, I hate the USSR. They kicked out my ancestors in 1918)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetically?? What in the world for? The current listing is perfectly NPOV. Its not "nationalist", its based on actual involvement in the conflict. And anyway how in the world would alphabetizing help anything, you cannot very well list all combatants - we'd still have to select the "preferred" ones. Plus the infobox in alphabetic order would be just plain stupid ("Australia and Belgium vs Bulgaria and Italy"). If we really need some determining factor it should be combined troop strength, not the sodding alphabet :P (except for the "Big Three" of course, which should be at the top in the current order regardless of troop strength).

The current listing is very accurate, the USSR's involvement virtually dwarfs that of all other countries combined. If it weren't for its status as one of the "Big Three" Britain should probably be below China. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I said "main combatants" alphabetically. I've given clear reasons why "level of involvement" can be argued about ad nauseam, and already has been on this talk page, and the infobox template talk page - read the archives. So, again, wasting more time on a minor point of presentation seems to gather more interest than content. (Hohum ^@) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Let's all leave it as it is :)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Eighty percent of all German losses were inflicted upon them by the Red Army on the eastern front. The efforts of the Western Allies on the eastern front accounted for only 20 percent of German losses, whereas total losses of the German Wehrmacht were 72 percent of its officers and men, most of them. dying on the Soviet-German (i.e. Eastern) front. Since the British Army deployed no more than 28 divisions as compared with the American army’s 99 divisions, the British contribution to Allied victory must have been in the region of only five percent. As for the Americans: the military potential of the US, as estimated in 1939 in terms of gross national product and industrial production, represented more than 40 percent of the world’s total. Yet that advantage was never translated into a proportionate contribution on the battlefield. The 99 American divisions were overshadowed 4:1 by Red Army divisions.The price paid by the USSR for defeating Hitler on the principal and decisive front of the war was enormous. Well over 40 million Russians, half of them civilians, died — many more than the combined total military casualties of Germany and the Western Allies together. Sources: John Erickson, Stalin's War With Germany, (2 vols) London: Grafton, 1985, where individual campaigns are listed at Vol II, p.1181; Alexander Werth, Russia at War 1941-1945, New York: Avon 1965: Norman Davies, Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory, London: Macmillan 2005. Forty million Soviet fatalities stated in Stan Winer, Between the Lies, Southern Universities Press: London 2007, 2nd edn, p.87 online edition p.82 citing Professor of Defence Studies at Edinburgh University, on the basis of former Soviet military archives opened to the West in 1994. Communicat (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I must reiterate, let's leave it as it is. There really is no since arguing over the order of flags! I'd rather not have to watch one of the lamest edit wars occur on an article that I am very proud to have promoted to GA status. Wikipedia never seems to be able to keep articles like these at GA level for long and this is why.....--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's okay with me. I couldn't care less about the order of flags. My posting had more to do with NPOV errors of omission and the apparent Russo-phobia demonstrated by at least one milhist administrator, of which more later. Communicat (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC

I'm not going to argue on here because if I do I will never stop arguing and will probably be blocked which I cannot be bothered with, BUT Britain may not be ahead of Russia but should be ahead of the United states alphabetically and terms of casualties and war effort, and how high a country is on the belligerent IS relevant, but never mind because we all know this site is full of bias Americans trying to make everything done by America look that bit better than everyone else. So just leave it as that I'm not going to bother anymore on this silly article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.58.219 (talk • contribs)

My question above was asked for the same reasons as this. There must be a process of listing belligerents that cannot be disputed. --Half Price (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why alphabetical ordering was suggested in the first place. But I think the infobox is also a bit of an overview of involved editors, as I am pretty sure for example that small states in Europe like Luxembourg were more involved than e.g. South Africa. Arnoutf (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? More than 10,000 S.African soldiers (third of the entire SA force in North Africa) were captured by Rommel at Tobruk. SA army threw German army out of German colony South West Africa. SA pilot Edwin Swales VC was posthumously decorated for heroism during the air offensive against Germany. Many other SA pilots were seconded to RAF. Etc. Now, how does Luxembourg compare with that? Communicat (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The alphabetical ordering has one major disadvantage, namely, it is not clear from it which countries were major WWII participants. As a result, Australian pupils come from school being firmly confident that the WWII was a war between Australia and Japan, and that Australia won this war (I am telling about a real example). Another example is the initial Davido488's post (which can be better explained by simple ignorance rather than by Russophobia). It must be clear from the infobox that in actuality the WWII was the war between a handful of major Allied countries (of which only three made a decisive contribution in the the victory) and three major Axis' members (of which only one was the Axis leader). Of course, it would be incorrect to forget the contribution of South Africa, however, it would be even more incorrect to list, e.g. Belgium before, e.g. the USSR.

With regards to "a process of listing belligerents that cannot be disputed", we already discussed this issue before and came to a conclusion that no strict rules exist on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In which case we need some. Otherwise this will happen again and again. Should I take this to any Wikiproject? --Half Price (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact scrap that, Template:Infobox_military_conflict states that "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command." Admittedly it also adds "If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article" --Half Price (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The only obvious objective way to determine it, is to place them in order of time participated. It is the only measure that can be measured without bias. Obviously it would be UK, USSR, USA, France, and so on. If you try and list them in order of importance, everyone will have different measures as to what that means.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing Dispute -- expressions of interest invited

Senior editor Moxy at his userpage gives this message to editors: "Please stop tagging (adding templates) to the top of every article you read and actually take the time and fix the problems." Now that's all very well and good. But, having followed that advice and actually taking the time and trouble to fix problems at WW2 overview page, (see View history entry 17:53, 5 August 2010), I've now simply had my edit reverted arbitrarily by milhist administrator User:Nick-D (see View history entry 22:47, 5 August 2010). This despite the verifiable fact that I'd first proposed the changes clearly and courteously at section headed Flawed overview? - Para 3 on this discussion page, without receiving any response to my proposed changes from User:Nick-D or anyone else. So, after a few days without feedback, I simply followed Moxy's advice and labouriously fixed the problems, only to have the edit reverted by User:Nick-D. It's not the first time he's done this kind of thing. I'm happy to work productively and co-operatively but have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in puerile and unproductive editing wars with evidently disruptive administrators. Do well-intentioned people really have to go through all this $h1t in order to improve an article? Communicat (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I was astounded to find that nothing leapt out at me as particularly poor about Communicat's recent edit (diff) to the lead. It's unusual to splatter prominent dispute and NPOV tags over such a minor difference though. Perhaps Nick-D could say what his objections are in more detail. (Hohum ^@) 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe some astute editor will do reversion to my proper earlier version. Still no word from the esteemed User:Nick-D. Maybe they do things differently in the land of Oz.Communicat (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Below are my commentaries on some Communicat's edits.

1. "The war was fought between the Allies -- America, Britain, British Commonwealth forces and the Soviet Union -- against the Axis powers: Germany, Italy and Japan."

Comment. The sentence fully ignores the role of other Allies, especially, Poland, France, China, as well as other European Axis members, especially Romania. It is also worth mention that Britain was a part of Commonwealth. My proposal is:

"The war was fought between the Allies — primarily British Commonwealth and the United States, as well as the Soviet Union — against the Axis powers, primarily Germany, Italy and Japan."

2. "The Allies were supported militarily by communist-led resistance movements throughout Europe and the Far East. "

Comment. The Communist supported resistance movement was a real fighting force mostly in Yugoslavia; the role of resistance in France or Italy is usually exaggerated. Resistance in Poland was supported by non-Communists or even anti-Communists. My suggestion: remove from the lede.

3. "British wartime leader Winston Churchill, in his voluminous history of World War II , depicts a generally cordial relationship between the Western allies and their Soviet allay."

Comment. Churchill was hardly a professional historian, his writings can be considered partially as memoirs (a primary source), so we cannot rely upon them too much. My suggestion: remove.

4. "Documents declassified after the war provide a different perspective. In secret wartime correspondence between Soviet leader Josef Stalin and Churchill, Stalin complained repeatedly that by land, sea and air, the Western allies were failing to use their military forces to good effect while, as a result, the Soviet Union suffered appalling losses on the eastern or Russian-German front. "

Comment. Declassified documents are primary sources. The lede cannot devote a space to discussion of them. Discussion of tension between the Big Three's members hardly deserves mention in the lede. In addition, introduction of the dead wikilink into a good article is hardly a good idea (especially, taking into account that the name is not common). My suggestion: remove.

5. "Russian historians contend that the Eastern Front was the principal and decisive front of the war. "

Comment. It is incorrect to present this POV as a national POV. Many western historians (e.g., Glantz, Bellamy et al) share this point of view. My general suggestion regarding ##3-5 is: add a brief description of WWII theatres along with discussion of their relative importance.

"Revisionist historians propose that, because of the wartime tensions that existed between Stalin and the Western leaders, the roots of the Cold War can be traced to events in World War II. "

Comment. I am not sure we need to discuss the revisionist point of view for at least two reasons: firstly, to discuss the revisionist POV, one have to present a mainstream point of view; secondly, I am not sure if we need to discuss the roots of Cold War in the lede of the article about the WWII.

My general conclusion is that, although some Communicat's points (which have been put forward by him on the talk page) are valid, it would be premature to support the changes made by him. I propose to discuss these prospective changes on the talk page first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Duplication / cleanup

Para 2 duplicates info and should be moved to Chronology section after cleanup. Sentence too long and unsourced. I fixed this in my earlier edition (see History) which was then reverted by admin. Maybe someone else should try, seeing as admin doesn't like my edits. Communicat (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)