Talk:World War II

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)

That is exactly what I meant. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 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)

Re: "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." Of course, no. There is a lot of opportunity for bias here. For instance, if we interpret this criterion formally, than the first place should be given to Poland (at war since Sept 1, 1939), although no actual hostilities took place between this country and the Axis during 1940-42. Another example is the Phoney War. Anyway, since the most important consequence of any war is the loss of human lives, it is natural to expect it to be the most objective criterion. It is very strange for me that some quite formal criteria (e.g. formal duration of the state of war) seem less biased then casualties are. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"loss of human lives, it is natural to expect it to be the most objective criterion". Yes but how do we calculate that. What is more loss of human lives, if US military casualties of about 410,000 (0.32% of 1939 population) worse than the approx 500,000 civilian casualties in Greece (about 7% of 1939 pop). Are not the 2,000 casualties in Luxembourg relatively twice as much as those of the US (these 2,000 represented 0.68% of 1939 population). If you say US counts for more, you implicitly say that large countries will always suffer more (even if the 100% of the Luxembourg population would have suffered from genocide there would be far less casualties compared to the US). Even a so-called simple thing as casualties is not. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Our task is not to calculate relative casualties. We need to provide some objective criterion for absolute (not per capita) military contribution. The country that deployed greater army, sustained greater losses and, importantly, inflicted greater losses on the opponent made greater contribution. With regard to small countries, they by definition cannot be listed first because, independently of relative losses, their military contribution was small.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that casualties are not a good way to see importance of the war, i.e following your rationale the pinnacle of military strategy would be to emply only unarmed troops (or horse cavalry or light infantery) as that will guarantee you a lot of casualties on your side, an hence by your reasoning massive casualties on the side of the enemy. I do not see why we cannot calculate relative casualties. OR why civilian casualties do not count. Casualties alone is no measure for importance of a country (e.g. if you look at casualties USSR (23 Million) Poland (5.7 Million) and Dutch East Indies (3.5 Million) score about ten times more than the US; if you look at military casualties the Yugoslav partisans (446,000) trump the US (417,000)). So "objectively" the order of allies would be (all casualties USSR, Poland, Dutch East Indies, India, Yugoslavia) or if you limit yourself to military it would be (USSR, China, Yugoslavia, US, UK), if you look at relative death it would be Poland, USSR, Yugoslavia, Greece. Useful to put Yugoslavia before US and UK, not really, but that will be the consequence of the "objective" measure. Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the pinnacle of military strategy would be to emply only unarmed troops (or horse cavalry or light infantery) as that will guarantee you a lot of casualties on your side" Quite the opposite. As I already noted, the losses inflicted on the opponent are more important criterion.

Re: "I do not see why we cannot calculate relative casualties." Because it is irrelevant. We discuss the relative importance of nation's contribution into the war, not who fought harder. The fact that Luxembourg sustained relatively more losses than the USA does not mean its contribution was comparable with that of the USA. The WWII was primarily a war between great powers.

Re: "Casualties alone is no measure for importance of a country (e.g. if you look at casualties USSR (23 Million) Poland (5.7 Million) and Dutch East Indies (3.5 Million) score about ten times more than the US;" That is both correct and incorrect. Dutch East Indies casualties led to only minor Japanese casualties (and, frankly, did not affect a situation in any important theatre of war). Polish casualties were mostly civilian casualties and didn't change German ability to wage the war. By contrast, Soviet casualties (which were accompanied by almost equally high Axis casualties) led to exhaustion of the Axis military machine, a loss of the greatest part of German possessions in Europe, and, eventually, to the victory in the most important WWII theatre. Therefore they are the measure.

Re: "So "objectively" the order of allies would be" Such a reductio ad absurdum is hardly relevant here. My point was that, as soon as we want to invent a single objective criterion for military contribution, military casualties are the most appropriate one. However, as I already noted, the casualties must be military, not total, and, importantly, the casualties inflicted on the opponent should weigh more than the casualties sustained.

However, I never stated that such a single criterion can be universal: it is impossible to use the same criteria for comparison of quite different theatres of war: yes, based on the amount of troops involved, losses sustained/inflicted, strategic importance etc., we can compare, e.g. African campaign and Case Blau (and made quite objective conclusion abou relative importance), however, it is hard to compare, e.g., BoB and Battle of Leningrad.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To summarise. Of course, it is incorrect to state that the country that sustained greater total population losses made greater military contribution. However, a combination of military losses sustained by a country plus military losses inflicted by the country on the opponent can be a primary criterion when we compare similar theatres of war. Other criteria can be (i) the level of military production; (ii) the country's role in providing military resources for the most important theatres of war; (iii) the technological level of warfare the country was involved in; (iv) political weight the country had during the war and its role in making the most important strategic decision; (v) (you may expand this list if you have any other ideas).

Based on i-iv, both the US and the UK should occupy one of first three positions. However, the USSR also meets these four criteria: the level of military production was high there (the USSR was responsible for production of a lion's share of the armament used in the Eastern Front), technological level was relatively high (the most modern German tanks, artillery and partially planes were produced for the use in the East); political weight of the USSR was enormous during WWII (after 1941).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well your post above argues that casualties sustained alone are indeed not the most suitable objective criterion. I fully agree. Note that it was you who proposed this first. On the other hand, while you correctly argue that most of German advanced tanks were produced for the east, almost all German navy (including U boats) and the most avanced Luftwaffe was deployed against the Western allies. All in all, the inclusion of political weight, level of technology etc. adds additional interpretation which is not 100% objective (let alone the decision to put sustained military casualties over civilian casualties).

I do agree based on your analysis that the main allies were indeed the traditional big 3: USA, UK, USSR. Each of the was essential in its own way and I would hesitate to put one over another, for those 3 alphabetic order seems fine to me. Arnoutf (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Note that it was you who proposed this first." I am not a proponent of the use of any single criterion, my point was that, as soon as we decided to use some single criterion the losses would the most objective one. However, I doubt such oversimplification would be correct.

Re the decision to put sustained military casualties over civilian casualties. I see no problem with that because total casualties just show who suffered more, whereas own military casualties show who fought more and, accordingly, the opponent's military casualties show whose military contribution was greater.

Re navy etc. That is correct, and that is one of the reasons why all the Big Three's members can be grouped together (separately from other Allies). However, that is insufficient to say that their contributions were comparable. Obviously, whereas all Big Three's members meet criteria i-iv, the scale and strategic importance of the Eastern Front leaves no doubts that Soviet contribution was far greater. However, there is one more argument that you missed, namely, that from 1 Sept 1939 till 1941 the USSR was de facto (although not de jure) the German ally. Of course, one may argue that during that time the USA were collaborating extensively with Japan by providing her with oil and other resources needed for the war with China, however, one way or the another, Nazi-Soviet collaboration is the only fact that may counterbalance the enormous Soviet contribution into the victory. That is why I cannot unconditionally support the placement of the USSR on the top of the list. Probably the idea of the alphabetical order is not so bad, however, as you probably noticed it does not change the Big Three's order much: the Soviet Union goes first, the United Kingdom is the second, whereas the United States of America occupy the third position. However, if we agree on that the footnote has to be added to the infobox explaining that the Big Three's members are listed alphabetically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, and indeed the Eastern front was a massive drain on German personell and resources. But even that is not as simple (as you already indicate with the Germany-USSR alliance). In the early stages Anglo-American supplies to Murmansk have helped the Russians to stabilise the Eastern front; and in the later stages the massive bombing of German industries has weakened their Eastern tank divisions considerably.

Re alphabetic order; I share you concern, but as any other criterion seems to spark nationalist tendencies I see no alternative. One thing I wondered about, why are we talking about Soviet Union instead of USSR and not about United States and United Kingdom, that seems a bit inconsistent to me. Arnoutf (talk) 07:08, 8 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." Yes, that's good

Let me also note that this sentence (both old and new versions) reproduces the first lede's sentence:

"... which involved most of the world's nations, including all of the great powers, organised into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. "

We have to discuss how to avoid this repetition. Well spotted. Should have seen it myself the first time

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. See further discussion, esp. Far East groups, below in section "Anti-communist prejudice".

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. A lot of people DO unfortunately rely on them volumes. But yes, remove source if you're a purist, as all good editors should be. Lots of other secondary sources available to support same premise, viz., cordial relationship.

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. secondary source Introduction by editor Richardson (which refers to docs in mainbody of book) can be source ref. If not, the same docs can probably be found in Hinsley somewhere, if one only has the time to look for them ... The lede cannot devote a space to discussion of them. No, "discussion" is not proposed. Just a one-sentence mention.Discussion of tension between the Big Three's members hardly deserves mention in the lede. The implications are so vast and important that I consider it worthy of mention. 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). Not common in the West. Standard in the former Soviet Union. My suggestion: remove. My suggestion: disambigulation warning.

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. All the more reason to say so. My general suggestion regarding ##3-5 is: add a brief description of WWII theatres along with discussion of their relative importance. Space problem. Maybe an entire section to itself? But, article already tooooo longgggg and needs trimming overall. Rather you than me.::::"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.

Conservative mainstream view has entered the ideologically conditioned (Western) collective psyche to such an extent that it hardly requires further regurgitation. So, in interests of NPOV, I think revisionist view might merit at least a brief airing.

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

Thanks for taking time and trouble to comment thoughtfully. My responses for ease of reference are reds above. Communicat (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As a quick comment, the problems with the material added in these edits were. 1) The text on the nations involved in the war (which now seems to be resolved) 2) the claim that "The Allies were supported militarily by communist-led resistance movements throughout Europe" is simply wrong - while communist groups played the key role in the resistance in several countries, the Communists didn't 'lead' the resistance in western Europe which was coordinated by the various governments in exile located in Britain. 3) The armed resistance movements in most of Japanese-occupied Asia were fairly small and unimportant. The Philippino resistance movement was probably the most significant of them, but it was not 'communist led' as it was coordinated out of General MacArthur's headquarters. 4) The material on Churchill's memoirs is simply out of place in this very high-level article on the war - you may wish to add it to Winston Churchill as historian 5) the claim that "Russian historians contend that the Eastern Front was the principal and decisive front of the war." is also out of place in this high-level article and ignores the fact that most western historians now agree with this view in relation to the war in Europe, though it's obviously not correct for the war in the Pacific (where the American offensive through the South-West and Central Pacific was decisive). 6) the material added to the 'Chronology' section was wordy and seemed to suggest that the USSR didn't participate in the war until it was invaded by the Axis in 1941. I'm not going to engage with your rude comments about me beyond observing that reverting edits is part of normal editing, and wasn't performed in my role as an admin. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 8 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)

Anti-communist prejudice

In the very lengthy WW2 article there is only one very brief mention of a communist-led resistance movement (Yugoslavia), whereas in fact there were communist-led resistance movements throughout Europe and the Far East. They made a significant contribution to the Allied war effort by sabotaging enemy supply lines, rescuing downed pilots, and collecting and conveying intelligence to the Allies. The exclusion of these movements from the article reflects clear anti-communist (i.e. POV) prejudice.

There were of course some populist (i.e. non-communist) resistance groups like Force 136 in Malaya, and a populist group in Greece, and nationalist resistance elsewhere e.g. China, (before the split with Mao), but even these groups were led mainly by communists. Non-communist (i.e. populist / nationalist groups were largely ineffectual and NOT a fighting force worth considering by comparison with the communist-led groups (some of which were also comprised of populist or nationalist members. (In Italy communist-led groups even had devout Catholics as members). Hence my use of the term "communist-led".

The text and sources that I provided in a lead paragraph of disputed article that was reverted by Nick-D (see above) are relevant. There are various other reliable sources on this topic, which I can provide if necessary. The point I'm making is that deliberate exclusion from the WW2 article of virtually any mention of communist-led resistance(except the one very brief mention re Jugoslavia), is proof of anti-communist bias. Could it be that the unsigned comment added by 86.135.58.219 above has some validity, when he remarks: "... we all know this site is full of biased Americans trying to make everything done by America look that bit better than everyone else." ? Communicat (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how this constitutes "anti-communist prejudice". Most countries had quite diverse resistance movements and not very many had resistance movements like Tito's, which fought so openly. The only (European) exception is possibly the Polish one, which was NOT communist lead, but comprised mainly of conservatives and nationalists. If you look at the other occupied countries (France, Benelux, Denmark, Norway) the resistance movement was less visible. And just as importantly, they were mixed, sometimes with extensive internal differences - sometimes outright fighting each other. Nevertheless, they played important roles in the war. Allied operations counted on Danish resistance movements to derail German supply- troop- and ressource transports, of which Denmark was rife. The Resistance Movement in Denmark was largely conservative, as communists were concentrated in the cities or had escaped to Sweden. The communists did perform a large number of operations - especially in the cities where they were concentrated, and were the closest to an "armed resistance" (in the Yugolslavian sense) Denmark came. Rather than speculating in the political rationale behind each resistance movement in the WWII article, this should probably be discussed in an article on that subject and largely kept out of the WWII article. I didn't note any other mentionings of Resistance Movement political philosophy other than Tito's Yugoslavs. Would that constitute anti-conservative prejudice?--Nwinther (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, the scale of the resistance movement in Europe (except in Yugoslavia and, probably, Poland) was grossly exaggerated. I would say, a support of Nazi by local population in most European countries was more pronounced than resistance was. Therefore, if we decide to tell about resistance in Europe, we also have to devote at least the same space to collaborationism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As an overview article, it is unrealistic to go into any detail for any single issue, the current level seems appropriate. This article links to Resistance during World War II at the top of the Occupation section, that article would be a better place for reliably referenced details. (Hohum ^@) 17:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as resistance goes, we basically have three countries,

• Yugoslavia, where whole division groups were engaged in combating Partisans in battles involving hundreds of thousands of men.
• Poland
• Greece

The strategic significance of all three is negligible compared to conventional warfare, of course. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All above is relevant for a better edit, but no-one above takes heed of resistance in Far East viz., China (12 million killed) Malaya, Philippines, Indonesia, Burma, and Hong Kong where anti-Jap partisans collected and used against the enemy many weapons and other materiel abandoned by retreating British troops after Jap invasion and British surrender. The rest of the weapons obtained in Malaya as elsewhere were of course via SOE airdrops. Significance of guerilla warfare (especially jungle fighting) is that one guerilla could tie down about 25 to 50 enemy troops, thus diverting enemy resources away from other engagements.

Main reason why I brought partisan resistance into the editing equation, was because of the false and unsourced assertion in existing Para. 3 about decolonisation (see Decolonisation section above). I deleted entirely that falsity, (and also the mention of Cold War), because I intended inserting into the "Aftermath" section the facts that Britain and America had lured indigenous resistance movements to support the Allies through promises of post-war independence from colonialism (see Atlantic Charter). When post-war independence failed to materialise, all hell broke loose in Brit colony of Malaya, and in American neo-colony Philippines. Important aftermath issue not mentioned in existing Aftermath section.

Piecemeal, stop-and-start editing can be very frustrating in that respect -- especially when administrators such as Nick-D assume bad faith or whatever, and revert editing without first engaging in any discussion about proposed edits. (In my other life, I'm accustomed to editing 10,000 word manuscripts at one sitting).Communicat (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want others to assume your good faith, try assume good faith too. I believe there are explanations of Nick-D's behaviour others than assuming bad faith. I suggest you to copy a section you want to modify on the tal page, to make changes you want, to wait for comments from others and, when all criticism is addressed to move the modified text into the main article. It is a rather long procedure, however, taking into account that this article is generally in a good shape, and that this is a 10th most visited WP article, this way is probably the most optimal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Noted. Good idea. Communicat (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Direktor above is wrong when he says Yugoslavia, Greece and Poland are the only ones worth mentioning. He forgets that Italian (communist-led) partisans liberated part of northern Italy and were poised to do more. Which resulted in the infamous Operation Sunrise -- OSS director Alan Dulles's (now well-documented) secret surrender negotiations with Nazi SS general Karl Wolfe, to prevent post-war communist influence in Italy. Communicat (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the same commie baddies who murdered John Birch? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah,I'm talking about wiki WW2 article anti-communist prejudice / POV bias through omission. To continue where I left off above, re significant communist-led resistance as missing from the article in question: The Operation Sunrise agreement between SS Gen Karl Wolf and Western Allies was that German army in N. Italy would surrender quietly to Western Allies thus preventing further German defeats by communist-led partisans, and thereby denying post-war influence to communists. It also allowed the Wehrmacht to quickly move a couple divisions from Italian front to the Soviet-German or eastern front. (Declassified docs reveal Stalin was outraged. Another example of WW2 origins of Cold War). Meanwhile, in SE Asia -- Korea & Vietnam anti-Japanese (and anti-French Vichy) communist-led resistance continued as it had throughout the war. So, when we talk about communist-led resistance, (and the WW2 origins of Cold War) it might be worth bearing in mind that Tito's partisans were not the only ones who saw action. Communicat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure killing an armed man is a murder?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

With a name like Communicat, one must wonder why he's bringing up supposed "Anti-communist prejudice" in this article. Look, the article is neutral enough to pass a GAN. I see no justification of any "Anti-communist prejudice".--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How then do YOU account for all the above-mentioned POV bias through omission? Never mind. Rhetorical question. As for passing a GAN, I don't know about the "standards" of whoever it is that passes a GAN, (probably wiki itself?); but those standards fall well below those of other people including me. Not to mention the standards of whoever it was that posted the above-mentioned comment: "... we all know this site is full of biased Americans trying to make everything done by America look that bit better than everyone else." Communicat (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If this site is indeed "...full of biased Americans trying to make everything done by America look that bit better than everyone else." then would you mind explaining why it is written in British English?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Because Americans don't know how to spell properly. Communicat (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I take that as an attack and an offense to my nation and it's people. I'm American and I voted for this article to be written in British English.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As for passing a GAN, I don't know about the "standards" of whoever it is that passes a GAN, (probably wiki itself?) --> I would like to draw your attention to the VERY VERY detailed GA review of this article See -->Talk:World War II/GA1 ...,becasue you have now just insulted everyone involved that worked on getting the article to GA status over 4 months. (Ps you are taking to most of them now)..Just be careful pls -- we understand your frustrated. Lets get you to list all the refs you have for a statment you wish to change and lets see if they outweigh the current statement and its references... Moxy (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)