Jump to content

Talk:World War II: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 511: Line 511:
[[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 21:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
[[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:34, 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.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Partizanfighter1944|Partizanfighter1944]] ([[User talk:Partizanfighter1944|talk]]) 01:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Partizanfighter1944

Revision as of 01:04, 11 June 2010

Good articleWorld War II has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 13, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 23, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
April 14, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
October 8, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 6, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of December 18, 2005.
Current status: Good article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Archive
Archives
Archive Index
Chronological archives
2004/5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
2006: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
2007: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
2008: 29, 30
2009: 33, 34, 35, 36 37
2010:37
Topical archives

Untitled


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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:

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My guess is that they were in the war first or the longest.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
yeah but china and japan were at war long before... THEQUEEN99 (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, major WWII participants should go first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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!

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit request

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

Thanks

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: "Many recent historians dont see Kursk as a major turning point anylonger." Who?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frieser like mentioned above.Blablaaa (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frieser is not "many".--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • " 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Are Japanese and Chinese white in your book?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Expulsions

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&oldid=367329771"