Talk:World War II

Pyrrhic victory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some time ago I noticed through my watchlist that FilBox101 inserted 'pyrrhic' before 'victory' in the infobox. Later Alex Bakharev removed it. Can we get a consensus on this? Or has one already been reached? Green547 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would the victory be pyrrhic. The phrase pyrrhic victory is, as far as I know, generally reserved for a situation where a battle (or war) has lead to such devastating losses at the side of the victor, that another battle with the same enemy would almost certainly result in a decisive defeat of the earlier victor. By the end of WWII this is definitely not the case as the US-UK-USSR(and other allied) armies could easily crush any army fielded by either Germany or Japan (or any other Axis nation). Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well User:FilBox101's edit summary was 'due to the massive number of casualties' and definitely it was a massive number of losses. I'd like to see his POV on this before moving ahead. Green547 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably none of the parties would be able to field the same power as they had in the field in 1940. But since there were no powers in the world at that time who could, that does not make it a Pyrrhic victory - a victory with so much casualties it would lead to almost certain loss if the ongoing war would continue from the status quo after the victory. If we redefine Pyrrhic victory to fit the outcome of WWII almost all major wars would have ended in a Pyrrhic victory. E.g. the outcome of the Napoleontic war would also be Pyrrhic (Wellington would not have been able to confront the Grande Armee immediately after Waterloo -- But that was a non-issue as Napoleon already lost that army in his ill-fated Russian campaign). Similarly the French would probably not have been able to withstand the original 1914 German attack in 1918, however the Germans were not able to execute that attack anymore in 1918.

But I am interested in User:FilBox101 detailed arguments why this would be a Pyrrhic victory as well Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was going through that sort of arguments in my head, but I think the number of casualties and resources expended is relevant also. Pyrrhic victory could simply mean a victory won at a terrible cost. We need his imput on this. Cheers, Green547 (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In a summary like an infobox, when a qualifier such as Pyrrhic is at all debatable....then it should be left out. An editors opinion on it is not RS'd. Only if the consensus of mainstream historians employ it..should it ever be considered. Juan Riley (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I, too, have not seen "pyrrhic victory" applied to World War II, and find it inappropriate. Perhaps it's the huge Russian losses that make that term seem suitable, but a pyrrhic victory is appropriate when the defeated has inherently greater resources and can eventually win a war of attrition. The Axis had no such reserve strength against the Allies. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've also never seen any source describe World War II as a "Pyrrhic victory" or similar for the Allies. It's hard to see how that would be the case given that the Allies completely defeated the Axis powers and then went on to dominate the post-war world. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

WW2 was certainly a pyrrhic victory for Britain and France as the two countries were completely destroyed. (Dredernely (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)) Striking out comment from sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

But being completely destroyed after being victorious is not necessarily a Pyrrhic victory - a Pyrrhic victory means that after such a victory the next battle to the same enemy is almost certainly lost. While Britain was very much damaged, Germany could not have fielded an army with any hopes of defeating Britain in mid 1945 (as Germany was even more damaged at the time). Therefor it was not a Pyrrhic victory.

In the larger scope of things WWII did result in the folding of the European colonial empires (not only British and French but also Dutch, Italian and German). So if we consider WWII as an episode in ongoing colonial wars it may be construed as a Pyrrhic victory. However that construal would be original research; and in any case be beyond the current article. Arnoutf (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Two of the major parties emerged from the war with not only stronger armies, but with greater world power. Neither the USSR nor the USA were prepared to fight in the beginning. Both developed their militaries during the war and were stronger in 1945 than they were in 1940. The USSR took vast losses. The USSR's army was stronger at the end than at the beginning. That's not Pyrrhic in the slightest. Yes, Europe lost colonial empires but that took place for decades after the war, due the rise of the new powers that be, and only indirectly due to the war itself. Germany's motivation was to build an empire within Europe, not to simply take over colonies, so that makes it an existential war for Europe, not a colonial one. Western Europe was then rebuilt under the Marshall Plan, money provided by one of their wartime allies. A Pyrrhic victory means you win the battle but lose the war. Yes, England, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, etc., lost influence and colonies, but they emerged nationally intact, were rebuilt with the assistance of a wartime ally (and were able to build a beneficial international alliance that did not exist pre-war), and were not subsumed into a Thousand Year Reich, so it's a vast stretch of the imagination to say the Allies won the battle and lost the war. Poland could make the argument they won the battle but lost the war, but I'm really not sure any other country could.71.160.33.132 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the victory was indeed quite decisive, but looking at the cost (over 500% more losses than the defeated power) it certainly is a war won at very high cost. But with that being said, it also crushed the third reich and the existence of "Axis powers" from the globe. and on the other hand it forged the path to the cold war. So yeah... A war won, but at extremely heavy costs. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody suggest the victory came cheap. But extremely heavy costs, both in human life and destruction of infrastructure does not make it a Pyrrhic victory. Arnoutf (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said I though it was Pyrrick did I? I just stipulated the heavy losses suffered as direct result of the war, I don't care how you want to call it. but it may be reflected by calling it: "something.. Victory" 195.109.63.17 (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If we do decide to call it a pyrrhic victory we better have reliable sources to support that position. Our opinion doesn't count. What reliable sources say does. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Both Britain and France ceased to be superpowers as a direct result of World War II, so for them it was definitely a pyrrhic victory. (LoweRobinson (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Please read up on what Pyrrhic victory means. As used above, in the classical sense it means "winning the battle but losing the war". WWII where Germany, Italy and Japan were the enemies ended in 1945. The UK and France have not been in a war with either of those states since. So no, it was NOT a Pyrrhic victory in this sense of the word. In the Oxford a Pyrrhic victory is more broadly defined as "a victory won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor". To use this definition would imply that France and the UK should have been better off without winning the war (i.e. occupied France, besieged Britain) than with winning the war. Again a very far fetching interpretation.

So either (1) we continue this, so far unfruitful, discussion by putting in our own thoughts and definitions (which is a gross violation of the central policy on original research WP:OR); or (2) we bring in reliable, mainstream sources that explicitly use the term Pyrrhic victory (but I have seen none so far, so I doubt they exist). Or (3) we close this discussion. (I would vote for closing this) Arnoutf (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The UK ceased to be a world power as a direct result of World War II, and was soon surpassed economically in Europe by West Germany. France was only occupied and Britain besieged because they had declared war on Germany and immediately started bombing German cities. Many people today believe the UK should never have declared war on Germany in 1939. (LoweRobinson (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

What is your point explicitly in relation to the very specific term Pyrrhic victory, and what reliable mainstream sources support this? Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Churchill said in 1960 that the UK made a huge mistake in destroying itself and its empire by starting World War II. He said Britain should have remained neutral and allowed Hitler a free hand against the USSR. (LoweRobinson (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Not the point. We NEED (shouting intended) a reliable, secondary, source that uses the exact wording Pyrrhic victory in this exact context, before we can continue this discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, there's no way that Churchill would have said what LoweRobinson is attributing to him, along with an insane claim that the UK started the war. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Arnoutf: Your second interpretation where you state "In the Oxford a Pyrrhic victory is more broadly defined as "a victory won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor"" doesn't nesecarily mean that the war must have been won for Germany. It simply states that the losses suffered by a winning party (or even a part of them) has lost more than they otherwise would have if they didn't participate. And next to that, how do you measure such thing anyway? I would say, purely looking at the total deathtoll, the victory was indeed pyrrhic, certainly for US, because even with the Pearl Harbor event, US inlands was never attacked and would likely not have happened anyway. Also, as the points made above, France and Britain were heavily degraded as a worldpower. France and Britian also suffered severe economic damage with half their countries destroyed.

In conclusion, I see your point that most likely the war would not have been gone otherwise looking at the two sides which were fighting. and for these 'factions' the war may not be pyrrhic. But looking at certain countries individually, I'm not so sure. Also, I'm thinking that finding some reliables sources about this is going to be nearly impossible, because nobody will ever admit that it may have been more pyrrhic than they'd like. even now, 70 years later. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maps

Reverted an edit that included maps of Colonies after WWII and Division of Czechoslovakia. The colonies map is a bit out of place, the war did not cause the loss of the colonial empires, this occurred in the 1960s, so the war itself did not have a great impact on colonial politics, to include the map in the Aftermath section is a bit premature for the events it tries to address. As for the Divisions of Czechoslovakia, it's a legitimate fit, but since we have an image of the Munich conference the item is highlighted in the section already. Lets avoid excessive mapping, we can add a map for everything — annexations of Austria, partition of Poland, invasion of Finland, annexation of the Baltic states and so on… --E-960 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding to this edit [1]... Czechoslovakia was actually the first real victim of Nazi German aggression (the vast majority of Austrians welcomed the Anschluss). Its territory was divided among Germany, Hungary, Poland and the puppet Slovak state. The map shows two waves of annexations (1938–1939).

The Japanese victories over the Western powers in Asia between 1941 and 1943 (and German victories in Europe and North Africa) showed Indians, Indonesians, Vietnamese, Burmese, Arabs and other colonized nations that the colonial powers were not invincible. War had done terrible damage to their prestige. World War II left colonial powers like Britain, France and Netherlands weakened, unable to sustain their empires. ... Vietnam declared independence under Ho Chi Minh in 1945, but France continued to rule until its 1954 defeat. Indonesia under Sukarno fought a war of independence from the Netherlands from 1945 to 1949. There was a rapid wave of decolonization in the two decades following World War II.

Dates of independence of Asian and African countries: Philippines (1946), Syria (1946), Jordan (1946), India (1947), Pakistan (1947), Burma (1948), Ceylon (1948), Laos (1949), Indonesia (1949), Eritrea (1951), Libya (1951), Cambodia (1953), Vietnam (1954), Sudan (1956), Morocco (1956), Tunisia (1956), Ghana (1957), Malaysia (1957), Guinea (1958) ... -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, after WWII European powers did began to lose grip on their colonies, but the bulk of the breakaways happened in the 1960s. Generally, it is the Suez Crisis which marks the fall of the British and French colonial power. "The Suez crisis is widely believed to have contributed significantly to Britain's decline as a world power." [2]. As for the Division of Czechoslovakia, it's a legitimate item, but do we really need that map in a crowded section, If anything you could add a map of the partition of Poland this is when the "shooting" war started in Europe. My recommendation is not to over do it with the maps. --E-960 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, one more thing, I think that the one map that should be added to the page is for the North Africa Campaign, we have maps for the war in Europe and Asia, but nothing that shows the fighting in North Africa. --E-960 (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

While after WWII the European began to lose their grip power, the two great power nation United States and Soviet Union appeared to engage an gobal Cold War until the year 1990-1991 the Soviet Union have finally disintegration and became now the country of Russia. SA 13 Bro (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Suez Crisis did not contribute at all to the decline of Britain and France. That had already happened during World War II. (LoweRobinson (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Actually the decline had already started much earlier. Clear examples of the decline of Britain are Irish independence (1922), unrest in India under Ghandi (from 1915 onwards). In other words, the European power began to lose their grip way before WWII. The process was probably sped up by WWII but it began well before and ended well after that war; so no need to include that story here. Arnoutf (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ireland wasn't fully independent until 1949. Gandhi's non-violent campaign had little effect until the 1930s and probably delayed Indian independence. (92.15.198.4 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC))

"the war did not cause the loss of the colonial empires". Depends on which empires you are counting. The Japanese colonial empire was completely gone by 1945. The Italian Empire lost most of its territories due to the War, with only what became the Trust Territory of Somaliland continuing to have Italian colonial presence until 1960.

"the war itself did not have a great impact on colonial politics". I hope you are joking. French Indochina, at least, was destabilized due to the War. The First Indochina War (1946-1954) is largely a continuation of World War II divisions. That is certainly impact. Dimadick (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Dates of independence of Asian and African countries: Philippines (1946)". I would not count the Philippines as an example of a country gaining independence due to World War II. Decolonization of the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands (an American colonial administration) started with the Tydings–McDuffie Act of 1934, the Commonwealth of the Philippines was established in 1935, and the Americans promised full independence of the Philippines by 1945 or 1946. The War is actually considered to have delayed independence. Dimadick (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Summing this all up. There seem to be opinions that the war sped up, delayed, or hardly impacted allied decolonization. We can come up with many repetitions of above ideas, examples and similar but in my view, this is the time where we should either let it rest as something outside the main topic of this article, or bring in modern mainstream historians who explicitly discuss these positions. Arnoutf (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

World War II destroyed the UK and France as world powers, and massively sped up/caused the end of their colonial empires. (92.15.198.4 (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC))

Did you even read my comment above before making this remark? Arnoutf (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The US doesn't count here - it only had one overseas colony, which had already been promised full independence before the war. Britain and France were both destroyed economically and militarily as a direct result of WW2. (92.15.198.4 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC))

Are you trying to make any relevant point that adds something new (in which case, clearly state your new insight in a relevant (to improving the article), comprehensive and comprehensible way and backed by mainstream modern historians, instead of putting in unconnected unsupported sentences that do not follow the thread), or are you just not listening to any of the other editors? Arnoutf (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If we as Wikians want to be precise, then maybe line up the story with an article about exactly this point?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization , and another one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire , I haven't read through all yet, but it should provide some handling in the issue at hand. At the very least it should provide some insight in wether the world war(s) caused the loss (not the decline, but definitive loss) or if they had already lost the grip and the loss was inevitable.

Pearl Harbor attack during World War Two

Why Japanese Fascist want to make an perfect surprise attack in Hawaii during World War Two??? SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't a surprise attack. (LoweRobinson (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

France, Charles de Gaulle Main Allied Power

France is currently not under the Main Allied Leaders section on the right hand column. I would argue that due to its inclusion in the United Nations as a veto power holding, permanant member of the Security Council, and the fact that it had regional influence zones in Germany and Austria after the war was over; it was and still should be considered a main Allied Power with General Charles de Gaulle labelled as its main commander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD9A:7340:40B9:BC9D:29B0:CE72 (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

There have been several discussions on the importance of France and de Gaulle, and how they should be treated in this article. Have you read the archives to see whether and how your concerns have been addressed? Dhtwiki (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Britain clarification

The official start date for the Battle of Britain is 10 July 1940, when the Kanalkampf intensified, operating under directions for a blockade, not August as shown. During the battle air superiority became the main aim in hope that bombing could defeat Britain: it was also a precondition for the conditionally planned Operation Sealion invasion which was more a political counter than a credible invasion plan. Multiple sources support that, but the existing text is either outdated or wrong. It also gives extraordinary prominence to a little known speech by Halifax, when Churchill's This was their finest hour was the most famous of that period.

This is the existing text:

On 19 July, Hitler again publicly offered to end the war, saying he had no desire to destroy the British Empire. The United Kingdom rejected this, with Lord Halifax responding "there was in his speech no suggestion that peace must be based on justice, no word of recognition that the other nations of Europe had any right to self‑determination ..." Following this, Germany began an air superiority campaign over the United Kingdom (the Battle of Britain) to prepare for an invasion. The campaign failed, and the invasion plans were cancelled by September. Frustrated, and in part in response to repeated British air raids against Berlin, Germany began a strategic bombing offensive against British cities known as the Blitz. However, the air attacks largely failed to disrupt the British war effort.

Here's a concise proposal, citing sources already in the references list:

What Churchill had already called the Battle of Britain began in early July with Luftwaffe attacks on shipping and harbours. On 19 July, Hitler again publicly offered to end the war, saying he had no desire to destroy the British Empire. The United Kingdom rejected this ultimatum. In August, the German air superiority campaign failed to defeat RAF Fighter Command, and a proposed invasion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September. The German strategic bombing offensive intensified as night attacks on London and other cities in the Blitz, but largely failed to disrupt the British war effort.

That keeps mention of Hitler's "appeal to reason" speech which had been drafted by von Ribbentrop as a peace offer, but by the time Hitler made the speech he'd decided on preparations for Operation Sealion and it came over as an ultimatum. Not so well known, and we could perhaps trim that if space is at a premium. . . dave souza, talk 01:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That new wording looks good to me (the current first para is of little value), but I'd suggest trimming "What Churchill had already called" from the start of the new para as the history of the term "Battle of Britain" isn't really necessary. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a considerable improvement to me. Good work. I would agree with Nick-D re "...had already...". Can I suggest adding "In August and September [or and early September] the German air superiority...". This is both more accurate (IMO) and addresses the question which would arise from the proposed revision as it stands - if the Germans failed to defeat to the RAF in August, why did it take them until the second half of September to act on this. In fact they hoped right up to 15 September - realistically or not - that air superiority might be established. (Obviously I can supply references but I am hoping that this is common ground.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, have boldly edited this in with modifications to address these points, as below. I think saying the air superiority campaign started in August leaves it open as when it failed. Hope that's ok, will be glad to see any further improvements deemed necessary. . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Battle of Britain began in early July with Luftwaffe attacks on shipping and harbours. On 19 July, Hitler again publicly offered to end the war, saying he had no desire to destroy the British Empire. The United Kingdom rejected this ultimatum. The main German air superiority campaign started in August but failed to defeat RAF Fighter Command, and a proposed invasion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September. The German strategic bombing offensive intensified as night attacks on London and other cities in the Blitz, but largely failed to disrupt the British war effort.

References

Antonescu

Hello, I have a proposal: How about you also put Marshal Ion Antonescu in the Axis leaders category? I mean, if you put the top 4 Allied leaders, you got to put the Top 4 Axis leaders too, right? And as far as I know, Antonescu was the leader of the 4th most important Axis country, and the third most important in Europe. That empty space below Mussolini just begs to be filled, and Antonescu is the most plausible candidate for that.

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The actual contribution of Romania to axis war effort seems to have been largely limited to the ill fated Stalingrad siege. Neither before, after, nor politically did Romania play a major role. So I see no reason to add Romanian leaders. (NB after considerable discussion it was decided not to add France, which (under the Gaulle) had an important contribution to allied success (at least politically).

Also note that sometimes the world is just asymmetrical - and the current list reflects that - so I do not see any empty spaces begging to be filled. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. We went to Crimea, and to the Caucasus. Don't group us with the Hungarians and the Italians, who simply stopped at Stalingrad. Unlike them, we went all the way! We played an important part in the Capture of Sevastopol and the overall fighting in the Crimea. When the Romanian 2nd Mountain Division occupied Nalchik in the Caucasus, was the most Eastern point reached by the Axis, at that moment at least. How is that not something major? Or us supplying over a third of the total Axis fuel, how is that not something major? Or us contributing a force larger than all Germany's allies combined, how is that not something major? Or German troops being under nominal Romanian command (the 11th Army under Antonescu as part of Army Group Antonescu at the start of Barbarossa and the 6th Army under Dumitrescu as part of Army Group Dumitrescu from April to August 1944. Check the list of Army Gropus if you don't believe me.). Also out of the 43 foreigners who were awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, 18 were Romanians, and only 8 Italians! That means that our command was much better, at least according to the Germans. There was also the siege of Odessa. The only Soviet Hero City, and one of the original 4, that was captured by mainly a non-German Axis force, another major thing! It is understandable that you did not add France, since France did next to nothing compared to Romania. I dare say that not even Italy did as much as we did, and yet they still got a place among the commanders! It is a common mistake that, in a conflict, more credit to be inherently given to the Great Powers, even if there are non-Great Powers that had a greater impact. Think at Romania in the context of World War 2, not in the general, stereotypical context. I just gave you 6 strong reasons for us to be considered as playing a major role. And that was just scratching the surface. If you don't want to understand, and don't want to put the Romanian leader in his rightful, well deserved place, then I'm sorry, but you're just biased.

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The Italians acted in the African and European theatres of War during many operations; as did the Free French under the Gaulle. The Romanians seem to have been only heavily involved in operation Barbarossa (where much of their military power was lost). Also the Italians and French had some political power in global negotiations.

So unless you can bring up other operations besides Barbarossa with major Romanian forces involved (outside Europe), as well as major political influence on the global development of the war, I do not see how the Romanians were a major Axis power (both military (only during one operation) and global political (no evidence of that at all), during most of the war (since their involved started late and effectively ended with the losses during Barbarossa) Arnoutf (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The Italians often had massive casualties when fighting others. Hell, they made us seem like proffessional fighters! And give me a brake with political power, I'm talking about real merits here, as in action in the field, real, concrete stuff. And what you mean by "single operation"? We fought in Barbarossa, Case Blue, Stalingrad and subsequent Operations: (Crimean Offensive, Dneipr Carpathian Offensive and the 2 Jassy Kishinev Offensives). And we had 2 separate Armies with their own command, we were not attachments. Italy ceased it's fighting in the East in 1943 while we continued until 1944. Yes, they also had troops in Africa, but they were mostly under direct German command and as I said before didn't fare well enough to make Italy deserve the name of "major power". I don't say we fared better, oh wait, we did! The much greater number of German decorations for Romania proves it! But let's talk a bit about Antonescu himself, because he's that deserves to be there. Well, to begin with, he was the only foreigner that Hitler consulted on military matters (From this point of view alone we should be on top of Italy!) and was also the very first foreigner to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (Not that potato-head Mussolini, another clear example of Romania under Antonescu being a major Axis Power!). Finally, you want to go to the politics huh? Well, after the invasion of Yugoslavia, Hitler wanted to give the Serbian Banat to Hungary. But Antonescu opposed and told Hitler to keep the Hungarian Army out of the Banat. And guess what? Hitler complied! Look, it doesn't matter that Hitler was the ruler of Germany and Antonescu was ruler of Romania. Their relationship was based first and above all on military virtue, and by that virtue, a flimsy Corporal like Hitler must obey a proven General like Antonescu. Plus that Antonescu is the Axis leader that met Hitler for the most times. As in yeah, more than Mussolini! Just please, give him and my country the place they deserve! I don't think I'm asking for too much, or for something that isn't normal.

Romania had very little influence on the Axis war strategy. We don't need to list Antonescu to create some kind of false balance: the Allies had the "big four", and the Axis didn't. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what really bothers me? That some time ago, not only Antonescu, bu also Hungary's Horthy was among the Axis leaders! You could have added de Gaulle on the allied list and make much more people happy! But no, making things as simple and stereotypical as possible and disregarding the efforts of others was much more important than making more people happy! You just HAD to be ignorant assholes and delete Antonescu and Horthy, didn't you? And what do you mean by "very little influence"? It is because Romania that Hitler took Crimea, so our oil fields he relied on so much would not be in danger! You say we didn't have major influence? Well after we defected on 23 August, the war was shortened by as much as 6 months! In what universe does that not translate as major influence? In what universe?

Please, stop this non sense. Romanian-and-proud, instead of trying to convince some editors, you should find in current historiography, and show us, the source of your assertions, that is some historian placing Antonescu and Horthy among the Axis leaders. Carlotm (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense?...Wow, do you have any idea just how hypocritical you sound right now? Everything that I said, all of my sources, come from the Wiki itself. I used in my arguments only what I found on the Wiki articles, and I can give you a list of those articles if you don't believe me. You don't trust the Wiki sources? Well no wonder, as long as the Wiki is run by ignorant, stereotypical people that refuse to give other countries the place they deserve, and stereotypically put the Great Powers above them, even if they don't deserve it. But I guess it's useless to continue this though, I obviously can't get you to think outside the box, so I'll just leave it like that. But it's sad, you people need to change, to open up...Meanwhile, I will never doubt the place of my country. I know who we are, what we did and what we deserve, and I will never cease to defend what rightfully is Romania's. LONG LIVE THE GREAT ROMANIA!

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Romanian-and-proud you are violating about everything in a number of central Wikipedia policies. Notably assume good faith, civility, neutral point of view and possibly conflict of interest the latter two strongly suggested by the ending shouted statement in your last post. Such behavior undermines, rather than strengthens the content of your posts and may even lead to sanctions. So stop that.

Content wise. I think Carlotm is a bit overly limited in their definition of leader. Yes Antonescu was an Axis leader. On the other hand, Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg was an allied leader (as were Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and Leopold III of Belgium). Nobody suggests to add those. Some time ago we agreed to add only the most important leaders, those who, by today's mainstream historians are considered the key leaders. This is exactly the type of editorial decisions that Wikipedia MUST make to be a relevant tertiary source.

If you think Antonescu should be added, it is up to you to provide evidence that mainstream historian consensus list him as one the four Axis powers. If you cannot provide such evidence, you will not change current consensus and you should stop wasting everybody's time. Arnoutf (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Most "mainstream historians" are American, trying to get something from them that is not related to a Great Power is like trying to get fresh water from the Dead Sea. I just gave you enough reasons, if you actually bothered to read, for any reasonable, rational person to consider Antonescu as a main leader. Therefore, I consider that I did my part and now it's only up to you to understand. And all of those reasons, I took them from Wiki articles that I did not edit in any way, so if all those articles were according to "mainstream historians", then I see absolutely no problem, no reason to not add Antonescu. If not, then you are an immense hypocrite, because you ask me to provide for an article what maybe is not provided for all the articles I used as a source: Operation Munchen (Army Group Antonescu), Siege of Odessa and Hero City, Crimean Campaign Siege of Sevastopol, Case Blue, Nalchik, Crimean Offensive, Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive, Jassy-Kishinev Offensive (Army Group Dumitrescu), List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and obviously, Ion Antonescu, and many others. Look, I more than did my part, now it's time for you to do yours. And that's my final word on it. It's the National Day of my country, I got to watch the parade and feel good. Now goodbye to you.

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank for that flat out refusal to conform to one of the most central of all Wikipedia policies: WP:RS. You did your part and have not provided a single argument that passes the quality criteria of Wikipedia. I think we can close this as a clear case of no-consensus for change. Arnoutf (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Juan Riley (talk) I just gave you TWO, not one, but TWO historians that say Romania, and by implication Antonescu, had a major role! Why can't you just leave him alone, let him have the place he deserves? I never saw ONE source for Mussolini, yet I put TWO for Antonescu! Moreover, he's one of the 4 main Axis leaders who's name appears in the article itself! And in the same sentence, it says that Romania made a MAJOR contribution! MAJOR! Why you imply that I am at fault for doing what's normal, why you are against my country and it's leader get what they deserve? Why?

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't edit Wikipedia on the basis of nationalistic views. Please stop edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think my message was not clearly understood. I will repeat myself again, and this time, I will do it calmly and as explicitly as possible. I stated the fact that Antonescu was a major leader and expect him to be treated as such, first and above all because of Wiki. I knew about him, before researching the Wiki, but I had no idea he did so much, that my country did so much! I resent the fact that you refuse to include him in the "Main Aixs leaders" category because there is absolutely no reason not to. At first, I tried to give you the 10+ Wiki articles that led me to believe he was one of the main ones. But you ignored everything and told me to come with quotes from historians. I did just that, and you STILL refuse to give him and my country his rightful place. Why? I did exactly as you said, you DO realize that that's hypocrisy, and is totally counter-productive to the article, right? Anyways, I did start to research, and found out British Historian Dennis Deletant. He describes Romania's contribution to the war as that of "a principal ally of Germany", as opposed to a "minor Axis satellite." another British historian, whom you quoted several times, Gerhard Weinberg, states in page 531 of his book, "A World At Arms" that "Romania was always treated as a major ally by Hitler". Yes, a mainstream historian as you requested and that you yourselves quoted several times in the article, used the word "major" to refer to Romania as an Axis member. And to top it all, there is a line, in the article itself, that says that "Romania would made a major contribution", emphasis on "major"! So again...what any more evidence do you need? I insist that you give me one good reason, considering all what I said in this paragraph, that Antonescu should not be considered a major ally. Nick-D, what do you mean by "nationalistic"? These 2 historians are by no means Romanian, they're British. They said Antonescu was a major leader, Hitler treated him like a major leader, why can't you do the same?

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Well for a start we are not Hitler (thank Gd) and we are not two British historians. We are all volunteers with some knowledge of the subject. You are falling into the trap of WP:UNDUE, which is a fallacy based on an attempt to posit a major point on a minority view of sources, or indeed a minority view. Now I have not seen Romania up there as a major Axis power in sources, because she did not have the capacity to fight major independent campaigns by air, land and sea, as opposed to Italy and Japan. Whether Italy often got kicked is irrelevant. She had the power projection. Romania provided much cannon-fodder in 1941-42 and was militarily broken thereafter. She was basically an oil and blood bank for Hitler. The "Hitler was always treated as a major ally by Hitler" quote does not make Romania a major power. Hitler often had funny ideas, as we all know. I would like to see the quote in its full context. I hope that clarifies some points. Irondome (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well...I do admit that maybe I wasn't aware of all aspects. Still though, the main reason I want Romania to be call a Major power...is because I had enough to see us being called a minor! Sure, I guess you're right, we may have not been good enough to be called a major player, but STILL, we did WAY too much for us to be called minor! We were the only German allies that in the East, went all the way! The Hungarians and Italians stopped at Stalingrad, we went all the way to the Caucasus and also Crimea. Italy and Hungary were the first to fall, we resisted with the Russians on our land for months! There's also the fact that we commited more troops against USSR than all other German allies combined! You don't need to call us a major player, but for God's sake, don't call us minor either! We clearly did much more than the rest of the minor ones, and deserve better than that. Can't you just call us midway or something? I never liked this "minor" and "major" bipolarity, it only makes people look lazy, ignorant, and careless... :(

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. I think the tone of your response indicates that you will be a useful colleague, when you learn the ropes, as we all did, and do..now, this problem has come up in varying ways many times before. How about the status of Hungary, or Croatia as axis allies? Note that Australia is also not on the Allies' list, but no one in their right mind would doubt the huge contribution that Aus made. Just being on that list does not presuppose a great story, and great sacrifice is absent. I think you should help out with Romanian articles, but FFS bear in mind WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:EDITWAR. And join MILHIST which will enhance your credibility. All newbies get this treatment at first. I sense you will do ok. Don't push the Romanian POV too hard either. You can be proud, and still maintain strong WP:NPOV. Please read the links I have given you. It will seriously help you out here. Irondome (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou...And I did modify a few articles. In Operation Uranus, for instance, there were only German commanders listed, but it was the Romanian Army that took the brunt of the offensive, and having no commander seemed unfair to me, so I made things right. Also, in the Kerch–Eltigen Operation, the result was labeled as "German defensive victory", that despite the active and significant contribution of Romanian troops. So I changed "German" to "Axis", to be just and fair to everyone. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Greece at war with the Axis

Greece entered WWII in October 28th 1940, and was fighting the Axis until its capture by German forces in late April 1941. Since Greece was an ally of the UK, the following passage in the lead is incorrect:

For a year starting in late June 1940, the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth were the only Allied forces continuing the fight against the European Axis powers (...)

Nxavar (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know Greece was neutral until October 1940. So it would be a few months indeed; and Yugoslavia joined the allies after being invaded in April 1941. I guess the June 1941 allied entry would be Soviet Union.

We might perhaps rephrase as "For a year starting in late June 1940, the United Kingdom was the only Allied great power continuing the fight against the European Axis powers" or "From late June 1940 until the Soviet Union entry in the war, the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth were the main Allied powers continuing the fight against the European Axis powers" Arnoutf (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Greece was a UK ally before entering the war. Saying that Greece was not a "main Allied power" is a bit biased. Greece held back the Italian invading forces for 5 and a half months. Because the situation was rather complicated, I believe it is a good idea to remove that passage altogether. Nxavar (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What about this:

For a year starting in late June 1940, the United Kingdom (........) as well as the long-running Battle of the Atlantic. However the war was spreading in the Balkans where the Germans decided to strengthen their positions ahead of Barbarossa and as a patch-up of the ill organized invasion of Greece by Mussolini Italy; hence Yugoslavia and Greece were heavily involved on the side of the Allied powers, having to defend their territory from overwhelming German forces, without success.

Carlotm (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

a) The edit preserves the wrong claim that is already in the lead. A good alternative should not contain false information. The problematic passage is not just inaccurate, in which case adding a clarification is an improvement. Greece must be included in the list of countries fighting the Axis in Europe in that period.

b) The edit does not say when Greece got involved in the conflict. The clarification is inadequate. Nxavar (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we try

The United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth continued the fight against the European Axis powers in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, the aerial Battle of Britain and the Blitz bombing campaign, as well as the long-running Battle of the Atlantic. Early 1941 Axis forces conquered most of the allied Balkan countries. In June 1941, the European Axis powers launched an invasion of the Soviet Union, opening the largest land theatre of war in history, which trapped the major part of the Axis' military forces into a war of attrition. (...)

The Balkan campaign hyperlink provides the dates for Greece, Albania and Yugoslavia. Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This is very good. The only problem is that "early 1941" must be changed to "mid 1941" (the Germans invaded Greece in April 1941). Nxavar (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy with any suggestion for the early phrase. Perhaps "Between April and June 1941 Axis forces conquered..." Arnoutf (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to mention China was the only country fighting with the Asian Axis power Japan in that period as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6b45:500:9978:3dfe:1cd6:a513

@Arnoutf: No problem with that. Nxavar (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to implement the agreed changes. If the non-signing editor wants to discuss China status, I would suggest they start a new thread with a clear proposal how to adjust the text. Arnoutf (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nxavar: @Arnoutf: I'm the previous non-signing editor. My ip address is too long (2604:2000:6b45:500:9978:3dfe:1cd6:a513). I suggest to mention China was the only country fighting with the Asian Axis power Japan in that period as well but I don't have a clear proposal how to adjust.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6b45:500:9978:3dfe:1cd6:a513

With Arnoutf's edit, no mention is made about someone fighting the Axis forces alone at some point. This had some sense when the list was (erroneously) short. I don't think this is appropriate anymore, because the lead should be short and making detailed accounts of secondary facts is discouraged. Nxavar (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nxavar: I mean I just propose a simple mention the fact that the war between Japan and China was still continued in that time. I never asked for a detailed accounts. It just needs a short sentence or even just some words (5 or 6 words). However, this is just my suggestion. I don't have the right to determine which is primary or secondary. By previous non-signing editor

Since the information is false, it must be removed immediately. I made a stop-gap edit. Nxavar (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The addition of war generals under Allied and Axis leaders

Because generals in WWII were the ones commanding infantry, it might be desirable to add these generals to the infobox along with the heads of state of governments involved in the war. This would be useful for students researching WWII. Should we add them? The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so - very large numbers would need to be added, and this wouldn't be helpful to readers. The political leaders were the key figures in the governments of the countries. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Please start with adding the essential generals Henri Winkelman and Godfried van Voorst tot Voorst ;-)

But no kidding, the list would be incredibly long even if we limited ourselves to four star generals (such as aforementioned Winkelman) who generally did NOT command infantry but considerably larger units (i.e. an army). Arnoutf (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D: We would only add the most substantial and notable generals like Dwight D. Eisenhower, Georgy Zhukov, and Erwin Rommel. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

And who would decide who are substantial and notable generals. Henri Winkelman was commander in chief of all armed forces of a country so definitely notable and substantial, in fact (arguably) a more substantial general than either, Zhukov, Rommel, Eisenhower or Montgomery who never were commander in chief of all armed forces of a country (during WWII).

And no, of course Winkelman should not be listed, the example illustrates the potentially endless POV discussions we would get into if we go this way. Arnoutf (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Should be limited to basically heads of state. Separate articles can list for battles or theaters the generals. Juan Riley (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hideki Tojo

I tried adding him to the list of main Axis leaders but it was reverted and I was told to start a discussion here. I think he should be added because he was responsible for most Japanese military operations including Pearl Harbor which started the war between the US and Japan in the first place. He was also the one convicted of war crimes after the war instead of Hirohito. Hirohito should also be kept in the list, but I feel Tojo should also be added too. What do you think? The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs)

• My understanding is that Hirohito is generally regarded by modern historians as having been the key figure in the Japanese government throughout the war - he's no longer regarded as having been a figurehead, and it's well known that he only escaped prosecution at the end of the war as the Allies were worried that doing so would lead to widespread unrest. The consensus from previous discussions has been to add the most important leader for the major combatants, and I think that's Hirohito. Tojo was certainly significant, but not as much as Hirohito was - especially as he resigned a bit over a year before the end of the conflict. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm also deem that Hirohito Emperor Shōwa are the most war crimes than other Japanese fascism, Hideki Tojo was just one of the 14 war criminals that imitability the emperor's political system leader, his privileges rule was in spite of dominated by emperor. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

See also is in need of attention

The see also page is in need of attention. It misses a lot of key links. I think what we're shooting for in it is a list of links to sites that cover World War II, not just articles (except for Wikipedia articles). Fisch1234 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Which ones do you suggest? On this topic, I'd suggest deleting the (very partial) list of documentaries as there are many hundreds of them, and including a link to the List of World War II documentary films article would be much superior in this high-level article. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I like that suggestion; I'll work to implement that today. On the more general sites, should we start a list of sites on world war II article? I'm in school, so reply could take some time (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Repetition

The second last edit by Steverci repeats, in part, facts already exposed a little later. It all should be fused in one location. Moreover Steverci's text uses a term "attacked" that should be restricted, especially in a page like this, to actions strictly military in nature. Carlotm (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. I'll undo it. --Steverci (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

US financiers who helped Nazis

Mention the fact that some rich American robber barons, like Henry Ford, and corporations helped the Nazis before and during WW 1&2: Ferdinand Lundberg "The Rich and the Super Rich" 1968, Bantam Books, page 152; and many books mentioned in Third World Traveler; one is "Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler" by Antony C. Sutton. Pepper9798 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a good idea as it is really a detail compared to the scale of the conflict. Also limiting this to US backers of Nazism introduces bias. Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you. Pepper9798 (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Arnoutf. It is a detail worth of inclusion, since financing is very important for military operations. There is also no issue of "limiting this to the US" since Wikipedia is a work in progress. If some material does not represent a global view of the subject, it is no reason for removal or omission of content, but of need for further research and expansion. Nxavar (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

My point is that this information may be WP:UNDUE in any case and may strengthen already existingWP:Systemic bias if we limit this to the US. So either we add a section on financial backers or we don't, but we simply cannot start by providing biased information first in the hopes it will get better.

While Wikipedia is indeed work in progress; it is not progress to introduce biased views, neither is it progress to keep expanding articles beyond a readable article size (maximum is advised not to be more than 100,000 bytes, WWII is well over 200,000). If anything the current article could do without a lot of the details currently already included. I would argue both approaches would constitue a step backwards i.e. the opposite of progress. Arnoutf (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly right. Any financial support from US countries would pale into total insignificance compared to the financial support from German companies. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Shorter lead

I made some changes (diff) to the lead, particularly the lead paragraph. Nick-D reverted them, pointing out that they were substantial and should be discussed.

About the points raised by Nick-D:

a) "false claim that millions of people were killed by strategic bombing"

This is actually argued (with source) in the restored text

b) "greatly over simplified why Japan surrendered (it wasn't just due to the atomic bombs)"

My edit only mentioned how the situation developed up to that point, and this included that an invasion of Japan was imminent. The lead should concentrate on major factors.

Nxavar (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion Nxavar. I'm in favour of simplifying the lead as well (not to mention the body of the article, which has become a bit lengthy), but I'd suggest that per the precedents for this article substantial changes be agreed here first. Regarding the points, the article currently states that "approximately one million were killed" by bombing, not millions, and I think its better one way or the other to note that multiple factors led to the Japanese surrender than imply that it was just the atomic bombs given the considerable debate over this topic among historians. That said, there was some good stuff in your changes. A way to progress this might be for you to post your proposed text here, and other editors can comment on it and/or tweak it. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for you constructive criticism! The rewritten lead paragraph, for reference:

World War II (WWII or WW2), also known as the Second World War, was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945. It was the most widespread war in history, and directly involved more than 100 million people from over 30 countries, including all of the great powers. It was initiated by the Axis military alliance, which was opposed and eventually defeated by the Allies. It is the deadliest conflict in human history, with in an estimated 50 million to 85 million fatalities. Most of the victims were civilians, with millions dying in strategic bombing of industrial and population centres and the Holocaust.

I have no objection with including the apprximate numbers found in the current version instead of the vague "millions". I propose this sentence:

Most of the victims were civilians, with approximately one million dying in strategic bombing of industrial and population centres and over 10 million the Holocaust.

No objection with mentioning the Soviet invasion of Manchuria either. Nxavar (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the direct comparison of the casualties caused by bombing to the Holocaust at all: the two were very different, and it implies some kind of equivalence between (mostly) Allied actions and those of Nazi Germany. It also excludes the millions of civilian deaths Japan caused, and the deaths from the many other atrocities (for instance, mass starvation in German-occupied Eastern Europe). The current wording also isn't good at all in this respect, but I think that this is a step backwards. I'd suggest changing the last sentence proposed here to: "It was marked by mass deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust (in which approximately 11 million people were killed), other atrocities and the effects of fighting." It's also not really accurate to say that the war "was initiated by the Axis" - it was started by Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia, with both acting separately of their allies. Italy didn't join the European war until May 1940. On reflection, I think that the rest of the current first para is pretty good: my concern really is about the next three paras which are too detailed (especially the second para where lots of countries are name-dropped for no clear reason) and could be compressed into one or two paras. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The UK and France started World War II to preserve their empires. (92.15.198.4 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC))

Choice of pictures

Just a query, but is there a reason why we haven't included a picture of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the article? Regardless of the importance in the Japanese surrender, it is pretty common to claim the use of atomic weapons as one of the most important geopolitical legacies of the conflict. It might also draw attention to the excellent quality articles we seem to have on the bombing and related subjects. —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I am in favor of this yes. While in relation to the total deathtoll the atomic bombs haven't made the greatest impact, it remains being the only use ever for a dedicated nuclear weapon to be used in any war. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Date while adding link

I tried to add a link to this page while editing my user page. It worked, but I would like to notify users that when you add the link to the page, the bubble that says that basic info reads that WW II took place from 1939 - 2019. This is obviously a mistake, so it would be great if it could be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewethanchowtoy (talk • contribs) 01:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't see where that appears in the article (including its hidden text) Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Advancements section

Hello I've now come acros the bit of advancement in technology and warfare section, reading up on the article some bit. And I came acros the "Land Warfare" part. I fell that a part of the story is leut/not properly explained. It was WWO 2 that not only changed the tactical use of tanks, like the modern way to format an armed divison, but also the science on tanks in combination with their roles. May I suggest the following writing?:

Land warfare changed from the static front lines of World War I to increased mobility and combined arms. The tank, which had been used predominantly for infantry support in the First World War, had evolved into the primary weapon. In the late 1930s, tanks were considerably more advanced than it had been during World War I and tank design pushed for standadization of the parts it consisted out of. Technological advances continued throughout the war with increases in speed, armour and firepower, aswell as means to significantly increase production rates.

At the start of the war, most commanders thought enemy tanks should be met by tanks with superior specifications. This idea was challenged by the poor performance of the relatively light early tank guns against armour and Germany's use of combined arms, were among the key elements of their highly successful blitzkrieg tactics across Poland and France.

From 1941 when Russia used the T-34 and KV-1 tanks with great succes against german forces, a race erupted to build the superior tank, including the Panther, Tiger I, IS-3, T-29 and even superheavy classes such as Maus and T-28. However the war ended prematurely causing many designs to never see active service. These constant advances also resulted in many means of non-tank anti-tank weapons, including tank destroyers, indirect artillery, anti-tank guns (both towed and self-propelled), mines, short-ranged infantry antitank weapons. Even with large-scale mechanisation, infantry remained the backbone of all forces, and throughout the war, most infantry were equipped similarly to World War I.

In my view this shows a bit more clearly how tank design and landbased combat was affected because of the war. and to shed a tiny light on some madman ideas (for which Hitler was known to have). If people can agree with this please be so kind an put it in. Thank you. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

While relatively interesting, we should ask ourselves the question whether it is central to the understanding of WWII. The idea of Wikipedia (and in fact all encyclopedias) is that it provides focused concise articles on topics. The conciseness is essential to keep the matter readable. The broader such a topic (like WWII) the less space there is for relatively minor details. Narrower, subtopics, could provide detail and background for the interested reader, where a top level article cannot.

It is for this reason that the it is highly recommended that no single article will have more than about 100,000 characters (see WP:AS). The current article already is more than twice that length (about 225,000). So before suggesting to add another 2,000 characters, we should seriously ask ourself whether we need it (and which 100,000 characters should go first). In my view, the tekst above is too detailled for this article. If we want it, we should probably find another article to put it in. Arnoutf (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand. After I wrote the piece I was also wondering for myself if side-sections like these be included at all. They may come better to their value in a separate article that deals explicitly with effects such as technological advancement in warfare tactics/designs and maybe social/cultural impacts. An article with such callout seems to not yet exist. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)