Talk:World War II

Proposition to add picture depicting the Invasion of Poland to the infobox

Hello everyone. I was wondering if we maybe should include a photography from the Invasion of Poland, ammong the pictures in the infobox. My arguments are: 1. The ealiest photography in the current line up comes from 1942, which means that the first three years of the war are completly ommited. 2. The war had begun with the Invasion of Poland. There are a few pictures depicting the end of the war, maybe there also should be one depicting its begging I am interested in hearing everyone thoughts on this topic. And I understand that picking 6 pictures to condense this enourmos topic, that is arguably the most important war in human history, can't be an easy task. Non the less, I wanted to try bring this idea to everyone's attention. Lastly, thank you for your time, and have a nice day everyone :) Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a particular photo in mind? Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Polish victim of German Luftwaffe action 1939

I suggest this one. Yes, we have discussed this before, but to reiterate:
It is an early event in the war
It demonstrates the impact of war on civilians
It is an iconic photo from WW2. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

How about this one, of Poland invading Czechoslovakia in 1938?

Polish Army capturing Zaolzie in 1938

Meroitte (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Another option is the bombing of Warsaw in 1939

  

  Suggestion by K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  , and replace the dive bomber image, or the nondescript El Alamein image mostly featuring spent shells.

In general, the photo selection in the infobox focuses too much on military hardware and battlefield action, ignoring the fact that the civilian to military death ratio is estimated to be 2:1 to 3:2. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I was originally thinking about maybe File:Schleswig Holstein firing Westerplatte September 1939.jpg, a picture depicting ship Schleswig Holstein firing at Polish positions in Westerplatte, which was the battle that begun the conflict. Alternatively, I thought about adding a picture depicting Polsih soldiers during the conflict. But I also like the proposition with the picture depicting a boy ammong ruins of Warsaw, and the argument about the civilian casualties etc. About which picture to replace. I personally think either picture from El Alamein, as it just depicts a cannon and shels an not any significant momentfrom that battle. Since we are on the topic, I also think that current picture from Stalingrad does not really adds much, as it's just a picture of soldiers running, and arguably, it is of worse quality than other pictures here. However, because of how important that battle was, I would argue that it should be replaced with a better picture from that battle. Additionally, somebody mentioned removing picture with the bomber dive. I personally bellive that some picture depicting aerial conflict should stay, as it was really important part of the war. However, maybe we should pick more minigful picture, perhaps from more important aerial battle, like Battle of England. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the bombing of Warsaw image may be a better fit with the current layout -- vs the aftermath of the air raid from ThoughtIdRetired, which is also a good fit thematically -- since the former is in the landscape format. I am not sure we need another image for the air battles; the bombing of Warsaw is the flip side of the Stuka image, as it show the perspective of those on the receiving end of the air war. --K.e.coffman (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As an argument in favour of the Julien Bryan photo of the girl kneeling over the body of her dead sister, this article, in the lead, says
...estimated 70 to 85 million fatalities, mostly among civilians (bold added)
None of the other six photos currently chosen illustrate this headline statistic about WW2. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Update Stalingrad image?

In re: comment above on the Stalingrad battle, I tend to agree. This may be a better option: File:Фонтан_«Детский_хоровод».jpg.

Aftermath of the battle

It's an iconic WWII photo and is currently being used as the infobox image in the Battle of Stalingrad article.

A more drastic change would be to go with an altogether different image from the German-Soviet war: File:RIAN_archive_543_A_battalion_commander.jpg.

Kombat (photograph), c. 1942

It's even better known than the Stalingrad photo, and has its own article: Kombat (photograph). --K.e.coffman (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Some general principles?

The discussion on the infobox pictures may require some general principles to be considered. I suggest that, given we have just 6 photos to play with, we need a check list of what we want to cover – accepting that this may not be possible in so few pictures.

My own checklist would be (remembering that we need to keep each list as short as possible):

1. Representation of the major participants of the war. I think that has to be: Nazi Germany, British/British Empire, USSR, USA, Japan.
2. Time span of the war. Of the 6 years, is there an excessive concentration on any one year?
3. War in the air, at sea and on land
4. Major zones of conflict: Europe/Russia, Middle East, Far East/Pacific
5. Impact of war – on people, cities, technology, etc.
6. Quality of picture – for instance would the picture editor of a quality pictorial newspaper have selected this picture?

My scoring of the existing infobox selection is, by picture

• Stuka photo: 1 Nazi Germany. 2 could be any date, but actually 1943. 3 Air war. 4 Europe/Russia, but not obviously so. 5 Nil. 6 Not outstanding.
• 25 pounder gun: 1: British/British Empire. 2: 1942, but represents fighting from 13 Sep 1940 to May 1943. 3: Ground war. 4: Middle East. 5: Nothing obvious. 5: Not outstanding.
• Nagasaki atom bomb mushroom cloud 1: USA and Japan. 2: 1945 and representing the end of the war. 3: Air war. 4: Far east/Pacific. 5: A new military technology which was of major concern through the cold war and into current times. 6: Photo is definitely striking, possibly iconic.
• US Navy battleships: 1:USA. 2:1945. 3: War at sea. 4: Far East/Pacific. 5: Shows an obsolescent technology – wouldn't an aircraft carrier be more relevant? 6: Photographically good, but does it meet a picture editor's requirements for relevance?
• Flag over Reichstag: 1: USSR and Nazi Germany. 2: 1945 and a pivotal moment in the ending of the war in Europe 3: Land war 4: Europe/Russia. 5: Possibly suggests the establishment of the Soviet zone of influence and the subsequent cold war? 6: A well known photo that probably qualifies as iconic.
• Battle of Stalingrad: 1: USSR and Nazi Germany. 2: 1942. 3: Land war. 4: Europe/Russia. 5: Urban destruction? 6: Not particularly striking.

So currently we have:

1. Germany 3, USSR 2, USA 2, Britain 1, Japan 1
2. 1945 3, 1942 2, 1943 1 (but that date is not obvious)
3. Ground war 3, air war 2, sea 1
4. Europe/Russia 3, Far East/Pacific 2, Middle East 1
5. Perhaps 3 or 2.5 with relevance - all in terms of technology/future impact of conflict
6. 2 that could be considered iconic. One probably lacks relevance.

My own conclusions on this:
(a) this selection does reasonably well on the scoring system
(b) But all photos are from the second half of the war
(c) Bearing in mind the iconic nature of some photos of WW2, we seem to be light on pictures of that striking quality.

To strike a partisan note, the picture of the Polish girl kneeling over the body of her sister would gain points on: being in 1939, showing the impact of war on civilians and being an iconic photo of WW2. It is also relevant to the air war, and you could even, at a stretch, label it as a war crime in that it involved the deliberate targeting of civilians at a point when the concept of total war had not been accepted.

The battleships photo seems to need replacement. The only battleship to battleship action happened in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean and even there, aircraft showed the obsolescence of the type. Surely there is a striking picture out there of an aircraft carrier, perhaps landing on battle-damaged aircraft, or being struck by a kamikaze aircraft. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the battleship image is out of place. An image of a carrier, or of a destroyer escort or liberty ship, which were also large naval craft peculiar to that war, would be more appropriate. I don't see the images being offered above as suitable replacements for the those in the current montage. The images of civilian suffering don't show anything particularly specific to that war, and several of the infobox images imply such suffering, such as those of the atomic bomb, Stuka dive bombers, raising the Soviet flag over Berlin, and the Stalingrad photo, which I think implies that suffering, as well as the troops in winter gear demonstrating the range of conditions under which the war was fought. By the shell casings, the image of the desert artillery implies the enormous logistical requirements of that war. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The battleship image is one of the most famous photos of warships in World War II though. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Is the battleship photo famous because it shows the closing days of battleship relevance? As far as I am aware, none of these battleships engaged in the type of battleship to battleship action for which they were designed. (There were other battleships in WW2 that arguably did.) To be a bit of a wiki-lawyer, do you have a source that says it is "one of the most famous photos of warships in World War II"?
There is not a single photo of an aircraft carrier in the whole article. Bearing in mind the significance of this type of vessel, that seems to be a huge omission. Everything from Malta convoys, the Battle of Midway (and much of the Pacific War) and suppression of U-boats had carriers integral to the operations.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There is (kind of) an image of Lexington (carrier) at the start of the "Allies gain momentum (1943–1944)" section. Very hazy on the horizon. But next to the infobox image and some landing crafts that is the only other photo of a ship altogether (and no photos on sub warfare and Atlantic convoying a critical lifeline during the battle of Britain).

Coming back to your argument - I agree that WWII was the end of battleship doctrine in favour of carriers, but as far as I know battleships were considered the major ships at the start of the war. Also for the infobox you would like to have an image that has strong visual appeal and carriers do to their flat top make less impressive images in my view. So in my view the battleship is not that bad. Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• 
  USS Enterprise (CV-6) hit by kamikaze on 21 May 1945 (80-G-323565)
• 
  USS Saratoga Kamikaze hit 21 February 1945
• 
  Attack on carrier USS Franklin 19 March 1945
• 
  USS Bunker Hill hit by two Kamikazes
• 
  Burning Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat of VF-2 aboard USS Enterprise (CV-6) on 10 November 1943 (80-G-205473)

A half hour's work finding pictures of carriers on Commons. Involvement in warfare is a bit more obvious in most, unlike the battleship photo, which could be a peacetime review. The crashed Hellcat would score on being in an earlier year of the war (1943), as we are a bit over-represented on 1945. A bit more work might find something better.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is an image showing several carriers, including USS Essex and USS Enterprise, in less vulnerable conditions, and it has higher resolution versions (although not very sharp). Dhtwiki (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Noted, but whilst I appreciate that for many who served in WW2, their experience was long periods of boredom interspersed with intense fear, isn't this a picture of military kit not doing anything? What I had hoped to find was a good picture of an aircraft landing on a carrier, but without success so far. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Those images aren't very representative as they depict the occasional Japanese successes against the US Navy during 1945. The US Navy was operating with great effectiveness against the Japanese home islands by this stage of the war. Something like File:Murderers row at Ulithi Atoll - US Third fleet carriers at anchor on 8 December 1944 (80-G-294131).jpg is more representative, and helps illustrate why the Allies won the war at sea. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hence my hope of finding a good picture of, say, an aircraft landing on or taking off from a carrier. Note, however, that of the early aircraft carriers, 1 of 2 Lexington class carriers was sunk, 2 out of 3 of the Yorktown class were sunk; also HMS Courageous, Glorious, Eagle, Hermes, Ark Royal were all lost in action. (I am sure this list in incomplete. Perhaps an expert could tot up the percentage of WW2 carriers that were lost out of those that saw significant action.) The loss of aircraft and crew was also high.
Even the winners of a war take losses, sometimes at a high level. Implying the victors as being without loss is a trivialisation (and particularly painful to generations of war widows). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Carriers lost (all types) in WW2, according to List of sunken aircraft carriers: Japan 22, USA 12, Britain 8. Working out how many were exposed to significant combat risk (as opposed to being used for training or as aircraft ferries, etc.) is a bit more complicated. So total Allied carrier losses very close to Axis carrier losses? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Nick-D's image is the one I was thinking of when I found the one I put above. I think it's somewhat mislabeled, as all five carriers on the right seem to have the same dazzle-paint camouflage. But that's about as famous a naval image as there is. Even better would be one that better shows the American tactic strategy of forward, if not underway, replenishment that allowed American forces to operate at a faster pace than the Japanese. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (edited 22:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC))

Just to add some argument in favour of the picture of the crashed Hellcat, take a look at this narrative[1] (which I am not suggesting is necessarily an RS). What I take from the account is (a) the crash is not the result of combat (b) the pilot "was quick to point out that these types of incidents happened all the time". This illustrates the dangers of carrier flying in WW2. Then add to this that the picture illustrates an act of undoubted bravery for which a medal was awarded - doesn't this measure up well against other picture candidates? What is the purpose of pictures in this article: to show pieces of military equipment, or to illustrate some of the intense moments that affected people during WW2? Whilst this picture is mostly the latter, it also does also show a successful aircraft and a key aircraft type (admittedly, not the Hellcat's best moment, but many were lost this way.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That photo might be representative of danger faced or heroics in response, but it's not a good image from the standpoint of showing just what was going on. For example, the man beside the plane turns out to be climbing up to help the pilot out, not the pilot himself getting out. And, if it were representative of carrier operations in general, the war would have turned out differently. The strongest image is of the listing Franklin, although that image doesn't show how that ship came to be that way. The images of the kamikaze attacks are representative of an innovative tactic of the war, but they are either indistinct or merely show the aftermath of an attack. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2023

please let me edit i saw somthing wrong Reheheheheeheheh (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Tell us what it is and we will do it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Why?

Why shouldn't you use templates? Parham wiki (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This is rather vague, expand? TylerBurden (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean my comment? Parham wiki (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I responded to it, so yes, what templates are you talking about? TylerBurden (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 †   # Parham wiki (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: Parham wiki (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Parham wiki Do you mean for the infobox? I believe such content is generally considered decorative rather than useful, WP:INFOBOXSTYLE has some information on it. TylerBurden (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Thank Parham wiki (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Japanese civilian deaths.

The estimate of Japanese civilian deaths seems low at 550,000… The US burned 100,000 in one night of fire bombing of Tokyo. Plus the direct deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki are right around 80,000 not including those that would die in the days, weeks, months and years to come. Also close to 15,000 civilian deaths on Saipan… With all the other fire bombings I would have anticipated at least 1 million Japanese civilian deaths. 2601:800:8200:3810:6D75:93A:FE4A:E476 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

If you can supply a reliable source for a higher estimate then it can be considered for the article. We need to rely on the consensus of reliable sources, not the figure we anticipate. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"that lasted" vs. "lasting"

@GreatPersonLikeMe and TylerBurden: You seem to have an edit war over whether the opening sentence should be, "World War II ... was a global conflict lasting from ..." or "World War II ... was a global conflict that lasted from ...".

I don't see the difference in wording. Both seem fine to me. I hope you will forgive me for saying that I think you both could make more valuable contributions focusing on other things. Wikipedia needs your positive energy. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree this is largely pointless, but "that lasted" has been long standing and it's not something that needs to be changed. Therefore I'm reverting the change because such subjective edits should be discouraged, especially on an article with hundreds if not thousands of watchers such as this. I do not see why this change is worth trying to brute force through with bogus claims about the MOS. TylerBurden (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Fortifications etc

Hello, please record the fortifications and strength in the article based on the statistics I have obtained:

*Axis*

Total Axis:31,000,000

Germany:18,000,000

Japan:8,000,000

Italy=5,000,000

*Allied*

Total Allied:71,000,000

America:16,000,000

Britain:6,000,000

Seviet Union:35,000,000

China:14,000,000

Germany Poul Ah (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I went through related articles on Wikipedia that are related to World War II

(such as the Pacific War and the European Theater of World War II) I collected Germany Poul Ah (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:or, and Wikipedia is not an wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

And beside which these figures are also wrong, over 16,000,000 Americans served in ww2 (according to this Military history of the United States during World War II according to your source. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I just don't know how many soldiers there were in the British army in the war?! Germany Poul Ah (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Nor (until I told you) how many Americans, as you have now altred your OP .With this admission we can close this. We go by what RS say, not what you think. Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

ok men.what is RS? Germany Poul Ah (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

RS means reliable source. Under policy another Wikipedia article isn’t a reliable source for a different Wikipedia article. The policy is explained here. If you want to detail the military strength of the various combatants you will have to find some reliable sources. It’s likely the sources will differ so you will need to provide ranged estimates and then discuss them here and seek a consensus before they are included in the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

Maybe the Great Depression 212.82.84.162 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)