Talk:World War II
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World War II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This article, World War II, was previously the subject of informal mediation by the Mediation Cabal. The mediation discussion is located here. |
![]() Archives | |
---|---|
Archive Index
| |
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 31 | |
Topical Archives | |
Combatants (8/06 - 12/06) | |
Combatants 2 (1/07 - mid 2/07) | |
Article Length | |
Photos | |
Casus Belli | |
Infobox | |
Start date |
Infobox talk is at Template talk:WW2InfoBox.
- WT:MHSP - special review link
Fighting on all fronts
Yes, military planners work on specific areas of combat operations. It would be nice if these were consistently reflected in their strategic perspective. There is nothing wrong with using named theatres since they were historical frames of reference also. This goes to establishing scope of decisions made by national political, economic and military leaders. If a West European theatre is mentioned, the reader knows its "big". Barbarossa was conducted on four strategic fronts. The Allied counter-offensives in the Pacific on five. This goes to understanding military strategy. Strategy is directed to evince some significant effect for he enemy's attention. The direction is interpreted into planning of campaigns, which are in turn executed as strategic operations. Allied efforts in Italy were directed in one direction only, north, and there was only one campaign, with three separate strategic offensives. On the Eastern Front in 1944 there were four strategic directions, three of which were conducting three campaigns each, with each campaign sometimes including 1-2 simultaneous strategic offensives. This is of course hard to convey when Wikipedia editors insist on calling everything a "battle". Terminology consistency would also be nice. The description of "small French attack into the Saarland" as the Saar Offensive that actually means one by 11 French divisions with a total of roughly 40 divisions available. However the Battle of Gazala is described as an offensive with 8 divisions, and very little left in reserve. The "bitter street fighting" and the "second winter counter-offensive" in and around Stalingrad involved 2-3 Fronts as part fo a strategic offensive that aimed to unhinge two German campaigns!
So, comments please--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- I already pointed out that "strategic offensive operation" is a literal translation form Russian. After Stalingrad they used this name for any major offensive. Of course, the terminology should be uniform, however, as it is English wikipedia, we, probably have to call Kursk, Bagration, Lvov-Sandomierz, Vistula-Oder etc. "battles", or major offensive (similarly to, for instance, Battle of Bulge).
- The term "front" was used by the Soviets only (if I am not wrong). I think, Germans used the name "Army group" for that, although Army Group Center was larger than several Soviet fronts opposing it. In addition to that, one German division was about 3 times as large as one Soviet division, so the situation when 35 Soviet divisions oppose 15 German divisions is in actuality, a numerical parity etc, etc.
As a result, creation of uniform terminology is rather problematic and we can be blamed in doing original research. And I am not sure it is really necessary, because the article cannot be based on raw numbers only.
The situation with Gazala and Saar is a good example for that. "French attack into the Saarland" was really small because, despite of considerable number of troops involved, strategic implication was minimal. Actually, it wasn't a battle at all, because there was almost no resistance. In contrast to that, Gazala was a real battle, and its strategic implication was obvious. Therefore, I would agree with current wording in that concrete case. As regards to Stalingrad, I fully agree, because it is among few real turning point of whole WWII (not only in Europe). However, we can talk about that when we come to "The Tide Turns" (or Successful Allied counter-offensives)--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- "strategic offensive operation" is English for the more amateurish "big attack by the Army". It is not unique to Red Army, however it seems few "historians" have access to, or bother to read Western Allied official documents such as battle reports.
- There is a standard terminology used by the professional soldiers that identifies operational contexts. Neither "battle", nor "major offensive" are among them, both being too ambiguous. Wikipedia is a reference work, and that means the reader should be able to understand what lies behind the terms used. You would not invent new terms to write an article on finance or medicine, so why is military different?
- Front with a capital F is a strategic formation, and is not in general comparable with the German Army Group. To solve the issue of explaining parity, all one needs to do is write an article on the composition of Red Army and Heer rifle and infantry divisions through the war.
- Comparison of Saar and Gazala is valid because raw numbers as you say do not tell the story. One also needs to understand the planning considerations. At Saar there was no real fighting because the German command refused to give it. They had other options to exercise and they did. At Gazala there were no other options (virtually), so fighting was heavy. However, in terms of commitment, which is what wars are all about, Saar was a far larger manifestation of aggressive intent. Neither British nor German commitment to North Africa was all that great. The UK only sent forces after the Battle for France, and a very large number were Commonwealth. Germany sent forces very much later, and only a few divisions. Even Italy failed to really commit.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Montage
The montage suffers from a number of problems:
- It's small. Unless the source images are tiny (and therefore not good candidates for such an important montage), I cannot think of a reason this montage should be so small.
- Contrast and intensity are inconsistent. This is distracting and severely detracts from the appearance.
Needs a thorough going over at the WP:Graphics Lab so that each image is good before it is added to the montage, that they match and that the montage is big. Many other images would also benefit from Lab work. Dhatfield (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The page had a nice montage a year or two back showing the major features of WWII - D-day landing, atomic bombing of nagasaki, Holocaust jews, Soviet Flag over berlin and a nuremberg rally. Does anyone know where that montage went? Sidgalt (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that the image itself somehow disappeared, and was later completely deleted back in May of this year (if you can see the deleted edits, here it is). I'm not sure how that could've happened though. It did cause a good deal of discord among many Eastern European editors, who felt that the D-Day image that was twice the size of the other images was unfairly biased towards the Western Allies. Parsecboy (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the D-Day was a pretty important event plus atleast to me, the montage itself was pretty dramatic - appropriate for WWII. Atleast someone familiar with WWII could at a glance tell what the pictures in the montage meant. But now what you have is pictures of a tank, a ship (or is that a submarine?), a bunch of planes, etc. and you have no idea what it means. I mean every war has ships and planes and tanks but only WWII had the atomic bombing, the Nazis, the Holocaust, etc. Plus now the montage is very unfairly biased against the Western Allies as except for one image, all you have is Soviet, German and Japanese forces. We really need a montage like the one on the WWI page, which shows the basic features of the war rather than a bunch of random facts common to all wars.Sidgalt (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- If some image shows Japanese forces, it is not biased against the US, because, obviously, "carrier borne Japanese aircraft" are prepared to attack US or UK target. Every Japanese picture implies the US and vise versa. It is senceless to speak about a bias to or against a certain country, however, the bias against a certain theatre can take place. I share Overy's point of view that in description of WWII the proirity should be given to Eastern front, then to Western front and Japan/Asia/Pacific sould go after that. Therefore, a present ratio between East - West/Africa - Asia/Pacific looks the most optimal. To my opinion, the Berlin picture is not the best one. The previous picture with red banner over Reichstag was much better. By the way, that prevoius photograph plays the same role for ex-Soviets as famous Ivo Jima picture plays for Americans.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the flag over the Reichstag would be a better photo, but unfortunately, it's been removed from Commons, as it's been determined to not be in the public domain (1). Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I probably don't understand something, but that picture is currently in the Russian Wikipedia article. Does it mean that rules are different for different national wikipedias? --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the flag over the Reichstag would be a better photo, but unfortunately, it's been removed from Commons, as it's been determined to not be in the public domain (1). Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- It might be uploaded under a claim of fair use on the ru.wiki. All I know is that the image was deleted from Commons because the new Russian copyright laws remove it from the public domain, for the time being at least. Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the montage at least needs one picture of American forces. Right now it has 2 pictures of Soviet forces and none of the US. Plus, Japanese planes do not automatically imply US involvement because the Japanese also used planes against China before the US was even in the war. I think a D-Day picture should replace the picture of the Soviets in Berlin; the Berlin picture is not as good as the winter tank picture. Also, the Japanese planes picture should be replaced with the atomic bomb picture, as the atomic bomb was one of the most significant events of the war (ending the war with Japan and ushering in the nuclear age). Perhaps two more pictures can be added, one of French forces and one of German forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.72.33 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- A D-day picture is already present in the article. Taking into account that Eastern Front constituted at least a half of whole WWII (in terms of the scale of battles and Axis and Allies casualties numbers) at least two pictures from Eastern Front must be in the montage. In connection to that I propose to include the famous image of Soviet flag on the Reichstag that seems to be in public domain in Ukraine.
- I agree that the montage at least needs one picture of American forces. Right now it has 2 pictures of Soviet forces and none of the US. Plus, Japanese planes do not automatically imply US involvement because the Japanese also used planes against China before the US was even in the war. I think a D-Day picture should replace the picture of the Soviets in Berlin; the Berlin picture is not as good as the winter tank picture. Also, the Japanese planes picture should be replaced with the atomic bomb picture, as the atomic bomb was one of the most significant events of the war (ending the war with Japan and ushering in the nuclear age). Perhaps two more pictures can be added, one of French forces and one of German forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.72.33 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, but which picture should it replace? --Erikupoeg (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think, since the picture of the Soviets in Berlin is not the best one, it can be replaced with the Red Flag over Reichstag. However, I would propose to wait a little bit, because I am not sure if this photo is really free. We heed to double check.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, but which picture should it replace? --Erikupoeg (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this needed?
"along with twenty-two smaller or exiled governments"
That's just a quote I saw and I just was wondering why we have to refer to every other ally as 'smaller'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.189.68 (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because other allies were really much smaller. In actuality, WWII war primarily the war between UK, US and USSR (and China) and Germany, Italy and Japan. Contribution of other countries was really smaller. It is necessary to remember that, otherwise, a ridiculous situation is possible when students are being taught that "WWII was a war between Australia and Japan".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but how exactly are other countries contributions smaller? That's plain bias right there. You make it sound as if there was six or so countries fighting and the other, oh, I dunno, 28 allies were just laying back and watching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.80.212 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, pointing out that there were only few countries that sustained a major burden of WWII is a plain bias. Did I understand you correct that listing all Allies in the alphabetical order without any mentioning of their relative contribution would be the less biased point of view?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but how exactly are other countries contributions smaller? That's plain bias right there. You make it sound as if there was six or so countries fighting and the other, oh, I dunno, 28 allies were just laying back and watching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.80.212 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The war becomes global, new version.
Here is a preliminary version of the The war becomes global, where I tried to take into account comments of TREKphiler and mrg3105 (comms).
The major drawback of the current version are as follows.
1. Operation Barbarossa, the largest military operation in human history, is represented in such a way that doesn't allow a reader to understand its scale and global strategic implications.
2. The reasons for Barbarossa's ultimate failure are presented in absolutely unsatisfactory manner.
3. Exaggerated attention is payed to some insignificant facts(e.g. climate factors, divisions from Far East, etc), whereas really important things have not been mentioned at all. .
4. Too much space is allotted to diplomatic steps taken and documents signed, whereas this year was a year of fierce battles that ultimately predetermined the outcome of the war.
5. Some linking phrase are redundant.
On June 22, 1941 Germany, along with other European Axis members and Finland, invaded the Soviet Union. The primary objectives of this surprise offensive[1] were the Baltic region, Moscow and Ukraine with an ultimate goal to end campaign of 1941 near the line connecting Caspian and White Seas, that would eliminate the Soviet Union as a military power and enable Germany to defy British blockade and to secure oil and food supplies for years.[2]. Although before the war the Red Army was preparing for a strategic offensive, "Barbarossa"' forced Stavka to adopt a strategic defence. During the summer, Axis made significant gains into Soviet territory, inflicting immense losses in personnel and matériel, however by the middle of August, German OKH decided to suspend the offensive of a considerably depleted Army Group Center, and to divert a part of its armored force to reinforce troops advancing toward central Ukraine and Leningrad[3]. The Kiev offensive was overwhelmingly successful, resulting in encirclement and elimination of four Soviet armies, and made further advance into Crimea and industrially developed Eastern Ukraine possible.
By October, when Axis operational objectives in Ukraine and the Baltic region were achieved, with only Leningrad and Sevastopol resisting in sieges[4] a major offensive against Moscow had been renewed. After two months of fierce battles, the German army almost reached Moscow suburbs, where the exhausted German army was ordered to go on the defensive. Despite impressive territorial gains, no strategic goals of the war had been accomplished: two major Soviet cities hadn’t been captured, Red Army's capability to resist was not broken, and the Soviet Union retained a considerable part of its military potential. The blitzkrieg phase of WWII in Europe had ended.[5]
In mid-December, freshly mobilized reserves [6] allowed the Soviets to achieve numerical parity[7]. This, as well as intelligence data that established a minimal amount of Soviet troops in the East sufficient to prevent Japanese Kwantung Army from the attack[8], allowed the Soviets to launch a massive counter-offensive along 1000 km front, although it was halted soon after Axis troops were pushed 100-250 km west[9][10].
With three quarters of Axis troops deployed on Eastern Front[11][12] the United Kingdom was given an opportunity to regroup.[13] In July, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union formed a military alliance against Germany[14] and shortly after jointly invaded Iran to secure the Persian Corridor and Iran's oilfields.[15] In August, the United Kingdom and the United States jointly issued the Atlantic Charter.[16] In November, Commonwealth forces launched a counter-offensive in the desert, reclaiming all gains the Germans and Italians had made.[17]
Japan, hoping to capitalize on Germany's success in Europe, made several demands, including a steady supply of oil, from the Dutch East Indies; these talks, however, broke down in June.[18] In July, Japan seized military control of southern Indochina since it would not only put her in a better position to coerce the Dutch East Indies into yielding, but it would also be a blow against China; should war be necessary, it also improved their strategic position against the Americans and British.[19] The United States, United Kingdom and other western governments reacted to the seizure of Indochina with a freeze on assets, while the United States (which supplied 80% of Japan's oil[20]) overreacted, placing a complete oil embargo.[21] Thus Japan was essentially forced to choose between withdrawing from Asia, or seizing the oil she needed by force; the Japanese military did not consider the former an option, and many officers considered the oil embargo an unspoken declaration of war.[22]
The Imperial General Headquarters thus planned to create a large perimeter stretching into the Central Pacific in order to facilitate a defensive war while exploiting the resources of Southeast Asia; to prevent intervention while securing the perimeter it was further planned to neutralize the United States Pacific Fleet on the outset.[23] On December 7 Japan attacked British, Dutch and American holdings with near simultaneous offensives against Southeast Asia and the Central Pacific, including an attack on the American naval base of Pearl Harbor.[24]
These attacks prompted the United States, United Kingdom, and other Western Allies joined by China (already a belligerent), to formally declare war on Japan. Italy, Germany, and the other members of the Tripartite Pact responded by declaring war on the United States. In January, the United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union and China, along with twenty-two smaller or exiled governments, issued the Declaration by United Nations, affirming the Atlantic Charter. [25] The Soviet Union did not adhere to the declaration, maintaining a neutrality agreement with Japan[26] and exempting herself from the principle of self-determination.[16]
Meanwhile, by the end of April, 1942, Japan had almost fully conquered Burma, Philippines, Malaya, Dutch East Indies, Singapore,[27] inflicting severe losses on Allied troops and taking a large number of prisoners. They also achieved naval victories in the South China Sea, Java Sea and Indian Ocean[28] and bombed the Allied naval base at Darwin, Australia. The only real success against Japan was a reverse at renewed attack on Changsha in early January, 1942.[29] The easy victories over unprepared opponents left Japan severely overconfident, as well as very overextended.
Germany retained the initiative as well. Exploiting dubious American naval command decisions, the U-boat arm sunk significant resources off the American Atlantic coast.[30] Despite this, an American admiral was placed in charge of more experienced Canadian escort forces, which carried out more of this duty in the Atlantic than the U.S. for the duration of the war. In the desert, the Germans launched an offensive in January, pushing the British back to positions at the Gazala Line by early February,[31] followed by a temporary lull in combat which Germany used to prepare for their upcoming offensives.[32]
Any comments and/or editing are warmly welcomed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Let me see...
- Thanks ever so much, on behalf of every Canadian on WP! (Now that's out of the way, we can get to the real issues... ;D)
- "majority Axis troops tied down on Eastern Front the United Kingdom got an opportunity to regroup." Maybe not what you intended, but that suggests a direct causal link. As I understand Hitler's approach to the desert war, it was more sideshow; if Britain got a break, AFAIK, there were other reasons. (I'd list Brit interdiction of DAK supplies as a higher probability.) Which doesn't exclude my not knowing enough about it & getting it wrong...
- "improved their strategic position against the Americans and British" Absent the source in front of me, that makes me wonder. Involvement in Indochina left her SLOCs vulnerable, if there was war with Brits or Dutch, but not U.S. (absent an attack at Pearl, not yet a given), & drew attention from attacking SU, which wasn't settled in top Japanese command (at that moment, & IIRC), so there's some "presumptiveness". If your source confirms the "improved position" re SLOCs, I can live with the 2d being omitted; it's a bit of a tightrope to tell what happened knowing the outcome & still leave off any presupposition it had to happen that way (which this seems to, a bit).
- "In July, Japan...Pearl Harbor". I'd reorganize a bit. IGHQ wanted to isolate ROC, & Indochina, the "move south", & the attack at Pearl were all, one way or another, in service of that. I'd mention that first, then the "barrier" defense & the theory of holding the "southern resource area" (maybe something about how this needed good ASW, which IJN was incompetent to provide; too much operational detail?), then go to entry to Indochina & the embargo (&, if it was solely up to me, something about how somebody high in FDR's admin goofed by tightening it down too much; I'll have to have a look at my sources to see if I can find where that was raised), then the attacks.
- Delete Darwin; insufficiently significant in the grand scheme of events, IMO.
- Delete ref the Bomb; it's too early for it. (Did I ask for it here? Oops. It should be in, but maybe not in here.)
- Agreed, far too little on SU/EF. I don't think ignoring the geopolitics or the treaties is a solution, tho; at this level of abstraction, it's the moves of govts, not armies, that really pertains.
- It may not be in play yet, but better coverage of the Atlantic is warranted, IMO (& not just to give more credit to RCN, tho they deserve it! =]). As much as I'm interested in the PTO/CBI, a de-emphasis of Japan might be in order, & better coverage of EF is a must.
- Some possible changes?
- "Western Allies, joined by China (already a belligerent), to formally declare war on Japan."
- "Japan, hoping to capitalize on Germany's success in Europe, made demands of the Netherlands (including a steady supply of oil from the Dutch East Indies), Britain (to close the Burma Road), and France (control of French Indochina), with a view to isolating China. When the Dutch refused, Imperial General Headquarters planned to create a large perimeter stretching into the Central Pacific in order to facilitate a defensive war (which depended on commerce defense IJN was incompetent to provide),[33] while exploiting the resources of Southeast Asia involved war with Britain, which IJN (wrongly) believed would inevitably involve the U.S., also.[34] To prevent U.S. intervention in this process, Japan planned to attack the Philippines (to protect the sea lanes south) and neutralize the Pacific Fleet at the outset.[35] Br, Du, & U.S. reacted to the seizure of Indochina with a freeze on assets, while the United States (which supplied 80% of Japan's oil) overreacted, placing a complete oil embargo.[36] Thus Japan was essentially forced to choose between withdrawing from Asia, or seizing the oil she needed by force; the Japanese military did not consider the former an option, and many officers considered the oil embargo an unspoken declaration of war.[37]" Questions: is "80% Japan's oil" confirmed? (IIRC, it's not quite so simple.) Is it worth mentioning, as Toland does (Japan's War, I think), the embargo was much like putting a gun to Japan's head, & no nation would acquiesce under those conditions? Was the attack at Pearl designed to protect "securing the perimeter", or part of the barrier def per se? (I don't recall from Willmott, but they seem interrelated IIRC.)
- "By the end of April 1942, Japan had almost fully conquered Burma, the Philippines, Malaya, Dutch East Indies, & Singapore,[38] and achieved a significant naval victory in the Java Sea.[39] The only real Allied success against Japan was a reverse at Changsha in early January 1942[29] The easy victories over unprepared opponents left Japan severely overconfident, as well as very overextended."
- I'm trying to hit the highlights for Japan, but leave room for expanded SU coverage, without going over a relatively equal length. I don't say that's essential, but if we try to keep it tight, we can't do more than hit the high spots, which is beneficial for coherence; otherwise, we can swamp the reader in detail which properly belongs in the daughter articles.
- I'm not entirely sure deleting sinking PoW/Repulse & Hermes makes sense, since they're usually included in histories of the Pacific War, but...
- Comment? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Starting from the end...
I tried to follow your comments and probably I misunderstood them. To my opinion, Darwin, Prince of Wales, Repulse etc should be in the article, so I would propose to leave the original sentence unchanged. I agree that strategic implication of the former and, probably, the latter wasn't significant, however, it makes sense to live those events in the article because they are recognizable hallmarks for majority readers (provided that it takes not too much space). In addition, Darwin is a direct reference to Australian participation in the war.
I personally don't like too frequent usage of definitions "Allies" and "Axis" instead of concrete country name. I think that the phrase: "the Soviets defeated German, Italian and Romanian troops in Stalingrad" is much more informative than "Allies defeated Axis...". It was not the "raid of Allied commandos on strategic targets", but the British-Canadian raid, and that were not Allied troops pushed back in Egypt, but British troops. Peoples are lazy, and they don't like to click on a hyperlinks.
Regarding to your other comments, I'll try to respond a little bit later. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC) - I agree with most your other comments and I included them into the text. Please check if I did it correctly.
- Diplomacy. I only meant wordy description of the Atlantic Charter etc. sounds ridiculous. The present version tells literally the following: "Germany invaded SU but was pushed slightly back. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The US, along with Eur Allies issued Atlantic Charter and formally declared a war on Axis. The Axis Powers, however, were able to continue their offensives". I think, you agree that however is absolutely stupid.
- As regard to causal link between Eastern Front and the UK. That was exactly what I meant. I looked through old newspapers (July-August 1941) and I concluded that it was a common impression among peoples in 1941 that the whole war had moved East. For instance, the first article I cite states clearly that "Germany's best troops deeply embroiled in Russia", while the second article states the balance in Atlantic and Mediterranean to change dramatically after Hitler invaded the USSR.
Definitely, there is a strong causal link there. This sentence is also needed because it should be stated explicitly that during 1941-1945 more than a half of Axis troops (whole Axis, not only European) fought against SU. That is especially important now, when the articles of that kind started to appear http://online.wsj.com/article/SB111560605185327917.html?mod=todays_us_opinion. I recommend to pay your attention to that:"When America in response entered the world conflagration, the Nazis had already been fighting Britain for 27 months and the Soviet Union for over five -- and seemed days away from knocking the Russians out of the war. The ascendant Reich and its Axis protectorates stretched from the Arctic Circle to the Sahara Desert and from the English Channel to near the suburbs of Moscow, gobbling up more territory in three years than had Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon in their entire bloody careers.
Just three-and-a-half years after America's abrupt entry into the war the Nazis were not merely checked or defeated -- but rather annihilated in one of the most brutal and extraordinary military achievements in history."
The best example of a wrong causal link I ever know. First, those statements are simply factually incorrect: exhausted Germans were ordered to halt on that same day when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. By that moment, the Soviets had already killed more Germans than Americans did by the end of the war. And, even after America entered the war, the most brutal and extraordinary military achievements in history took place generally with minor American participation (El-Alamein (1st and 2nd), Tobruk, Moscow, Stalingrad, Malta, Kursk, Smolensk, Leningrad, Sevastopol, Dnieper, Dieppe, Bagration, Vistula-Oder, Budapest, Praha, Yugoslavia, Berlin etc. Of course, Midway, Guadalcanal, Ivo Jima or Bulge can be credited mostly to Americans, but that is not a reason to deny (much greater) contribution of others.)
The most grievous, that article appeared in respectable Wall Street Journal.
Therefore, it's extremely important to show a real causal links. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)- 80% of Japanese oil. I checked it, that's correct. I also provided the appropriate reference. I think it has already been stated in the article clearly that the US left almost no choice for Japan, so we don't need to make additional emphasis on that. (Otherwise, Japan will look like an innocent lamb, that is not absolutely correct).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Starting from the end...
- "Atlantic Charter" Agreed.
- Repulse et al." I'm split on that one, myself. I don't think they're important enough, but I don't think they're trivial, either. Darwin I think is getting undue weight, tho; I'd rather see mention of Kokoda, RAAF/RNZAF, & Oz Army in DEI toward the end in PTO, plus the Ozzies at Singapore (18h Inf, IIRC) & Tobruk. Those actually amounted to something; Darwin was about as important to Allied strategy as...retaking Kiska. (And the Aleutians ops diverted submarines to no good purpose. And cost two fleet boats! Not to mention about 50 war patrols, enough for at least 200K tons of shipping.)
- "Allies/Axis" No argument; I'm using it for brevity.
- 80%. Good. I've seen the number, just couldn't be sure from memory, or exactly where I saw it.
- "causal link" I won't defend that "U.S. entry =victory" by any means. (Bear in mind it's a U.S. source, & when have U.S. sources been unbiased about the U.S. contribution? =]) I do wonder if truck production in U.S., & Lend Lease of it to SU, had more influence than generally credited, but if you wanted to say the Red Army could defeat the Germans alone, I wouldn't put up a (strong) fight. What I mean is, it wasn't direct causation. There were enough divisions in France to spare one or two for DAK without affecting deployments to EF (where they weren't being sent anyhow), & Hitler was never going to let NAfr dictate what did/didn't go to EF. As it stands (here), I get the sense the opposite is true. Maybe I'm misreading you.
- I'll have a glance & see if there's anything I think needs changing. My last look, it was pretty good. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think we should leave it as it is, because, besides strategic implication, sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse was a psychological shock for Britain. In addition, they were the first capital ships sank by the air attack solely. Darwin is the only direct mentioning of Australian participation in the War.
- Do you think it should be like that:In November, Commonwealth forces launched a counter-offensive in the desert, relieving a besieged Tobruk and reclaiming all gains the Germans and Italians had made.[40] ?
- As regards to "causal link etc", I fully agree. By the way, I re-worded this sentence, leaving only the notion about 3/4 of axis troops in th east: Sapienti sat.
I only would like to do a couple notes. According to Glantz (and, ironically, some German and most Soviet sources available for me) after winning the Battle of Moscow the Soviets really were able to win the war fighting alone. Therefore, on that same day when Japan attacked Perl Harbour the outcome of the war had already been pre-determined, although that happened not in the Pacific, but at another side of the globe. However, that doesn't mean the US had no relation to that. Apparently, the Japan's decision not to attack the USSR comes from the American oil embargo (I found that in the paper about 80% of Japanese oil), and would this attack happen in 1941, it could be a straw that broke a camel's back. Therefore, the American contribution into the war was immense, although it was not a military contribution.
The Stalin's demands to open Second front come from their unwillingness to let the US and UK to sit aside and to see how Germany and the USSR devastate and exhaust each other, because after that the victorious USSR would be too weak to dictate to anybody the conditions for a post-war peace. According to Glantz's estimates, without Allies' military participation and lend-lease the war would last one more year and the USSR would suffer proportionally higher losses, although in that case Soviet soldiers would finish the war in Brest. However, lend-lease has no relation to this concrete section, because the appreciable amount of help started to arrive to the USSR in 1942 only.
I think, we should continue at the bottom of the talk page.
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Title
I vote that we change the title of both the World War I and World War II titles be changed to First World War and Second World War. To me World War I and II make these wars sound like video games, rather than serious events. What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcaletta (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- A great number of historians use the term "World War II", just as a great number of historians use "Second World War". The difference is largely American English usage vs British English usage. Per WP:ENGVAR, article titles or the text within them should not be altered from one to the other after one has been established. This article has been around for quite a few years under this title, and so should not be changed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:German Soviet.jpg
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The image Image:German Soviet.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The war becomes global, one more version
I rearranged the version above to make an interconnection between different theatres, as well as between concurrent events, more clear. Please, comment if it is readable.
On June 22, 1941 Germany, along with other European Axis members and Finland, invaded the Soviet Union. The primary objectives of this surprise offensive[41] were the Baltic region, Moscow and Ukraine with an ultimate goal to end campaign of 1941 near the line connecting Caspian and White Seas, that would eliminate the Soviet Union as a military power and enable Germany to defy British blockade and to secure oil and food supplies for years.[42]. Although before the war the Red Army was preparing for a strategic offensive, "Barbarossa"' forced Stavka to adopt a strategic defence. During the summer, Axis made significant gains into Soviet territory, inflicting immense losses in personnel and matériel, however by the middle of August, German OKH decided to suspend the offensive of a considerably depleted Army Group Center, and to divert a part of its armored force to reinforce troops advancing toward central Ukraine and Leningrad[43]. The Kiev offensive was overwhelmingly successful, resulting in encirclement and elimination of four Soviet armies, and made further advance into Crimea and industrially developed Eastern Ukraine possible.
The diversion of three quarters of Axis troops and majority of air forces from France and central Mediterrain to the East[44][45] prompted the United Kingdom to reconsider her grand stategy.[46] In July, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union formed a military alliance against Germany[47] and shortly after jointly invaded Iran to secure the Persian Corridor and Iran's oilfields.[48] In August, the United Kingdom and the United States jointly issued the Atlantic Charter.[16] In November, Commonwealth forces launched a counter-offensive in the desert, reclaiming all gains the Germans and Italians had made.[49]
Japan, hoping to capitalize on Germany's success in Europe, made several demands, including a steady supply of oil, from the Dutch East Indies; these talks, however, broke down in June.[50] In July, Japan seized military control of southern Indochina since it would not only put her in a better position to coerce the Dutch East Indies into yielding, but it would also be a blow against China; should war be necessary, it also improved their strategic position against the Americans and British.[51] The United States, United Kingdom and other western governments reacted to the seizure of Indochina with a freeze on assets, while the United States (which supplied 80% of Japan's oil[52]) responded by placing a complete oil embargo.[53] Thus Japan was essentially forced to choose between withdrawing from Asia, or seizing the oil she needed by force; the Japanese military did not consider the former an option, and many officers considered the oil embargo an unspoken declaration of war.[54] The Imperial General Headquarters thus planned to create a large perimeter stretching into the Central Pacific in order to facilitate a defensive war while exploiting the resources of Southeast Asia; to prevent intervention while securing the perimeter it was further planned to neutralize the United States Pacific Fleet on the outset.[55]
By October, when Axis operational objectives in Ukraine and the Baltic region were achieved, with only Leningrad[56] and Sevastopol resisting in sieges[57] a major offensive against Moscow had been renewed. After two months of fierce battles, the German army almost reached Moscow suburbs, where the exhausted troops were ordered to go on the defensive.[58] Despite impressive territorial gains, no strategic goals of the war had been fully accomplished: two major Soviet cities hadn’t been captured, Red Army's capability to resist was not broken, and the Soviet Union retained a considerable part of its military potential. The blitzkrieg phase of WWII in Europe had ended.[59]
On December 7, freshly mobilized reserves [60] allowed the Soviets to achieve numerical parity with Axis troops[7]. This, as well as intelligence data that established a minimal amount of Soviet troops in the East sufficient to prevent Japanese Kwantung Army from the attack[61], allowed the Soviets to launch a massive counter-offensive along 1000 km front, although it was halted soon after Axis troops were pushed 100-250 km west[62][63].
On that same day, December 7, Japan attacked British, Dutch and American holdings with near simultaneous offensives against Southeast Asia and the Central Pacific. These included an attack on the American naval base of Pearl Harbor and landings in Thailand and Malaya.
These attacks prompted the United States, United Kingdom, other Western Allies and China (already a belligerent), to formally declare war on Japan. Germany and the other members of the Tripartite Pact responded by declaring war on the United States. In January, the United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, China and twenty-two smaller or exiled governments issued the Declaration by United Nations which affirmed the Atlantic Charter. [64] The Soviet Union did not adhere to the declaration, and maintained a neutrality agreement with Japan[65] and exempted herself from the principle of self-determination.[16]
Meanwhile, by the end of April, 1942, Japan had almost fully conquered Burma, Philippines, Malaya, Dutch East Indies, Singapore,[66] inflicting severe losses on Allied troops and taking a large number of prisoners. They also achieved naval victories in the South China Sea, Java Sea and Indian Ocean[67] and bombed the Allied naval base at Darwin, Australia. The only real success against Japan was a reverse at renewed attack on Changsha in early January, 1942.[29] The easy victories over unprepared opponents left Japan severely overconfident, as well as very overextended.
Germany retained the initiative as well. Exploiting dubious American naval command decisions, the U-boat arm sunk significant resources off the American Atlantic coast.[68] Despite this, an American admiral was placed in charge of more experienced Canadian escort forces, which carried out more of this duty in the Atlantic than the U.S. for the duration of the war. Despite severe losses, European Axis members stopped Soviet offensive in Central and Southern Russia.[44] In North Africa, the Germans launched an offensive in January, pushing the British back to positions at the Gazala Line by early February,[69] followed by a temporary lull in combat which Germany used to prepare for their upcoming offensives.[70]
Any comments and/or editing are warmly welcomed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have the following comments:
- I'd strongly suggest getting rid of the period references from the New York Times - we now have 60 years of hindsight which journalists at the time didn't have and any number of excellent reference books to cite, so there's no need to use such potentially outdated sources. I can provide references from Weinberg or the Oxford Companion to the Second World War if that would help.
- "overreacted" is POV and should be changed to "responded by"
- Japan actually landed in Malaya a few hours before Peal Harbor, so I'd suggest that the relevant sentence be amended and expanded to: "On that same day, December 7, Japan attacked British, Dutch and American holdings with near simultaneous offensives against Southeast Asia and the Central Pacific. These included an attack on the American naval base of Pearl Harbor and landings in Thailand and Malaya.
- I'd suggest that the 7th para read: "These attacks prompted the United States, United Kingdom, other Western Allies and China (already a belligerent), to formally declare war on Japan. Germany and the other members of the Tripartite Pact responded by declaring war on the United States. In January, the United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, China and twenty-two smaller or exiled governments issued the Declaration by United Nations which affirmed the Atlantic Charter. [71] The Soviet Union did not adhere to the declaration, and maintained a neutrality agreement with Japan[72] and exempted herself from the principle of self-determination.[16] "
- "In the desert" should be "in North Africa" Nick Dowling (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I use NYT for one, although very important reason. When I compared war time publications with majority present day articles I found a strong drift towards overemphasising war efforts of the US and (in smaller extent) the UK (of course, that is quite inderstandable, taking ito account the post war events, Cold War, uncovering of Stalin's crimes etc, however that has no direct realtion to the WWII history). The difference is so dramatic that works of Glantz, Overy, and similar reasonable historians hardly balance it. That is why it is useful to go back and to look at the war with contemporary's eyes. And, note, I use old NYT in parallel with the more recent time sources, for instance, the NYT article, Aug 5, tells that majority Axis forces went East, whereas D.Glantz's work I cited provides exact numbers to prove that statement. However, if you can provide additional sources, it would be great.
As regards to your other comments, I generally agree. - "Responded by" sounds more balanced. Agree.
- The question whether few hours difference is small enough to consider events "simultaneous" belongs to Special Theory of Relativity rather than to history :), however, your version looks good, so I see no problem with that change.
- The major difference is a removal direct mentioning of Italy? Agree.
- "In desert" comes from the present version. "In North Africa" is more precise. Agree.
I also would like to obtain your comment on the major change I did. As you can see, I changed the way events are presented in from theatre-wise to chronological. It seems to very useful, because, for instance shows that Perl Harbour and Moscow counter-offensive were simultaneous events. However, frankly, I am not sure if the new version is readable. Could you please compare the last version with the previous one (at that talk page) and tell me what seems better?
Best regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I use NYT for one, although very important reason. When I compared war time publications with majority present day articles I found a strong drift towards overemphasising war efforts of the US and (in smaller extent) the UK (of course, that is quite inderstandable, taking ito account the post war events, Cold War, uncovering of Stalin's crimes etc, however that has no direct realtion to the WWII history). The difference is so dramatic that works of Glantz, Overy, and similar reasonable historians hardly balance it. That is why it is useful to go back and to look at the war with contemporary's eyes. And, note, I use old NYT in parallel with the more recent time sources, for instance, the NYT article, Aug 5, tells that majority Axis forces went East, whereas D.Glantz's work I cited provides exact numbers to prove that statement. However, if you can provide additional sources, it would be great.
- I like the new structure - it reads well, and highlights the fact that this was a truly global war.
- Using such old references in such a high-level article isn't appropriate IMO as the journalists didn't have the knowledge of events which we have now (eg, they could have known nothing about code breaking, Soviet and German defeats which were covered up, internal politics in any of the major countries, war production and the extent of Gulag system and Holocaust as just a few examples) and there are literally thousands of scholarly history books and articles which provide a better appreciation of these events which we should steer readers towards. The limitations of these references is illustrated by only a NYT story being used to reference the statement that "the United Kingdom was given an opportunity to regroup" in July 1941 - this is basically true, but given that we now know that the Germans were greatly expanding the size of their submarine force and slowly reinforcing North Africa at this time and these factors brought Britain dangerously close to defeat in the Atlantic and North Africa at several times in 1942/43 a better source should be referenced. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I though it was clear that the sentence was telling about the period starting from June 1941 to the end of Crusader. That was a gap between two happy times and during that time the UK achieved considerable successes in Africa, so I don't see any contradiction with newer data there. Deployement of the major part of Hitler's army to east didn't automatically mean Germany abandoned another theatres and that she hadn't expand her forces in Africa and Athlantic later. However, I can introduce additional source if that one rises your concern. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've just tweaked this bit of the article as the statement that Barbarossa's goals were to "eliminate the Soviet Union as a military power and enable Germany to defy British blockade and to secure oil and food supplies for years" was missing the racial motivation of the invasion. As well as the above economic and military reasons, Hitler also decided to invade the USSR to begin the process of replacing the native population with German settlers. I've added a reference to Ian Kershaw to support this - at present the NYT story was the only citation supporting that sub-sentance. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. I wasn't satisfied with that phrase too, it is much better now. However, it seems not completely correct: it sounds like Russians are not Slavs. In actuality, they are not pure Slavs, with considerable admixture of Turkish and Ugic blood. However, linguistically and psicologically they are Slavs. Therefore, it looks like: "native Anglo-Saxon and American population..."
I would also like to mention one more consequence of German invasion. In contrast to Japan with her comparatively weak economy, the only limitation for Germany's military capabilities was an access to resources. In other words, even unlimited assess to oil, iron ore, coal, food, etc would be insufficient for Japan to defeat the US (they, actually, never planned to do that), whereas United Nazi Europe was potentally able to win the Allies, provided that the Soviet Union is destroyed and the Europe (from Brest to Ural) is under Nazi's control. I think, it makes sence to mention that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. I wasn't satisfied with that phrase too, it is much better now. However, it seems not completely correct: it sounds like Russians are not Slavs. In actuality, they are not pure Slavs, with considerable admixture of Turkish and Ugic blood. However, linguistically and psicologically they are Slavs. Therefore, it looks like: "native Anglo-Saxon and American population..."
- Thanks Paul. I've just tweaked the words a bit further to clarify that these were Hitler's objectives. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- That is better, although it probably makes sense to mention directly that the remaining Hitler's rivals were Britain and America. As regards to America, there is no mentioning that Hitler planned to attack her, although in more distant future, so the present version may looks like Germany declared a war on the US because of Pearl Harbour only (that, according to the article, was primarily a result of an oil embargo). --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- The sentance is already very long, so combining the various countries Hitler was fighting keeps it simple. Given that the US was neutral in late 1940 when the decision to invade the USSR was made and was still neutral in June 1941 when the attack occured it's confusing mentioning the US here I think. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- That is better, although it probably makes sense to mention directly that the remaining Hitler's rivals were Britain and America. As regards to America, there is no mentioning that Hitler planned to attack her, although in more distant future, so the present version may looks like Germany declared a war on the US because of Pearl Harbour only (that, according to the article, was primarily a result of an oil embargo). --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Paul. I've just tweaked the words a bit further to clarify that these were Hitler's objectives. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Date: Official beginning of WWII
Out of respect to the 45,000 Canadian soldiers who died in WW2, could it perhaps be noted that Canada, as an independent nation, declared war on Germany one week after Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.4.78 (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this has been discussed before. In the info box it says the war began on Sep 1 ("September 1, 1939 – September 2, 1945"). Shouldn't this be Sep 3 to reflect the official declaration of war by the first Allies?
Cf. entry for September_3, "World War II begins when France, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia declare war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, starting the Allies"?
Other sources concur: http://wwarii.com/blog/archives/world-war-ii-history-for-september-3, http://www.feldgrau.com/september.html
87.234.117.145 (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- You may want to read through the Start date discussion archive to see why the 1st was chosen over the 3rd. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
I think this book is extremely important & should be added somewhere in the article because it shows how USA had a huge part in the rise of Hitler & helped cause World War II: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Wall_Street_Rise_Hitler.html Stars4change (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
this article is delieberately trying to make chinese look weak, its biased.
Unfortunately for China it was weak; that was the problem. Also, and imho this should be noted, is the well-documented allegation that Mao desperately avoided fighting the Japanese (despite orders from Stalin that he do so) so that the Nationalists would be weakened and he could take over as he did. I refer you to "Mao: the unknown story" by Jung Chang. ASM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.4.78 (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
imao look at the article, before i added a picture of chinese soldiers there was only an "imperial japanese army soldiers" picture, plus chinese civilians being buried in a delibereate slant in trying to make the chinese army and contribution nonexistent, and perpuating the myth that the americans fought the entire war for china.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not. The reason there wasn't a photo of Chinese soldiers is because we deliberately decided to limit the total number of photos altogether. This was to avoid overcrowding (to see an example of what we were/are trying to avoid can be found here: Invasion of Poland (1939). How it became FA looking like that is beyond me, but that's another question.) and text sandwiching. That the Chinese military was omitted was not an intentional slight on China; there aren't any pictures of any Commonwealth military (excepting the UK, of course) either, nor any of Finnish, Yugoslavian, Romanian, Greek, etc. There just isn't room for everyone. Parsecboy (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- To your opinion, what concrete events of Sino-Japanese war (in addition to Battle of Changsha (1942)) deserve mentioning in the "War Becomes Global" section? Note, majority editors do not consider the losses sustained by certain country to be a measure of her military contribution. Otherwise, more than 50% of space should be devoted to the Eastern front ~30% to South-East Asia, and other theatres would take the remaining space. Therefore, only the events having a considerable effect on the course of the war should be mentioned in the article. If you have any idea about such events during a period of June 1941 - April 1942, let's discuss it, because I am polishing the "The War becomes Global" now. When I finish with this section I plan to start with others, so if you have any ideas on this account it would be fine. However, I don't think showing a picture of Japanese soldier fighting in China to be a bias against China and vise versa. The bias is possible to or against the theatre, not a belligerent.
I am not a specialist in Chinese history, therefore if I am not right, please, correct me. My understanding of the Chinese military contribution is as follows. By 1941, China was almost defeated by technically more advanced Japanese army and the situation there was essentially similar to that in France by June 22 1940, or to a hypothetical situation in the USSR, would the Germans manage to capture Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad. In other words, any ordinary country would surrender in that situation, but Chinese refused to do that. Of course, the heavily damaged country was not in position to mount a series of massive counter-offensives during 1941-1945, therefore Chinese military contribution is overshadowed by more spectacular and impressive battles in Pacific and Europe. However, even during 1941-45 China remained to be a very important factor, because it was tying down more than a half of all Japanese land forces. Without Chinese resistance, a simultaneous attack of the USSR by Germany and Japan would be highly probable, for instance, that would lead to a fast defeat of the Soviets, and consequences of that would be terrible. Therefore, although there were almost no spectacular events during 1941-45 in China, the very fact of Chinese resistance is of paramount importance. I think, the best way to reflect that fact is to extend the "War in China" section and to explain how the stubborn Chinese resistance affected the course of the war in Pacific, in South Asia and, ultimately, in a global scale.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
has the discussion about the date already taken place? the date is totally wrong if you want to say its global. 1. japan invaded china much earlier, but then you can say it wasn"t "Global" 2. Japan attacked the USA in 1941, and then it became "global"
so i dont see why the european date qualifies, i know someone will lecture me on how the discussion has taken place already but im just saying this anyway.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the rather lengthy series of discussion about the start date can be found here. Parsecboy (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- A short summary of that discussion is as follows. There are several dates that can be considered a start date of WWII. None of them are fully appropriate, and the conventional date is least inappropriate date. I, for instance, proposed to use the conventional date and, in addition to that, to state explicitly that most major belligerents entered the war before or after this date, namely, Marco Polo, Barbarossa and Pearl Harbour. Therefore, I see no reason to think the article to be biased in the start date context. The Marco-Polo cannot be considered a start date of WWII in global scale because without Germany no world war would be possible. In other words, if we imagine Hitler was assassinated in 1938, Sino-Japanese war would remain a very large scale, but, nevertheless, a regional war. However, I fully agree that the sections "War in China" and "The War Breaks Out" should be expanded, the events in China should be presented in more details and at least one more picture devoted to the events in China should be added.
It is worth mentioning, by the way, that military contribution of the Finns, Romanians, Greeks and similar second range belligerents cannot be compared with that of China. Therefore, the Parsecboy's analogy seems not completely correct. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- A short summary of that discussion is as follows. There are several dates that can be considered a start date of WWII. None of them are fully appropriate, and the conventional date is least inappropriate date. I, for instance, proposed to use the conventional date and, in addition to that, to state explicitly that most major belligerents entered the war before or after this date, namely, Marco Polo, Barbarossa and Pearl Harbour. Therefore, I see no reason to think the article to be biased in the start date context. The Marco-Polo cannot be considered a start date of WWII in global scale because without Germany no world war would be possible. In other words, if we imagine Hitler was assassinated in 1938, Sino-Japanese war would remain a very large scale, but, nevertheless, a regional war. However, I fully agree that the sections "War in China" and "The War Breaks Out" should be expanded, the events in China should be presented in more details and at least one more picture devoted to the events in China should be added.
- I was referring to images in the article, not the text itself. Unless there is significant expansion (i.e., at least a solid paragraph or two), I don't think any more images should be added. Text sandwiching and image overcrowding just aren't professional looking, and that's what we're striving for, right? Parsecboy (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
i found this comment in the archive- "WWII basically went global in early September 1939. That's when it really started. It's as simple as that. Every single continent was involved at that point, therefore this is the true start date for the second world war. CadenS (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC) "
no one bothered correcting him, he was totally wrong btw. Antartctica had no government so theres no way a bunch of penguins would have gotten involved, plus he forgot that BOTH american continents werent involved too. ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
"Of course, the heavily damaged country was not in position to mount a series of massive counter-offensives during 1941-1945, therefore Chinese military contribution is overshadowed by more spectacular and impressive battles in Pacific and Europe. "
What is of importance is the guerilla warfare carried out by the chinese communist guerilla forces during that time that held up the japanese troops in northern china. the nationalists fought only the battles that the japanese wanted to fight,(meaning that they fought when the japanese attacked only) and during the end of the war it did happen, that the japanese attempted to launch offensives into china, they succeded in destryoing US airforce bases in hunan but failed to defeat the nationalists in chonqqing, and they were forced back.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, it was not just the Communists who were important in tying up Japanese forces. The Japanese were very much aware of the large number of standing Nationalist forces and they devoted much effort to countering the threat. Both the Communist and the Nationalist forces can take credit for stalling the Japanese in China. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the same editor said above "In other words, any ordinary country would surrender in that situation, but Chinese refused to do that." Please understand that many things are known by the people you are talking to that cannot be said at length, that is, with too much space in this one article. How can we fit a whole war in one article? Some things must be said in a very compact (tight and small) way. Shenme (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
if world war 2 meant conducted on a global scale, then its pearl harbor that dragged the last of the countries to declare war into the war, AND the 2 last inhabited continents by humans to be involved.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2008 (
- Please read the talk archives that were pointed out to you. I think you are repeating arguments mentioned there. Shenme (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I see I have to explain something. I had no intentions to understate Chinese war efforts. I am just trying to explain the origin of the anti-Chinese bias. To my understanding, it stems form the fact that, as I already pointed out, there were almost no spectacular battles in China during 1941-1945 to tell about. In contrast, in Pacific, Japan and the USA used hi-tec weaponry and fought for tropical islands that have sonorous names and occupiy large, although almost empty territory. Obviously, it is much easier to tell a story about the war in Pacific than about the undecisive seesaw in China (although the role the latter was, probably, greater than that of the former). Therefore, the story about the Japanese-American war takes too much space because it is more captivating reading, not because of any anti-Chineese bias.
The second question is, whether the war in Asia/Pacific deserves so much attention. Let me remind you that many serious historians consider European theatre of war to be much more important than the Pacific. The reason is quite obvious: both from military and economical points of view Nazi Germany was the major Axis member, therefore, German victory would mean the Axis victory, whereas Japan alone had no capability to defeat even the USA (and even never planned to do that, by the way). Without the German help, Japan was doomed, because their major continental possessions, Manchuria and Korea, were extremely vulnerable, and the loss of these possessions would automatically mean a defeat of Japan, so neither Japanese naval domination, nor Pacific archipelagoes under Japanese control would save her if JIA is defeated in the continent. So my conclusion is that the role of Pacific/Asia is overstated and the role of China is relatively understated in this article. Since it is impossible to fit the whole WWII, then the most important events should be included, not the most gripping.
As regards to the moment when the war became global... People are probably too concentrated at geographical aspects. There are many others besides them. For instance, I would remind you that by the moment WWII started more than a half of Nobel prize winners lived in Germany... --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- The Americas were involved from 1939 due to the involvement of Canada, Newfoundland and British territories in South America where an early battle took place: Battle of the River Plate. I suppose that the main reason that China's part is understated is due to the lack of popular accounts of the conflict there, especially in the English language and media. Note, by the way, that Germany played a significant part in arming and training the Nationalist army. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
excuse did i say that germany was not involved in training the nationalist army? i know about the sino german cooperation article already......ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
to the last person, note by the way,... if your advocating white supremacy, that it was the chinese who first invented gunpowder....ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
and they invented guns and rockets to btw not that stupid myth that the chines only invented firecrackers with gunpowder.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't understand me so fast. I agree with your general point that the article should give good coverage to the Chinese theatre. The bit about the German military mission in China is significant because it is not well known and it shows how the sides in the conflict were not fixed or pre-determined. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
These are the major engagements in the chinese theatre....
ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
To User:Paul Siebert, a little fact which may be interesting for your archives : according to Hikota Abe and Akira Yamada, in september 1943, the IJA still had only 5 of its 70 divisions in Oceania (little more than 200 000), the others where in China, Manchukuo and southeast Asia... --Flying tiger (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- To ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ. I never take into a consideration any supremacy of any race. My point was that before and during WWII Germany accumulated huge intellectual resources, excellent military skills and created, probably, the most advanced economy. Her only limiting factors were the lack of resources and the presence of the USSR, that made Germany vulnerable towards a sudden attack from the east. If Germany had been capable to eliminate the Soviets and seize the whole Europe (from Brest to Ural), this would be sufficient to continue the war against the UK and the US for very long time, and I am absolutely not sure the outcome of the war would be favorable for America. The war in Pacific doesn't add much to that. In contrast, the presence of fighting China at the Japanese backyard kept the latter form attack of the USSR that, probably, appeared critical during the operation Barbarossa and the battle of Stalingrad. Therefore, the Chinese factor was, probably, one of critical factors that affected the fate of whole WWII.
- To Flying tiger. Thank you. I am aware of that. Even in 1941, the USSR kept about 30 division in Far East, and the amount of Japanese forces, opposing them, was about the same. The Japanese troops in Southern China were even larger. However, the small size of troops in Oceania could be also a result of Japanese limited capabilities to deploy them there. Anyway, the battles in Oceania were mostly naval, so additional divisions could hardly tip the balance there.
Instead of arguing about Chineese contribution, we should think about concrete changes in the article that would reflect this contribution in more details, and explain its significance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
group
Maybe I'm missing something.....veterans from the axis powers were tried for war crimes, weren't they, as in the actual combatants and pows?.Rodrigue (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, don't forget the Nuremberg Trials, when the justices from the judicial branch of Germany were put on trial as well.
Octogenarian 1928 (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Typo in Background section
The Background section refers the Hitler's "Mein Kamph" instead of "Mein Kampf". As I am not autoconfirmed yet (semiprotected article), could somebody please correct this ? Adding a link might be helpful as well. Thanks. ThorstenSchroeteler (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I fixed it, thanks for pointing it out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Problems
Why don't you let us edit this page? There is a lot of wrong stuff here.
The estimates of total casulties are too big (why do they grow year by year?), and the writings about Holocaust like it was only a Jews-killing thing, ia also wrong. The Holocaust includes killing of Jews, AND slaves AND communists AND guy-men AND mentaly disordered AND many, many others.
And it was not 12 millions who died in Holocaust, but 11 millions.
The details on other casulties are also not perfect. The soviet union lost 26,6 million people, not "around 27".
This is surely written with no sence of details what so ever. Let us be able to edit this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarao (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- The casualty estimates are just that—estimates. It's unlikely exact figures will ever be known. As to the article's description of the Holocaust, it clearly says:
- "The Nazis were responsible for the killing of approximately six million Jews (overwhelmingly Ashkenazi) as well as two million ethnic Poles and four million others who were deemed "unworthy of life" (including the disabled and mentally ill, Soviet POWs, homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Roma)"
- Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal also 207.155.35.55 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree the overall figures may be slightly on the high side. However I'm not sure estimates can be avoided for individual country/group losses. For example I can think of no way Soviet losses being described as 26.6 million could be guaranteed as accurate. After the war even the Soviets had to guestimate their losses 25 million being their best guess I believe. It's better to use 'about 27 million' as it makes clear to a reader that exact losses for several major countries (SU, China, Yugoslavia to name three) could not be definatively established and is no more or less accurate than 26.6 million . So I'd say best to leave figures like that as they are? Kurtk60 (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Finland, Baltic States and Poland in 1944
The article appears to miss or misinterpret the events in the Northeast European region in 1944. So I propose the following editing done:
- The looming Soviet occupation prompted the illegally conscripted citizens of the Baltic States to fight the Soviets among the German forces.[73]
and: - The major assault against Romania resulted in the Soviet occupation of Romania, Bulgaria and the countries' shift to the Allies side.[74] The Finnish resistance in the Karelian Isthmus and the German repellence of the Soviet offensive towards the military bases on the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland, denied the occupation of the country.[75][76][77] To establish independence ahead of the Soviets, the Polish Home Army initiated a series of uprisings against the German rule, with the biggest of them in Warsaw put down by the Germans due to the surprise Soviet stance in the outskirts of the city.
[numbering added] Erikupoeg (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again for posting this here.
- I find the first sentence confusing - who illegally conscripted these men? (the Germans?)
- Also, how big a deal was this - based on the countries' small population and the massive scale of the war on the Eastern Front I suspect that it's not significant enough to include in this very, very high-level article.
- The second para looks good, though I'm not sure about describing the Soviet Union's stance as a 'surprise' is clear - who was surprised by this?
- [numbering added] Nick Dowling (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- [Erikupoeg responses]
- The Germans did. How else could they have been among the German forces!
- It's not big in the number of troops involved, but it was one of the two decisive moments (the first being in the first Soviet occupation in 1940) of one of the major outcomes of the war - the dissappearance of the Baltic States from the World map.
- Take a look at the beginning of Warsaw Uprising#Soviet stance. Both the Home Army and the Germans were surprised, which means pretty much everybody involved, except Stalin.
- [numbering added] Erikupoeg (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- [Erikupoeg responses]
- The present version states: "and prompted Polish resistance forces to initiate several uprisings in Poland, though the largest of these, in Warsaw, was conducted without Soviet assistance and put down by German forces." In other words, the Polish uprising started, but the Soviets lent no support. (That is what took place in actuality, to my understanding).
Eric's version states: "To establish independence ahead of the Soviets, the Polish Home Army initiated a series of uprisings against the German rule, with the biggest of them in Warsaw put down by the Germans due to the surprise Soviet stance in the outskirts of the city." In other words, this sentence implies that:- the Soviets planned to annex Poland following the occupation;
- the Soviets promised to support the uprising, however, after it started they refused to do so.
- Both of these statements are wrong, however. First, situation with Poland was closer to that in France, than in Baltic countries: Poland was considered an Allies member since the beginning of WWII she even had the government in exile ("London Poles") that was recognized by most major Allies (except, probably, the USSR). Both Western allies and the USSR agreed that the sovereignty of Poland would have to be restored after WWII. So the disagreement between the western governments and Stalin was only about a composition of the new Polish government. In other words, the Polish uprising was aimed to gain some points in that political struggle, not to restore a sovereignty.
Second. For those who initiated the uprising a significant political component of it was obvious. Therefore, they should expect it to be obvious for Stalin also. In other words, the "London Poles" had to consider a possibility of the surprise Soviet stance. It was surprising only from the military point of view.
Therefore, I propose to leave the old version.
As regards to the first sentence, it is not clear for me where does Eric propose to place it. I think, the most appropriate place would be the last paragraph of the "Allies gain momentum" section (end of the siege of Leningrad, Battle of Narva). Since the article tells nothing about Courland pocket, I see no other appropriate place. In addition, as I understood form the long discussion with Eric, the situation with Baltic countries during WWII is very complex and any attempt to fit it into a singe sentence would rise numerous questions (They were a. de jure neutral; b.fought on Hitler's side; c.were conscripted illegaly, although didn't resist the conscription and fought bitterly protecting their land against the Soviets, however, d. should not be considered an Axis' ally or even co-belligerent, and are not responsible for Hitler's crimes. (To Eric. Sorry if I reproduced something incorrectly)).
On other hand, I agree that the sentence telling about Jassy–Kishinev Offensive and Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive should be split onto two separate sentences, although the latter setence is not completely clear. In addition, the Battle of Narva had also been mentioned in the previous section. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- The present version states: "and prompted Polish resistance forces to initiate several uprisings in Poland, though the largest of these, in Warsaw, was conducted without Soviet assistance and put down by German forces." In other words, the Polish uprising started, but the Soviets lent no support. (That is what took place in actuality, to my understanding).
- The Baltic States as sovereign powers did not exist in 1940 - 1991, therefore cannot be added among the belligerents. The nationally disposed citizens of the countries were illegally conscripted by Hitler, giving them no possibility to form a national army neither to join any other army than the SS. These troops had significant impact against the Soviets in the Battle of Narva (1944) and Courland Pocket.
- A new version of the Finland, 1944 statement: "The Finnish resistance in the Karelian Isthmus and the German repulsion of the Soviet offensive towards the Gulf of Finland, denied the occupation of the country.[75][76][77]" [Revision as of 17:55, October 30, 2008 User:Erikupoeg Erikupoeg]
- Eric, could you please reproduce the whole "Allies close in" section as you see it? This would facilitate the discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Eric, could you please also sign your posts and not reply in the middle of other editors' posts? It's hard to see who's saying what, and when. Nick Dowling (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- I hope no one minds my reorganizing to facilitate understanding who said what :-) —PētersV (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Here you go:"The major assault against Romania resulted in the Soviet occupation of Romania, Bulgaria and the countries' shift to the Allies side.[78] The Finnish resistance in the Karelian Isthmus and the German repulsion of the Soviet offensive towards the Gulf of Finland, denied the occupation of the country.[75][76][77]" The rest can stay in its current state.--Erikupoeg (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)09:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive redirects to Jassy–Kishinev Offensive. Why don't you use the latter?
- Once again, before telling something I would like to know where concretely do you propose to put your fragment. Do I understand correct that you propose to modify the second paragraph like that:
"On June 22, the Soviets launched a strategic offensive in Belarus (known as "Operation Bagration") that resulted in the almost complete destruction of the German Army Group Centre.[79] Soon after that, another Soviet major strategic offensive forced the German troops from Ukraine and Eastern Poland. The major assault against Romania resulted in the Soviet occupation of Romania, Bulgaria and the countries' shift to the Allies side[80] and prompted Polish resistance forces to initiate several uprisings in Poland, though the largest of these, in Warsaw, was conducted without Soviet assistance and put down by German forces.[81] The Finnish resistance in the Karelian Isthmus and the German repulsion of the Soviet offensive towards the Gulf of Finland, denied the occupation of the country.[75][76][77] On October, the Soviets launched a massive assault against Germany occupied Hungary that lasted until the fall of Budapest in February 1945.[82]"? - If that version reflects you proposal correctly, I cannot accept it for the following reasons
- The last paragraph of the "Allies gain momentum" section tells:"In January, 1944, the Soviets expelled German forces from Leningrad suburbs thus ending the longest and the most lethal blockade in history. The subsequent Soviet offensive towards the Baltic ports was halted at the Estonian border for 8 months by the German Army Group North.[75]". It seems to me that in the version you propose the same events has been mentioned again, that may lead to confusion.
- "The Finnish resistance in the Karelian Isthmus" sounds odd because it is not clear to whom did Finns resist.
- I think the mentioning of the Moscow Armistice and the ref Wiktor, Christian L. Multilateral Treaty Calendar - 1648-1995, pg. 426 should be in the article.
However, I believe in a couple iterations we can produce a piece of text that would satisfy both of us.
Best regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, here's another version: "On June 22, the Soviets launched a strategic offensive in Belarus (known as "Operation Bagration") that resulted in the almost complete destruction of the German Army Group Centre.[83] Soon after that, another Soviet major strategic offensive forced the German troops from Ukraine and Eastern Poland. The major assault against Romania resulted in the Soviet occupation of Romania, Bulgaria and the countries' shift to the Allies side[84] and prompted Polish resistance forces to initiate several uprisings in Poland, though the largest of these, in Warsaw, was conducted without Soviet assistance and put down by German forces.[85] The Finnish resistance to the Soviet offensive in the Karelian Isthmus denied the Soviet occupation of Finland.[86][76] In October 1944, the Soviets launched a massive assault against Germany occupied Hungary that lasted until the fall of Budapest in February 1945.[87]"--Erikupoeg (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Iter #2. "On June 22, the Soviets launched a strategic offensive in Belarus (known as "Operation Bagration") that resulted in the almost complete destruction of the German Army Group Centre.[88] Soon after that, another Soviet major strategic offensive forced the German troops from Ukraine and Eastern Poland. Successful advance of Soviet troops prompted Polish resistance forces to initiate several uprisings in Poland, though the largest of these, in Warsaw, was conducted without Soviet assistance and put down by German forces.[89] The major assault against Romania resulted in almost complete destruction of the German troops there with subsequent Soviet occupation of Romania, Bulgaria and the countries' shift to the Allies side[90] In contrast, the bitter Finnish resistance to the Soviet offensive in the Karelian Isthmus denied the Soviet occupation of Finland and led to signing the armistice on relatively mild conditions.[91][76] In October 1944, the Soviets launched a massive assault against Germany occupied Hungary that lasted until the fall of Budapest in February 1945.[92]"
My rationale is as follows:
- The Polish uprising was a consequence of Operation Bagration and Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive, not Jassy–Kishinev Offensive, so such a rearrangement restores the causal linkage.
- The presence of considerable (half a million) German troops (that had been destroyed almost completely) deserves mentioning.
- It seems to me that additional emphasis can be done on the difference between the resistance of the Finns and the Romanians (the former did that without any appreciable German help, by the way).
In addition to that, I think the Slovak National Uprising also deserves mentioning here along with that of the Poles. What do you think about that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fine with me. Support adding a statement about Slovak National Uprising.--Erikupoeg (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a perhaps clearer version of the last section in WWII#Allies Gain Momentum:"In January, 1944, the Soviets expelled German forces from Leningrad suburbs, ending the longest and the most lethal blockade in history. The following Soviet offensive was halted in Narva by the German Army Group North.[75] Aided by the illegally conscripted Estonians hoping to re-establish national independence,[93] the German resistance hampered subsequent Soviet offensive operations in the Baltic Sea region until September 1944.[76]"--Erikupoeg (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- According to Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany large numbers of Estonians volunteered to serve in or alongside the German military in 1944 so I'd suggest dropping the reference to them being illegally conscripted as this aparently only applied to a minority of them (the Wikipedia link this points to also has nothing which indicates if or why this was illegal). The use of 'illegally conscripted' is also confusing as its not clear why such men would enthusiastically fight in the German army or how this could lead to national independence. The statement that "the German resistance hampered subsequent Soviet offensive operations in the Baltic Sea region until September 1944" seems questionable. David Glantz attributes the Soviet forces's lack of success to its officers and men not being trained or experienced in mobile warfare and the difficulty of operating in the northern winter (When Titans Clashed, pg 193) and the Soviets conducted successful offensives in Latvia and Lithuania in July 1944, which included briefly reaching the Baltic before a partially successful German counter-offensive re-opened a narrow and very vunerable line of communications with Army Group North at a considerable cost (When Titans Clashed, pgs 226-227). Also, the Soviets did more than just expel German forces from "Leningrad suburbs" as a fairly large area was recaptured. As such, I would suggest that the text read: "In January, 1944, the Soviets expelled German forces from the Leningrad area, ending the longest and the most lethal siege in history. The following Soviet offensive was halted in Narva by the German Army Group North aided by Estonians hoping to re-establish national independence. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
In the article, the Hague Conventions are not outlined, only linked. Section IV, Art. 44 of the 1907 Hague Convention states:"A belligerent is forbidden to force the inhabitants of territory occupied by it to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, or about its means of defense." The Estonians were willing to defend their country against the Soviets, while they were: 1) conscripted in a general compulsory mobilization; 2) forced into the German Armed Forces against their demand to form co-belligerent national units, and 3) forced into the SS against their demand to join the regular forces instead. Of the Germany-occupied territories, Hitler exercised such conscription only in the Baltics, therefore they are not to be confused with the volunteers joining the SS in other occupied territories. These aspects make the German conscription in the Baltics unique, and is a major fact to point on the variety of the formations within the SS. Perhaps the point should be better explained in one of the sub-articles.
I agree, that the German resistance does not need to be pointed out in the statement. It's pretty obvious, the qualities of both sides had impact on the outcome. A major fact remains, that because of the stance in Narva, Soviet operations were hampered in the Baltic Sea region until September 1944, when the Soviet Armed Forces decisively broke through to the Baltic coast.
Therefore I suggest the following text:""In January, 1944, the Soviets expelled German forces from Leningrad suburbs, ending the longest and the most lethal blockade in history. Aided by the illegally conscripted Estonians hoping to re-establish national independence,[93] the Army Group North hampered subsequent Soviet offensive operations in the Baltic Sea region until September 1944.[76]
- I don't agree with that wording as a) the Soviets did more than drive the Germans from the suburbs of Leningrad b) according to the Wikipedia article Estonian volunteers greatly outnumbered those who had been conscripted (it's interesting to see that the Government in exile actually called on the population to volunteer to fight alongside the Germans) and c) the Soviets mounted a successful offensive in the Baltic sea region in July. The German-Estonian force was successful in keeping the Soviets out of Estonia for over 6 months, but you seem to be miss-stating the force's composition and over-stating its achievement. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your proposition about "Leningrad are". It may be replaced with "Leningrad oblast" for the sake of concreteness. I also that the Baltic Sea region may be too much. Just replace the Baltic Sea Region with the Baltic Sea, and it's correct. As far as the Estonian volunteers go, the article is erroneous and perhaps shouldn't be linked before corrected. While the Estonianse were willing to fight the Soviets, they cannot be considered as volunteers for the above listed reasons. They did not volunteer, but obeyed a compulsory conscription call, while they were denied their rights to form national units and forced into the SS. --Erikupoeg (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Oblast" is neither an English word, nor a well known foreign word, so and I see no reason to use it instead of "area". If you want administrative division of the USSR to be mentioned we can introduce a link, e.g.: "Leningrad area".
- As regard to compulsory and illegaly conscripted volunteers, you seem to give undue weight to formal considerations. Let me remind you that, for instance, some Stalin's defender may argue that formally speaking Estonia entered the USSR voluntarily. Of course, no one takes that seriously, although some (flimsy) formal bases do exist for such a statement. Similarly, in that concrete case, everybody, including yourself (I got such a feeling), consider conscripted Estonians to be freedom fighters who obeyed "illegal conscription" voluntarily to protect their country (and, unfortunately, a Hitler's regime simultaneously). It is also clear that the Germans themselves also considered them volunteers, otherwise they would never deployed them on the strategically significant sector of Eastern Front.
To my opinion, the problem is that you pursue intrinsically self-contradictory goal: a. to show that highly motivated Estonians fough bitterly during WWII against the Soviets b. to conceal as much as possible their voluntarily collaboration with Hitler. I admit that goal would be possible to achieve in a separate long, detailed and balanced article, but not in that one. Addition of few words or even phrases hardly clarify this very complicated issue, I would say, it even leads to more confusion. Therefore, I think, we should accept the Nick Dowling's version. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your proposition about "Leningrad are". It may be replaced with "Leningrad oblast" for the sake of concreteness. I also that the Baltic Sea region may be too much. Just replace the Baltic Sea Region with the Baltic Sea, and it's correct. As far as the Estonian volunteers go, the article is erroneous and perhaps shouldn't be linked before corrected. While the Estonianse were willing to fight the Soviets, they cannot be considered as volunteers for the above listed reasons. They did not volunteer, but obeyed a compulsory conscription call, while they were denied their rights to form national units and forced into the SS. --Erikupoeg (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that mentioning the legality of the conscription may cause confusion, so leave it out. However, it is not entirely correct to call them volunteers, so it's either Estonian conscripts or just Estonians. I also agree to Leningrad area. So the current version reads:""In January, 1944, the Soviets expelled German forces from Leningrad suburbs, ending the longest and the most lethal blockade in history. Aided by the Estonian conscripts hoping to re-establish national independence,[93] the Army Group North hampered subsequent Soviet offensive operations at the Baltic Sea until September 1944.[76] --Erikupoeg (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Again, the situation with Estonian participation in WWII is so complex that any attempt to describe it in few words or brief definition would be not completely correct. For me, Estonians is better, because if we call them "conscripts" the question appears why do we need to mention them explicitly (in contrast to other nationals fighting for Germany during WWII). And again, I agree with Nick Dowling that "area" is more correct. Therefore, we again come back to the Nick Dowling's version. I think the best way is to add to it that such a delay retarded subsequent Soviet advances in the Baltic region:
- ""In January, 1944, the Soviets expelled German forces from the Leningrad area, ending the longest and the most lethal siege in history. The following Soviet offensive was halted on the pre-war Estonian border by the German Army Group North aided by Estonians hoping to re-establish national independence. This delay retarded subsequent Soviet advances in the Baltic region."--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. --Erikupoeg (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- 'Baltic region' is a an over-statement given that the Soviets over-ran much of Latvia and Lithuania in July and reduced the German holdings in these countries to a narrow and unsustainable strip along the coast (as illustrated by Image:BagrationMap2.jpg and the excellent map on pg 200 of When Titans Clashed). Otherwise that wording looks good, so I'd suggest In January, 1944, the Soviets expelled German forces from the Leningrad area, ending the longest and the most lethal siege in history. The following Soviet offensive was halted on the pre-war Estonian border by the German Army Group North aided by Estonians hoping to re-establish national independence. The Soviets did not resume their offensive in the Baltic area until the summer. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest the Baltic Sea, which does not mean Baltic states, but concentrates on the fact, that the Soviets were denied operations at the Baltic Sea until September 22. In the context of the article, the fact that the Soviet forces were denied from operations at the Baltic Sea until as late as September 22 1944 as the gateway to Finland and Germany, deserves to be stated. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's not correct. The Soviet offensive in early 1944 caused the Finns to begin the process of getting out of the war, the Soviets followed this up with a broadly successful offensive against Finland in June which caused the Finns to eventually sue for peace in early August, and Soviet forces reached the Baltic in July and were only pushed slightly back from the coast, thereby securing most of the Baltic countries (including a large chunk of Estonia) and dooming Army Group North to being cut off or forced to evacuate. From checking extra sources, the Soviets actually crossed into Estonia in early 1944 and stayed there. The German defensive success in early 1944 didn't do much more than delay the Soviet conquest of Estonia. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest the Baltic Sea, which does not mean Baltic states, but concentrates on the fact, that the Soviets were denied operations at the Baltic Sea until September 22. In the context of the article, the fact that the Soviet forces were denied from operations at the Baltic Sea until as late as September 22 1944 as the gateway to Finland and Germany, deserves to be stated. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- 'Baltic region' is a an over-statement given that the Soviets over-ran much of Latvia and Lithuania in July and reduced the German holdings in these countries to a narrow and unsustainable strip along the coast (as illustrated by Image:BagrationMap2.jpg and the excellent map on pg 200 of When Titans Clashed). Otherwise that wording looks good, so I'd suggest In January, 1944, the Soviets expelled German forces from the Leningrad area, ending the longest and the most lethal siege in history. The following Soviet offensive was halted on the pre-war Estonian border by the German Army Group North aided by Estonians hoping to re-establish national independence. The Soviets did not resume their offensive in the Baltic area until the summer. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. --Erikupoeg (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- ""In January, 1944, the Soviets expelled German forces from the Leningrad area, ending the longest and the most lethal siege in history. The following Soviet offensive was halted on the pre-war Estonian border by the German Army Group North aided by Estonians hoping to re-establish national independence. This delay retarded subsequent Soviet advances in the Baltic region."--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Not correct. The Finnish ended their negotiations with the Soviet Union, as it was clear, the Soviets would not break through in Narva. After the Soviet Vyborg Offensive, they started negotiations again, while closely watching the course of events in Narva. They did not sign peace until they were convinced, that the Germans were gonna withdraw their forces from Narva. The Soviet breakthrough in Narva would have meant the capture of the port of Tallinn 83 km from the Finnish Capital Helsinki and probably an end to the Finnish campaign within weeks. The Soviets reached a beach of Riga Bay on July 31st, which had no naval meaning. The first naval base, the Soviets captured, was Tallinn on September 22. The battle of Narva was a major part of the Baltic Campaign for the access to the naval bases of the Baltic Sea. --Erikupoeg (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Yet again, the Soviets did nothing significant at the Baltic Sea before September 1944. The Soviets would have never thrown 150,000 men in to gain Estonia as a strategically insignificant spot of land. The battle was for Tallinn as the first port on the other side of the minefields in the Gulf of Finland, giving the Soviets a free hand for operations at the Baltic Sea. This needs to be pointed out in the article, replacing "Estonia" with "the Baltic Sea" --Erikupoeg (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- My two cents worth to Nick Dowling: This book Hitler, Dönitz, and the Baltic Sea examines the strategic importance of holding the Baltic states for the Germans: control of the Baltic Sea. Stalin knew it, and Narva was the key, when he ordered "It is mandatory that our forces seize Narva no later than 17 February 1944. This is required both for military as well as political reasons. It is the most important thing right now. I demand that you undertake all necessary measures to liberate Narva no later than the period indicated. (signed) I. Stalin". Had Stalin successfully taken Narva in February, it was an open road to the Naval facility at Tallinn, Finland would have quit earlier, and the Soviet Navy would have had open access to the Baltic Sea, disrupting iron ore shipments from Sweden and the U-boat bases where Dönitz was building the new generation U-boats Hitler had hoped to turn the tide of war. Martintg (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've just removed the words 'for 8 months' after 'This delay retarded subsequent Soviet operations at the Baltic Sea' as it is, once again, not correct to state this given what happened a few months after the Battle of Narva. The sentence now reads 'This delay retarded subsequent Soviet operations at the Baltic Sea region.', which is what Paul suggested and seems a good compromise to me. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, as the article avoids presenting exact dates and numbers anyway. --Erikupoeg (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Great, it's good that we've got agreement. Thanks for fixing my bad grammar! Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Allies close in
After several attempt to update the Allies close in section based on new changes proposed by Erikupoeg I realised that the section needs more revision. Here is a new version of that section where I tried to take into account the following:
- As far as the Warsaw Uprising has been mentioned, few words should be devoted to Slovak National Uprising also.
- The present version sounds like Romania surrendered. In actuality the government had been overturn and the new government joined the Allies' side.
- There were no significant hostilities in Bulgaria, the pro-German government there had been overtirned quickly and Bulgarian army almost instantly joined Allied forces to attack German troops in Yugoslavia.
- The offensive in Yugoslavia started soon after Jassy–Kishinev Offensive, so it is incorrect to place it into the Axis collapse section. At the same time Germany started to withdraw her troops from Greece, so everything should be mentioned here.
- It seems to me that the start of the last phase of WWII in Europe (and hence the start of the last section) should be the Vistula-Oder offensive, not the Battle of Bulge. By the moment the latter started, Wehrmach's capabilities were quite impressive, and subsequent six weeks of fierce battles demonstrated it very clearly. However, when the Red Army, that stayed dormant on the Vistula for almost half a year, launched the Vistula-Oder offensive (that was much more devastaning for Wehrmach in raw numbers) all German defence (both in east and west) started to crush. Actually, the Vistula-Oder offensive initiated a series of German defeats ("collapse") that lasted continuously until German surrender. That is why I propose to end the present section with the Battle of Bulge (the last Germany's strategic offensive in WWII), and start the next section (devoted to continuous series of German defeats) with the Vistula-Oder offensive.
This is a preliminary version of the Allies close in section:
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Approaching_Omaha.jpg/220px-Approaching_Omaha.jpg)
On June 6, 1944 (known as D-Day), the Western Allies invaded northern France and, after reassigning several Allied divisions from Italy, southern France.[94] These landings were successful, and led to the defeat of the German Army units in France. Paris was liberated on 25 August[95] and the Western Allies continued to push back German forces in western Europe during the latter part of the year. Largest airborne drop, code named Market Garden has been lunched.[1] The Allies also continued their advance in Italy until they ran into the last major German defensive line there.
On June 22, the Soviets launched a strategic offensive in Belarus (known as "Operation Bagration") that resulted in the almost complete destruction of the German Army Group Centre.[96] Soon after that, another Soviet strategic offensive forced the German troops from Ukraine and Eastern Poland. Successful advance of Soviet troops prompted resistance forces in Poland and to initiate several uprisings, though the largest of these, in Warsaw, as well as a Slovak Uprising in the south, were put down by German forces.[97] The Red Army's strategic offensive in eastern Romania cut off and destroyed the considerable German troops there and triggered successful coup d'état in Romania and Bulgaria, followed by the countries' shift to the Allies side. In September 1944, Soviet Red Army advanced into Yugoslavia and forced the rapid withdrawal of the German Army Groups E and F in Greece, Albania and Yugoslavia to rescue them from being cut off. By this point, the Yugoslav Partisans under Marshal Josip Broz Tito controlled much of the Yugoslav territory and were engaged in delaying efforts against the German forces further south. In northern Serbia, the Red Army, with limited support from Bulgarian forces, assisted the Partisans in a joint liberation of the capital city of Belgrade on October 20. Few days later, the Soviets launched a massive assault against German occupied Hungary that lasted until the fall of Budapest in February 1945.[98]
In contrast with impressive victories in Balkans, the bitter Finnish resistance to the Soviet offensive in the Karelian Isthmus denied the Soviet occupation of Finland and led to signing the armistice on relatively mild conditions[99][76] and Finland's shift to the Allies side.
By the start of July, Commonwealth forces in Southeast Asia had repelled the Japanese sieges in Assam, pushing the Japanese back to the Chindwin River[100] while the Chinese captured Myitkyina. In China, the Japanese were having greater successes, having finally captured Changsha in mid-June and the city of Hengyang by early August.[101] Soon after, they further invaded the province of Guangxi, winning major engagements against Chinese forces at Guilin and Liuzhou by the end of November[102] and successfully linking up their forces in China and Indochina by the middle of December.[103]
In the Pacific, American forces continued to press back the Japanese perimeter. In mid-June 1944 they began their offensive against the Mariana and Palau islands, scoring a decisive victory against Japanese forces in the Philippine Sea within a few days. These defeats led to the resignation of Japanese Prime Minister Tōjō and provided the United States with air bases which allowed the intensification of heavy bomber attacks on the Japanese home islands. In late October, American forces invaded the Filipino island of Leyte; soon after, Allied naval forces scored another large victory during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, which was the largest naval battle in history.[104]
On December 16, 1944 German forces launched the counter-attack in the Ardennes against the Western Allies. During six weeks of bitter fighting British and American troops repulsed this last major offensive of German armed forces.
Your comments are warmly welcome --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- That looks pretty good to me. I think that the first and second last paras under-state the size and importance of the Western Allied victories though - Normandy was one of the most important battles of the war, and destroyed much of the German Army's best units, and the Marianas and Leyte campaigns were two of the most important victories in the Pacific War. As such, I propose that these paras be changed to:
- The Western Allies invaded northern France on June 6, 1944 and, after reassigning several Allied divisions from Italy, southern France on 15 August.[105] These landings were successful, and led to the defeat of the German Army units in France. Paris was liberated on 25 August[106] and the Western Allies continued to push back German forces in western Europe during the latter part of the year. The Allies also continued their advance in Italy until they ran into the last major German defensive line there.
...
- In the Pacific, American forces continued to press back the Japanese perimeter. In mid-June 1944 they began their offensive against the Mariana and Palau islands, scoring a decisive victory against Japanese forces in the Philippine Sea within a few days. These defeats led to the resignation of Japanese Prime Minister Tōjō and provided the United States with air bases which allowed the intensification of heavy bomber attacks on the Japanese home islands. In late October, American forces invaded the Filipino island of Leyte; soon after, Allied naval forces scored another large victory during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, which was the largest naval battle in history.[107]
- What do you think? Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the second paragraph is good. As regards to the first one, I couldn't see any appreciable difference. Maybe it makes sence to expand it a little bit more?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've just realized that you already modified the first paragraph, so changes proposed by you are already there. The paragraph looks good. I'll try to add needed references and let's wait what other editors will say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops, sorry - I didn't mean to do that. I was fiddling with it before copying and pasting it out and making further changes. I've just restored the para you proposed. The only real difference between my version and your version is the sentance 'These landings were successful, and led to the defeat of the German Army units in France.' and my fiddles with the other sentances to meet my views on readability ;) Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with the proposal. --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops, sorry - I didn't mean to do that. I was fiddling with it before copying and pasting it out and making further changes. I've just restored the para you proposed. The only real difference between my version and your version is the sentance 'These landings were successful, and led to the defeat of the German Army units in France.' and my fiddles with the other sentances to meet my views on readability ;) Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've just realized that you already modified the first paragraph, so changes proposed by you are already there. The paragraph looks good. I'll try to add needed references and let's wait what other editors will say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the second paragraph is good. As regards to the first one, I couldn't see any appreciable difference. Maybe it makes sence to expand it a little bit more?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Expanded somewhat on the delaying role of the Partisans in southern Serbia and Macedonia (beyond the reach of the Red Army) and added the name of the Partisan commander. I hope there are no problems? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this correct? I actually assume these documents have been declassified some other time? Just two weeks before the Second World War broke out, declassified documents have revealed that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was prepared to send nearly a million troops to the German border to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed to an "anti-Nazi alliance. 80.57.67.243 (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments: Operation Tempest was Polish only, not Slovakian. I fully support mention of the Slovakian Uprising, but the links should not be confusing. It currently reads: prompted resistance forces in Poland and Slovakia to initiate several uprising. Further, next sentence equals concepts of city (Warsaw) with country (Slovakia) - that's somewhat illogical. Here's my proposed revision: Successful advance of Soviet troops prompted resistance forces in Poland and to initiate several uprisings, though the largest of these, in Warsaw, as well as a Slovak Uprising in the south, were put down by German forces.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Any other modifications?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing stands out.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent changes to this section Paul and Piotus, I fully support, section looks really good, clear and simple.--Jacurek (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
One short line about Market Garden added.--Jacurek (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Question
in what we(but not everyone), call WW2 or the Second World War I found this quote near the beginning of archived page number two. What nations don't acknowledge the existence of the Second World War? Do they even exist?
--Repdetect117 (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Grammar correction
Da4an1qu1 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Just a simple grammar tidy up
From section Concentration camps and slave work:
These prisoners where forced into hard labour which included lumbering the land and assisting in the production of pulp and paper.
the where should be were Concentration camps and slave work
Copyright violation removed
In this edit [2] I removed a few sentences as they were basically lifted from a news report with a few minor changes, and discuss something which the article was already covering adequetly in a couple of sentences. I don't see how it's a new revelation anyway - it's been known for decades that the Soviet Union had serious negotiations with France and Britain shortly before war broke out. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
1944 Warsaw Rising picture
Hello all, I was just wondering if it would be o.k. with the rest of the editors involved with this project to upload into WW2 article this picture [[3]] from 1944 Warsaw Uprising . The reason I think it would be nice to have the picture here is that the Warsaw Uprising was one of the biggest battles of the war but it is the least known. Your thoughts about it will be appreciated. Thanks a lot--Jacurek (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we need a picture of the uprising. It wasn't even close in scale to the biggest battles (for example, Battle of Moskow had 6+ million participants), nor did it have serious effect on the course of the war. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
That is absolutely true what you are saying, but Warsaw Rising was very unique in many ways, with causalities 250,000+ and so tragic end, with the city literally raced to the ground. Tens of thousands "amateur" soldiers fighting, for 3 months, the mighty German Army with "gasoline bottles" without or very little outside support. It is very hard to find anything similar to that. I think that the uniqueness of the Rising makes it worth to be underlined with a picture, but of course I will respect the opinion of the majority. Thank you for your comments.--Jacurek (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I also agree that we don't need a picture of the uprising, and there isn't room for it anyway - it would have to replace the photo of the Normandy landings. If we do agree on including a photo, Image:Warsaw_Uprising_boyscouts.jpg is much more arresting in my view than the proposed photo. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, "boys" picture would be much better if there is of course an agreement on including the photo. Normandy landing picture has to stay. Thanks again for your comments.--Jacurek (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Poland was one of the more important participants and thus deserves some graphical representation. Currently, there is only one: Soviet and German officers in Poland and it's not exactly a picture of Poles/Poland (in any case, this image may be better as it shows notable people, not anonymous officers). As far as Poland-specific pictures go, Warsaw Uprising showcases one of the most famous Poland-related WWII events (and a current Featured Article), and while indeed it was not probably among the largest battles out there, it was likely one of the largest partisan battles and urban uprisings in the world's history.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I am intended to replace the present version of the "Allies Close In" section with the new one (see above). Could you please play with that version to see how the image of Polish uprising will fit into it. However, please, take into account that the period described in that section includes (I mean only the European theatre):
- The largest amphibious invasion in history and subsequent large scale operations in Western Europe (Normandy).
- The massive Soviet offensive in the East (Bagration, the most calamitous defeat of all the German armed forces in World War II, according to Zaloga).
- Two other strategic offensives of the Red Army that had catastrophic consequences for the Axis similar to that of Bagration.
- Partisan war in Yugoslavia (that lasted longer than that in Poland and had greater strategic implication).
- Large scale German counter-offensive in the West (Bulge).
Feel free to modify the new version of the section and let's see if it is possible to add something about Poland without giving undue weight to the events there.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- How come "Partisan war in Yugoslavia...lasted longer than that in Poland and had greater strategic implication"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please be more concrete? Once again, if you disagree with the new version of the section, do appropriate editing and let's discuss.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- As this claim is not made in the article, I don't think it is important, but from my sources I'd say that the Yugoslavian partisan struggle was as large and as important as Polish - but not significantly "better".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- In actuality, the Polish contribution was not limited with the partisan activity. Large number of the Poles fought in the East and in the West, so the war contribution of Poland is about the same as that of France. Therefore, to my opinion, the amount of space in the article devoted to Poland and France should be equal. To my opinion, this is the case in the present version of the article, so I see no problem. However, if you disagree, let's discuss how to fix the situation.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)- That's a reasonable comparison. In any case, I think the current article can benefit from a few more photos; there are entire sections devoid of those. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- The article has plenty of pictures in my view, and the last two sections are the only ones without pictures at present. There was a long discussion of what pictures were suitable a few months ago which resulted in the current allocation and most of the current choices. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable comparison. In any case, I think the current article can benefit from a few more photos; there are entire sections devoid of those. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- In actuality, the Polish contribution was not limited with the partisan activity. Large number of the Poles fought in the East and in the West, so the war contribution of Poland is about the same as that of France. Therefore, to my opinion, the amount of space in the article devoted to Poland and France should be equal. To my opinion, this is the case in the present version of the article, so I see no problem. However, if you disagree, let's discuss how to fix the situation.
- As this claim is not made in the article, I don't think it is important, but from my sources I'd say that the Yugoslavian partisan struggle was as large and as important as Polish - but not significantly "better".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please be more concrete? Once again, if you disagree with the new version of the section, do appropriate editing and let's discuss.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- How come "Partisan war in Yugoslavia...lasted longer than that in Poland and had greater strategic implication"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Russo-German Non-Aggression Pact (1939)
This article states that Russia chose to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany because it was rebuffed by France and Great Britain. In my understanding, this is not the case. While Russian statesmen did claim (probably correctly) that France and Britain weren't persuasively committed to fulfilling their own responsibilities in the case of German agression against the USSR, they still were distinctly in favor of a mutual protection pact. In fact, the specific reason for the breakdown of negotations seemed to be the issue that Poland resisted cooperation with the Soviets, which the Soviets thought was due to British and French influences. The much bigger issue, however, seems to have been that the Soviets under Stalin stopped trusting collective security as a whole--especially do the Munich crisis, which the Soviets saw as confirmation that France and Britain weren't really interested in defending general peace or security, but rather their own. Thus, Stalin was at this time convinced that France and Britain were trying to push away from them and towards Soviet Russia. Around the same time, however, Germany started making overtures to the USSR in order to paritition Poland. While Stalin and the Soviets had no great faith in Hitler's intention, it seems likely that the USSR pursued better relations with Germany and the policy of unlimited neutrality in order to pursue the same policy that he saw in the West. Stalin tried to use these actions to redirect German aggression towards the growing hostility of France and Great Britain. Stalin thought the prospect of a war against the victors of the First World War--secured by the prospects of fighting on only one front--would be sufficient enticement for Hitler. Furthermore, at the time Stalin's seemingly most-reliable intelligence suggested that a large scale attack by Germany was not likely in the immediate future.
In summary, the USSR did not agree to neutrality with Germany because it was rebuffed by France and Great Britian--this was the time when they tried to bring Russia in the most. Instead, Stalin thought that Russia was more likely to mantain peace by stablizing relations with Germany than by pursuing discredited collective security arrangements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.155.247 (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right. In actuality, this piece of text has evolved during a series of small editions in a wrong direction. If we compare the present version and the 24 July 2008 version we will see that recent edits didn't improved it:
- Present version: Shortly after the Franco-British pledges to Poland, Germany and Italy formalized their own alliance with the Pact of Steel.
Since France and Britain were unwilling to create a formal military alliance with the USSR[30] and apprehensive of a possible war with Hitler while the Western powers remained neutral or tacitly favorable to Hitler,[31] the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact, named after the foreign secretaries of the two countries, on August 23, with Germany, including a secret agreement to split Poland and Eastern Europe between them.[32][33] - Old version: The Soviet Union also attempted to ally with France and Britain, but was rebuffed due to western suspicions about Soviet motives and capability.[108] Shortly after the Franco-British pledges to Poland, Germany and Italy formalized their own alliance with the Pact of Steel. Understanding that French and Britain are unwilling to create a formal military alliance with USSR[109] and that it might be a war between Hitler and the USSR with the Western powers neutral or tacitly favorable to Hitler[110], urged Soviet Union to offer Germany signing a non-aggression pact, including a secret agreement to split Poland and Eastern Europe between them.[111]
- The present version looks like the Triple Alliance negotiations had been interrupted by the UK and France, and, as a result, the USSR signed the MRP with Germany. In actuality, these negotiations continued until the very last moment. According to Derek Watson, the Soviet decision to negotiate a non-aggression pact was taken late and the Soviet contribution to the failure of the (Triple Alliance) negotiations was not lack of motivation but a failure to understand the French and British political position and diplomatic tactics; that Soviet foreign policy was 'passive', 'reactive' and ad hoc. It remains true, however, and must have been clear to Molotov and Stalin, that an agreement with Germany avoided an immediate war with that country and could satisfy Soviet territorial ambitions in eastern Poland, the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland, and Bessarabia; an alliance with Britain and France offered no territorial gains and a war with Germany in which the USSR was most likely to bear the brunt of a German attack.[112]
According to J. Roberts, the common opinion that the USSR's negotiations for a triple alliance with Great Britain and France in the spring and summer of 1939 were paralleled by secret Soviet-German discussions which eventually lead to the Nazi-Soviet pact of August 1939 is a cold war myth and the Merekalov-Weizsjcker meeting of 17 April 1939 wasn't a beginning of the secret negotiations.[113] - Therefore, I agree that MRP was a result of mutual mistrust and misunderstanding, not of the UK/France's refusal to sign the agreement. So I propose to modify the paragraph as follows:
- Shortly after the Franco-British pledges to Poland, Germany and Italy formalized their own alliance with the Pact of Steel. The USSR's negotiations for a triple alliance with Great Britain and France in the spring and summer of 1939 failed due to mutual mistrust[114] and because the collective security system in Europe was severely undermined by the Munich agreement and the subsequent events.[115] Apprehensive of a possible war with Hitler while the Western powers remained neutral or tacitly favorable to Hitler[116], the Soviet Union signed the non-aggression pact with Germany, including a secret agreement to split Poland and Eastern Europe between them.[117]
Comments/modifications are wellcome (as usually)
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Shortly after the Franco-British pledges to Poland, Germany and Italy formalized their own alliance with the Pact of Steel. The USSR's negotiations for a triple alliance with Great Britain and France in the spring and summer of 1939 failed due to mutual mistrust[114] and because the collective security system in Europe was severely undermined by the Munich agreement and the subsequent events.[115] Apprehensive of a possible war with Hitler while the Western powers remained neutral or tacitly favorable to Hitler[116], the Soviet Union signed the non-aggression pact with Germany, including a secret agreement to split Poland and Eastern Europe between them.[117]
- I agree, though I would keep this part of the present text: "Apprehensive of a possible war with Hitler while the Western powers remained neutral or tacitly favorable to Hitler..." -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Area Bombing
Some issues that might be briefly added to the article, if it is agreed:
On May 15 1940 the RAF started its long anticipated area bombing though it was after much internal controversy regarding the bombing of civilians, however, Lord Trenchant, for some time in charge of RAF policy, was hawkish about it.
Does the bombing of those cities in the Ruhr Valley May 15 1940 constitute something of a first in this war?
The 20 years of the then new air-power theory suggesting the domination of morale through the bombing of civilians, however showed itself to be perhaps the biggest mistake of the war, it had little effect on morale in the direction suppose, Trenchant had hoped it would drive the population against its own leadership, in fact it provided Hitler with another string to his bow, and became a point of unity amongst them.
I realize that the article is mainly concerned with facts, dates, etc but these have obviously been selected under some criteria, the number of bodies or whatever, many died in these bombings of the Ruhr on the 15th of May 194 and if a criterion is not bodies but spectacle then this spectacular show of airpower over cities is that. If a criterion is based on strategy then the failure of this "Morale" strategy, shows perhaps how this strategic misuse of airpower continues to haunt us. Though one could make such a comment about many air bombings prior to this here we have a connecting line, the strategist and implementer, Trenchard.84.203.39.11 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hitler declares war on the United States. Is this picture needed?
Before introduction of this picture, there were four photos in the section: two from Eastern Front, one from China-Pacific and one from Africa. This roughly reflected the overall scale and importance of the events during 1941-beginning of 1942. To my opinion, five pictures is too much. In addition, the new photograph simply represents usual Nazi official ceremony, so it carries no additional information. I propose to remove it.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't think that the photo of Monty adds anything either, especially as it is being wrongly used and titled - it actually depicts Monty during the Second Battle of El-Alemain, which occurred in October-November 1942, and so is outside the time period this section covers (Monty wasn't even in command of the Commonwealth forces during the first Battle of El-Alemain). Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I just removed the photo of Monty, and think that photo of Hitler should go as well. I think that the article is starting to suffer from an over-load of photos again - it looks very crowded on my large 24" monitor. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure if we need to remove the Montgomery's photo from the article. We can move it to the next section ("the tide turns"). To my opinion, the best ratio would be three pictures per section: one from Asia/Pacific, one from East (Poland/USSR) and one from West (Mediterranean/Western Front). So for the "The Tide Turn" section, pictures from Midway, Stalingrad and Second El-Alamein (three pivotal battles) are axactly what we need. And I always support showing pictures of historical persons, because otherwise the war looks faceless.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)- I agree with your view on the number of photos, but not on this particular photo. There's already a photo of Monty in the article (photographed with the other senior Allied generals at the end of the war) and this isn't a particularly interesting photo given that it only shows Monty and is obviously staged. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure if we need to remove the Montgomery's photo from the article. We can move it to the next section ("the tide turns"). To my opinion, the best ratio would be three pictures per section: one from Asia/Pacific, one from East (Poland/USSR) and one from West (Mediterranean/Western Front). So for the "The Tide Turn" section, pictures from Midway, Stalingrad and Second El-Alamein (three pivotal battles) are axactly what we need. And I always support showing pictures of historical persons, because otherwise the war looks faceless.
- I just removed the photo of Monty, and think that photo of Hitler should go as well. I think that the article is starting to suffer from an over-load of photos again - it looks very crowded on my large 24" monitor. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Relative importance of western and eastern fronts
The level of casualties on the Eastern front was much higher than elsewhere in Europe. The Soviet Union of course suffered massive military and civilian losses, an order of magnitude larger than those of the Western allies. Also, I remember hearing on the radio that something like 90% of German military losses were sustained on the eastern front. I was stunned to hear that a war in which I had always thought of the USSR as being on par with the United States in terms of its contribution had really essentially been won by them.
Since this is the English Wikipedia, it is to be expected that there will be some bias towards the western front, not because this is desirable, but because of the natural inclinations of the editors.
I'm not sure how to remedy this, but perhaps, at least, a paragraph could be added to the lead comparing the various theatres in terms of military significance and civilian casualties. Asian theatres could be mentioned too. 67.150.245.45 (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
WW II war becomes global, 7th Paragraph
Hi Paul
I thank yr call about the blanks in my edition. Anyway Here some links with a brief texts related to subject :
- [4]
- [5]
- [6] See on cronology - January 15-28, 1942; Inter-American Conference at Rio de Janeiro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybershore (talk • contribs) 03:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Given that Brazil was the only country to actually provide any assistance, and it was limited to an Army division and some ships and aircraft (eg, less than New Zealand's contribution to the war), I don't see why this needs to be mentioned in the article. Nick-D (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. In addition, no country declared a war on the Axis in Rio. The conference just recommended that those Latin American countries that had not already done so sever diplomatic and commercial relations with Germany, Italy, and Japan. Too insignificant to be mentioned.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. In addition, no country declared a war on the Axis in Rio. The conference just recommended that those Latin American countries that had not already done so sever diplomatic and commercial relations with Germany, Italy, and Japan. Too insignificant to be mentioned.
- I again respectfully disaccord of you. Yes, indeed the assistance was very modest and limited but I must remember for example that the contribution to the allied effort of war wasn't just relied on ( the most important front ) military aspects but also the strategic supplying, provison necessary to make the war machine keep moving. After the Japanese occupied the SouthEast of Asia for example, Brazil became practically the only supplier of rubber... having more deaths caused to the workers on jungle due the terrible work conditions than Italian Campaign cause to the Army Division.
- The campaign in South Atlantic was also secondary related to North Atlantic But the German Navy keep one pressure there until 1943 knowing the importance of the supplying of some commodities and raw material to allies as well as the US basis on NorthEast of Brazil cannot be considered by any means irrelevant as much as to combat the submarine warfare as to operations on North of Africa before the Torch Operation in November 1942. Furthermore if only the direct military participation would count many European and Asian countries that had much more civilian killed under occupation than its military in combats wouldn't not deserve to be mentioned. A War are complex matter not just related to the Battle Fields and last but not least the head of the section are "war becomes GLOBAL".
- Anyway even not having succeed in doing a minor and ( I believe ) justified edit in a encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit, I Thank You for the opportunity to show my arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybershore (talk • contribs) 06:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
3rd paragraph, Axis collapse, Allied victory section
I respectfully disaccord of Nick-D position about the matter since the section was extended just one line and half giving links for all main subjects related to the Italian Front that could not be covered in the main article of World War II. Hoping that I had clear my point here, I Thank You comprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybershore (talk • contribs) 04:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with the change is that this article very briefly covers the war's main campaigns, and the expansion you added gave undue weight to what was a relatively unimportant campaign (compare the coverage of the much more important Allied advance into Germany and capture of Berlin, which are covered in just a few words). Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Nick-D. In close future I plan to replace the present "Allies Close In" section with the new version form the talk page (above), because it seems to me that no one has any objections on that account. Since the new version ends with the Bulge, the "Axis collapse, Allied victory" section has to be modified accordingly. Therefore, it can probably be slightly extended, so the Cybershore's sentence may fit well into it. What do you think about that?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Nick-D. In close future I plan to replace the present "Allies Close In" section with the new version form the talk page (above), because it seems to me that no one has any objections on that account. Since the new version ends with the Bulge, the "Axis collapse, Allied victory" section has to be modified accordingly. Therefore, it can probably be slightly extended, so the Cybershore's sentence may fit well into it. What do you think about that?
- That sounds good to me, but it will require the 'Axis collapse, Allied victory' section to be modified to slightly expand the coverage of all the final battles of the war in Europe so that balance is maintained. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, Paul and Nick I appreciate Yr attention. Thank You
Lithuania and Poland in 1939
78.151.173.242 (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)IN THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN A LIE!!!! Lithuania REGAINED ONLY A TINY PART of Lithuania's ethnic lands which for nearly 20 years WAS OCCUPIED BY POLAND. So please do not write like this: 'On September 17, 1939, after signing an armistice with Japan, the Soviets launched their own invasion of Poland.[35] By early October, the campaign ended with division of Poland among Germany, the Soviet Union, Lithuania and Slovakia[36], although officially Poland never surrendered.' LITHUANIA TOOK 0% OF POLISH LANDS!!! So please make it clear!!! Moreover this was the part of ethnic lands with the CAPITAL of Lithuania VILNIUS!!! And by counting deaths DO NOT COUNT DEATHS OF LITHUANIANS AS POLISH DEATHS in occupied parts, otherwise Russia can claim that So0viet Union had casualties and Lithuania had 0 casualties!!! The same is true and with percentages78.151.173.242 (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Amnon Sella. 'Barbarossa': Surprise Attack and Communication. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 13, No. 3, (Jul., 1978), pp. 555-583.
- ^ The Time to Act Is Now. The New York Times. Jun 24, 1941.
- ^ Alan F. Wilt. Hitler's Late Summer Pause in 1941. Military Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp.187-191.
- ^ Shukman, Harold. Stalin's Generals, p.113
- ^ A. S. Milward. The End of the Blitzkrieg. The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 16, No. 3 (1964), pp. 499-518.
- ^ Louis Rotundo. The Creation of Soviet Reserves and the 1941 Campaign. Military Affairs, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Jan., 1986), pp. 21-28.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
GlantzDecCounter
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Raymond L. Garthoff. The Soviet Manchurian Campaign, August 1945. Military Affairs, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Oct., 1969), p. 312.
- ^ Welch, David. Modern European History, 1871-2000: A Documentary Reader, pg. 102
- ^ Glantz, David M. From the Don to the Dnepr: Soviet Offensive Operations, December 1942-August 1943, pg. 215
- ^ David M. Glantz, The Soviet‐German War 1941–45Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay.
- ^ Hitler Can Be Beaten. The New York Times: Aug 5, 1941
- ^ In the Mediterranean. The New York Times: Jul 13, 1941
- ^ Pravda, Alex; Duncan, Peter J. S. Soviet-British Relations Since the 1970s, pg. 29
- ^ Heptulla, Najma. The Logic of Political Survival, pg. 131
- ^ a b c d e Louis, William Roger. More Adventures with Britannia: Personalities, Politics and Culture in Britain, pg. 223
- ^ Gannon, James. Stealing Secrets, Telling Lies: How Spies and Codebreakers Helped Shape the Twentieth Century, pg. 76
- ^ AFLMA Year in Review, pg. 32
- ^ AFLMA Year in Review, pg. 33
- ^ Irvine H. Anderson, Jr. De Facto Embargo on Oil to Japan: A Bureaucratic Reflex. The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 44, No. 2 (May, 1975), p. 201.
- ^ Northrup, Cynthia Clark. The American economy: a historical encyclopedia, pg. 214
- ^ Lightbody, Bradley. The Second World War: Ambitions to Nemesis, pg. 125
- ^ Morgan, Patrick M. Strategic Military Surprise: Incentives and Opportunities, pg. 51
- ^ Thurman, M. J.; Sherman, Christine. War Crimes: Japan's World War II Atrocities, pg. 68
- ^ Mingst, Karen A.; Karns, Margaret P. United Nations in the Twenty-First Century, pg. 22
- ^ Dunn, Dennis J. Caught Between Roosevelt & Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow, pg. 157
- ^ Klam, Julie. The Rise of Japan and Pearl Harbor, pg. 27
- ^ Hill, J. R.; Ranft, Bryan. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy, pg. 362
- ^ a b c Hsiung, James Chieh; Levine, Steven I. China's Bitter Victory: The War with Japan, 1937-1945, pg. 158
- ^ Gooch, John. Decisive Campaigns of the Second World War, pg.52
- ^ Molinari, Andrea. Desert Raiders: Axis and Allied Special Forces 1940-43, pg. 91
- ^ Mitcham, Samuel W.; Mitcham, Samuel W. Jr. Rommel's Desert War: The Life and Death of the Afrika Korps, pg. 31
- ^ Parillo; Peattie & Evans.
- ^ Peattie & Evans, Kaigun.
- ^ Morgan, Patrick M. Strategic Military Surprise: Incentives and Opportunities, pg. 51
- ^ Northrup, Cynthia Clark. The American economy: a historical encyclopedia, pg. 214
- ^ Lightbody, Bradley. The Second World War: Ambitions to Nemesis, pg. 125
- ^ Klam, Julie. The Rise of Japan and Pearl Harbor, pg. 27
- ^ Hill, J. R.; Ranft, Bryan. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy, pg. 362
- ^ Gannon, James. Stealing Secrets, Telling Lies: How Spies and Codebreakers Helped Shape the Twentieth Century, pg. 76
- ^ Amnon Sella. 'Barbarossa': Surprise Attack and Communication. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 13, No. 3, (Jul., 1978), pp. 555-583.
- ^ The Time to Act Is Now. The New York Times. Jun 24, 1941.
- ^ Alan F. Wilt. Hitler's Late Summer Pause in 1941. Military Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp.187-191.
- ^ a b David M. Glantz The Soviet‐German War 1941–45Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay. P.9.
- ^ Hitler Can Be Beaten. The New York Times: Aug 5, 1941
- ^ Brian P. Farrell. Yes, Prime Minister: Barbarossa, Whipcord, and the Basis of British Grand Strategy, Autumn 1941. The Journal of Military History, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 599-625
- ^ Pravda, Alex; Duncan, Peter J. S. Soviet-British Relations Since the 1970s, pg. 29
- ^ Heptulla, Najma. The Logic of Political Survival, pg. 131
- ^ Gannon, James. Stealing Secrets, Telling Lies: How Spies and Codebreakers Helped Shape the Twentieth Century, pg. 76
- ^ AFLMA Year in Review, pg. 32
- ^ AFLMA Year in Review, pg. 33
- ^ Irvine H. Anderson, Jr. De Facto Embargo on Oil to Japan: A Bureaucratic Reflex. The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 44, No. 2 (May, 1975), p. 201.
- ^ Northrup, Cynthia Clark. The American economy: a historical encyclopedia, pg. 214
- ^ Lightbody, Bradley. The Second World War: Ambitions to Nemesis, pg. 125
- ^ Morgan, Patrick M. Strategic Military Surprise: Incentives and Opportunities, pg. 51
- ^ Gerald R. Kleinfeld. Hitler's Strike for Tikhvin. Military Affairs, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Oct., 1983), pp. 122-128
- ^ Shukman, Harold. Stalin's Generals, p.113
- ^ Klaus Reinhardt ; Karl B. Keenan. Moscow-The Turning Point: The Failure of Hitler's Strategy in the Winter of 1941-42. Berg, 1992. ISBN 0854966951. P.227.
- ^ A. S. Milward. The End of the Blitzkrieg. The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 16, No. 3 (1964), pp. 499-518.
- ^ Louis Rotundo. The Creation of Soviet Reserves and the 1941 Campaign. Military Affairs, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Jan., 1986), pp. 21-28.
- ^ Raymond L. Garthoff. The Soviet Manchurian Campaign, August 1945. Military Affairs, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Oct., 1969), p. 312.
- ^ Welch, David. Modern European History, 1871-2000: A Documentary Reader, pg. 102
- ^ Glantz, David M. From the Don to the Dnepr: Soviet Offensive Operations, December 1942-August 1943, pg. 215
- ^ Mingst, Karen A.; Karns, Margaret P. United Nations in the Twenty-First Century, pg. 22
- ^ Dunn, Dennis J. Caught Between Roosevelt & Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow, pg. 157
- ^ Klam, Julie. The Rise of Japan and Pearl Harbor, pg. 27
- ^ Hill, J. R.; Ranft, Bryan. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy, pg. 362
- ^ Gooch, John. Decisive Campaigns of the Second World War, pg.52
- ^ Molinari, Andrea. Desert Raiders: Axis and Allied Special Forces 1940-43, pg. 91
- ^ Mitcham, Samuel W.; Mitcham, Samuel W. Jr. Rommel's Desert War: The Life and Death of the Afrika Korps, pg. 31
- ^ Mingst, Karen A.; Karns, Margaret P. United Nations in the Twenty-First Century, pg. 22
- ^ Dunn, Dennis J. Caught Between Roosevelt & Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow, pg. 157
- ^ The Baltic States: Years of Dependence 1940 – 1990. University of California Press.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|authors=
ignored (help) - ^ Berend, Tibor Iván. Central and Eastern Europe, 1944-1993: Detour from the Periphery to the Periphery, pg. 8
- ^ a b c d e f David M. Glantz (2002). The Battle for Leningrad 1941-1944. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Cite error: The named reference "glantz" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Steven H. Newton (1995). Retreat from Leningrad : Army Group North, 1944/1945. Atglen, Philadelphia: Schiffer Books.
- ^ a b c d В.Бешанов (2004). Десять сталинских ударов (Ten Shocks of Stalin). Харвест, Minsk.
- ^ Berend, Tibor Iván. Central and Eastern Europe, 1944-1993: Detour from the Periphery to the Periphery, pg. 8
- ^ The operation "was the most calamitous defeat of all the German armed forces in World War II". Zaloga, Bagration 1944: The destruction of Army Group Centre, 7.
- ^ Berend, Tibor Iván. Central and Eastern Europe, 1944-1993: Detour from the Periphery to the Periphery, pg. 8
- ^ Berend, Tibor Iván. Central and Eastern Europe, 1944-1993: Detour from the Periphery to the Periphery, pg. 8
- ^ Wiest, Andrew A.; Barbier, M. K. Strategy and Tactics Infantry Warfare pgs. 65, 66
- ^ The operation "was the most calamitous defeat of all the German armed forces in World War II". Zaloga, Bagration 1944: The destruction of Army Group Centre, 7.
- ^ Berend, Tibor Iván. Central and Eastern Europe, 1944-1993: Detour from the Periphery to the Periphery, pg. 8
- ^ Berend, Tibor Iván. Central and Eastern Europe, 1944-1993: Detour from the Periphery to the Periphery, pg. 8
- ^ Wiktor, Christian L. Multilateral Treaty Calendar - 1648-1995, pg. 426
- ^ Wiest, Andrew A.; Barbier, M. K. Strategy and Tactics Infantry Warfare pgs. 65, 66
- ^ The operation "was the most calamitous defeat of all the German armed forces in World War II". Zaloga, Bagration 1944: The destruction of Army Group Centre, 7.
- ^ Berend, Tibor Iván. Central and Eastern Europe, 1944-1993: Detour from the Periphery to the Periphery, pg. 8
- ^ Berend, Tibor Iván. Central and Eastern Europe, 1944-1993: Detour from the Periphery to the Periphery, pg. 8
- ^ Wiktor, Christian L. Multilateral Treaty Calendar - 1648-1995, pg. 426
- ^ Wiest, Andrew A.; Barbier, M. K. Strategy and Tactics Infantry Warfare pgs. 65, 66
- ^ a b c Lauri Mälksoo (1999). The Government of Otto Tief and Attempt to Restore the Independence of Estonia in 1944: A Legal Appraisal. In: Toomas Hiio, Meelis Maripuu, Indrek Paavle (Eds.). Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Weinberg, Gerhard L. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II, pg. 695
- ^ Badsey, Stephen. Normandy 1944: Allied Landings and Breakout, pg. 91
- ^ The operation "was the most calamitous defeat of all the German armed forces in World War II". Zaloga, Bagration 1944: The destruction of Army Group Centre, 7.
- ^ Berend, Tibor Iván. Central and Eastern Europe, 1944-1993: Detour from the Periphery to the Periphery, pg. 8
- ^ Wiest, Andrew A.; Barbier, M. K. Strategy and Tactics Infantry Warfare pgs. 65, 66
- ^ Wiktor, Christian L. Multilateral Treaty Calendar - 1648-1995, pg. 426
- ^ Marston, Daniel. The Pacific War Companion: From Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima, pg. 120
- ^ Jowett, Philip S. The Japanese Army, 1931-45, pg. 8
- ^ Howard, Joshua H. Workers at War: Labor in China's Arsenals, 1937-1953, pg. 140
- ^ Drea, Edward J. In the Service of the Emperor: Essays on the Imperial Japanese Army, pg. 54
- ^ Cook, Chris; Bewes, Diccon. What Happened Where: A Guide to Places and Events in Twentieth-Century History, pg. 305
- ^ Weinberg, Gerhard L. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II, pg. 695
- ^ Badsey, Stephen. Normandy 1944: Allied Landings and Breakout, pg. 91
- ^ Cook, Chris; Bewes, Diccon. What Happened Where: A Guide to Places and Events in Twentieth-Century History, pg. 305
- ^ Sharp, Alan; Stone, Glyn. Anglo-French Relations in the Twentieth Century, pg 195-197
- ^ Rudolf Schlesinger. The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia. Soviet Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, (Oct., 1949), pp. 140-150. Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
- ^ E. H. Carr., From Munich to Moscow. I., Soviet Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, (Jun., 1949), pp. 3-17. Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
- ^ Day, Alan J.; East, Roger; Thomas, Richard. A Political and Economic Dictionary of Eastern Europe, pg. 405
- ^ (Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939. Author(s): Derek Watson Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
- ^ Infamous Encounter? The Merekalov-Weizsacker Meeting of 17 April 1939 Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts Source: The Historical Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 921-926 Published by: Cambridge University Press
- ^ (Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939. Author(s): Derek Watson Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
- ^ MAX BELOFF, The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia, vol. II, 1936–41. Issued under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Oxford University Press, 1949.
- ^ E. H. Carr., From Munich to Moscow. I., Soviet Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, (Jun., 1949), pp. 3-17. Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
- ^ Day, Alan J.; East, Roger; Thomas, Richard. A Political and Economic Dictionary of Eastern Europe, pg. 405
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- B-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- B-Class African military history articles
- African military history task force articles
- B-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
- B-Class Balkan military history articles
- Balkan military history task force articles
- B-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- B-Class Canadian military history articles
- Canadian military history task force articles
- B-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- B-Class Dutch military history articles
- Dutch military history task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class French military history articles
- French military history task force articles
- B-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- B-Class Indian military history articles
- Indian military history task force articles
- B-Class Italian military history articles
- Italian military history task force articles
- B-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- B-Class Nordic military history articles
- Nordic military history task force articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class Polish military history articles
- Polish military history task force articles
- B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- B-Class South Asian military history articles
- South Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- B-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- Failed requests for military history A-Class review