Talk:World War II

Battles of Narvik

this one time in band camp i met hitler Maybe a reference to it should be added, German shipping loses at the Battle, particularly of destroyers was one of the contributing factors into the cancellation of Operation Sea Lion. The loss of so many surface ships to a relatively small Navy (compared to RN)at this early stage of the war limited Germany's ability to create task forces ect. The Battle was also significant in highlighting the weaknessess in Germany's so far invincible war machine, coupled with the loss of the Graf Spee (1939), and the Bismarck (1941) it showed that the Kreigsmarine was ill equipped to deal with the Royal Navy, this led to the increased use of U-Boats as opposed to surface ships. Perhaps these early loses were a decisive factor in deciding how the Battle of the Atlantic would be fought?

Bulgaria

Since there is a note regarding the changing of sides for most relevant countries like the USSR, Italy etc surely there should be one for Bulgaria?

War breaks out in Europe (1939) with addition showing what was before for right understanding and 2 maps of "Deutsches Reich" also before Adolf Hitler also far in east

Incoherent addition refactored

Deutsches Reich 1871–1914

Deutsches Reich 1919–1937

Missed direct history before and new informations in german language and translation out of german WP articles(polen#Geschichte...): Missed direct history before and new informations in german language and translation out of german WP articles(polen#Geschichte...): Eine restriktive Politik gegenüber der deutschen Minderheit, die zur Emigration etwa einer Million deutschsprachiger Staatsbürger führte, die Weigerung der Regierung Stresemann, die neue deutsche Ostgrenze anzuerkennen, ein „Zollkrieg“ um die oberschlesische Kohle sowie der politisch-weltanschauliche Gegensatz zum Sowjetsystem schlossen eine Kooperation Polens mit seinen beiden größten Nachbarn aus. Eine restriktive Politik gegenüber der deutschen Minderheit, die zur Emigration etwa einer Million deutschsprachiger Staatsbürger führte, die Weigerung der Regierung Stresemann, die neue deutsche Ostgrenze anzuerkennen, ein „Zollkrieg“ um die oberschlesische Kohle sowie der politisch-weltanschauliche Gegensatz zum Sowjetsystem schlossen eine Kooperation Polens mit seinen beiden größten Nachbarn aus. Translation: (A restrictive politic against german minority, that lead to "emigration of about one million" german speaking citizens(aggressive to win elections and countings but lost for upper silesia...), the refusal of "Stresemann" governement to accept the new german east border, a toll war for the upper silesia coal and the political opposition to the soviet system exluding a cooperation with polands two neighbours. Short before poland was attacked itself by the national socialist germany, it claimed in the course of "Munich" convention territorial rights against Czechoslovakia. At october 1938 poland annexed, against the will of Czechoslovakia governement, the Olsa area inhabited most by polands, which 1919 was occupied by Czechoslovakia.)

(Here insertion of original article)

(Hier mögliche Zusatzinformation bzgl. neustem Stand über TV Sendung in BRD länger zuvor die Hitler live zeigt so ganz sicher hist. korrekt bei Erstangriff von England nä(h)mlich völlig fassungslos das England ihn Angriff in Widerspruch zu Planung England Erstangriff zu überlassen) (Hitler was shown in german TV live as historical document at the time of the england attack totally stunned that england atttacks him intervening in poland in opposition that Hitler planned to give england the first atack in german 2. WW article)

Additionally long time before history also to much for insertion but for right understanding: Long time before was first founding of poland 967 before since 2. century before christ german tribe (including today english+french+scandinaviens... not just wrong today germans) area over aggressive roman catholic church and before forced christianization with Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae and the "Hunnen" attacks. Missed information from where are polands coming like for 3 million blacks. Today poland near free of foreigners and jews but themself more than 20 million living outside. The roman empire was destroyed before with varus battle of hermann and hannibal but reestablished over church structure from german Carolus Magnus as roman emperor ("Sachsenschlächter" slaughterer of (anglo?) saxons) with new jewish JHWH instead jupiter attacking also the religion of german tribes as common band with creator of world and first humans Askre and Embla - Odin and brothers with tree of live and worlds yggdrasil also called irminsul symbolic cutted, apocalypse was the ragnarök and self sacrifice from Odin itself and godness Idun and here apples attacked by sin... The spreading of Tora first just 10 commandments in egypt language since hebraic not existing was with predecessor 10 pharon commandments, zoroaster and German mythology and runic script. German language original from german Wikipedia showing that roman enemies behind first poland: 966 ließ sich Mieszko I. nach römisch-katholischem Ritus taufen. Das Territorium erreichte durch Eroberungen unter Mieszko I. und seinem Sohn Bolesław dem Tapferen Grenzen, die den heutigen Staatsgrenzen sehr nahe kamen. Um 997 schloss Polen ein enges politisch-militärisches Bündnis mit dem Heiligen Römischen Reich, während des Staatsakts zu Gnesen im Jahr 1000 wurde die Übereinkunft vom polnischen Herrscher Bolesław I. und Kaiser Otto III. bestätigt. Mit der Krönung Bolesławs im Jahr 1025 wurde Polen in den Stand eines Königreiches erhoben.

Axis advances (Which axe advanced ?)

USA citizens did not want to intervene in 2. WW with about 80% majority but got involved by jew Roosevelt governement not staying neutral with embargo against japan for oil(already inside and called aggression), iron, steel and mechanical parts, and delivering weapons to england with military sea escort. Secret Service of USA did know before from japan pearl harbor attack 10m beside of navy command center but did not say anything because they wanted that as reason for the american public to intervene fully in 2. WW sacrificing the pearl harbour NAVY. At all about 55-60million deaths in 2. WW why ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Theobald#Post-war .....

German medias reported longer ago that russian historians agreed that Stalin had first attack plan and standing already with tanks on german border as A. Hitler made a prevention attack ! Why A. Hitler should want an additional war border and not Stalin with jewish marxism behind ?

Pre-war events extension Hawaii showing not right to say japan did attack USA letting aggressive annexation of USA before away out of WP

Annexation—the Territory of Hawaii (1898–1959)After William McKinley won the presidential election in 1896, Hawaii's annexation to the U.S. was again discussed. The previous president, Grover Cleveland, was a friend of Queen Liliʻuokalani. McKinley was open to persuasion by U.S. expansionists and by annexationists from Hawaii. He met with three annexationists from Hawaii: Lorrin Thurston, Francis March Hatch and William Ansel Kinney. After negotiations, in June 1897, Secretary of State John Sherman agreed to a treaty of annexation with these representatives of the Republic of Hawaii.[56]

The treaty was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Instead, despite the opposition of a majority of Native Hawaiians,[57] the Newlands Resolution was used to annex the Republic to the United States and it became the Territory of Hawaii. The Newlands Resolution was passed by the House June 15, 1898, by a vote of 209 to 91, and by the Senate on July 6, 1898, by a vote of 42 to 21.

The USS Shaw exploding during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.Puerto Rican immigration to Hawaii began when Puerto Rico's sugar industry was devastated by two hurricanes in 1899. The devastation caused a world-wide shortage of sugar and a huge demand for the product from Hawaii. Hawaiian sugar plantation owners began to recruit the jobless, but experienced, laborers in Puerto Rico. Two distinct waves of Korean immigration to Hawaii have occurred in the last century. The first arrived in between 1903 and 1924; the second wave began in 1965.

In 1900, Hawaii was granted self-governance and retained ʻIolani Palace as the territorial capitol building. Despite several attempts to become a state, Hawaii remained a territory for sixty years. Plantation owners and key capitalists, who maintained control through financial institutions, or "factors", known as the "Big Five", found territorial status convenient, enabling them to continue importing cheap foreign labor; such immigration was prohibited in various states.

Concentration camps and slave work (addionally information for right understanding)

First concentration camps did exist on all sides normally and prisoners of war must work also. Also SS did first only plan deportation of the jews but extended near to end of 2. WW to secret genozide with threat of death if speaking about so even 6. army did not know about until going into russia and wanted to stopp that after coming back. Later 500 000 at poland home land banishment and 3.1 million germans in russia... died by genocide because after end of war. In percent ? most germans died in and after 2. WW. Genocide was public frowned upon in NAZI regime. SS was not allowed to speak about else punished to death same normal soldiers if not fighting. Israel did not exist to be attacked but SS... did know that jew Roosevelt and jew Marx... did arrange the attackings same like in France long before jews are burned alive on banishment after french burned before in masses over long time by catholic church inquisition by jew Tora behind. Also in russia jews are killed because before russians killed by forced christianization in masses all long time ago. See history jews in russia+france... also Kanaan simply attacked by the jews. Who died most in percentage from population and who attacked first ? Long time before roman vasalic systems installed after war was won against romans coming back over jewish roman catholic church installing vasalic systems see Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae... attacking common band of all the german tribes Odin, Yggdrasil, Idun, Ragnarök, Frigg...

War becomes global (1941) addition

Russian historic did say already that Stalin with jewish marxism behind did have first attack plan standing already with army tanks on border until Hitler decided to attack himself first without choice for no war with russia calling it a prevention attack. It`s historical very unbelievable that Adolf Hitler did want that time already in war another war border and not Stalin breaking the Adolf Hitler-Stalin-pact with secret pact for poland intervention. Unlikly is also that Adolf Hitler planned russia as any new living room but securing old

living room see maps of "Deutsches Reich" also long time before Adolf Hitler was even born.

Can we get consensus to delete this? Apart from providing a bizarre and almost incoherent neo-nazi "perspective" of WW2, its WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX and probably several others WP:FILLINBLANKs I have missed. It's taking up bytes and it provides zero positive input in improving the article. Irondome (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Pre-War event: 1931 Japanese invasion of Mandchuria

The Japanese invasion of Manchuria started on 18 September 1931: Japanese militarists moved forward to separate the region from Chinese control and to create a Japanese-aligned puppet state, Manchukuo, proclaimed independent on 18 February 1932. To create an air of legitimacy, the last Emperor of China, Puyi, was invited to come with his followers and act as the head of state.

Super-secret double probation?

Evidently, mere mortals cannot edit this article, but it doesn't say why - no lock icon or any other explanation. I recommend that you put something at the top of the page that tells ordinary folks why there are no "edit" buttons for this article. 76.191.132.17 (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected (you need to have an account for a few days and a couple edits to edit here) and has been since 2010. I think a bot automatically adds the lock icons. Maybe it broke? Rmhermen (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Imphal and Kohima Image

I would recommend that we change the Monte Casino image to that of Battle of Imphal and Kohima, (also mentioned in the text). This battle is very significant to the war in the Pacific, and is sometimes referred to as the "Stalingrad of Asia". So, the battle is much more important in the overall context than Monte Casino (which has a bit of cult status among historians, but is not very significant to the actual outcome of the war). Also, the new image would help to diversify the article by showing troops of the two million strong Indian-British Commonwealth Army. Current image [1] Proposed image [2] --Factor01 (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right, the battle is mentioned in the text (I just overlooked it). Regardless, I still feel the Monte Cassino image is better than the image you selected, since it shows the result of the battle and not just soldiers joking around. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 18:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

ok, there are a few images of combat during the Burma Campaign, that potentially may be a better choice. But, for now we'll stay with Monte Cassino. --Factor01 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I do think you raise a very valid point about the lack of any images from that theater of the war and we should probably look to include a couple at least. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 21:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some pretty dramatic images from I&K in commons I believe. I will have a look round. It is certainly arguably a hugely more decisive battle than Cassino. I&K was the largest Allied land battle with the IJA and decisely broke the Japanese hold on Burma and crippled the Japanese defence potential of holding Malaya. I think it is of stellar notability, I would support a photographic representation. Irondome (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Order

This topic most likely has been discussed but I can not find it in the archives so I must ask again. The flag order should be USSR, USA, UK like it has been for some time. I haven't had the t,me to edit wikipedia for a few months and now I see that that order has changed. I will revert it back unless someone objects and has a valid reason or if this topic has already been discussed. Thank you. (Central Data Bank (talk))

It has been discussed ad-nauseum before. See Archive #40 for one example. The current order is by consensus and should be left as it is unless you can provide a valid justification for change. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe the order should be USSR, UK, USA. Because although it is very close to choose between the UK and USA for second place I think that since the UK did some more in the African, Atlantic, Italian, Mediterranean, Bombing Campaign, and in the early phases of Operation Overlord not to mention all actions since the beginning of the war in France and Greece that it should be placed before the USA. I'm not trying to be biassed towards the UK and let it be known that it is very close but i think the edge goes to the UK. — 06:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I know from editing in my own area of expertise that these things can get very heated and very specific in the minutiae of detail involved in making the case. Since, D-Day, I have returned to my roots as a trained historian (classically trained in an American public university, with specific training by a British historian who is an expert in WWII. When I told him that the Wikipedia had placed both the USSR and UK in a position greater than the US, he chuckled. The discussion continued as he asked me to elaborate why., especially with regard to the UK. So I looked at your Archive 40, etc. But first, I want to re-visit the criteria referred to related to guidance on the template page. There it lists Order of Importance to the Conflict related to Military Contribution, Political Clout, or a recognized chain of command. In discussing early presence in the War, Britain is there, of course. Then, continuing on, there are other details in the discussion where nations like SA and Poland are mentioned, etc. related to criteria discussed. What I would like to know what is the exact criteria for determining order here, if you have achieved formal consensus as to how this is laid out here (and in other articles related to the war). In terms of Political Clout, the US decided much, with the benefit of giving Churchill the ability to change its mind. But putting Eisenhower in charge of Operation Overlord wasn't so Democratic, was it? Militarily, while specific early events default to other players, after mid 1942 ( or earlier, depending on the exact event in a couple cases) EVERY military victory the Allies had OR the timeliness of when they had it was the result of the US and its production (and supply lines to both the USSR and the UK. By 1944, the US was producing at least 1/2, if not far more, of all WAR material on Earth (not even mentioned in any article I have seen on the topic). In the various conferences with Stalin ( and in events involving Churchill and Roosevelt before that), the power resided in Washington, and by extension in Roosevelt, since before the ink on Lend/Lease was dry. In Archive 40, someone mentions a contribution in Burma by the UK. Really? What about the ENTIRE Pacific Theater and every campaign leading from the "surprise" at Pearl all the way to Okinawa? The argument in Archive 40 seems (oddly) myopic and Eastern Theater oriented, which as many know was a goal of Churchill that had him up to all hours in the Whitehouse drinking himself sober until FDR agreed to absolutely continue the "Germany First" campaign ( after Pearl). Another aspect of this is sheer military size. I know...I know...Britain had the largest Navy on the seas through 1942, but then what happened? The point is that by the time the WINNING came about, the US had, by far, the largest Navy. I won't suggest that the USSR was second fiddle until I see what the EXACT CRITERIA for the list IS, but how much material did the US send to Moscow to stabilize Stalin's machine while Hitler was devastating the west of his vast Eurasion world (remember-most of the industrial capacity of the USSR was in the West of that "nation" before Hitler's mechanized forces either destroyed it or forced it to be moved east (that move took precious time). So, even where the SU was concerned, the question was always, "Are the Americans going to help...and how much (and how soon)?" With the US responsible for these bazillion dolor questions throughout the war, the question of political power and clout (which is absent in what I read here in your archive) is a moot point at the point in the conflict when it mattered-the point of do or die...the point of Will Fascism win or lose. Another concern I have about placement is of country in the "Belligerents" list is this: The US had a military of over 12,000,000 in the field compared to the UK's 3 million PLUS. Also, it was the US ALONE that checked the expansion of Japan in the Far East, where, sadly, the UK lost two capital ships attempting to do so. In fact, it was the US focusing FIRST, in the Far East, that may have saved Australia, while the UK was unable to help at all. And, finally, whether we like it or not, those two atomic bombs seal the deal on the US' hegemony OVER the UK at the least, if not the USSR, but I'm still not as sure about the USSR because I still could NOT find any criteria defined as to the way Belligerents are laid out in the box. Because I have not entered into this "Frey" before, please excuse me for missing clear "Belligerent List Criteria" if I did. But I also want to mention that fresh eyes can be helpful for those who have been involved closely on a topic for a long time. Btw, though it's not this specific article, I am concerned this MAY be a POV matter across several articles at least. Here's why: In a couple major daughter articles related to Normandy, I see the US not only in a secondary role in the "Belligerent" area of the box (which, again, maybe ok, depending upon criteria used), I also see it listed third here and there (after the UK and Canada) where it is the primary player as in total number of paratroopers deployed. So, I'm hoping there is no SYSTEMATIC issue where an overbearing editor or editors has/ have an unrecognized POV agenda, even a subtle one. It is these types of issues that can affect the overall quality of an article or articles and lead to credibility issues. We ALL have bias that must be confronted. If we don't, these issues surface. Regards, Norcalal (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

== Order ==

This topic most likely has been discussed but I can not find it in the archives so I must ask again. The flag order should be USSR, USA, UK like it has been for some time. I haven't had the t,me to edit wikipedia for a few months and now I see that that order has changed. I will revert it back unless someone objects and has a valid reason or if this topic has already been discussed. Thank you. (Central Data Bank (talk))

It has been discussed ad-nauseum before. See Archive #40 for one example. The current order is by consensus and should be left as it is unless you can provide a valid justification for change. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe the order should be USSR, UK, USA. Because although it is very close to choose between the UK and USA for second place I think that since the UK did some more in the African, Atlantic, Italian, Mediterranean, Bombing Campaign, and in the early phases of Operation Overlord not to mention all actions since the beginning of the war in France and Greece that it should be placed before the USA. I'm not trying to be biassed towards the UK and let it be known that it is very close but i think the edge goes to the UK. — 06:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I know from editing in my own area of expertise that these things can get very heated and very specific in the minutiae of detail involved in making the case. Since, D-Day, I have returned to my roots as a trained historian (classically trained in an American public university, with specific training by a British historian who is an expert in WWII. When I told him that the Wikipedia had placed both the USSR and UK in a position greater than the US, he chuckled. The discussion continued as he asked me to elaborate why., especially with regard to the UK. So I looked at your Archive 40, etc. But first, I want to re-visit the criteria referred to related to guidance on the template page. There it lists Order of Importance to the Conflict related to Military Contribution, Political Clout, or a recognized chain of command. In discussing early presence in the War, Britain is there, of course. Then, continuing on, there are other details in the discussion where nations like SA and Poland are mentioned, etc. related to criteria discussed. What I would like to know what is the exact criteria for determining order here, if you have achieved formal consensus as to how this is laid out here (and in other articles related to the war). In terms of Political Clout, the US decided much, with the benefit of giving Churchill the ability to change its mind. But putting Eisenhower in charge of Operation Overlord wasn't so Democratic, was it? Militarily, while specific early events default to other players, after mid 1942 ( or earlier, depending on the exact event in a couple cases) EVERY military victory the Allies had OR the timeliness of when they had it was the result of the US and its production (and supply lines to both the USSR and the UK. By 1944, the US was producing at least 1/2, if not far more, of all WAR material on Earth (not even mentioned in any article I have seen on the topic). In the various conferences with Stalin ( and in events involving Churchill and Roosevelt before that), the power resided in Washington, and by extension in Roosevelt, since before the ink on Lend/Lease was dry. In Archive 40, someone mentions a contribution in Burma by the UK. Really? What about the ENTIRE Pacific Theater and every campaign leading from the "surprise" at Pearl all the way to Okinawa? The argument in Archive 40 seems (oddly) myopic and Eastern Theater oriented, which as many know was a goal of Churchill that had him up to all hours in the Whitehouse drinking himself sober until FDR agreed to absolutely continue the "Germany First" campaign ( after Pearl). Another aspect of this is sheer military size. I know...I know...Britain had the largest Navy on the seas through 1942, but then what happened? The point is that by the time the WINNING came about, the US had, by far, the largest Navy. I won't suggest that the USSR was second fiddle until I see what the EXACT CRITERIA for the list IS, but how much material did the US send to Moscow to stabilize Stalin's machine while Hitler was devastating the west of his vast Eurasion world (remember-most of the industrial capacity of the USSR was in the West of that "nation" before Hitler's mechanized forces either destroyed it or forced it to be moved east (that move took precious time). So, even where the SU was concerned, the question was always, "Are the Americans going to help...and how much (and how soon)?" With the US responsible for these bazillion dolor questions throughout the war, the question of political power and clout (which is absent in what I read here in your archive) is a moot point at the point in the conflict when it mattered-the point of do or die...the point of Will Fascism win or lose. Another concern I have about placement is of country in the "Belligerents" list is this: The US had a military of over 12,000,000 in the field compared to the UK's 3 million PLUS. Also, it was the US ALONE that checked the expansion of Japan in the Far East, where, sadly, the UK lost two capital ships attempting to do so. In fact, it was the US focusing FIRST, in the Far East, that may have saved Australia, while the UK was unable to help at all. And, finally, whether we like it or not, those two atomic bombs seal the deal on the US' hegemony OVER the UK at the least, if not the USSR, but I'm still not as sure about the USSR because I still could NOT find any criteria defined as to the way Belligerents are laid out in the box. Because I have not entered into this "Frey" before, please excuse me for missing clear "Belligerent List Criteria" if I did. But I also want to mention that fresh eyes can be helpful for those who have been involved closely on a topic for a long time. Btw, though it's not this specific article, I am concerned this MAY be a POV matter across several articles at least. Here's why: In a couple major daughter articles related to Normandy, I see the US not only in a secondary role in the "Belligerent" area of the box (which, again, maybe ok, depending upon criteria used), I also see it listed third here and there (after the UK and Canada) where it is the primary player as in total number of paratroopers deployed. So, I'm hoping there is no SYSTEMATIC issue where an overbearing editor or editors has/ have an unrecognized POV agenda, even a subtle one. It is these types of issues that can affect the overall quality of an article or articles and lead to credibility issues. We ALL have bias that must be confronted. If we don't, these issues surface. Regards, Norcalal (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents of World War II

In my opinion, France should be split into two separate belligerents. The source that's currently attached to France under the Allied powers of World War II's home page would support this edit. Free France should fall under the Allied powers, and of course Vichy France the Axis. It should also be noted that Free France was eventually recognized officially by the Allied powers as being the legitimate French government. It makes sense to me but feel free to disagree and explain.UnbiasedVictory (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You may have something there. I do not know if this or a variation of it has been discussed in past archieved TP's though. It raises some interesting possibilities, but I need to get my head around the pro's and cons of it. Irondome (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The status of Vichy France has been discussed several times before and admittedly it is a thorny issue. (See the Archive for past discussions.) Vichy was never an active belligerent for either side. It did give some support to Germany, but so did neutrals like Spain and Sweden. Vichy France and Free France fought what was essentially a civil war for the duration; however there was never any declaration of war by Vichy against the Allies, or by the Allies against Vichy. In the end it was Germany that conquered Vichy, not the Allies. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit in section new occupations and agreements.

I have replaced "bold" with "..more confident in the effectiveness of aggressive action.." I think this is more discriptive and is economical with bytes. Bold is a bit shallow and rather understates the reality:/ Happy to discuss Irondome (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that wording is an improvement: 'bolder' says pretty much the same thing in one word, and this wording is in the passive voice (I think). I'd suggest going back to the previous wording Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Bold it is :) Irondome (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

On the belligerents list, these following combatants should be added: Allies = Venezuela and Viet Minh Axis Puppet States = Vichy France 68.209.168.216 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not done The status of France has been agreed by consensus in past discussion, and is marked by a note. Venezuela and the Viet Minh, with respect, were not major players. There is no room for all potential actors to be included. Irondome (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Casulties numbers cleanup

The casualties numbers need a bit of a clean up. An earlier paragraph lists Russin, Ukrainian war casualties, and is followed by a number that includes Polish, Ukrainin, and Belorussian casualties. That is a bit confusing, and redundant. That's why it would be a good idea so separate the Poles and Soviet casualties, possibly restructure the description altogether. --Factor01 (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What text (and new supporting references?) do you suggest? Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I would suggest that we move the Belorussian casualty numbers (2,230,000) [3] to the first paragraph that describes the Soviet loses. In the second paragraph we would maintain the Jewish holocaust figure of (6,000,000), and clarify the previous entry of Polish casualties of 2.5 million [4] [5]. Finally, include the general number of (2,000,000) to include Roma, homosexuals, and other ethnic and minority groups supported by the current reference #309. --Factor01 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that those websites are reliable sources? I'd use anything published by the government of Belarus with very great caution given that it's basically a dictatorship (and what set of borders are they using here given that some of pre-war Poland ended up in Belarus?), Project InPosterum doesn't provide any details on itself and the credentials of Witold J. Lukaszewski aren't specified. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, in comparison... a book published by the Polish National Institute of Remembrance, titled: Poland from 1939 to 1945. Personal losses and victims of repression under two occupations lists the Polish ethnic casualties at around 2.7 million [6]. So, I think the numbers presented are legitimate. As for the Belorussian causlatiy numbers I'm looking for a another source to back them up. --Factor01 (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The original source of the Belorussian figures is the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission. This information appears in the book by Pavel Polian Жертвы двух диктатурVictims of Two Dictatorships This is the same Commission that claimed that the Germans were responsible for Katyn. Sources I can cite from the Russian internet are critical of the official figures. Viktor Zemskov believes these Soviet figures are overstated and need to be corrected Ясно, что эти данные завышены и нуждаются в существенной корректировке [7] and [8] --Woogie10w (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The casualty statistics of the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission are poorly understood outside of the former Soviet Union. Let's take Latvia for example. According to the League of Nations Yearbook 1942-44 the population of Latvia was 1,951,000. Martin Gilbert in his Atlas of the Holocaust puts Jewish dead at 80,000. The folks at the Extraordinary State Commission in 1946 claimed total civilian and POW dead in Latvia at 892,703 (313,798 killed; 330,032 POW and 248,873 forced laborers in Germany). Put that in your pipe and smoke it. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's go back to Belarus. The official Belorussian figure is 2.2 million civilian war dead. German historian Dieter Pohl puts the number of Belorussian civilians massacred in the partisan war at 300-350,000. Lucy Dawidowicz puts the number of Jews murdered in Belarus( in 1939 borders) at 245,000. Soviet losses can only be understood globally, millions were evacuated to the east and never returned to the devastated western regions, also ethnic Poles became refugees in Poland after the war, official Soviet statistics understated the number in Poland and included them with Soviet war dead. I suspect the folks at the the folks at the Extraordinary State Commission included these missing migrants as dead. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Grammar and dating system

Can we please use '1 September, 1939' instead of '1 September 1939'? I know it's pedantic, but it is important to remember the commas! 129.234.0.30 (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the commas are only correct in North American usage - in "rest of the world" usage they aren't correct. 195.171.114.69 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The question as to the start of the war

World War II was several wars that merged, we all know that, but the whole thing as to when it started. most of the books I've read say that in the Pacific it began in 1931 with the Mukaden incident and in Europe with the Invasion of Poland, merging into that great unholy mess on Pearl Harbor Day.

So what I did was to put the European stuff together and the East Asian stuff together, that is the stuff before Sept.1, 1939. It works better, it looks better, and yes, there was fighting between 1931 and 1937 in China.Ericl (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Completely uninformed text revert by the page admin

Ugh, Nick-D I can't believe that you actually had the audacity to state "collaborationist govts usually handled this". First off… let me be the first one to inform you that Poland did not have a collaborationist government, nothing even close to it. Also, here is a picture form Wiki Commons depicting German soldiers kidnaping a child in Zamość County, the very same place where that girl came from.

Kidnapping of Polish children during the Nazi-German resettlement operation in Zamość county

Also, if you are still skeptical; here is an excerpt from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: [9]

In late 1942 and in 1943, the SS also carried out massive expulsions in the General Government, uprooting 110,000 Poles from 300 villages in the Zamosc-Lublin region. Families were torn apart as able-bodied teens and adults were taken for forced labor and elderly, young, and disabled persons were moved to other localities. Tens of thousands were also imprisoned in Auschwitz or Majdanek concentration camps.

Notice, how the statement distinctly mentioned the SS-Schutzstaffel as being the perpetrators for this war crime. At this point, I will like to re-add the text that you removed form the image caption, for the very reason why you removed it in the first place… to ensure that an ignorant person does not come to an asinine conclusion that a collaborationist government sent the people to concentration camps. --Factor01 (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. There's no such thing as a "page admin". Rwenonah (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok sorry… but there is a "person" who continually takes upon themself to police the page, and is quite authoritative in removing what they think should or should not be on the page. --Factor01 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That's an "editor". Rwenonah (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerning you comment that "there is a "person" who continually takes upon themself to police the page...": I am DEEPLY offended by that remark, there isn't a "person" who patrols the article, there are PEOPLE who patrol the article. We're here too, you know, and just because we are not all that active doesn't mean we don't do our part as well. Sheesh... TomStar81 (Talk) 17:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am also offended by the dismissive and factually erroneous remark that was posted by Nick-D, and his automatic revert of the text in question. The whole point of having a descriptive statement is to ensure that ignorant people do not confuse who was truly responsible for what during the course of WWII, and unfortunately it happens to be the same user who continually opposes detailed descriptions of the events in question, this is the same editor, who opposed the use of the word "Genocide" in the section title, opting for a more ambitious term of "mass killings". --Factor01 (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My advice to you is to let it go. This is one of a number of articles on here that can not be edited except by those who have the gift of diplomacy because every letter in this article is fought and paid for by editors just like you who take offense to some such thing. If it bugs that much fork it out to a different article and explore the issue there, just no that the harder you try and work with the WWII article the more people will rally to both sides of the issue to fight it on you and Nick's behalf. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in that this is a difficult issue to write about, but as you noticed my intent was to properly document the events, so no one comes to the false conclusion that some collaborators sent many of the victims to the concentration camps, this was a German undertaking. At this point I would like to re-add the disputed text in the image caption, if there are no other objections. Because, this minor dispute showed just how uninformed many of the people are, and it is extremely important to properly state what happened. --Factor01 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, the above source offers no proof that the specific girl in the caption was kidnapped by Nazis. In fact, I'd say that would be virtually impossible to confirm. Unless you have an eyewitness account specifying that the specific person in the photograph was kidnapped by the SS, saying such is an assumption which might well be false. Rwenonah (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation is deeply cynical, the girl was form Zamość county, and was taken in December 1943, all this is documented; the source confirms that the German SS carried out the operation in late 1943 in Zamość county, to say that we don't know is just plain wrong, we know who this was, when they were taken, and by who. --Factor01 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia works according to a policy called verifiability. Not only is the kidnapper of the picture's subject unverifiable, but it is also unnecessary. We really don't need that much detail in a picture caption, especially if it isn't backed up by a source.Rwenonah (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but the picture says December 1942 (i.e. a year too early for the operation you're discussing) and doesn't specify the person's origin beyond Polish. Rwenonah (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, first of all its a typo is should say 1942. Also, the image description does say "photo taken by the SS in Nazi-occupied Poland" So, I'll note that in the text. --Factor01 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)It's all about finding sources and their quality. An interesting parallel is Josef Schultz, a German soldier that choose to stand besides partisans about to be shot. Photos of his action survived the war, and became a bit of an iconic image for resistance against nazism, refusal to abide wrongful orders, selfless sacrifice for higher ideals, etc. Do check the sources in this article, and how they and the article evolved from a stub over the course of an AfD nomination.

Now if wp:rs and wp:v sources can be found telling the story of those children, their names, age etc, where and when they were abducted, the identity of the other people in the picture, and so on, it could should at the very least be featured prominently in the aryanization article. However, the sourcing here is lacking. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Factor01: I'm well aware that Poland didn't have a collaborationist government, and am unsure why you're ranting about me claiming this given that my edit summary read the image citation doesn't say that the SS transported her, and I don't think that they normally did: other elements of the German Govt (and collaborationist govts) usually handled this, and not just the bit you cherry picked. My understanding is that in Poland the German security forces and public servants generally handled the logistics of arresting and transporting Jewish Holocaust victims , and the SS was not usually involved in this (though they ran the death and concentration camps). Some Poles, including some members of the "Blue Police" were involved in arresting Jews, however. In countries with collaborationist governments local security forces and public servants often handled the majority of the logistics of the Holocaust, which is what I was referring to - we can't assume that the SS was directly involved in transporting Jews to be murdered. In this specific case, I made the change as the caption you'd provided stated that the SS transported Czesława Kwoka, when this wasn't wasn't supported by a reference or even the image's caption at Commons. We don't do our readers a service (or help improve awareness of the way in which the Holocaust operated) by including incorrect or unverifiable claims. My personal view is that we need to be careful to not blame the SS for all of the Holocaust given that many other German and non-German institutions were also responsible, and this has important implications for preventing it from happening again. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Polish railroads during the war were under the control of the (DR) Deutsche Reichsbahn administered by General Government under Hans Frank. The Polish railways worked under the supervision of German (DR) Deutsche Reichsbahn personnel. The employees of the Polish railways continued maintain and operate the system. The SS operated in Poland independently of the General Government, and for the most part ignored the authority of Hans Frank. In the case of Czesława Kwoka, SS units rounded up the people in her town. The SS commander in Zamosc county called the Deutsche Reichsbahn officials in Krakow and requested a transport for Auschwitz. The (DR) Deutsche Reichsbahn officials in Krakow ordered the Polish railroad employees to schedule the train. The train staffed by employees of the Polish railways transported Czesława Kwoka to Auschwitz. If questioned after the war the railway employees from both Germany and Poland would say I was just following orders and did my job. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand that there were cases where German Police units were deployed to occupied countries, and the SS forced local police to arrest people. But, I have an issue with your interpretation of the events in general Nick-D. Even when local authorities were forced to arrest civilians, there was always an SS or Gestapo officer directing the operation, (and the local authorities were threatened with arrest or execution if they did not comply). So, it was still the SS responsible for what was happening, and for sending people to concentration camps. But, in the case of Zamość where this girl game from, it was the SS-men that actually carried out the operation, there is even a picture on Wiki Commons showing them [10] expelling people in December 1942, the same month when the girl was sent to the concentration camp. So, that's what I have an issue with... the watering down of responsibility, and going off on tangents. Even if hypothetically she was taken in by some police officer who was stuck between a rock and a hard place, it was the SS that authorized the operation and ordered the girl to be sent to a concentration camp. So, the SS sent her to Auschwitz. Any other argument that's based on some cynical technicality can be viewed as a way to divert blame away from the true perpetrators. --Factor01 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2014

The first sentence contains a grammatical error: "[...]though global related conflicts begun earlier."

It should read, "[...]though global related conflicts began earlier."

Additionally, "global related" is clumsy. I suggest "[...]though global conflicts began earlier," or "[...]though related conflicts began earlier." Casey Gibbs (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 14:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for postponing the Invasion of France?

In "War breaks out in Europe (1939–40)" it states: "After this rejection Hitler ordered an immediate offensive against France, but his generals persuaded him to wait until May of next year." This is the first time I have come across the idea, having read in a number of sources that the (only) reason why the earlier dates for executing Fall Gelb were repeatedly postponed were bad weather (and, arguably, the capture by the Belgians of some of the plans for the original operation). The first four sources I checked this in all agree - with different weights being given to the Malines Incident. (The more recent accounts seem to give it least weight.) One source states that the start date was postponed 29 times, ie that 10 May was the 30th 'firm' date for the invasion to commence.

I would suggest amending the sentence to read: "After this rejection Hitler ordered an immediate offensive against France, but bad weather forced repeated postponements with the attack finally being launched in spring 1940." Or, for brevity: "After this rejection Hitler ordered an immediate offensive against France, but bad weather forced repeated postponements until the spring of 1940."

Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point. I would suggest that it in fact was a combination of several factors. My library is in storage at the mo, so I am going to have to work on memory to some extent. Weather, the Mechlin incident and he extensive subsequent replanning, and there is an undercurrent of ambivelance in Hitler's attitude. I believe that aspect is covered in Horne, To Lose a Battle, and a couple of others. Manstein appears to have been a dominant force also. We could accomodate a brief sumnation of the points above, in a condensed, sourced passage. Irondome (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

One could certainly make an argument that factors other than the weather contributed. But most of the delays, especially up to the end of January, were due to the weather.

Mechlin: Deighton (Blitzkrieg) writes: “It is tempting to see this incident as the reason for the German changeover to the Manstein plan, but this was not the way it happened.” He then explains why not over two pages.

Manstein: there was a lot of argument in the German high command over whether this was a useful concept, and if so just how to execute it. Eg of the second detailed war gaming of it, in Mayen on 14 February (the first was in Koblenz on the 7th), Guderian, one of the participants, comments: “the whole tone grew more and more depressing”; “no confidence in the leadership of the operation”; “endless discussion and worry” (Panzer Leader). Deighton: “the meeting ended with bad feeling on all sides”.

Hitler’s attitude: see Hitler’s strategic directive issued in early October (Nuremberg Documents C-62/GB86) which concludes: “The attack [on France] is to be launched this Autumn if conditions are at all possible.” He did slowly warm to the Manstein plan each time it was brought to his attention. Liddell Hart: “Warlimont brought Manstein’s idea to the notice of Hitler’s headquarters ... in mid-December. ... Jodl ... passed it on to Hitler. But it was only after the air accident of 10 January, when Hitler was looking for a new plan [sic], that Manstein’s proposal ... began to get a hold. Even then a month passed before he swung definitely in favour of it.” (History of the Second World War.)

Back to my initial point, certainly “Hitler ordered an immediate offensive against France” but is it agreed that the delays were not because “his generals persuaded him to wait until May of next year”? In which case I would suggest its replacement with “but bad weather forced repeated postponements until the spring of 1940". I could reference with Guderian, Liddell Hart and Deighton until someone comes along with better ones.

“We could accomodate a brief sumnation of the points above”. Possibly add: “These delays gave Hitler and his Generals time to review the original, relatively conventional and cautious, invasion plan and to replace it with a more audacious plan, based on a concept by Manstein, to completely destroy a major part of the Allied armies.” This does leave out Mechlin, but it is unclear how influential this was and I am loath to get into that sort of detail in what is meant to be a brief overview. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have made the first edit and referenced both parts of the sentence. I am reluctant to add a new area and extra words to include Manstein's Sichelschnitt without others agreeing that the additional information is worth the extra wordage. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you have done it yet,- just got on to talk- would fully concur with wording..."These delays gave H and his generals...". Mechlin indeed may be over-weighted in some sources, whereas in fact, major problems with the original unimaginative attack plan of the autumn led to decisive changes irrespective of that incident. Irondome (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of removing the simplistic "blame hitler for all the mistakes" narrative. Ideally, it should reflect that it was both a natural evolution of military planning, and influenced by external factors. Perhaps if possible an allusion that Hitler had non-military reasons for as swift a war as possible could be included, though I'm uncertain if this level of detail is warranted here. ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This whole paragraph is pretty bad. The implication that Hitler ordered the invasion of France only because an attempt to negotiate peace was rejected is dubious. As I understand it, the invasion of France was intended for late 1939 (which suggests by itself that Hitler wasn't genuine about offering peace given the massive logistical effort involved in redeploying the Army from Poland), and was cancelled until the Spring mainly as the invasion plans were compromised and the winter was unusually severe. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Effects of the Blitz?

"However, the air attacks largely failed to either disrupt the British war effort or convince them to sue for peace." This seems to conflate two separate issues. And I am not sure how one can be 'largely convinced' of something. Perhaps: "However, the air attacks largely failed to disrupt the British war effort and did not convince them to sue for peace." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Who evacuated at Dunkirk?

"Allied troops were forced to evacuate the continent at Dunkirk, abandoning their heavy equipment by early June." (Needs a comma after "equipment".) The way it currently reads it suggests that all Allied troops evacuated the continent in early June which is obviously (I hope) not what is intended. Not to mention that far more Allied combatants were captured than were evacuated. I would suggest joining this sentence to the previous paragraph and changing it to read: "The majority were taken prisoner, whilst over 300,000 were evacuated from the continent at Dunkirk by early June, although abandoning almost all of their equipment." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Order of countries in Belligerents' list Comment

How is the order determined? I understand that the Soviet Union, UK, and USA should be at the top but by which criteria are the others ordered? It's a bit strange to see New Zealand and Australia so far away from each other. DJAMP4444 (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing changes.

I have made the Blitz and Dunkirk changes mentioned above, There are a number of other areas where I feel that things could be tidied up, stated more accurately or referenced. I shall just edit where I think that it is relatively uncontentious.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and happy to be educated if I mess up in any way in these efforts. If any of my edits are felt to be incorrect or otherwise unacceptable I assume/hope that this will be brought up here. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Battle of the River Plate

I've just removed a one sentence paragraph on the 1939 Battle of the River Plate. While this was considered a big deal at the time, it was only one of dozens of similarly-sized battles between cruiser warships during the war, and had few long term consequences (it didn't stop the German surface raiders, much less the much more potent submarine force). As such, I don't think that it's worth noting. I hope this is OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that seems sensible to me. And with your reasoning so well explained, how could anyone disagree? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Some material on Allied war crimes removed

I've also removed material which implied that justice was somehow cheated because American soldiers weren't brought before international tribunals for committing rape during the occupation of Germany (was referenced to a book review, seems an over-statement, and is dubious given that the western Allied armies did generally prosecute rapes which were reported), as well as the misplacement of the Vietnamese famine in a para on Allied war crimes: Vietnam was under Japanese occupation at the time. I also removed some sensationalist editorialising which was being hidden in references. As with the above, I think that this should be uncontroversial, and I hope the removal of this material is OK. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this material was problematic at the least. Anotherclown (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really, I dont think it was trying to say justice was cheated because there were no prosecutions for the rapes agianst Germans, we could reword it to take out the "Example of such" part if that's the only problem with it. Also wouldn't call it "sensationalist" as it was sourced, unless the problem was it being hidden in the references, in which case we can make it part of the main article to fix that. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The para starts with "While many of the Axis's acts were brought to trial in the world's first international tribunals, incidents caused by the Allies were not. Examples of such Allied actions include...". It's simply not correct to place the rapes committed by western Allied troops in this context: the Allied armies could have done a better job in preventing rape from occurring and prosecuting suspected rapists, but it was generally taken very seriously by the military justice systems and the incidence isn't considered particularly notable by historians. I don't see how some historians problems getting a book published are relevant to the topic of this article, and the disingenuous note implying that it was common for American soldiers to mutilate the bodies of Japanese troops and that FDR wasn't particularly concerned about this is simply bad history. This material was added to multiple articles by a POV pusher a few years ago, and has largely been removed. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your original edit to remove the info in question. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 00:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That's why I got rid the "Examples of such..." part, unless the sentence still implies that it has anything to do with prosecutions, or some other problem. I still feel its kinda neccessary to maintain a neutral point of view though. And the notes were literally from and part of the source, it wasn't part of the main text. If the info is still problematic though, I'll be glad to revert myself. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the comparisons here are neutral: I don't think that it's reasonable to compare the not-huge (though, of course, still entirely unacceptable) incidence of rape and the response of the Western Allied militaries to this to the major war crimes of the war. I debunked the nonsense on American soldiers a few years ago as part of improving the American mutilation of Japanese war dead article, and the note hidden in the reference was probably added by the editor who added all sorts of wild claims to that article. Nick-D (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, the note in the reference was citing from the source. I wouldn't really say that the paragraph was trying to compare to the Axis crimes, and considering the Allied crimes were not-huge and a lot less than the Axis, I dont see what the problem with mentioning it is. In this case, it might be best to remove that little paragraph on Allied crimes altogether. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't follow your logic when you say that you believe no comparison is meant here. The wording is an explicit (and skewed) attempt to compare in my opinion: "While many of the Axis's acts were brought to trial in the world's first international tribunals,[323] incidents caused by the Allies were not". The construction of this sentence is clearly Axis vs Allied situation, uses a definite wording which implies no exeception, and neglects (deliberately ignores?) the fact that many Western Allied soldiers were held accountable through their nation's respective military justice systems for their individual crimes which were at any rate hardly comparable to the scale of the Axis crimes that were prosecuted at Nuremburg and elsewhere (i.e. systematic crimes against humanity). The implication then is that whilst Axis war criminals were brought to justice Allied soldiers that also committed crimes were not. Whilst it is doubtless true that a number of incidents that occurred on the Eastern Front in particular fell into this category and are rightly covered in this paragraph, to include the incidents of rape by Western Allied soldiers during the occupation of Germany does not seem appropriate to me. If you intend on keeping this material I think it needs clarification, otherwise it should be removed per Nick's original edit. Anotherclown (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, so lets clarify by putting the rapes agianst Germans at the end of paragraph to make it clear no comparison to the Axis crimes are meant there. I think its notable considering its cited by 2 history professors. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know most allied war crimes were those of individual soldiers. Sadly all conquering armies exhibit such war crimes (and have probably done so all over history). In my view these I am pretty sure these war crimes would compare to those of individual soldiers in the Axis armies during their 1939-1943 conquests. In the larger scale of the state organized crimes against humanity of the Nazis these tend not to be reported; and Nazi military police may not have persecuted or even recorded these. To give this whole thing due emphasis I would suggest to spend about as much space on both German/Japanese individual soldier war crimes and Allied individual war crimes. This reasoning does support the removal of material by Nick-D. Arnoutf (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, that whole little paragraph should be removed, and problem solved. All the Allied war crimes weren't really much. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The main allegation of war crimes during the war which is made against the Allied forces is the bombing of cities, and that has a separate para. Much of the current para is about post-war events, which is outside the scope of this article. Add, by the way I appreciate what you were doing with your last edit Supersaiyen312, but I think that it would be going on thin ice for this article to discuss the views of individual historians in that way - it would open the door to it becoming massively large! Hope this is OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I removed the problematic paragraph in question. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick-D did leave government incited/sanctioned war crimes which are not crimes that can be fully blamed on individual soldiers in the field. This makes sense following my arguments above. Arnoutf (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Russian weather in 1941.

It seems a little odd that the weather is not mentioned, at least in passing, as a factor in the German offensive against Moscow stalling in late 1941. I understood that it was widely accepted that this was an important contributory factor. Off the top of my head, can I suggest that "After two months of fierce battles, the German army almost reached ... " be changed to "After two months of fierce battles, during which the weather deteriorated badly as the Russian winter set in, the German army almost reached ... "

Thoughts? Alternative suggestions? Anyone think that the weather wasn't a significant factor? Or, at least, not significant enough to be worth mentioning? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)