Talk:Military production during World War II

Big Problems

There are an immense number of problems here. Germany could and did exploit occupied Europe to produce all sorts of military equipment. Similarly the Dutch East Indies produced oil for first one side and then the other. The changing nature of equipment is not covered e.g. the incredible increased production and demand for valves during the course of the war. The statement that no British self-propelled gun of tank mounted a gun bigger than 75mm is false as the 17pdr anti-tank gun was 76.2mm and monted on a British chassis as the archer and on a Sherman chassis as the firefly.

Agree, this article is of extremely poor quality. The USSR invaded "allies"; Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1939 and got tossed from the League of Nations for its earlier invasion of Finland. The USSR also attacked Romania prior to it joining the Axis. The Comintern was actively working against the Western Allies prior to the Nazi betrayal of the USSR in 1941. In Churchill's memoirs he makes it quite clear that the USSR was supplying huge quantities of war materials to Nazi Germany up the day prior to the Nazi invasion. Specifically, he reminds the Soviets that even in the weeks prior to the Nazi invasion, the UK considered it likely that the USSR would attack British interests. Applying 67% of USSR GDP to the allies prior to 1941 is absurd. When the USSR does get attacked, they sign a non-aggression pact with Japan and cut off supplies to China; which isn't even mentioned in the article. Stalin himself stated it was his objective to aid the Nazis in the destruction of Britain. 7o62x39 (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Source?

Hi, I am compiling and uploading primary and tertiary sources for all the data in this article. It is a big job. I am currently focusing on filling in the gaps in raw numbers, identifying trusted secondary sources (ie., data published using primary source -such as those of the official histories published by many nations after the war that are drawn directly from production data), sourcing the actual primary data for later cross-checking and inclusion, fixing up the reference section, and cleaning up the graphics. I am also creating comprehensive data charts and adding some new data elements for the article (such as human resource contributions). I can handle the English, French and Slavic (Latin script) primary sources. But I definitely need help with locating and analysing the primary sources in other languages and those Slavic languages in Cyrillic scripts. --Brukner (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, what is the source for this data? Could someone please list it in the references section? Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 02:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, can someone please state the reason why the stated US Aircraft carrier production is so disproportionate compared with the other nations that are listed. If the carrier escorts are included and not just the fleet carriers, why aren't the UK's carrierescort production included also?

I'm not sure about the exact accuracy of some of these numbers or the definition of "WWII" dates, but the US carrier number must be counting all the small, slow "jeep" carriers that were converted cargo ships which escorted convoys or invasion fleets.Wikist 03:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be good if somebody could clarify this point precisely. The figures are highly misleading as the US certainly did not launch that many aircraft carriers in WW2, not by a long, long shot! Simmyymmis 22:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the number based on a WWII book I have, added note explaining the 141. laddiebuck 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

From "Summary of Production" on through the rest of the article, I do not see citations indicating the source of this data. (I could have missed them?) If we cannot find some sources for it, this article should be flagged with the needing citation template. LawrenceTrevallion 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the totals do not add up either when compared to other sources listed on Wiki: for instance aircraft totals for the US and Germany differ from the totals listed in the 'aircraft production in WW2' page Simmyymmis 01:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So many of the totals do not even compare to other articles on wikipedia. For example "Germany armored fighting vehicles" (which itself has no sources listed). Stating you "Fixed the number based on a WWII book you have" is a really useless piece of information; Title, Author, year published, are at least, a bare minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.227.221.14 (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

US/UK transport aircraft split

don't know if this is worth adding as a note but there was an agreement between the US and UK for the latter to avoid transport plane production to centrate on "sharp end" military aircraft. GraemeLeggett 16:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

British Empire

Query: is the data for the UK the British Isles alone or the entire British empire? Sam 16:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably for the UK alone, as both Canada and Commonwealth are listed seperately Simmyymmis 22:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not for various types of aircraft production. GraemeLeggett 08:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The data is being revised and much greater granularity provided, using official secondary sources (those drawing on primary production data). I am currently uploading production numbers for air, naval and land forces of the British Empire, the rest will follow as I cross check and confirm the material. --Brukner (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

The article is written from a non-neutral perspective. Could we:

1. Include propaganda images from other countries (UK, Germany, USSR)

2. Reconsider the designation "smaller-producing nation" for the UK under "Tanks and self-propelled guns"?

3. Balance the number of images of various military hardware by country -- right now it is mostly US, plus 1 image each for USSR and Germany.

laddiebuck 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, by all means, go ahead and make changes. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 12:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong the fact and figures, this is after all a reference work, but some more text can be inserted, I think. Some words on the organization of the production and the German mistake to concentrate on a few successul designs. Andries 19:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have included propaganda from several countries. I am providing sourced and more granular data for every country. It is being uploaded now, as available and cross-checked.--Brukner (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Lend Lease

Would it be out of place to also specify how much of USA's production was provided as Lend Lease to the UK and later, Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.227.221.14 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would love to do this. But "Lend-lease" was not one way. The US received massive aid from the Commonwealth in the pacific and there was a lot of horse trading in aircraft when the US joined up. The UK also received enormous direct financial support from Canada. Can you investigate this further? --Brukner (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources ????

There is no way that British GDP is comparable with USSR and Germany, since both countries had bigger population and way bigger millitary and civil production. This is ridiculous.

Actually Germany did *not* have a "way" bigger military and civil production than the UK in WWII, and the UK was a far bigger manufacturer of, for instance, passenger cars in the 1930s than Germany. --Ggbroad 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

well when you look at the empire section you can clearly see that the GDP of the British Empire is $683.3 billion in 1938 Which means that it is considerably bigger then either the USSR or Nazi Germany, and as far as population goes well 458 million people is far larger then any other allied country except china.NH-obi (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Carriers and Battleships

I did read somewhere that the US had 22 carriers and in () it said 141, how is that so? And also, I have a source saying Italy only made 1 battleship, is there a source for 3?--SurfingMaui540 23:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC) The 22 refers to fleet carriers- not escort and light carriers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.178.39 (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"Potential contribution"

US values are included in Allied totals for all years in order to illustrate potential contribution & Lend-Lease

It seems odd to have the US contribution, over 50% of the allied total, for the period 1938 to March 1941 (when the Lend Lease program started) included only "to illustrate potential contribution", especially when other countries are treated differently. I'd really like to see what the curve of the graph would look like if it only included actual contribution. And why are the notes in text different from the notes in the chart image, when the total figures are identical? —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 16:01 Z

Other figures

Another good source is Overy (1998), Russia's War: A History of the Soviet War Effort: 1941–1945, tables on p. 155: "Soviet and German wartime production 1941–45. Table 1B "Heavy Industry" compares tonnes of coal, steel, aluminum, and oil produced annually by the USS and Germany. The figures are not what many would expect, and it is interesting to compare the higher output of equipment of the resource-poor USSR. It adds another layer of information which is not shown just by the GDP figures.

When I have some time, I will transcribe the data. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 16:06 Z

Can you obtain these tables electronically? If you can please send them to me and I will process them into this article. --Brukner (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Chart

It seems that the chart showed is misleading. Please see the following link http://www.onwar.com/articles/0302.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.117.43 (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

New graph

Could I recommend a graph with the following figures per nation per year?

• Oil
• Coal
• Iron ore
• Equipment (measured in tons) (different color for lend-lease)
• GDP

That should sum up production figures quite well. Oberiko (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

concrete and bunkers

i have done some calculations on the tonnes for concrete used in total, in say pill boxes, and the Atlantic wall and so on.

Should there not be some sort of figure on this vital quantity?

I can give figures for Atlantic Wall, but what about the other theatres?

Engineman (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Canada/Commonwealth

Here's a question: in the merchant tonnage category, why is Canada mentioned apart from the Commonwealth, with no explanation? There should be a footnote for this. It should also probably be "British Commonwealth", as this was the title of the organization until 1949. `Parsecboy (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

concrete and bunkers

No one has responded to my suggestion that these quantites be included, so i have made a start and will be improving this over the next few weeks.Engineman (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

French aircraft production numbers

French contribution to the military production is still missing in the article in general. I added the numbers of aircraft production, based on the production numbers of french aircraft built in series from 09/1939 (start of WW2) to 06/1940 (armistice in the west).

The following aircraft types were included (with production figures taken from Wikipedia articles, which I assumed to rely on well-researched sources):

FIGHTERS:

• Morane-Saulnier MS.406 (542)
• Dewoitine D.520 (437)
• Bloch MB.151 / Bloch MB.152 (518)
• Caudron C.714 (80)
• Arsenal VG-33 (20)

TOTAL: 1597

BOMBERS:

• LeO 451 (430)
• Amiot 351 / Amiot 354 (60)
• Bloch MB.174 / Bloch MB.175 (79)
• Potez 633
• Farman NC.223 (10)

TOTAL: 712

ATTACK AIRCRAFT:

• Breguet Br.690 + variants (220)
• Loire-Nieuport LN.40 (60)

TOTAL: 280

RECON AIRCRAFT (being a big part of total production):

• Potez 63-11 (1365)
• Potez 637 (61)

TOTAL: 1427

Best regards -- Hierakares (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Figueres for France and Checheslovakia

It would be nice to know the strengh of the Chech an French military strengh before the outbreak of WW II.--89.182.9.41 (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Battleship numbers

Something seems really off on the BB production. Japan in no way, shape, or form built or even laid down 12 Battleships during the war. Even if you count refits, you have the Yamato, Musashi, Shinano (never finished, converted to carrier), Ise (converted to carrier hybrid), and Hyuga (converted to carrier hybrid). You have the Nagatos (2 of them), but they only had minor refits...same with the Fusos (2 of them), and the Kongos (4 of them). And since refits should not count (and obviously do not count since that would be 13 BBs), where did the "12" come from?

The German numbers also seem iffy (You have the Tirpitz and Bismarck...are they also counting the H-39 hulls laid down? Or are they counting refits on the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau?)

Can we get a source on these numbers? Because I'd like to know what "historian" fudged his research that badly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.160.128 (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just adding to this....for Japan:

--Kongo, Kirishima, Hiei, and Haruna....all built between 1912 and 1913. Only 4 hulls laid down, all 4 completed before the war starts.

--Yamashiro and Fuso....both built between 1912 and 1915. Only 2 hulls ever laid down, both hulls completed before the war starts.

--Ise and Hyuga....built in 1916 and 1917 respectively. Both converted to carrier hybrids in 1943. Only 2 hulls ever laid down, both completed before the war starts and then converted during the war.

--Nagato and Mutsu....built in 1920 and 1921 respectively. Only 2 hulls ever laid down, both hulls completed before the war starts.

--Yamato, Musashi, Shinano, unnamed....built in 1941 (Yamato), 1942 (Musashi), Converted to Carrier in 1944 (Shinano), hull 30% completed and then scrapped in 1942 (unnamed).

So....going by this, you can MAYBE count 6 ships (Yamato, Musashi, Shinano, Unnamed Yamato Class, Ise, Hyuga)....and that's really stretching it (as the Ise and Hyuga were already built, just converted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.160.128 (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

German figures

Do we have any sources for these production figures for the entire war?

At any rate I feel that a note should be added to this figure to show the breakdown between tanks and self propelled guns; so people can realise that the Germans did not have in the region of 60+ thousand tanks (yes i do realise the figure includes SP Guns). I think a breakdown would be very beneficial.

Going off the current wiki articles the Germans produced the following:

MK III - nearly 6000 all variants MK IV tanks - 8,000 all variants a good chunk of which did not use 75mm guns but also includes tanks produced before the war. Panther - 6,000 Tigers - 2,000 (MK I and II) StuG III and StuH 41 - around 11,000 StuG IV - around 1000 models

So of the main machines in use by German that totals up to around 34,000 (of which only 22,000 were tanks and a good chunk did not mount long barrelled 75mm guns); so the other 30,000 machines procuded by the Germans what were they? Obvious the answer is SP guns in some form or another, but do these include SP artillery and SP anti-aircraft guns? Halftracks with mounted artillery, anti-tanks weapons, mortars etc?

The Germans had another 12,000 machines with 75mm guns so what are they? I just feel somewhat doubtfull that the Germans produced 12,000 variants of Jagdpanzers, Marders, Nashorns etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Soviet “Allies” before Barbarossa.

Before June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union had a pact with Germany, not with the UK nor France, supplied Germany while it invaded Poland and France, and participated in the joint invasion of Poland. Why on Earth is Soviet production counted towards Allied in 1939, and why isn’t it counted towards Axis production in 1939–41? —Michael Z. 2011-10-31 06:10 z

Then why on Earth England and France didn't declare a war on Soviet Union for Poland, maybe never thinking that USSR was (or would be) really a part of the Axis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.41.112 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I certainly didn't write that part of the article, but prior to the Nazi-Soviet pact, the USSR was technically in an alliance with the UK and France. There was no military alliance and no transfer of Soviet military hardware, between the USSR and Germany, but German acquisition of Soviet raw materials (mainly oil) should be counted in Germany's favour. This footnote seems reasonable: " 4) Soviet Union-Allies distribution: 1939: Only 67% due to the pact with Germany, but none to Axis. During 1940 Soviet Union is not counted at all. 1941: 44% is distributed to the Allies (after Operation Barbarossa), 1942-1945: 100%."Damwiki1 (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

References?

I would love to know how an article like this could possibly be written without sources. Where are the references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.132.60 (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There are references listed, and the data presented seems reasonable.Damwiki1 (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Soviet submarines figures

I have made a database of all Soviet and Russian submarines, from 1903 to now. Curiously the figure I have for 1938 - 1945 is a total of 130 submarines, not 52 as indicated You can check the figures here, on my website http://soumarsov.pagesperso-orange.fr/Perspectiv/list_unit_18_45.htm Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.19.195.244 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if you sum all numbers from List of Soviet and Russian submarine classes#World War II Era, you will get even more (280). I'm going to ask for some sources in ru-wiki. Ain92 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Hello. I'm founder of Project:Submarines in ru-wiki, my hobby is all about submarines and I have a lot of books about soviet submarines in WWII. I don't know where did you find a number 52, but I know, that amount of soviet submarines to June 22, 1941, was 211. 202 of them were built in Soviet Union in 1929-1941, and also there were 2 x Ronis class, 2 x Kalev class, L-55, B-2 (former Panther of Bars-class) and 5 x AG-class.

If you want to check something, then please ask more detailed question. I'll answer with pleasure. --Rave (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hello, colleague. The anonymous means the number 52 in Military production during World War II#Naval ships. We have the same figures in ru:Военное производство во время Второй мировой войны#Подводные лодки. There're no sources anywhere. Could you fix it? Ain92 (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Materials?

The "materials" box doesn't state which unit the numbers refer to. 590.8 what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.247.140 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"British Isles"

This phrase - the British Isles is used in the referenced table in the article, but as Ireland (which is commonly, although erroneously, considered to be part of the British Isles) was neutral during WWII, I wonder if the author is dubiously including Ireland's modest GDP in the table as part of the "allies" total. If so, does this not distort the ratio ever so slightly in favor of the "allies"? The Irish state, although commonly considered part of the "British Isles" was a neutral country and was commonly known as Éire during the war.

Therefore some clarification is needed. Moreover, if memory serves me, didn't Nazi Germany successfully occupy some of the islands of the "British Isles", like the Channel Islands during the war? Yes - Occupation of the Channel Islands. So this just further muddies exactly what the author of the table is refering to when the "British Isles" is included solely in the "allies" category. As some of the "British Isles" production contributed(in a tiny but real amount) to the "Axis".

From my grandfather, I do know that a number of foundries in the Port city of Drogheda Ireland manufactured the iron castings of the Mills bomb grenade during the War, however I have, despite searching, failed to find a reliable source that discusses this. This is probably due war secrecy and the touchy issues of a "neutral" country manufacturing munitions for the allies. 86.45.206.121 (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your help requested

I have been updating data and improving the overall content of this page since June. Today Bender235 deleted over 3 months and 300 hours of my work and that of others, 40,000 characters of edits, and hundreds of constructive additions to the page. I am in the midst of uploading an enormous amount of PRIMARY SOURCE DATA and he deleted everything done so far as "wikipedia can not be a source for itself". I am enraged. There was not one comment, warning, question, request, or suggestion from this "editor". Can you please help me reverse all the deletions and keep this guy off the page. There are ongoing constructive edits from several other individuals watching this site. Please help resolve this. These actions were not constructive and have reduced the quality of the material to a shadow of its last version before his vandalism. --Brukner (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I restored the content. In edit summary, put "take it to the talk page." We shall see. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can think of three huge reasons it should be deleted right now.

1) One can't read the dang thing. There is dark backgrounds with black text in the tables. The text is set at 60%. WP:ACCESSIBILITY says text should go no lower that 85%.

2) The article is entitled, Military production during World War II. But the tables say nothing of U.S., Japan, China or France.

3) Using blogs, Wikipedia and other unreliable references.

The material should be deleted and placed into the Brukner's sandbox. They can work on it there until it is ready. Bgwhite (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The formatting is fixable, not easy and not fun to do but fixable. And I have managed to link some of the refs with the tables they refer to. Still had to lose the links to other articles.GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We should let Brukner get on with it.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not everything has to be in a sandbox; that's why we have {{underconstruction}}. That said, Brukner, you really should read up on our policy of requiring reliable sources. :-) Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

THANKS! Much appreciated!--Brukner (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You should let Brukner get on with it because Brukner has several hundred more entries to make, primary data to upload, references to enter and stuff to fix. It will take weeks more to enter in the data from Japan, China, France and many others. If you think this article looks bad now, take a look at this page's contents prior to my edits. Then take a look at it before it was deleted this morning. IN THE MEANTIME if anyone has a problem with format or colour all they have to do is say hello and ask if they can help or provide advice. I sent out requests for support and aid weeks ago. No one responded. Everyone wants to cut, but no one wants to contribute. The last thing I need is someone deleting everything simply because I am doing something nice with a crap article. If there are edits to make viz certain Wikipedia policy I would appreciate the policy being pointed out rather than multiple changes made just because. Finally, if someone wants to go toe to toe with me about sources and reference styles you are more than welcome to do so. I have been an academic for 25 years, edited 5 books, and over 200 articles for various European science journals. cheers, many thanks for those who made constructive edits and kind regards to all --Brukner (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points.

• Personnel is *not* relevant in this article, at minimum this should be split out into its own article. Determination of whether the number of female navy personnel vs. male navy personnel in New Zealand is of use in *that* article is a different topic.
• This is already among the larger articles on Wikipedia. The idea of adding the US, Japan, China and France is completely mind boggling.
• I have no problem with the qualify of the referencing now that the idea of referencing *to* wikipedia is gone.
• Where did the number 163(141) come from for US Carriers? Yes we had transport carriers, but this seems off by a considerable margin. The CV(N) numbers for US Carriers even today are in the 80s.
• And one other point, how long the editor worked on creating an article (or part) should *never* be a determining factor on whether it is kept.

Naraht (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

• "Personnel" is a reflection of the productive capacity of the military, and the carrying capacity of the military economy. Soldiers are produced by society, they are not just there, or grown or born. Military production is about people, money and equipment. It really matters quite a lot.
• Large is relative. Wikipedia is large and most specific subjects are fragmented and difficult to view as a whole. There is no other page on Wikipedia focused on illustrating and making sense of the data supporting economic carrying capacity and military production of the belligerents in World War Two. The rationale for including all the data is that almost every single Wikipedia page related to this matter has partial and tertiary data, at best. Referencing a third hand interpretive text or coffee table war book is not legitimate source referencing. I am filling this page with sources from the primary data sources(factory notes and company archives) and secondary historical research (like "official histories"). I have focused up front on getting some numbers and charts in, so I can build out the structure of the page and in order to test the various functions available on Wikipedia. I will input more primary references when I fully develop the References section.
• References to Wikipedia, as a source, where never intended. That issue reflects my learning curve in the use of the tools.
• Except for the British Empire and now the German Reich almost all the data found here is from the legacy site. I am working as fast as I can to correct all of it. I have no idea where many of these numbers come from. As I work the source material into shape within this article I will correct all the data.
• In my opinion time matters. Editing is about time. It is about taking the time to read, ask questions, share ideas, comprehend form and content, and THINK about things before rushing to conclusions or deleting someone else's work. If someone looks at a page and decides to delete 75% of it after about 5 minutes, as compared to the hours of effort put into creating the material in the first place, then time is clearly a critical factor.

--Brukner (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• One KMT or CCP soldier took considerably less productive capacity than a US or UK soldier. As such equal forces of KMT and British Soldiers being supported says *nothing* about the two countries carrying capacity.
• Agreed, but that doesn't mean that the same page needs to have the number of New Zealand Naval women and the number of Avro Lancasters produced by Canada
• Fine.
• Legacy site?
• Time spent evaluating matters, as such, I'm perfectly willing to go with a 7 day process.Naraht (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• *I don't think that this is the right way to go with this article. Leaving aside the formatting and citation issues, of which there are many, I don't think that bombarding the reader with a sequence of massive charts a good way to communicate in an article of this sort. It might be appropriate in an academic article, but not an encylcopaedic entry, and I believe runs counter to the guidance at MOS:TABLES. I'd be in favour of trimming back considerably. Brukner: my advice at this point would be to pause and let the consensus emerge here before ploughing on. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea how this edit could've happened. I did not intend to delete any content.
Then again, I have to question how you dealt with this honest mistake of mine. Instead just leaving a message on my talk page, you informed six twelve other users and started an ANI on this (where you called me a "moron", thanks for that!), attempting to having me blocked for vandalism. What the hell is wrong with you? A simple "hey bender235, did you really wanted to delete all that content?" on my talk page would have been enough.
P.S: this edit, however, was legit. Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. --bender235 (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Bender - you appear to have made a mistake, and another editor reacted to it strongly and went to ANI for help. In these cases, people sometimes make errors of judgment. The ANI case is closed. Time to move on, and get back to content issues..--Toddy1 (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine. I can move on. I just hope @Brukner: won't react like that next time. That was insane. --bender235 (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Format of tables - overcoloured

Power	Total	Fighters	Attack	Bombers	Recon	Transport	Training	Other	Personnel
British Empire	177,025	38,786	33,811	38,158	7,014	12,585	46,256	415	1,927,395

As far as I can see, only the table on GDP data uses colour to convey information. The rest do not. The article would be easier to read if the rest of the tables that do not need colour were in the standard format (i.e. no pastel shading of cells).--Toddy1 (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Choice of pictures

Lots of images of propaganda exorting the workforce, but few pictures actually illustrating the methods of high production. eg the huge US aircraft production lines, the newly created shipyards for Liberty ships.... GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with the propaganda posters - where relevant. But the inclusion of two photographs seem doubtful:

• Photograph of Trinity (nuclear test)
• Photograph of Russian sniper Roza Shanina.

The article is about military production. These two photographs are off topic.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Knocked her (Roza) on the head. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous. The photographs are 100% on topic. The nuclear weapon was the ultimate US military production achievement of the war. It mobilised more resources and people than almost any other single war program, and brought the war to a crashing halt. The female Russian soldier is the definition of total war. Go check out the definition of "total war" which basically boils down to the complete mobilization of resources and people. The USSR mobilised everything and everyone.

Sources for tables

All these tables need citations. Probably the best way to do the citations is a bit at the top of the bottom giving sources. Any tables without sources should be deleted.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The way that data is cited in the Vital resources table is fine - as different figures come from different sources - though some data in the table is unsourced.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What are we doing? Can we find a common editorial position?

This article was started before me, by people trying to illustrate the difference in military production between the Axis and Allies. It is essentially about production. Production as a verb, not a noun. It is a process not a state. It is about the comparative availability and use of resources that supported military production. It was NOT designed to count up bits of hardware that entered the fight. Before anyone makes more changes can we all agree on a vision of what the article should be about. I propose:

Thematically

• Illustrating the global context and complexity of military production during the war
• Opening up the reader to more knowledge about the many contributing nations and empires
• Military production as a complex system, inclusive of money, people and natural resources
• Disparities in production outcomes (the gadget numbers)

Content

• Text content provides context -it is not about production, but about the context of it
• Summary tables show the general outcomes of military production -in all military critical resource areas -including money, people, minerals, fuels, and other consumables such as food
• Data tables to provide comprehensive primary sourced data supporting the summary tables

References

• Wikipedia should be pointed to for further information of interest
• Primary sources should be cited in the reference section, not in every single line and table cell
• Ideas only, should be credited with inline references

--Brukner (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Referencing is covered by policy Wikipedia:Verifiability which says "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources which says "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged"

That said, a table can be cited in different ways, a cite for a column, a cite for a row and/or for individual cells. If bringing pieces of info from different sources together then it is much more important to be clear where it all comes from. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no"--Brukner (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I sent you a message on User talk:Brukner, giving you example articles showing different ways of citing information in tables. If the existing tables cannot be cited, they will be replaced by ones that can be cited.

By the way you seem not to understand what constitutes a primary source. Books such as official histories of the war are secondary sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

GDP table question

What happened to GDP of French colonies after 1938? They must still have had an output. Those which where Free French after mid-1940 would have contributed to Allied cause, and most were allied with the Free French by the middle of the war. French Indochina was taken over by the Japanese, so that would be a plus to the Axis even after liberation of France.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia has policies forbidding original research. The GDP/resources of French colonies should only be added to either side if sources do that.

But even that is problematic. For example, the British government classed Thailand as an enemy country, and the American government classed it as an occupied country.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Fuck You

Just wanted to fire off a big fuck you to all you Yanks for your wonderful reaffirmation of why no one likes you.