Talk:World War II/Archive 38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39

RfC: Is the non-free Reichstag photo permissible in the infobox?

A non-free photograph (File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg) depicts Soviet solders raising the Red Banner on the Reichstag roof. This event symbolized both the end of the Battle of Berlin and a military defeat of Third Reich in World War II. No free images of this unique historic event exist or could be created. The photograph itself is iconic, it is highly recognisable and can be found in most WWII history books and, arguably, is the single most famous picture of the entire WWII collection.
Can a non-free status of this photograph be a reason for its removal from the article, and will its replacement with some free image have a detrimental effect on the article?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As this question has also been raised at Talk:Battle of Berlin#RfC: Is the non-free Reichstag photo permissible in the infobox? I suggest that the debate takes place there for both articles. A summary of the debate can be posted here after the RFC is ended. Otherwise there is going to be a lot of overlap between the two debates which will be a waste of time for all concerned. -- PBS (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the infobox debate really will not affect this article, as the use of the image is completely different in both articles... J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
If it is not free it cannot be used, has there been any change of policy I am not aware of? A very symbolic picture indeed, but... GK1973 (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Many non-free images are used on wikipedia, see WP:NFCC. Hohum 12:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the Beer Hall Putsch?

Could the Beer Hall Putsch be added as a possible starting date for World War II? -The Lone Wiki (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's ridiculous. What sources give that date as the start of the war? Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that was just personal opinion which I guess doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for a credible source. The Lone Wiki (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC) The Beer Hall Putsch in Munich took place in 1923 and Hitler did not come to power until 1933.-- (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Until September 1, 1939 there was no "actual war". Although the Nazis trampled on the Treaty of Versailles by, the re-militarization of the Rhineland, the Anschluss of Austria and the "annexing" of the Sudetenland, (all of which should have been reason for the allied powers to act militarily against Germany) Great Britain and France did not declare war on Germany until September 3, 1939. Technically September 3, 1939 could be the date given for the start of WWII, but the action of the Nazis against a sovereign state, is generally considered the cause of the war and that was the invasion of Poland by Germany on September 1, 1939. Austria was a sovereign state, in March of 1938 when Germany "annexed" it but Hitler bluffed the Austrian government with the threat of war to get them to cow-tow to his wish for the reunification of the German people, thus avoiding war.Gctskippy (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Gctskippy (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Gctskippy (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gctskippy (talkcontribs) 03:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Importance of North Africa

There is a lot of confusion about what happened when and who was in charge. Some people believe that we were fighting Germans but we weren't for the most part. The attacks on Morocco and Algeria were all French fighting and in Libya and Egypt, we were fighting Italians. We didn't meet the Germans until we were pushed back in February of 1942 by Rommel and the Afrika Korps. The main assault where we faced Germans was in Tunisia. Patton wasn't the main General of the 3rd or the 5th army at the time. He filled in for II Corps for three weeks in Tunisia. He didn't actually have a command position with his men until Sicily and Italy. Divisions like the Fighting First under Terry Allen and numerous other divisions are the reason places like Oran, Casablanca, El Guettar, Kasserine, Sidi Bou Zid, Tobruk, and El Alamein turned in our favor and the reason the Germans, Italians, and French were pushed out of North Africa. The battle consisted of Australians, Britons, Americans, New Zealanders, Free French, Poles, Greeks, and Indians(From India). The Axis were outdone and Rommel had gotten sick near the end. The Germans were suffering retreat in Russia and this was the beginning of the end for the Nazi's. They may have lost at Stalingrad, but they would ultimately lose the North African Campaign which was really the spark for the allies who were not yet into Europe. They would be the First foot troops to set foot in Europe with the invasion of Italy and Sicily. Until D-Day, the North African Campaign was the largest victory for the allies and the first chance into Europe. Yes, England is in Europe but the campaign would be the first steps into the Nazi realm. The importance of the North African Campaign is seen as unimportant to some people, but it is one of the most important campaigns of the Second World War and was really the first won allied campaign with things only starting in the Pacific and with the lone Russians in the east. This was the first win for the British and American forces. It really is Important. (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought Russia was part of Europe. I need a new atlas... Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC) (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of its importance, but its chronologically in the wrong place in the article. It's included thematically in "Axis Advance Stalls". But chronologically, it belongs in the section "The War Becomes Global". The facts are sacrificed to fulfill a more satisying narrative.

I would recommend renaming "Axis Advance Stalls" to something else. It's not a good title, because the Axis advance had already stalled before the period concerned in at least two instances (Battle of Britain preventing invasion, and North Africa campaign).

That would then allow North African campaign to be placed in its proper chronological place.

In fact, the title "The War Becomes Global" is a bit wierd too. The war was already global. I think these titles have been conjured up to provide narrative, but they don't really stand up to close examination. Furthermore, the detail within the titles often bears little or no relavance to the title itself. It would be better to properly group and title the course of the war. For example, "The War Becomes Global" should be split something like "German Invasion of Soviet Union" and "Japan and USA Enter the War".


I think that the article has become overloaded with photos, and the encyclopedic value of some of the current photos is rather low. I'd suggest that the following changes be made:

I was the one who added most of them. I have to agree that we need to remove some of them. But do we need to remove all of them?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-L20582, Charkow, Strassenkämpfe.jpg. Do we need two similar photographs showing the German troops? Imo, the photo of the Battle of Moscow is needed in this section.
Re: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B28822, Russland, Kampf um Stalingrad, Infanterie.jpg Stalingrad was primarily street fighting, so the picture should show something of that kind. In addition, since Stalingrad was the Soviet success, I think the photo of Soviet military is needed in this section.
I noticed two new photos have been added to a collage, so now it is composed of one Axis photo (Ju-87) and four Allied photos (Keitel's photo relates to both). I believe by doing that the balance has been violated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Moscow - Perhaps File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B17220, Sowjetunion, Panzerangriff bei Istra.jpg, or File:Battle of Moscow.jpg
Stalingrad - Perhaps File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-W0506-316, Russland, Kampf um Stalingrad, Siegesflagge.jpg ? (Hohum @) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Re Moscow. Probably yes, although the picture of the Soviet counter-attack would be (possibly) more appropriate.
Re Stalingrad. Yes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is the UK first ?

Why is the united kingdom first in the list of allies powers in the infobox ? THEQUEEN99 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that they were in the war first or the longest.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Well the war escalated into World War 2 when the UK declared war on Germany in 1939. That would partly explain why these two countries are at the top of the lists of Allied and Axis countries, respectively. Britmax (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
yeah but china and japan were at war long before... THEQUEEN99 (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
However, major WWII participants should go first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that now the USSR tops the list of allies, which reads oddly to me, since they aren't usually considered as joining the war until 1941 (Winter War notwithstanding). I'm guessing that someone feels they should be top based on their importance, but I can't help feeling that's a subjective judgement. Trouble is, if you do it strictly by chronology, you get Poland at the top of the list of Allies, creating the impression that it's primarily a German-Polish conflict. "Common sense" tells me that the major participants on either side are UK/USSR/USA and Germany/Italy/Japan - but was there any sort of tiering in the alliances that might make that "official" enough to order the list that way? Brickie (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If we go "by importance", which is an arbitrary choice by itself, than for the allies the only two reasonable contestants for top spot would be USA (largest economy in the world, largest production of almost whatever (tanks, airplanes, canned food) and USSR (decisive damage to the Wehrmacht, THE allied participant in the largest front (in terms of numbers of men, tanks, guns, miles covered, civilians butchered) of world war 2 (about 50% of overall life lost, at least 65% of land combat (statistically). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk)

The war was declared by the United Kingdom and France. The later involvement of the United States is down to their alliance with the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

the role of France

Allied powers presented France as a Allied power (including allowing for the occupation of Germany) to save face. Was France in fact an allied power? Vichy France was an axis power and recognized so by even the Americans at the beginning of the war. The portray of France as Allied power is just not true. There needs to be more comments regarding this collaboration with the Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

From -France Military deaths: 217,600 (include 20,000 French resistance fighters) -Civilian deaths: 267,000 (not include Jewish Holocaust deaths: 83,000) -Total deaths: 567,600 (USA: 418,500 (Japan and Europe); UK: 449,800) -Deaths as % of 1939 population: 1.35%

And The pro-German Vichy France forces lost 2,653 killed...

You ve got the right to hate French, but don't be so irespectfull... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with disrespect? It is a fact. While the majority of the French population including Alsatians and Lorraine supported the anti-German movement and were "pro-French" it can not be denied the French Govt. collaborated with the Germans. The Allies even considered occupying France after the war. There should be a flag of both Vichy and Free France on the flag chart.

Germans do not hate French people. The French neither confiscated land nor did they expel anyone. French people are far more forgiving than people in Eastern Europe, who took away land, expelled people, but still hate Germans. The German-French friendship is God-sent and should be a role model for other countries of the world.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Relationships with Eastern Europeans are getting better. Time will heal the wounds. As a matter of fact the French attempted to annex the Saarland but had the foresight to give it back. Holland also considered taking German land but did not. The Poles and Czechs were under the guidance of the Soviets but also the Free Polish wanted to take the Prussian lands!

The French government collaborated with the Germans, but Vichy France was neither Axis nor a "de facto Axis power". It was militarily neutral and fought any invaders of its territory (including Japan in September 1940 and Thailand in 1940-1941), not just the Allies. As a government, it collaborated with the Germans for the sake of seeking concessions and functioned diplomatically as an independent state until 1942. It deported its Jewish population and stripped them of rights, allowed German usage of Syrian airfields in 1941, etc., but it also consolidated its military strength (especially in Africa) by stockpiling weaponry contrary to the terms of the armistice, and the Vichy army kept the potential resumption of war against Germany as a primary topic of strategic discussion and war planning beginning in 1941. The LVF, often cited as a Vichy unit, was not organized by Vichy but rather by the Paris collaborators who had no official connection to the Vichy government. The Vichy of 1940-1942 was a very gray entity, and the Americans DID NOT recognize it as an "Axis power", maintaining diplomatic relations until Operation Torch. Vichy's completely black reputation comes from its collaboration in the 1943-1944 period, after the rump free zone had been occupied by the Germans in November 1942. However, the conquest of the free zone in November 1942 ruptured the armistice of 1940 and, under Vichy constitutional law four the fourth of 10 February 1941, dictated that the constitutional successor government was actually that formed under Admiral Darlan in Algiers. This Algiers government was the true legal "Vichy" government under Vichy law, and, despite oversimplification in modern history texts, was NOT by any means "Free French", the organization with which it merged in June 1943 after the Tunisian campaign. The Vichy government that remained in metropolitan France was neither legal nor legitimate following 11 November 1942. In sum: Vichy should not be classified as an "Axis power". Its story is far more complicated than that, and its split into two separate governments in November 1942 contradicts any simplistic classification, as the "Vichy" represented by Darlan was not only legally (by Vichy law) the government of France, but was de facto treated as such by every major power in the war (even if the Allies only officially recognized it as a regional power in control of French Africa) until it merged with the Free French in 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


It says that this page is written in British English (proper English in other words). Why are the dates written in the American formatt? Dapi89 (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Back in November 2009, the GA review decided on British English spelling, so I added the talk page template. The date format appears to have been overlooked. (Hohum @) 14:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
True. If you all see any date that says September 1, 1939 or anything like that, please reword it.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Altered to "D Month YYYY". However, the infobox uses a separate template which uses "Month, D YYYY". (Hohum @) 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If British English is proper than why do more people in the world use and speak American English? Learn and respect both. Expand your mind. format is not spelled "formatt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Who said British English is proper? What's wrong with American English? I agree with the IP. It's "format" and NOT "formatt". Caden cool 07:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Shouldn't the Spanish Civil War be mentioned in the pre-war events? Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Could someone please change this great article for "materiel" to "material" ?


Joncle (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Jon

Not done Materiel seems to be used correctly both times it appears in the article. Algebraist 23:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Correct. "Materiel" means "military materials and equipment", and that is exactly what the article's text means.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Country list of Allies and Axis

Can we please have a better organization of the table which shows the involved country's. Please organize Alphabetically. That way your not stepping on anyones toes regarding involvement. Ie Canada or Australia who were involved in the war from the get go. Canada liberating Holland, landed on D-day etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfect opp. to include a flag of Vichy France in the Axis section and years of switching sides like previous Axis allies Italy, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Romania etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Please organize Alphabetically. That way your not stepping on anyones toes regarding involvement." By listing all participants alphabetically we are stepping on the toes of just a handful of countries. I mean the "Big Three" (plus ROC) and the major Axis members. In actuality, the WWII was the war between these countries, so other numerous "United Nations" or "Axis countries" were just the entourage. Alphabetical listing would be highly misleading, because it would prevent a reader from understanding of who in actuality fought during WWII.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents: Allies

I think its rather illogical and misleading to have the United States and Soviet Union ahead of the United Kingdom, let us not forget the US did not enter the war until December 7, 1941, this goes the same for the Soviet Union, who did not enter the war until 22 June 1941. Whoever is keep changing this needs to check their history. --SuperDan89 (talk) 01:25, 01 April 2010 (UTC)

As the Soviets occupied Eastern Poland in 1939, and later also other territories, the column "Axis and Axis-aligned" needs to show "Soviet Union (1939-41)", too. The early attempts at expansions and later flipfloppiness of the Italians is also not properly represented. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The USSR was not a Germany's ally (and, formally, even not a co-belligerent, because no war was declared on the USSR by any country after Sept 1939). Interestingly, as I already pointed out, Soviet invasion of other Eastern European states was interpreted by Hitler as a violation of the Soviet-German pact, and was used later as a pretext for "Barbarossa".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I have never seen a reliable source classify the USSR as "Axis or Axis-aligned" from 1939 to 1941. When Germany and the USSR invaded Poland in 1939 the UK and other allies declared war on Germany only, thus though the USSR could be argued to have played an important role in triggering the Second World War, it is not considered to have entered the World War until 1941.

Disappointing bias and Propaganda

There was no "Axis Pact".
It was a creation of PROPAGANDA at the time to infer a fictitious threat like our modern day variants on "Axis of Evil".
The "Tripartite Pact" was NEVER activated.
I promised myself I would keep this short but China and Japan did not declare war on eachother in 1937 either.

It's all explained in the Discussion sections under Wikipedia's own the "Axis Pact" and "Tripartite Pact",
complete in the debate with properly sourced, book, author, publication dates, page numbers and out-right quotes.
I did end up reading some of the books the teachers there suggested and they were right.

You see I learnt that the others in those discussions were sent the same emails from Wikipedia asking me why I wasn't contributing anymore, and what would it take for me to rejoin, but naive me, I see nothing's changed.

But since I found I completely changed my mind on some major stuff after reading some of their suggested books, thought anyone here more interested in factual history than this propaganda might like to take a peek. Hope someone saves me the trouble in the future too.DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok what are you saying you would liked to see changed? The "Tripartite Pact" although not implemented was clearly the corner stone for other plans that were to follow ..lets face it even though it was not implemented it was the work that got the Axis powers talking to each other and to militarily assist each other in the future? ...As for China and Japan there has always been an argument that it really started during the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. (is this what you mean?)....Moxy (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


Is the word "organized" spelled "organised" for a reason? I think that it might possibly be because of the author's nationality, but it might be an overlooked spelling error. I seriously doubt it, as it would be a very obvious error for someone to miss in an edit.

British English, see WP:ENGVAR. David Underdown (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Nuclear Bombs on main page of World War II

I wonder why the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not deemed important enough to mention separately from other bombings of Japanese cities during 1945. They are, after all, the onle known instances of nuclear weapons during war in world history. I feel that it's misleading, maybe grossly so, to lump them together with out non-nuclear bombings. Lordmusea (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

World War II#Axis collapse, Allied victory - "the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August." Plus a very notable picture of the Nagasaki cloud.
This seems to be quite enough for an overview article about the whole of WWII, as with every other notable event, there are links to more detailed articles. (Hohum @) 00:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


the article calls kursk a important turning point. This is disputed by Frieser and other historians also dont use this words. Frieser points out that german inflicted 5:1 casualties in men and 8:1 in tanks. so he concludes that it was no turning point because its simply the normal eastern front in bigger propotion. The turning point in the east was earlier. Turning point would imply that Kursk maybe could end with a victory for german. But this is unlikly regarding the fact that wehrmacht inflicted so much casualties and the soviets could launch bigger offensives easy. Many recent historians dont see Kursk as a major turning point anylonger. Even with german little victory there was no real chance of victory . if 100.000 men more lost for soviets was irrelevant for red army.... . So this should be changed. The story of the "turningpoints" is very controversial in general. Blablaaa (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Many recent historians dont see Kursk as a major turning point anylonger." Who?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Frieser like mentioned above.Blablaaa (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Frieser is not "many".--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, why u wait for other authors? why do u not respond to what is written already??? iam not at home and dont have glantz here so dont take this to serious: i think i glantzs also dont thinks kursk is a crucial "turning point" like the article implys. like i already said this indicates a possible german victory of eastern front at summer 43. most recent historians will dispute this possibily ---> no "turning" point. i will search for more Blablaaa (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
the problem is that the article is a short overview for people with no or less knowledge about this topic: And the article implies that summer 43 kursk was a crucial point of the war. it sounds like the winner of this battle will win eastern front. this is indeed wrong. in 2010 8 out of 10 experts will not claim kursk was a turning point. Blablaaa (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"The portents of the outcome at Kursk were enormous. Demonstrably the Red Army could strike for Berlin "with no outside assistance,"setting off alarm bells in the West." (John Erickson. Reviewed work: Kursk: Hitler's Gamble, 1943 by Walter S. Dunn Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 3 (Jul., 1998), pp. 664-665).
"For more than fifty years, historians have been fascinated by the battle of Kursk, its scope and ferocity, and its importance of one of decisive struggles of World War II." (M. K. Dziewanowski. Reviewed work(s): The Battle of Kursk by David M. Glantz ; Jonathan H. House. Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 106, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), p. 687)
"Kursk was Hitler's last attempt to seize the initiative in the east and, as he stated, the victory would be a signal to the rest of the world that Germany was still winning the war." (Walter Dunn. Reviewed work(s): The Battle of Kursk by David M. Glantz ; Jonathan M. House. Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 887-888)
"The last part of the book contains some original essays that attempt to resolve some of the historiographic controversies surrounding the Battle of Kursk. One Book Reviews essay argues, for example, that it was German mistakes on the tactical level that caused their failure rather than the depth and strength of the Soviet defensive system. Professor Newton then ends the book with an essay discussing whether or not Kursk was a decisive battle and he argues that, given the irreplaceable material and manpower losses suffered by the Germans, it was." (Michael Marino. Reviewed work(s): Kursk: The German View by Steven H. Newton. Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jul., 2004), pp. 999-1000)
"The book covers operation Barbarossa and the debacle of the Soviet troops in Belarus, Ukraine, Western Russia and south-western Russia; the battle of Stalingrad is seen by Merridale as the first turning point of the war; the battle of Kursk, which gave a definite blow to the image of invincibility of the German troops; operation Bagration (the second turning point of the war) which turned the Soviet military endeavour from a war of liberation into a war of revenge; and finally, the end game, the battle of Berlin." (Electronic reference Joris Van Bladel, « Catherine Merridale, Ivan's War, the Red Army 1939-1945, London: Faber and Faber, 2005, 396. pages. », The Journal of Power Institutions in Post-Soviet Societies [Online], Issue 4/5 | 2006, Online since 25 novembre 2006. URL :
I believe, that is enough.
With regards to your "the normal eastern front in bigger propotion", please, remember that the overall Eastern Front ratio was less that 2:1 (except those Red Army solders who were captured during first months of the conflict): the Axis lost about 5 million KIA/MIA during the EF, whereas the Red Army less then 9 million. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Proportion of unrecoverable losses were 1:1.3. Germany and its allies lost about 8.5 million, USSR lost about 11 million. Captured soldiers are also unrecoverable losses.--El gato verde (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
dear Paul, the battle of berlin was also a enormous battle and decivise but no "turningpoint" !! i dont talk about the significance of this battle Blablaaa (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"With regards to your "the normal eastern front in bigger propotion", please, remember that the overall Eastern Front ratio was less that 2:1 (except those Red Army solders who were captured during first months of the conflict): the Axis about 5 million during the EF, whereas the Red Army less then 9 million." red army 18 million wounded wehrmacht 6 million. wehrmacht lost most of their men in end battles. "normal" battles between functional soviet and german armies had indeed this high ratios. but this is not the point . i only wanted to talk about the word turning point. Blablaaa (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

your posted texts do not use the word turning pointBlablaaa (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "red army 18 million wounded wehrmacht 6 million." Maybe the issue is in the difference of Soviet and German statistics (similar to their different approaches to the tank loss calculations)? Anyway, I provided sources (and I am able to provide much more sources testifying that Kursk was a turning point. I believe it would be helpful if you supported your claims with exact quotes and citations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
hm sorry i dont see u providing sources that kursk was a turning point. no one of your sources claim this ( like i said very few recent will claim this ). to be a turning point there must be a change in the overall situation. german inflicted enormous casualties but lost anyway how can it be turning point? can u provide a source which claims this battle a real turning point? a battle which "changed" the outcome of war? i can provide at least one who deals exactly with this issue. your posts simply explain that the battle was huge and a big step to victory...
Before Kursk Germany had hope to inflict big casualities to Soviets by establishing Kursk pocket. Don't forget that in total war success of battle is calculated not only by losses, but by the captured terrain and amount of surrounded forces. Before Kursk Germany had big tank armies. After Kursk it hadn't. So it's turning point.--El gato verde (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
iam not at home so i cant at the moment. in some hours. but u can trust me hes simply saying what i said ( i will give later ) . how can it be a turning point when germany could not win the battle? and even when they win it changes nothing. PS i dont think the counting system is the problem 41-44 when u compare KIA... Blablaaa (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
the article now cites this claim with an book about italy and war, and a book published in 92 ( without soviet sources). its dangerous to use pre soviet document era book for eastern front... Blablaaa (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"...the German defeat has since been recognized as a the turning point in the most vicious war mankind has ever experienced."(The battle for Kursk, 1943: the Soviet General Staff study Volume 10 of Cass series on the Soviet (Russian) study of war. Authors: David M. Glantz, Harold Steven Orenstein, Soviet Union. Raboche-Krestʹi︠a︡nskai︠a︡ Krasnai︠a︡ Armii︠a︡. Generalʹnyĭ shtab Editors: David M. Glantz, Harold Steven Orenstein, Publisher: Taylor & Francis, 1999 ISBN 0714644935, 9780714644936, p. xiii)
With regards to numbers, as well as to Frieser's views, the following quote may be helpful:
"It is fairly well established that the effectiveness of the Blitzkrieg has been exaggerated by commentators who remain excessively under the spell cast by the sheer shock and drama of the German offensives, and have therefore overrated the impact on war of military methods which represented more of an improvisation than the fruition of a coherent doctrine. The potential of motorised internal combustion engine-based weaponry and logistics was less fully grasped than talk of Blitzkrieg might suggest. Aside from this analytical issue, there is also a question whether the fighting quality of the Wehrmacht has in fact been exaggerated. Both were to become apparent with Operation Barbarossa. On the German side, there is still a tendency to regard their defeat as due to being beaten in "the production battle in the factories,"12 and to minimise or ignore the extent to which they were outfought. All-too-much of the work on the German side is based on postwar analyses of their own campaigns by German commanders and staff officers. This places the responsibility for defeat on resource issues, the size and climate of the Soviet Union, and, above all, Hitler's interventions, leading to a situation in which "the quasimythical level of excellence attributed to German operational and tactical planning" persists in the face of extensive archival evidence that highlights battlefield mistakes by German commanders.13"(Jeremy Black. Reviewed work(s): The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War One by John Mosier. The Blitzkrieg Myth: How Hitler and the Allies Misread the Strategic Realities of World. War Two by John Mosier Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 69, No. 3 (Jul., 2005), pp. 827-832)
Interestingly, the ref 12 in the Black's review is the K.-H. Frieser's "Kursk-Turning Point of the War?". Obviously, Black's point is that the idea of Soviet numerical superiority as the major factor that decided the fate of the EF is mostly the German POV, and that the Frieser's works are a pure example of this POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

dont see the relevance of your second text. to glantz. the sentence is strange "a the" , and the battle has been recognize, means he says that many saw this battle as turning point. and indeed the soviets made the battle to an turning point with the help propagande. is this glantz opinion that this was a turning point? i guess not. to your other post i will not discuss the annoying and unlogic claim that the german lost because they were "outfought". Blablaaa (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC) that the battle was regarded as turning point by historians pre 1990 is a well known fact. they all copied the soviet text. they had no data of soviets they were not even able to decide if this battle was a turning point. they simply had no data. i repeat my point. no recent historian will claim that this battle was a turning point and that that germany could had win the war in the east ( these fact is importand because its neccessary to be a turning point ) Blablaaa (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "a the". Fixed. I typed it manually from With regards to the quote, the relevance seems to be obvious: Frieser's ideas are the German POV and should be treated as such. Let me also point out that Anglophone version of the Eastern Front's history represents a rare example when the history of a war is being written by the loser, nor by the winner. Due to the Iron curtain, language barriers, and since most Western Germany archives, memoirs, etc (by contrast to the Soviet ones) became available to the Western scholars, the history of war appeared to be written mostly from the German, not Soviet point of view. Therefore, I believe additional efforts to represent the Greman POV here are redundant: it is already presented in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

the actual question: was kursk a world war II TURNING POINT. glantz frieser are sure the battle was lost before he was begun. german inflicted enormours casualties and lost. now i ask u : was this battle a turning point of world war 2. had the world get another ending when german inflicted some 100.000 more casualties on the soviets? ( even though this is highly unlikly ) Blablaaa (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Glantz is a contemporary historian (and arguably the most prominent one). With regards to "they all copied the soviet text". I don't think so. As I already wrote (see above) German sources were much more available for pre-1990 Western historians than the Soviet ones.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Frieser dont talks about POV, he says german could not win. this is no german POV, glantz says the same, the german were not stoped at prokhorovka or something else. german lost before they started to attack because the war was lost earlier this simply contraticts the myth of the kursk turning point. at the moment iam the only one with a recent historian who deals with thie exact problem. can u bring an historian who really talks about the issue. at the moment i think u copy the first pages of the book which should get customers to buy the book with words like "enormous" and biggest battle of all time. have u an historian explaining the kursk was a turning point? Blablaaa (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • " With regards to "they all copied the soviet text". I don't think so."

i bought his most recent book about kursk after i saw the "nonsense" which is sourced with him, and indeed glantz copied heavyli from soviet propagande and changed this in his newer books. :-) but paul i only want to say that it was no turning point ^^ i dont want to be blocked for making this a forum can we stick to this issue? Blablaaa (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

perfect example that even historian are sometime a bit strange. From Glantz book description:

  • Glantz and House's fresh interpretations demolish many of the myths that suggest Hitler might have triumphed if Operation Citadel had been conducted differently"

and then

  • "that marked the turning point of the war on the Eastern front "
  • No possible german victory because the war was lost earlier but a turning point ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

your interpretation of turning point now brings some different factors. i dont know how much soviets victory changed the situation of the allied. i only know that is was no turning point regarding who will win. regarding Glantz. yes i can show u its very funny, he also tries to tarnish his heavy mistakes in his newer book. i went to the discussion board of reliable sources and claimed his book "when titan clashes is bad for kursk" i listed some things which look strange and a propaganda nonsense. i was overruled everyone explained to me how excelent glantz ist, than i bought his book and saw all of my points were correct. he changed many of his failures and some things were not mentioned again. i will changed my location i can provide friesers words later and glantz 2Blablaaa (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence to end the dispute, although I personally don't think it changes anything.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
at least the text now dont claims kursk was a turning point of eastern front or world war 2. the soviet had the iniative even before kursk, but they didnt knew.... Blablaaa (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Initiative is not a Schroedinger's cat: you cannot possess it and be unaware of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure? think about again.... :-) Blablaaa (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Casualties of WWII - Only white people count?

This article continues the usual omission of the perhaps millions of people in the colonial world who were killed as a result of the dispute between colonial masters. What about the 2-3 millions of Indians who starved to death as a result of artificial "famines" caused by wartime requisitioning by the Brits and hoarding countenanced by British coloninal authorities? What about the 2 million Vietnamese starved to death by the Japanese/French colonialists? What about the millions of "subjects" forced to fight or more often serve as slave labor for the various armies? What about the millions more family members who died as the men were taken away as forced-laborers to build roads, railroads, battlements, etc. or to fight in Asia and Africa? What about the Pacific Islanders slaughtered by the U.S., U.K., French and Japanese forces? A similar issue is the usual tearful accounts of the suffering of white soldiers at the hands of the Japanese but no mention of the truth that the vast majority of those who died were Indians or Philipinos. Your figure of 70 million is several tens of millions short. Let's try to get some real accuracy and away from the racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Same rules as ever; if you can reliably source it, it can go into the article.Britmax (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Are Japanese and Chinese white in your book?

15 million expelled, raped and killed Germans after the lost war do not count, too. Many of them were women, children and old people. No matter if Nazis or not. Maybe we should look at war from a different angle. The winner takes it all.-- (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-determination for colonial peoples? Not hardly.

The statement is completely false: "Meanwhile, the acceptance of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa..."

There was no acceptance of a principle of self-determination or independence by the colonial and imperial powers. They opposed all moves to actual independence before, during and after the war. They opposed it with brutal bloody force sweet proclamations aside.

In fact all the imperialist and colonial powers agreed that no colonial peoples should be allowed freedom. Thus, the French and Japanese collaborated on keeping the people of Indo-China under their respective boots. Thus, the Nazis, U.K., and French all collaborated on keeping the peoples of North Africa under control.

Roosevelt cynically bleated for a few years about self-determination only because the U.S. rulers saw this as an opportunity to strip their foes, the French, British and Japanese, of exclusive access to the raw materials and markets in “their” colonies, and because they knew that the colonial peoples would try to seize the moment to free themselves. However, as soon as it became clear that the colonial peoples really did intend to free themselves, all the solemn promises by the U.S. and others were tossed out the window.

Perhaps the best example is the case of Vietnam. A French colony seized by the Japanese, who allowed their Vichy allies to administer the colony up until the final months. Once the Japanese surrendered the Vietnamese indeed seized the opportunity to declare independence. Within weeks a British expeditionary force (comprised of Indian troops under white British officers) landed in southern Vietnam, disarmed the Vietnamese (through the perfidy of Stalin and Ho Chi Minh), and proceeded to free the French colonials. Realizing they were too weak the British and French then proceeded to FREE and REARM the "terrible" Japanese in order to help them suppress the Vietnamese people. So the French, British and Japanese all collaborated together to oppose self-determination. Needless to say the U.S. then proceeded to do all it could to help the French retake "their" colony. The same took place in North Africa, and countless other colonies.

So, please let's cut the "noble white democracy" high school textbook propaganda and get some facts out there. All of the above has plenty of "cites" to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The war greatly strengthened the position of and domestic support for decolonisation movements in their own countries/colonies, and so is correct. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

History is written by victors.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

World War II Page

In the first paragraph of the World War II page, mobilized is spelled wrong. It is spelled "mobilised" as of right now. Someone who can edit semi-protected pages should fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpector (talkcontribs) 17:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere on this very talk page, the article is written in British English, in which "mobilised" is correct. Brickie (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

China - 1937 ??


"World war II, date: 1939-1945"

"China (1937-45)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

china was invaded by Japan in 1937. actually china was a third party until japan joined the axis in 1940 so basically incorrect to a certain sence.-- (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding this entry in the infobox at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#China / Japan, entry date (Hohum @) 01:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Eisenhower in the infobox

I understand that the list of all World War 2 commanders box lists all of them, but he was a vital general in the war and I think it would be best if he were added.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, see a discussion on the template talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


This article doesn't cover expulsions.Xx236 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Main article has a link to Aftermath of World War II which covers expulsions.

In any case the German losses in the expulsions occurred mostly in 1945 flight during the Soviet military offensive and deportations to the USSR, so they are part of WW2. The number of dead in the actual expulsions was 160,000 according to the German Archives, the balance of the 2 million dead occured in the war and the famine caused by the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean flight and deportations during WWII, started in 1940 (the flight of Polish civilians including Jews took place already in September 1939, when thousands of them died bombed by the Luftwaffe, eg. in Sulejów). It's not the problem of the Aftermath. It seems that German propaganda is very effective, if anyone who reads "expulsions" believes to read "expulsion of Germans". Generalplan Ost was created before Teheran or Potsdam. Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "...during the Soviet military offensive and deportations to the USSR..." AFAIK, the Germans were deported to Germany (from Eastern Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania, etc), not to the USSR.
Re: "if anyone who reads "expulsions" believes to read "expulsion of Germans"." It is generally correct when we talk about post-war expulsions. However, most deportations, including, deportation of Jews, Poles, other central Europeans took place during WWII, not after it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The war flights and expulsions aren't described in this article.
when we talk about post-war expulsions - the problem is that the German idea of Vertreibung includes both WWII looses and post-war deportations and several articles of this Wikipedia partially present such POV.
"the Germans were deported to Germany (from Eastern Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania, etc), not to the USSR" - the majority of them yes, but hundreds of thousands were deported to Soviet Union and many of them died there. Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

About 15 million Germans were forced to flee or expelled from mainly Poland and the Czechoslovakian Republik, after 800 years there.This was the biggest ethnic cleansing in Europe. Lots of them were old people or children.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 21 May 2010


change mobilised to mobilized (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done since this article uses British spelling. ~NerdyScienceDude () 13:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

World War Two Timeline Project

I was hoping to add a link to my mashup project at World War Two Timeline Project to the external links on this article. The link has been identified as having an conflict of interest and I was wondering if there was something I can do to resolve that conflict (and also what the conflict was)?

I think the site has real value and because of it's close ties to Wikipedia would be a good candidate for the external links section (each data point in my mashup links back to the appropriate Wikipedia article as the authoritative source on that topic). The dataset I am building is (as far as I know) a unique resource for World War Two:

  • WikiPedia ww2 article
  • Geographic location (region)
  • chronological period

Would love to hear what you think. Cannonade (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting website, but I'm afraid that I don't think that linking to it isn't in line with the guideline Wikipedia:External links. This is because it doesn't provide anything beyond what is covered in this and other high-level World War II articles as it essentially re-uses Wikipedia content. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The conflict of interest was very simple: as its author, the person adding the link had a personal interest in the link. A conflict of interest does not automatically prevent a person from adding material to Wikipedia, but will shine a brighter light on his actions. In general, editors here will want to see significant, high value in the link, beyond what is already offered. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me and explaining the conflict. That makes perfect sense and as the author, I won't re-add the link. I would argue on Nick's point that the site "re-uses Wikipedia content". In most cases I have added data points independently and then associating that data with the appropriate Wikipedia article (In fact, I added the Wikipedia link to the system retrospectively). In some cases an appropriate article doesn't exist. In some cases geographical data isn't associated with the Wikipedia article. Even with those two points aside, even if I was using Wikipedia content verbatim (which I very rarely do), I think the context of time and place on a map is a very useful (and compelling) learning tool for people interested in the War. Zooming in on the map of the Cherbourg Peninsula and then dragging the timeline to June 1944 gives a view of events that the same collection of Wikipedia articles simply cannot do (in my opinion of course). Thanks again for your very useful feedback and I will leave the matter in your very capable hands. Cannonade (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I hate to labor my point that the site doesn't re-use Wikipedia's content, but I forgot to mention that many of the datapoints include regions or lines on the map, something that can't be represented by the single latitude and longitude on a Wikipedia article. Cannonade (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

ROC in the incorrect "participant" group

Whilst reading this article, I have noticed a glaring mistake.ROC is on the wrong side. During world war II the ROC aided the Japanese against the communists(as there was also a civil war at the timr),and there is a large amount of evidence showing active collusion. Indeed, thousands of kuomintang soldiers served in the military, invading their own country in the process.

I am well aware of wikipedia's bias towards Japan/ROC so expect this to be deleted or left unchanged. However,I have taken a screenshot and will get my point across sometime (Link)located under title Japanese colonisation —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

i thought WW2 was caused by WW1 not the actual invasion of poland. --Stephendwan (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The large German minority in Poland and in Czechoslovakia was promised home rule and people`s votes by the American president Wilson after World War 1, but the newly- founded nations wanted a homogenous ethnic population and did not fulfil this promise. This was one of the reasons for Hitler´s success.-- (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Billigerents List

May I ask how the order of the lists of belligerents are decided? Is it based on force sizes? Thanks --Half Price (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath - deaths

Considering the number of people who died in WWII, the following might be considered too insignificant to include in an encyclopaedia article, but I'd like to raise it for consideration any-way.

Even after the war was officially over, many people died. Som of them died from wounds incurred during the war, others died due to radiation, and some died from late explosions (e.g., in 2010:,1518,699124,00.html). Obviously, there are also retributions, executions, and health problems leading to death, but I think these are too indirect to consider. Kdammers (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

focus lede on summary of article

I trimmed the lede to drop footnotes that do not beliong in an article summary (like texts of declarations of war by some countries), a false statement about Ethiopia (that war was long past) and added a better cite (.C.B. Deaf and M.R.D. Foot, eds. The Oxford Companion to World War II" (1995) p. 290) of overall casualties. 20:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cannot agree. There is no agreement among scholars about the WWII start date. The previous version reflects a consensus that was achieved after hard and prolonged debates, so your changes will ignite a new disputes where all old arguments will be re-iterated again (with the same result). However, I agree that the war in Ethiopia should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The number of killed is hardly in agreement with what other sources say (27 million death in the USSR plus ~20 millions in China is already 47 million, whereas your source states only 50 million died), so this source is hardly better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Wiki's job is to report the best scholarship-- in this case the Oxford Companion is widely accepted as the best source on such issues. It replaces a popular source with no expertise on WW2.
Rjensen (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not the only scholarship, and it is hardly a scholarship at all. I would say, it is a tertiary rather than a secondary source. One way or the another, since other sources that provide different numbers exist we have either to present all of them (which is unacceptable in the lede) or not to show any figures.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Großdeutsches Reich

Just a suggestion, shouldn't the name for Nazi Germany be changed to "Großdeutsches Reich" or "Greater German Empire" This is to represent the Austrians, Czechs and Poles that also we're part of the Nazi faction and not to confuse the army as only Germans Partizanfighter1944 (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Partizanfighter1944

As this is the English-language Wikipedia, we use the most common English language names for things. The common name for Germany and its pre-war additions is either 'Nazi Germany' or 'Germany'. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

British English question

If the article is wrote in British English, why is the American term for the war used i.e. World War II? :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

One doesn't depend upon the other. Presumably "World War II" is the most commonly used English name of the conflict per WP:COMMONNAME, while consensus during the article's life has made British English the preferred style of the content. (Hohum @) 16:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The stickmen say otherwise :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Is 'World War II' American? I hadn't notice! --Half Price (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I have always been surprised that the tile is not the full proper name "Second World War" . Itsodd to have the abbreviation as the title in an encyclopedia, but "First World War" is the same. Moxy (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
"googlefight stickmen" isn't the suggested method according to WP:COMMONNAME. A wikipedia search for "second world war" -wikipedia gives 7.9 million, "world war II" -wikipedia gives 35 million. On google books, the same search gives 2.4 million and 6 million. (Hohum @) 21:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) Although how many of the wiki search hits are articles using the incorrect local variant? ;) :p
Hmmmm...intersting question! Technically, we're supposed to be using the most common name in English used by reliable sources. Sorry I can't provide a link for this, but according to my Reliable Sources Search Engine, I get the following number of hits:
World War II - 430 (apx)
Second Wold War - 300 (apx)
World War 2 - 260 (apx)
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
With my above reply said it, i would bow to the inevitable based on reliable sources.
Eh, anytime you use a search engine, the numbers are going to be crude. And now that I think about it, "Second World War" is a terrible search term since it will also return hits for articles where it's used as a phrase, and not a name. For example, "World War II was the second world war" uses "World War II" as the proper noun and "second world war" as a phrase. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just quickly...

Could be wise to add a link to the wikipedia pages on The Cold War to the 3rd paragraph? "setting the stage for the Cold War, which lasted for the next forty-six years". Ta! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39

Article protection

As a note, I've turned off pending changes for this article and reinstated the semi-protection. The result of the pending changes trial for this particular article has been to increase the workload for editors (due to the need to review large numbers of IP edits) for no benefits as all the IP edits appear to have been rejected. As such, semi-protection appears to be more appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 10 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Causes: Militarism Alliances Imperialism Nationalism (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. AJCham 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Allied Belligerents WWII

The Indian flag is missing from the information box under allied belligerents. Considering India's deep role in the war from beginning to end(1939 - 1945) the gallantry and bravery in her soldiers wherein Indian personnel received no less than 4,000 awards for gallantry, and 31 Victoria Crosses, and painfully with between 1.5 million and 3 million casualties 5 to 7 times larger than Britain, and larger than the total casualties of Britain, USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Italy (the third power in the axis) and the rest of the commonwealth this is a grand oversight in the flag of india not being included (almost as if it to suggest and infer that india played no part when it gave it's soul to the allied war effort. It is also all the more disappointing when the likes of Greece and Yugoslavia have their flags included and the belligerents who I have listed as having a combined smaller total number of casualties have their flags displayed whilst India the sword arm of the British Empire and jewel in the crown is missing. India fought on both the German and Japanese fronts and was vital to the allied success in WWII and served in both WWI and WWII. PLEASE RIGHT THIS WRONG AND DISPLAY INDIA'S FLAG OF THAT TIME, THIS INJUSTICE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, DO NOT DISHONOUR INDIA'S HEROES, MARTYRS, AND GLORIOUS DEAD WHO FOUGHT FOR A PEACEFUL AND FREE WORLD !!!

User - Righteditor(Righteditor (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

I'm not sure why you devolved into shouting and demanding. The area including modern India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar wasn't independent since it was under British dominion as the Indian Empire until 1947. So, I'm not sure a separate flag is appropriate - and if it is, it would probably be this one: Star of India (flag). This doesn't devalue their efforts, which stand for themselves. Also see India in World War II. (Hohum @) 18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
India was not a sovieriegn state during ww2, it was a possesion of the british empire and as such falls under their flag since persons living in that colony were subjects of the british empire.XavierGreen (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

order of the thingys

why are us and ussr first?? surely it should be china,then britain, france, ussr, U.S, then the commonwealth and the others, china were at war for the longest so why are they near the end?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianp321 (talkcontribs) 15:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Allies are in order of "importance", not how long they were at war. The Big Three are ranked at the top because they simply were the three largest and most influencial members of the Allies. China is the fourth country listed in the Allies section and is nowhere near the bottom like you claim. --PlasmaTwa2 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i disagree but whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianp321 (talkcontribs) 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The usa, ussr, and uk dictated to the other allies basic strategy and the l.ike, as such they need to be listed at the top. China was the fourth most important and influential of the allies for most of the war so thats why its listed fourth.XavierGreen (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Flawed overview? -- Battle of Britain

The Spitfire caption "The Battle of Britain ended the German advance in Western Europe" together with text statement "Germany began an air superiority campaign over Britain (the Battle of Britain) to prepare for an invasion"[63] do not reflect a consensus position. Richard Overy "Battle of Britain 70 years on", in dispelling the David and Goliath myth, states: "Britain had more fighter aircraft and more fighter pilots than the Germans over most of the Battle of Britain". And, "At the end of the Battle of Britain Hitler’s armies still dominated much of Europe, and were poised to dominate more." Communicat (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The UK was the only place left in *Western* Europe that Hitler had designs on. Trying to gain air superiority with an idiot in charge of the Luftwaffe, against a force that managed to maintain larger numbers of pilots and aircraft doesn't mean they didn't try. (Hohum @) 15:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I can see an argument to tone it down. What halted the advance was the English Channel, the BoB denied the German forces the opportunity to gain the Air Superiority, Control of the Air or even Favourable Air Conditions that would allowed any effort to establish an amphibious landing force.
ALR (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. However, I raised the BoB issue mainly because it illustrates how a false premise or a lie (i.e. RAF outnumbered by GAF), when repeated many times in official propaganda and regurgitated endlessly by self-styled historians etc, eventually becomes in the public mind a settled and unquestioned premise, though it can be proved to be a myth. There are many such myths, (at least one of which is currently the subject of dispute on this page). Communicat (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: when I said "agreed", I should have added "with reservations". What bothers me is the misleading Spitfire picture caption that claims the BoB "ended the German advance in Western Europe." Much better, since after all it really is a picture of a Spitfire, would be something along the lines of: "The RAF's Spitfire fighter won the Battle of Britain." As the caption presently stands, unenlghtened readers are misled into thinking the BoB was something to do with Western Europe. As rest of us know, RAF victory in the BoB was essentially about preventing the GAF from destroying English airfields. The BoB text statement (accompanying reference 63) is very simplistic and similarly misleading for ordinary readers. Maybe you'd like to expand and fix it with your above observation? Communicat (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Another Myth is that the Spitfire won the BoB I think you will find there were more Hawker Hurricane squadrons. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, you're quite right. Maybe also worth mentioning that neither the Spit nor Hurricane were anywhere near as fast and effective as Mosquito in nightfighter mode. Communicat (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Which makes sense as neither Spit or Hurricane were designed as such. The combination of the (fewer) high end Spits and the many (cheaper) Hurricans proved to be very good at taking out German bomber squadron, with the Spits focussing on fighter support and the Hurricanes taking out the bombers. Arnoutf (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-communist prejudice

In the very lengthy WW2 article there is only one very brief mention of a communist-led resistance movement (Yugoslavia), whereas in fact there were communist-led resistance movements throughout Europe and the Far East. They made a significant contribution to the Allied war effort by sabotaging enemy supply lines, rescuing downed pilots, and collecting and conveying intelligence to the Allies. The exclusion of these movements from the article reflects clear anti-communist (i.e. POV) prejudice.

There were of course some populist (i.e. non-communist) resistance groups like Force 136 in Malaya, and a populist group in Greece, and nationalist resistance elsewhere e.g. China, (before the split with Mao), but even these groups were led mainly by communists. Non-communist (i.e. populist / nationalist groups were largely ineffectual and NOT a fighting force worth considering by comparison with the communist-led groups (some of which were also comprised of populist or nationalist members. (In Italy communist-led groups even had devout Catholics as members). Hence my use of the term "communist-led".

The text and sources that I provided in a lead paragraph of disputed article that was reverted by Nick-D (see above) are relevant. There are various other reliable sources on this topic, which I can provide if necessary. The point I'm making is that deliberate exclusion from the WW2 article of virtually any mention of communist-led resistance(except the one very brief mention re Jugoslavia), is proof of anti-communist bias. Could it be that the unsigned comment added by above has some validity, when he remarks: "... we all know this site is full of biased Americans trying to make everything done by America look that bit better than everyone else." ? Communicat (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how this constitutes "anti-communist prejudice". Most countries had quite diverse resistance movements and not very many had resistance movements like Tito's, which fought so openly. The only (European) exception is possibly the Polish one, which was NOT communist lead, but comprised mainly of conservatives and nationalists. If you look at the other occupied countries (France, Benelux, Denmark, Norway) the resistance movement was less visible. And just as importantly, they were mixed, sometimes with extensive internal differences - sometimes outright fighting each other. Nevertheless, they played important roles in the war. Allied operations counted on Danish resistance movements to derail German supply- troop- and ressource transports, of which Denmark was rife. The Resistance Movement in Denmark was largely conservative, as communists were concentrated in the cities or had escaped to Sweden. The communists did perform a large number of operations - especially in the cities where they were concentrated, and were the closest to an "armed resistance" (in the Yugolslavian sense) Denmark came. Rather than speculating in the political rationale behind each resistance movement in the WWII article, this should probably be discussed in an article on that subject and largely kept out of the WWII article. I didn't note any other mentionings of Resistance Movement political philosophy other than Tito's Yugoslavs. Would that constitute anti-conservative prejudice?--Nwinther (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK, the scale of the resistance movement in Europe (except in Yugoslavia and, probably, Poland) was grossly exaggerated. I would say, a support of Nazi by local population in most European countries was more pronounced than resistance was. Therefore, if we decide to tell about resistance in Europe, we also have to devote at least the same space to collaborationism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
As an overview article, it is unrealistic to go into any detail for any single issue, the current level seems appropriate. This article links to Resistance during World War II at the top of the Occupation section, that article would be a better place for reliably referenced details. (Hohum @) 17:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as resistance goes, we basically have three countries,
  • Yugoslavia, where whole division groups were engaged in combating Partisans in battles involving hundreds of thousands of men.
  • Poland
  • Greece
The strategic significance of all three is negligible compared to conventional warfare, of course. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
All above is relevant for a better edit, but no-one above takes heed of resistance in Far East viz., China (12 million killed) Malaya, Philippines, Indonesia, Burma, and Hong Kong where anti-Jap partisans collected and used against the enemy many weapons and other materiel abandoned by retreating British troops after Jap invasion and British surrender. The rest of the weapons obtained in Malaya as elsewhere were of course via SOE airdrops. Significance of guerilla warfare (especially jungle fighting) is that one guerilla could tie down about 25 to 50 enemy troops, thus diverting enemy resources away from other engagements.
Main reason why I brought partisan resistance into the editing equation, was because of the false and unsourced assertion in existing Para. 3 about decolonisation (see Decolonisation section above). I deleted entirely that falsity, (and also the mention of Cold War), because I intended inserting into the "Aftermath" section the facts that Britain and America had lured indigenous resistance movements to support the Allies through promises of post-war independence from colonialism (see Atlantic Charter). When post-war independence failed to materialise, all hell broke loose in Brit colony of Malaya, and in American neo-colony Philippines. Important aftermath issue not mentioned in existing Aftermath section.
Piecemeal, stop-and-start editing can be very frustrating in that respect -- especially when administrators such as Nick-D assume bad faith or whatever, and revert editing without first engaging in any discussion about proposed edits. (In my other life, I'm accustomed to editing 10,000 word manuscripts at one sitting).Communicat (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want others to assume your good faith, try assume good faith too. I believe there are explanations of Nick-D's behaviour others than assuming bad faith. I suggest you to copy a section you want to modify on the tal page, to make changes you want, to wait for comments from others and, when all criticism is addressed to move the modified text into the main article. It is a rather long procedure, however, taking into account that this article is generally in a good shape, and that this is a 10th most visited WP article, this way is probably the most optimal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Noted. Good idea. Communicat (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: Direktor above is wrong when he says Yugoslavia, Greece and Poland are the only ones worth mentioning. He forgets that Italian (communist-led) partisans liberated part of northern Italy and were poised to do more. Which resulted in the infamous Operation Sunrise -- OSS director Alan Dulles's (now well-documented) secret surrender negotiations with Nazi SS general Karl Wolfe, to prevent post-war communist influence in Italy. Communicat (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you talking about the same commie baddies who murdered John Birch? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Nah,I'm talking about wiki WW2 article anti-communist prejudice / POV bias through omission. To continue where I left off above, re significant communist-led resistance as missing from the article in question: The Operation Sunrise agreement between SS Gen Karl Wolf and Western Allies was that German army in N. Italy would surrender quietly to Western Allies thus preventing further German defeats by communist-led partisans, and thereby denying post-war influence to communists. It also allowed the Wehrmacht to quickly move a couple divisions from Italian front to the Soviet-German or eastern front. (Declassified docs reveal Stalin was outraged. Another example of WW2 origins of Cold War). Meanwhile, in SE Asia -- Korea & Vietnam anti-Japanese (and anti-French Vichy) communist-led resistance continued as it had throughout the war. So, when we talk about communist-led resistance, (and the WW2 origins of Cold War) it might be worth bearing in mind that Tito's partisans were not the only ones who saw action. Communicat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure killing an armed man is a murder?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
With a name like Communicat, one must wonder why he's bringing up supposed "Anti-communist prejudice" in this article. Look, the article is neutral enough to pass a GAN. I see no justification of any "Anti-communist prejudice".--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 23:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
How then do YOU account for all the above-mentioned POV bias through omission? Never mind. Rhetorical question. As for passing a GAN, I don't know about the "standards" of whoever it is that passes a GAN, (probably wiki itself?); but those standards fall well below those of other people including me. Not to mention the standards of whoever it was that posted the above-mentioned comment: "... we all know this site is full of biased Americans trying to make everything done by America look that bit better than everyone else." Communicat (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If this site is indeed "...full of biased Americans trying to make everything done by America look that bit better than everyone else." then would you mind explaining why it is written in British English?--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 01:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Because Americans don't know how to spell properly. Communicat (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I take that as an attack and an offense to my nation and it's people. I'm American and I voted for this article to be written in British English.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 01:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
No, not an attack. Just an attempt at sense of humour. Where's yours? (he he) Communicat (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
As for passing a GAN, I don't know about the "standards" of whoever it is that passes a GAN, (probably wiki itself?) --> I would like to draw your attention to the VERY VERY detailed GA review of this article See -->Talk:World War II/GA1 ...,becasue you have now just insulted everyone involved that worked on getting the article to GA status over 4 months. (Ps you are taking to most of them now)..Just be careful pls -- we understand your frustrated. Lets get you to list all the refs you have for a statment you wish to change and lets see if they outweigh the current statement and its references... Moxy (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I've already listed laboriously and at length all the numerous references I have for statements / non-neutral POV edits I suggested changing. Maybe you didn't notice them the first time, but I'm not going to bother repeating them for you. Read for yourself evolution of this discussion over past period of two weeks or more. Also read Nick-D's bad faith assertion that wiki is not the place for me to air my "pet theories". They are not personal "pet" theories. They are carefully considered assertions supported by attributable facts, which wiki administrators and others prefer to ignore. Don't be so touchy, but thanks for your interest anyway. Communicat (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC) +
Um Communicat, this really is highly inappropriate and could get you blocked. Lets keep it civil (not everyone in the US watches Fox News ;). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Re blocking: Yes, that would be a convenient way of getting rid of me so that unresolved isssues can simply remain unresolved, as they currently are. Besides, I don't care if anyone wants to block me. I'll simply open another account using a different username and IP. How about helping to discuss / helping resolve the multiple and complex issues. Would be much appreciated. Current section is about anti-communist prejudice. Separate preceding sections are also relevant. Glad to learn that not everyone watches Fux News. Thanks. 13:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Communicat (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You bring it on yourself with your own behaviour. Please stick to talking about ways to improve the article instead of throwing out accusations and making "jokes" in bad taste. If it's too much for you to show which reference is for which addition, "again", then don't be surprised if people ask for them. (Hohum @) 13:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That is called socking Communicat and will not only get you blocked but possibly (actually likely) banned.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 15:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Socking? Where? Who's the sock, who's the sockmaster? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That's just a reference to the last post by Communicat that said "I'll simply open another account using a different username and IP" :)--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 16:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sock, block. Who cares. For convenience of Moxy and HoHum, 3 and 4 postings above, and anyone who might have missed evolution of this disupute, here repeated is my earlier posting of 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC) under section "WW2 origins of CW", including references as requested above by Moxy:
EXTRACTBinksternet, in his posting of 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC) in the talk section above, headed Link to, ridicules the proposition contained in Winer's book Between the Lies, that " ... the origins of the Cold War are firmly embedded in World War II, when Churchill and his elite cabal secretly waged a shadow war against communism under the guise of fighting the Nazis and 'helping' the Soviet Union." In fact, that historical premise has been around for a long time. Not only does it reflect a majority position in Russia, which bore the brunt of the fighting in Europe during WW2, but it is view shared to one degree or another by a substantial number of very well respected Western historians as published by very well respected Western publishers. They have drawn much the same conclusion, namely that the roots of the Cold War were buried deep in WW2. They agree on the basis of impeccable documentary research that by land, sea and air, the Western Allies generally failed to deploy their overwhelming military advantages to good effect while Russia suffered appalling losses as a result, on the eastern and decisive front of World War II. See Vladimir Petrov (ed.), Soviet Historians and the German Invasion, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press 1968, p.286; Y Larionov, N Yeronin, B Solovyov, V. Timokhovich, World War II Decisive Battles of the Soviet Army, Moscow: Progress 1984; Gar Alperovitz, "How Did the Cold War Begin?" in Walter LaFeber (ed.) The Origins of the Cold War 1941-1947, New York: John Wiley 1971; DF Fleming, The Cold War and Its Origins: 1917-1960, New York: Random 1961' Wilfred Burchett, Shadow of Hiroshima, London: Verso 1983. Stan Winer, in Between the Lies, in Chapter 4 titled "The Missing Front", elaborates that position further in citing, among others, the memoirs of Red Army commander Georgi Zhukov to support the proposition that the roots of WW2 are firmly embedded in WW2. Wiki editors, in their "wisdom" and without providing concrete evidence to support their allegations, arbitrarily refute all the foregoing documentation as "flawed", "unreliable", or "fringe". ENDS EXTRACT
References for Operation Sunrise being a further instance of WW2 origin of CW, as mentioned in my comment posted 23:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC) in this current section, are Bradley F Smith and Elena Agarossi, Operation Sunrise: The Secret Surrender. New York, 1979; R Harris Smith, OSS, Berkely: University of California Press, 1972, pp.114-121 </ref>. The Operation Sunrise referred to here is not to be confused with the so-calledOperation Sunrise of a completely unrelated wiki article. Moxy, feel free to ask if you need further already cited info that you might have missed. Communicat (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
PS:All this has to do with disputed words "setting the stage for the Cold War" in Para 3 of overview article. It's not a consensus position among researchers, because others say Cold War had its origins in WW2 (and still other say Cold War began when Western Allies invaded Soviet Union in 1917. Also user Paul Siebert above has additional references in regard to WW2 origins of CW. Long story. Communicat (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
In spite of your references this is still no more than a fringe theory. Besides that, this thread opened with a reference to communist lead resistance movements, not the efforts of the USSR which is something else entirely. Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
All that phrase sais is that the two main players in the cold war area (USSR and USA) emerged as the only superpowers with the other great powers (UK, Germany, France) being reduced; and those being the countries leaing in the cold war. The mainstream view is still that the cold war started after WWII; and the mainstream view is that of Wikipedia. And anyway this has not been discussed in this thread before. Please stick to your own point "communist led resistance" and stop adding additional issues irrelevant to that point. Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That's purely a matter of opinion, yours in this instance, and not a matter of fact. Read and comprehend fringe properly. My posting that opened in this thread, which you complain about, is a response to Moxy and Hohum several postings above. Please follow the discussion accurately, including all the interrelated section heads, if you want to avoid confusion. The issues raised, including decolonisation which in turn concerns resistance movements affected by Atlantic Charter promises, all relate directly or indirectly to the continuing disputed para.3 of article. And no, the mainstream view is not supposed to be that of wiki, according to wiki's own rules, as I've pointed out to several others involved in discussion. All reliable majority and significant minority positions must be stated in an article in terms of fringe. As I said, read it properly. Also please support your assertions with concrete references (as I've done), if want to avoid being accused of opinionation and disruption. Thank you. Communicat (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Each separate thread is a discussion on its own and should be discussed in a coherent way. Mixing different topics from different threads is creating confusion. This is even worsened by screwing up the chronology of arguments (which you did with your PS above).
Indeed besides the mainstream relevant minority positions should be mentioned (the word 'relevant' being essential), but not in the lead section.
Nobody disagrees the roots of the Cold war were buried deep in WWII but roots are not the same as the actual thing. You could even argue (as some well respected historians do) that there was only one war in the 20th century, which lasted from 1914-1991, with long periods of cease fire, or at least limited open warfare.
Additionally, you seem to see a Western complot against the Soviets, but the opposite position can be taken as well. Count the number of communist states in Europe in 1930; count the number of democracies in 1930, count them again in 1950 and consider which side forced their view onto Europe. Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh, count of 1. Democracy wasn't very popular in the interbellum Arnoutf. The only real democratic state in Europe in 1930 that switched to communism after WWII was Czechoslovakia. Poland - authoritarian (Pilsudski), Yugoslavia - a royal dictatorship, Romania - virtual fascist dictatorship, Bulgaria - dictatorship of the tsar, Baltic states - authoritarian, Hungary - ultra-conservative authoritarian (dictatorship of the regent). Ok, maybe Estonia's No.2, I'm not sure. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yup democracy -1 or -2 to communism, 0 to authoritarian (Italy to democracy, Spain to authoritarian), communism +2 from democracy, 7 (mentioneed by you) from authoritarian to communism. Hardly a western conspiracy playing out. Communism +9, democracy -2. Arnoutf (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So, could you provide a few passages from these books, with page numbers, to support the impact of specifically non Yugoslavian communist led resistance forces - which this thread is apparently about? (Hohum @) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I could do that, but there now doesn't seem much point in doing so. I really can't see myself getting anywhere with this lot. Even a simple, straight-forward copy edit for clarity is immediately undone by he who needs to protect "his" turf from intrusion. So, what's the point in expending further time and energy on this project? I can see where some editors are coming from, what their political attitudes are and the constant obstructionism I can anticipate from them, and I don't have time for it. Communicat (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would put all the information on who backed resistance movements (whoever they were backed by and fighting) in the article on resistance and just note the existence of resistance movements in this very long article. But that's just me. Britmax (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's a good suggestion. For my part, all I really wanted was just half a sentence in the lead, to say that communist-led resistance groups around the world supported the Allied war effort. To that end, I've written about 10,000 words of discussion, still without getting anywhere at all. To hell with it. Communicat (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I suggested including additional information in that article, earlier in this thread, and encourage it. It will still need reliable references.
When anyone tries to add even a sentence to the tenth most popular article on wikipedia, they need it to either be completely uncontentious - i.e. correcting grammar - or if it's changing meaning, to have very solid references. Dozens, if not hundreds of other editors have managed that for this article. Yet when asked for specifics you say you'll give up.
Instead of trying to simply add "that communist-led resistance groups around the world supported the Allied war effort" - with a good reference, you instead make accusations that the entire article has anti communist prejudice, splattered tags on it, and made a far more substantive edit.
If you take a more measured approach, and make a good case without polemic, you will get a lot further. (Hohum @) 02:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll do my best not to be provocative, or to be provoked by semi-literate retards ( don't mean you). Meantime, I'm not saying that the entire article has anti-communist prejudice. I'm saying it's lopsided in some respects that appear to reflect bias through omission. As for tags, they sometimes seem the only way to get someone to sit up and take notice. Seems to have worked so far, e.g. decolonisation issue has at last been resurrected. Of which more later. Communicat (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)