Talk:World War II/Archive 49

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 45 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52


Independent State of Croatia

The NDH were NAZI colaborators, why are they on the puppet state list? Serbia was fighting for freedom and justice yet they are on the same list as Croatia? Insulting — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina (talkcontribs) 13:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Serbia is on the list in reference to the Nedić regime, which was an active collaborationist state established by German orders, therefore an Axis Puppet State. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So why isn't Vichy France on the Axis list? The NDH had mass popular support amongst the Croatian people. (Don't forget that one of the warmest popular welcomes ever received by Hitler outside of Germany was in Zagreb.) Nedić had no support in the Serbian people whatsoever and, unlike Pavelić in Croatia, was never elected to political office in Serbia. Also, Yugoslavia which Serbia was a part of and (unlike NDH) didn't declare independence from (i.e. Serbia WAS Yugoslavia at that time), is on the allies list?? Can anyone see any kind of logic in that?? This is an incredible insult to the brave Serbian people who, despite the fact that they endured massive suffering in WWI and a genocide at the hands of the Independent State of Croatia in WW2, remained firmly on the side of the allies on both occasions.Zvelekva (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The status of Vichy France has been discussed at length many times on this page. Please check the Archive for the full discussion. As for Milan Nedić and his supporters, they were Serbs and supported the Nazis, so a claim that all Serbs opposed the Nazis is demonstrably false. Likewise a claim that all Croats supported the Nazis is equally false. The fact that Nedić was not elected is irrelevant since dictators rarely are elected. Wikipedia is only concerned with verifiable facts, and the objective is present these facts in a neutral point of view. Please review WP:NPOV for further details. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss about Serbia too. Of course there were Serbs who supported Nazis (there were also French who supported Nazis), but they were minority. Otherwise this would have not happened This was not the only one massacre, but the only article in English I could find. On the other hand, most Croats did support Nazis. If all this happened to Serbs (and more), how could they be clients of Nazis? That claim awfully reminds of novel and movie Fatherland, and it is even worse. Claiming that victims were in fact villains, it is not insult, it has no name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You are providing a lot of POV and not much in the way of facts. Wikipedia is only concerned with facts from relevant, reliable sources. There were Croats and Serbs on both sides of the conflict, if you have data for a reliable source that shows the proportions of each then it is worth discussing; but blanket statements about ethnic groups as "villains" or "victims" with no supporting facts is original research. See WP:OR Mediatech492 (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess, for you Wikipedia is not reliable source and it does't provide much in the way of fact. The way you speak about Serbia, holocaust can also be just POV. Nazis did not admit. First of all, villains and victims are not "ethnic groups". Second, Serbia was member of Yugoslavia, it never proclaimed independency as Croatia did. Thus, saying that Yugoslavia was ally and Serbia puppet state is complete nonsense. Third, Yugoslavia (and Serbia as PART OF IT) was occupied by Third Reich after Belgrade was bombed by Germans, and Belgrade is capital of Serbia now. It did not surrender as France, and France was an ally because "it has been discussed". Fourth, Germans established Nedic regime (Serbs did not elect it, Germans did in occupied Serbia Fifth, Nazis executed a lot of people in OCCUPIED Serbia. You can read about mass murders and executions here There are a lot of monuments and memorials dedicated to victims of fascism in Serbia Sixth, Serbian people strongly resisted German occupation and fascism despite Nedic regime, and terrible persecution. In fact, first liberated territory in World War II in Europe was Republic of Uzice in Serbia Serbs helped allies as much as they could and that cost them a lot. To conclude, Serbia was not a client or puppet state, but an ally. Putting a Serbia on a list of client means that Wikipedia proclaimed freedom figthers and victims as villains (it is a way of speaking and not "an original research"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitja (talkcontribs) 09:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Diplomatic history of World War II

In response to a suggestion above I have started an article on Diplomatic history of World War II. At first it will have excerpts from other articles & then will come to stand on its own. Rjensen (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 June 2013

I would like to note a small error in the first paragraph of the article. It states that, "Marked by mass deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, it resulted in 50 million to over 75 million fatalities." This line needs to be updated to match the recent changes made here as the figures for the total number of world wide deaths have been adjusted upward.

On a second note I was thinking that the second half of the sentence should be replaced with "it resulted in an estimated 50 to 85 million fatalities." as it is both shorter and rolls off the tongue a little better if said out loud, but the grammar edit isn't really that important I suppose as long as the casualty figures are updated to match the most recent updates.

Gigabytelord (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... We need to be a little careful here that we don't get caught up in some WP:OR escalation.
I made that correction for you, in your request there: (link), as a correction to the totals in the table on World_War_II_casualties, which were indeed wrong - and that article now says this: "World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 70 million. The sources cited in this article document an estimated death toll in World War II that range from approximately 60 to 85 million, making it the deadliest war in world history in absolute terms of total dead but not in terms of deaths relative to the world population."
If we're going to start correcting "inconsistencies" in quoted estimates, I think we need to be very careful how we do that. I'm wondering now if I was wrong to have done that, and if the best thing to do might have been to remove the totals from the table at World_War_II_casualties entirely, along with the underlined part of my quote above, since the totals are basically our own selected references, summed, and potentially OR.
Tricky one, and I'd like some thoughts. It's all beginning to look a bit unwieldy to me... Begoontalk 10:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You may be right, even after some quick googlefoo looking at information on several different sites the numbers I'm getting are anywhere from from 49 million to 72 million.
I think that where the issue comes in are the casualty figures released by the each individual nation. You have one verifiable source stating figure "a" as the total, but then Countries "b" and "c" release their figures and when added together they contradict figure "a".
Either we have to accept that a 100% accurate total will never be known and just settle on a happy medium or we have to take each country at their word, and if we keep doing that then I'm afraid these numbers will never stop changing.
The only thing I'm pointing out is that regardless of what the correct figure actually is, whether its higher or lower, the numbers should be consistent within the same site, and especially the very same article, when one is changed to match new verified information they all should change to match it.
Gigabytelord (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, summing high and low bounds of selected sources will produce artificially high/low estimates, and is possibly WP:OR, really.
My inclination at this point would be to:
  • Remove the totals from the table in the sub-article, as possible WP:OR
  • Remove the corresponding text I underlined above
  • Refine the wording here if necessary (include the term "estimated"?)
  • Use the wording from here in the sub-article
But I'd like some more consensus first. Another editor has edited the sub-article making the point that the totals there include famine and related deaths, and that's worth bearing in mind. - striking - see below
Maybe "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", and we should beware that, too...
Let's wait for other thoughts before doing anything. Begoontalk 10:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Routine calculations do not count as original research. Please see WP:OR#Routine calculations--Woogie10w (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, "provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources.", which is why I'd like further input. Begoontalk 11:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I see you're point, rather than having potentially incorrect information listed or what you are referring to as WP:OR, it may be wise to simply remove the info until a proper discussion can be had. Gigabytelord (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
There's no WP:DEADLINE. We can let consensus develop. There may be no need to remove/alter anything, and better to make one change with consensus, if change is needed. Begoontalk 11:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no correct published list of World War Two casualties. The reliable sources in print vary from 50 million up to about 80 million dead. The authors of the Oxford Companion to World War II maintain that casualty statistics are notoriously unreliable(see page 225). On Wikipedia we should point out the numerical differences in these reliable sources. We cannot as editors decide which is the correct number and exclude other sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The reliable sources in print vary from 50 million up to about 80 million dead. Then that's what we should say, we obviously have to trust the maths of our reliable sources, we rely on it Face-smile.svg. Pointing out the differences is a good thing too, and we do that well in the sub-article. I've just become uncomfortable with the high/low totals which come from our calculations, and if consensus tells me not to be - I won't be. Begoontalk 11:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
One thing I'm also overlooking, in my probably too-picky interpretation of OR, is that the totals in that table are clearly labelled "Approx totals". I guess what made me most nervous was that those "totals" were basically being used to source a request to edit this article, for the sake of "consistency". We can say here that it resulted in an estimated 50 to 85 million fatalities. - that would seem fine to me, and I'm striking my thoughts above, because I don't feel strongly about having "approx totals" in the table having re-read the associated material. There's plenty of accompanying content in the (very good) sub-article to clarify what those "Approx totals" are.
I'll be WP:BOLD and make the edit, and apologise for over-thinking it... Sorry. Begoontalk 12:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The bottom line on World War Two casualties is not believe a number just becuase you see it in print or on the internet. Tertiary sources usually do not cite the Secondary source for their casualty statistics. We should seek to cite the secondary sources for casualties whenever available. An attempt to Google the correct list of World War Two casualties on the internet is a waste of time, just spinning wheels.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
We edit conflicted (I had the edit window open a long time, and got no darned conflict warning, again - 3rd time this month...) - I think we agree... Begoontalk 12:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Done with this edit. Begoontalk 13:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 June 2013

Serbia was listed as client and puppet state. This is not true, and should be removed. I put my links and explanation on talk page on Independent state of Croatia. Alitja (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Opposed - The reference is to the Serbian government of Milan Nedić which meets all the criteria for a puppet state. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What about Norway and Greece? They were allies. What is the difference between government of Milan Nedic and Quisling regime in Norway? What is the difference between "The occupied country was divided in three zones (German, Italian and Bulgarian) and in Athens, a puppet regime was established. The members were either conservatives or nationalists with fascist leanings. The three quisling prime ministers were Georgios Tsolakoglou, the general who had signed the armistice with the Wehrmacht, Konstantinos Logothetopoulos, and Ioannis Rallis" ( and "Nedić regime, was the second Serbian puppet government established under the German Military Administration in Serbia[1] in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia[Note 1] during World War II (within Axis-occupied Yugoslavia). It was appointed by the German Military Commander in Serbia" ( I repeat again Serbia was not independent country during WW2. It was "was the area of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia that was placed under a military government of occupation by the Wehrmacht following the invasion, occupation and dismantling of Yugoslavia in April 1941. The territory included Serbia proper, with the addition of the northern part of Kosovo (around Kosovska Mitrovica), and the Banat.[5] This territory was the only area of the partitioned Kingdom of Yugoslavia in which the German occupants established a military government." ( Military government means occupation. You can't list Yugoslavia on allies list, and occupied part of it on clients list. And if Serbia was puppet country, please explain this On the other side, we have "Up to 15,000 Norwegians volunteered to fight in German units" ( And Mediatech492, if you want to answer, please answer all my arguments, don't just stick to one yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitja (talkcontribs) 10:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Serbia was not puppet state

I tried to explain that Serbia was not a puppet state in WW2 and that it should be erased from client state list, but my request was rejected by Mediatech492. I pointed on dozen different arguments, but he didn't answer any of them. Is there someone else who can discuss with me on that subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitja (talkcontribs) 10:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing...
I suggest you give her/him a chance to respond; you only asked them about it less than an hour ago. Keep it to one thread, please. — Richard BB 10:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't understand me, we have had a discussion for two days, under different topic (Independent state of Croatia, and edit request). He doesn't seem to read what I wrote, he just repeats his opinion, so I opened new topic, to discuss with someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitja (talkcontribs) 11:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Secondly, two days still is not a long enough time to allow this situation to resolve. Starting new threads on the same talk page is not going to increase the likelihood of someone new to come along and agree with you. As this is a high-profile article, it's inevitable that other editors will eventually see your original post and weigh in. — Richard BB 11:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
What reliable sources state that Serbia wasn't a puppet state? As far as I'm aware, all the Nazi-sponsored occupation governments were puppets of Berlin. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Your statement 'As far as I'm aware' does not sound neither convincing nor objective at all. Can you name all that Nazi-sponsored occupation governments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The Article on Puppet states give the Wikipedia definition of what a puppet state is. The Nedić regime meets all requirements. The status of Norway or any other occupied territory is irrelevant as far as this is concerned. If Alitja believes there needs to be more added to the list of puppet states that is s completely different conversation. But as far as the Nedic Regime of Serbia is concerned there is no reason to exclude it. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is about World war II and not only about history of Serbia, so it is highly relevant that status of other occupied
territories (or as you call them puppet states), the article is unfinished without them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
No they are not relevant to this discussion. Only the status of the Nedic Regime has been challenged. The only question here is whether or not the Nedic Regime meets the criteria to be a puppet state. And it clearly does. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
No, first the article you cited Puppet state tells opposite, there is a list of Nazi-puppet states which are not mentioned on the Axis side, I will not discuss why did you choose only Serbia not mentioning the others. Second the article about puppet states speaks about Government of National Salvation (1941–1944)- The government of General Milan Nedić in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Serbia as state should not be mentioned in this context, because it was divided among Axis states and puppets and central part was occupied under Nazi Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The point is many occupied countries in WW2 meet criteria for puppet states. Yet, the are on allies list. Only Serbia (which even was not independent country at all at that time, ( is listed on puppets list. Wikipedia should not have double standards. If Serbia was puppet state (despite casualities in WW2,, and resistance then France, Greece, Norway and Denmark should be on puppet list as well.

Alitja (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to make a serious argument here, or are you just trolling? If it's the former, please provide reliable sources to support your contention that the wartime Serbian government is generally not considered to be a German puppet state. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not “trolling”, and thanks for “good faith” Wikipedia assumes. My sources are reliable, and this is not about reliable sources, but about interpretation of those sources. Wikipedia should not have double standards. What applies to one country should apply to others. Or should I start new topic “Add France, Greece, Norway and Denmark on puppet list”? Alitja (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to quickly interject: Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, so I do not believe you have provided any reliable sources yet. — Richard BB 10:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

So where are the reliable sources that Serbia was puppet state? And where are the reliable sources that France, Greece, Norway, Denmark and Montenegro were not puppet states? Wikipedia article about WW2 did not provide neither of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitja (talkcontribs) 07:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself yet again. The definition of what a puppet state is found in the Wikipedia article Puppet States. By this definition the Nedic Regime qualifies for this term. The status of any other occupied territory does not change this fact. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And I will ask again, why those other occupied territories are not on puppet list? Alitja (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously because the consensus of the editors is that they do not meet the established criteria. If you feel this is incorrect then you will need explain why they should be according to the definition provided. Regardless of whether they are or not it still will not change the status of the Serbian Nedic Regime. Mediatech492 (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You wanted some trusted sources about Serbia in World war II, here I found one, and there are many, many more. Look at this one on the Britannica encyclopedia You will see that Serbia was the only country except China which had two anti-fascist movement. Also the time of occupation legal government was in exile in London. Also look at this article in the same encyclopedia, and you will see that fascism was not popular only in Germany, but also in many Eouropian countries (but not in Serbia) and some collaboreted with them, but they are not mentioned in your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladaig (talkcontribs) 17:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Double standards on Wikipedia

Wikipedia article on WW2 contains allies and puppet state lists in which classification of countries is based on double standards. Serbia is classified as puppet state, and that is based on another Wikipedia article (and Richard told me that Wikipedia is not reliable source). France, Greece, Norway, Denmark, Montenegro are classified as allies without any explanation, although they had puppet regimes during occupation as well (Mediatech answered me that was “consensus of the editors”). Since article doesn't not provide any explanation and since Wikipedia should be impartial, puppet list should change. Serbia should be removed, or France, Greece, Norway, Denmark, Montenegro should be added. Alitja (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

the governments in exile (in London) were the allies, not the puppet regimes Germany set up inside the countries. Rjensen (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly what we are talking about. Why did the authors put Yugoslav government (Serbia was then part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia) in exile in London on the axis side, and all the other governments in exile on the allies side? Obvious that are double standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to challenge the definition of puppet states then you need to discuss it on the Puppet states talk page. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not talking about definition of puppet states but about need to be fair and objective to a nation which gave more than 1 500 000 lives in fight against fascism. Despite it made more sacrifices than majority of countries you listed on the allied side I am not requesting something special for Serbia, but only to be treated with respect and equally as other states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC) vlada (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if you read, but I have previous answered on your favorite article you cited Puppet state, nowhere in this article is Serbia mentioned as state, it only mentions the Government of National Salvation (1941–1944) - The government of General Milan Nedić. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladaig (talkcontribs) 14:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The Nedic Regime is precisely the topic being discussed. We have a specific definition of what a Puppet State is and the Nedic Regime meets that description. Other Serbian factions in WWII are not the issue as far as this discussion is concerned. There is nothing unfair about it. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The source you cited does not give us that information, and does not support your opinion, one more reason is as you also mentioned wikipedia is not reliable source. I gave you some reliable sources above, and you did not take them in consideration. You have right on your own opinion but you can keep it for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladaig (talkcontribs) 15:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You also mentioned some factions in Serbia. They were not factions but legal representatives of Yugoslav government recognized ans supported by allies to fight against Axis which occupied Serbia and Yugoslavia.

Mediatech, in case you didn't notice, this is complete new topic. It challenges whole allies and puppet list, and it is about double standards in Wikipedia. So please, don't keep repeating the same arguments about puppet state. Instead, explain why Serbia meets those standards, and other countries don't. Don't separate those things. And please, don't use arguments such as “consensus of the editors” because they mean nothing. Alitja (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have merged this section with the previous section. As I have asked you before, please keep this to one thread. — Richard BB 08:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Striking out given below comment. — Richard BB 11:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would have kept this in one thread, but Mediatech insists that these are two completely different things. I hope that after your merging he will stop repeating things like “The status of Norway or any other occupied territory is irrelevant as far as this is concerned”. And Richard, please explain something to me, since I am new here. My sources on Wikipedia are unreliable. On the other hand puppet list in WW2 article is based on another Wikipedia article, and that is considered reliable. So, editor who has possibility to change article can write whatever he wants without reliable sources and if someone challenges that, he must provide reliable sources (which others like Mediatech don′t even read). Is that the way Wikipedia works? Alitja (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've struck out my above comment in light of what you said. However, I'm not going to take sides in this debate: all I'll say is that when it comes to citing a source in the article, Wikipedia is not considered reliable. If you're arguing over a definition, I'd also say that saying "another article says this" perhaps isn't reliable, either; though I could be mistaken about this. — Richard BB 11:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's demands against Poland

The current text is a bit misleading, as it states that he only wanted a "German inhabited city". It's actually incorrect even if we use the source that was provided-you have clear information there that he wanted Poland to cede its territory in Pomerania cutting it off from the sea.The current version should be corrected by adding info about territorial demands. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Material on the background to the invasion of Poland in 1939

I've just reverted the addition of material providing background on the German invasion of Poland. This material was added without any discussion here or even edit summaries explaining why it was useful. The level of detail seems exessive given the very high-level nature of this article, and there's certainly no need to be quoting the views of individual historians - we don't have the room to get into the significant historiological debates over most key events in the war. The claim that the British and French "Realizing that appeasement had been a mistake" seems questionable - my understanding (which could be wrong) is that they hardened their stance towards Germany in 1939 when Hitler broke various agreements, and not necessarily that the governments "realised" that they'd been following a wrong-headed policy (bear in mind that the British and French rapidly built up their militaries through the appeasement era in preparation for war, so it wasn't like they weren't preparing for Hitler to break his word - some historians argue that appeasement was a means of playing for time in preparing for war given that the Germans had a head start). Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick the current version has its problems: He offered Poland a new non-aggression pact and recognition of its current frontiers if it agreed to permit the German-inhabited city of Danzig to return to Germany, but the Poles declined the proposal and emphasised that Danzig was necessary for Poland's security.

A-this omits that he demanded territorial concessions from Poland and joining against Soviet Union B-gives impression that Poles were responsible as the text suggests the problem was Poles refusing to return a German city to Germany. C-contradicts the source used which informs about Hitler's demands against Polish territory. D-might give false impression that the city was part of Poland.

What I propose

He demanded territorial concessions from Poland in Pomerania separating it from the sea, agreement to annex the city-state of Danzig, and Polish allegiance to Germany against Soviet Union.

What do you think? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

the recent British scholarship (such as Watts, Overy and esp Steiner) stress that Hitler wanted a friendly solution that would make Poland a junior ally against the USSR. Germany proposed that Poland would give up its role in Danzig (which Versailles Treaty made an independent city, not part of Poland), and allow a highway/RR to be built from Germany to Danzig. Poland had already built an alternative seaport at Gydnia and no longer needed Danzig. Poland would supposedly be compensated by territorial gains in the South, & be protected from USSR. Poland had been a willing partner of Germany at Munich (when Poland seized part of Czechoslovakia) and London & Paris thought Poland and Berlin had become quite friendly. Beck may have wanted to compromise but the govt in Warsaw was adamant: NO! Therefore Poland rejected any deal and Hitler decided to invade. How wise that rejection was has been a subject for debate for 50+ years (since AJP Taylor said it was a bad mistake.) This is the sort of topic that needs an international perspective. Rjensen (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hitler had over 6 years to make Poland a "junior ally" against Soviets. His acts-total genocide of Polish nation-speak clearly what his intentions were. And plenty of sources can be added about his early plans to annex Polish territories and racist views against Poles before the war.British historians regret of Britain getting into a war that ultimately led to the end of British Empire might be interesting topic for article about British historiography but let us not discuss it here. In any case let's stick to the topic at the end-it is rather undisputed that Hitler demanded territorial concessions from Poland in Pomerania and its subordination to Germany in Anti-Comintern pact against Soviet Union. These two demands should be mentioned, otherwise readers might be confused that Poland refused just handing over Danzig(Gdansk). "and allow a highway/RR to be built from Germany to Dan zig. Poland had already built an alternative seaport at Gydnia and no longer needed Danzig." Unfortunately for your theory the highways was not going through Germany in East Prussia but through Polish territory separating Gdynia from Poland. Danzig was of course connected to Germany already by East Prussia. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Hitler wanted a friendly solution"-easily proven false: "Sonderfahndungsbuch Polen was prepared before the Invasion of Poland,[2] between 1937 and 1939, by the “Zentralstelle IIP Polen” (Central Unit IIP-Poland) unit of the German political police, “Gestapo” with help from the German minority living in pre-war Poland.[3] Central was created under Reinhard Heydrich to coordinate the ethnic cleansing of all Poles in “Operation Tannenberg" and Intelligenzaktion, the codenames for the extermination actions directed at the Polish people during World War II, part of the Generalplan Ost. The list identified more than 61,000 members of Polish elite: activists, intelligentsia, scholars, actors, former officers, Polish nobility, Catholic priests, university professors, teachers, doctors, lawyers and even a prominent sportsman who represented Poland on the Berlin Olympics in 1936. People from Special Prosecution Book were killed outright by Einsatzgruppen and Volksdeutscher Selbstschutz or sent to concentration camps to die." Of course I wouldn't be surprised if the historians you mention never heard about it. Eastern Europe rarely is researched accurately in the UK or USA when it comes to Nazi atrocities(see Wehrmacht myth for example or recent revelations about number of Holocaust victims being higher, which was known in EE for years) MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hitler made all the decisions. The leading specialists on Hitler and Nazi history all argue that Hitler was much more favourable to Poland than other elements in Berlin and he really wanted them in his planned invasion of USSR. I refer to studies by Watts, Overy, Steiner, Kershaw, Burleigh and Evans (the leading British specialists on Nazi Germany) as well as Weinberg (the leading American specialist). Once Warsaw rejected any deal on Danzig (March 1939) then Hitler reversed himself 180 degrees and unleashed all hell on Poland. He also reversed himself on USSR at the same time. Rjensen (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
"Hitler made all the decisions. The leading specialists on Hitler and Nazi history all argue that Hitler was much more favourable to Poland than other elements in Berlin" So they are claiming that Hitler was not responsible for Nazi genocide but others? It seems you seem to use exclusively western historians, without any Polish historians being considered, who wrote extensively and in deep detail about the subject. Why is that? Do any of your experts mention that Nazis prepared a list of Poles to exterminate already in 1938? That Hitler praised murder of Polish activists in Germany? That already in early 30s he issued territorial demands against Poland?

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It is true that the Polish perspective is under-represented. The difficulty is that this is an English language article, and the number of Polish works on the subject that have been translated to English is limited. Providing the Polish perspective would be easier if more such sources were available. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Albania, Montenegro and Slovenia

Shouldn't these countries be listed under puppet states or client regimes in the infobox? 23 editor (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What's your rationale for making that change? Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Because Albania was an Italian puppet from 1939 to 1943 and a German one from 1943 to 1944. It's government largely fought against and persecuted anti-fascists in the country. Montenegro was an Italian puppet from 1941 to 1943 and a German one until 1945, and the Slovenian government installed by the Germans was a puppet/collaborationist one that fought alongside the Germans and lasted until practically the end of the war. I think there's more than enough evidence to suggest that they were all puppet/client regimes. 23 editor (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 July 2013

I want to change some things because some things typed in WWII article is wrong. Thank you Daytonrocks (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
  • You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
  • You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. --ElHef (Meep?) 23:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Debate

I am sorry to open the infobox debate, but I think it's unresolved. I understand the first place of Soviet Union in the infobox, but why USA is listed before UK?? What makes the American effort bigger than British, especially because they joined the war just on the end? My opinion is that USA should be behind France.

My second point is about leaders. Why there aren't so many leaders? There should be at least one from every country of the infobox! For example French leaders like Charles De Gaulle were important figures of the war who affected the result of the war. Also they should be put on importance order, not country order! I think Winston Churchill should be first. He is said to be the worst enemy of Adolf Hitler.

I guess somebody has tried to make this list too simple. It's at the moment too simple and leaves many important details!

Good Summer for everyone. --Ransewiki (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you read through the archives of Template talk:WW2InfoBox? If not, that would be a good starting point. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have read them and I think the conversation leads up to nothing. By the way I guess you didn't even read my question to the end. What you think about this:" The United Kingdom and the other members of the British Commonwealth were the only major Allied forces continuing the fight against the Axis, with battles taking place in North Africa as well as the long-running Battle of the Atlantic." I think that puts UK before US on the list or even first! And if you haven't noticed that is on the almost beginning of this Wikipedia article!

Thanx --Ransewiki (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

With respect, the view in multiple discussions has been that the US made a larger contribution to the Allied cause than the UK did. I tend to agree with this position: the US did most of the fighting in the Pacific, and provided more than half of the forces in Europe. The British Commonwealth managed to avoid being defeated until the US entered the war and continued to make a powerful contribution, but American resources did much of the heavy lifting in gaining victory. I really doubt that there's much enthusiasm to re-open this dicussion yet again. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that we should seek dispute resolution for this, because this has been under debate many times earlier my questions.

Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If the criteria for ranking is that one nation contributed more then we need to be able quantify what constitutes contribution. Is it manpower mobilized, materiel produced, money spent, casualties, etc? Or is it some combination of these and other factors? When speaking of the British commitment do we speak of the contribution of United Kingdom or the entire British Empire? Clearly you can make a case for either the US or Britain depending on the criteria you choose. Until something resembling a consensus on these criteria is established the debate is rather moot.Mediatech492 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
We are speaking about British Commonwealth. Ransewiki (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

11,115 million British Commonwealth soldiers served in the war. 11,260 million American soldiers served in the war. So US had 145 thousand more (however you have to notice that British Commonwealths population was much more smaller than American). But 580 497 British Commonwealth soldiers died/were lost. 416 837 US soldiers died/were lost. So British Commonwealth had 163 660 more military casualties. There also died 67 100 British civilians (Only UK). 1 700 American civilians died. There died 65 300 more British civilians. Source: (Wikipedia) Casualties of World War II Regards Ransewiki (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I won't dispute those figures, though undoubtedly others will. However the British Commonwealth is not a country and cannot be listed as a belligerent state. No declaration of war or peace treaty has ever been made in the name of the British Commonwealth. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Pacific / pacifistic

Under the headline "Background", second paragraph, there's the line "Despite the pacific movement in the aftermath of the war,". Should this not read "pacifistic movement"? (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've just made this change (though the wording of this sentence is a bit clunky IMO). Thanks a lot for raising this. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Foot 2002 cites

I've been leaving them till now, but want to change them. The Bibliography section is already loooong, so is it OK if I just do the cites as Dear & Foot 2002, pp. x–y rather than have a separate entry for each chapter in the biblio?! I noticed Evans in his Third Reich at War does this, so seems legit. Anyone mind? LudicrousTripe (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, take the silence as no objections. Will do them in a minute. LudicrousTripe (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear-Foot Oxford Companion was published in 1995 not 2002 Rjensen (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional allied powers: Luxembourg and Monaco

Luxembourg and Monaco, though both self declared as neutral, were occupied by the Axis: Luxembourg was conquered during the early days of the Battle of France in 1940 and Monaco was conquered by Fascist Italy in 1943. They should both be added to the list as part of the Allies. (talk] 10:38 (UTC)

I disagree in the case of Monaco, they remained officially neutral. Prince Louis II supported Vichy France up until Monaco was occupied by Italy in 1942 (not 1943). The Italians were replaced by the Germans when Fascist Italy collapsed in 1943. After occupation Monaco did not attempt to set up a set up a government in Exile, unlike every occupied country in the allied camp. In fact from 1942 to 1945 they might be more accurately called a Fascist puppet state. Louis II's son Ranier was pro allied and wanted to establish ties with the allies but he was overruled by his father. While the government of Monaco did engage in some covert activity to protect their own citizens against the gestapo, and at no point did the government of Monaco offer any support to the allies prior to their liberation. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine, then add only Luxembourg to the Allies. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
There's no need to add tiny countries which played no significant role in the war to the infobox: it's already too big, and links to the comprehensive Allies of World War II article. Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Ethiopian Empire be added to the list of Allies in the infobox, since it was re-established in 1941 and had taken part in combat in East Africa? Capt Jim (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit request (Aug 2013)

In 3.5 section European occupations and agreements, there are two red links "Anglo-German naval agreement" and the "German-Polish non-aggression pact". Wikipedia has the corresponding articles, Anglo-German Naval Agreement, German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact. The red links are caused by improper capitalization. Please fix it. Alan siwiec (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Done by Mediatech492. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Denmark anyone..?

Denmark was occupied 2 hours after it was invaded by the Nazis (it capitulated after Hitler threatened to bomb Copenhagen). During the occupation, the Danish resistance movement worked hard (violently after 1943) to inflict damage to the German war effort, including bombing railroads, sinking german ships, etc. The Danish people also saved almost all of the Jews of Denmark in 1943, when Hitler demanded the danish king to send those Jews to Germany. In my opinion, Denmark had a significant role in the war, and should be added to the Allies. - Thisissparta12345 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisissparta12345 (talkcontribs) 09:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What stopped the Japanese advance in 1942?

Rjensen (talk · contribs) and I have had a bit of a too-and-fro over whether the Battle of Midway should be identified in the lead as the engagement which stopped the Japanese advance (their position) or whether this should be attributed to the series of naval battles in 1942 (my position). I think it would be good to discuss this. From what I've read, recent historians emphasise the importance of the Battle of the Coral Sea in ending the Japanese advance through the South Pacific (they had to abandon the planned landing at Port Moresby which was the goal of the operation) and the fighting around Guadalcanal in wearing down the Japanese Navy. While Midway is obviously hugely significant, it alone didn't stop the Japanese, as almost all of the US Navy's carrier force was also sunk or taken out of action in the subsequent months, and the Japanese launched an ambitious overland offensive against Port Moresby after Midway. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no question the Japanese had a remarkable series of naval victories in Pacific & Indian oceans with a superior carrier-based fleet Dec-41 to April 42. The series ended maybe with Coral Sea--Japan won a tactical victory but strategically decided to postpone an invasion. My problem with the old text was that is seems to say Japan lost a series of battles (without naming any of them). In ship-to ship combat terms J did well at Guadalcanal (but not well enough --it had to have a more decisive naval win in order to support its army ground forces) and it did better in combat than the US tactically at Coral Sea, making Midway critical. A victory at Midway and the momentum would continue for J. However it lost its 4 main strike force carriers that had given it the advantage. The text should not be vague or incorrect; I think it should either be specific and either give these details or focus--as have most historians--on Midway. 1943 was a relatively quiet year on the naval front. The great US victories of 1944 came because the the US massively out-produced Japan in sea power. Somewhere the US subs need attention as well. Rjensen (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There is some debate in the sources about whether Midway was the turning point but the main group of observers calls it so. We discussed this in July 2012 an an unfortunately split discussion started by the same new editor, but before that there was the January 2012 discussion at the Pacific War talk page, which covered some ground. Earlier, there was the March 2009 discussion at the same talk page. My view today is that the classic turning point is seen as Midway, though other factors can be introduced as validating other battles in that role. Here in the general WWII article, we should not try to establish which battle is the exact turning point but we can tell the reader that Midway is commonly seen as such. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
A agree with Binksternet. Looking through the RS, most seem to argue Midway was the turning point. 1) William Generous - 2010: "If the test were when Japan was first defeated, the turning point would have to be the Battle of Midway, June 4, 1942. Most historians indeed think that Midway was the turning point of the Pacific War."; 2) Craig L. Symonds - 2011 "this crucial naval victory, which marked the turning point for the American fleet in the Pacific theater of World War II."; 3) Mark Healy - 1993: Midway 1942: Turning Point in the Pacific (book title); 4) Mark Stille - 2012 Midway 1942: Turning Point in the Pacific (book title); 5) William W. Smith, (1966) Midway: Turning Point of the Pacific (book title); 6) Andrew A. Wiest, & Gregory Mattson - 2001 "the battle stands as the turning point of the Pacific War."; 7) John Davison - 2004: "effectively the turning point in the Pacific War."; 8) Stanford E. Linzey - 2004: "was the turning point of the Pacific War"; 9) William F. Nimmo - 2001 "Midway was a major turning point." 10) Gordon L. Rottman - 2002: "serve as a turning point of the war." 11) also Chester G. Hearn - 2007 ; 12) The Library of Congress World War II Companion - Page 516; 13) James H. Meredith - 1999; 14) Daniel Haulman - 1993. However, it's not unanimous: Robert Leckie - 2010 and Charles W. Koburger - 1995 (and others) say Guadalcanal was the turning point. Rjensen (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


I think there need to be more photos in certain sections of the article, at the moment there are hardly any of naval engagements, which formed a very important part of the war.

On another note the picture captioned "The Battle of Britain ended the German advance in Western Europe." does not actually show the Battle of Britain, it shows a group of early Spitfires (2 bladed, rather than 3 bladed props) flying in what looks to be, pre war colours, perhaps more of an 'action' shot would be better. There are lots of famous Spitfire photographs out there from the Battle of Britain.

EDIT Spitfire photo is from 1938 at shows the 9th Spitfire to roll off the production line

perhaps these images might be better, they are on the Battle of Britain page

  • File:19sqdn-spit1-1.jpg
  • File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1969-094-18, Dornier Do 17 und Supermarine Spitfire.jpg
  • File:Spitfires camera gun film shows tracer ammunition.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 August 2013

If you do not at least include atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on war crimes section, it shows that you are thinking that "Oh happily Americans dropped that bombs and killed Japanese." This is one of the top articles in wikipedia, telling the story very well, but unless you regard those bombings as a war crime, than it is a nationalist view.

Enginhakvar (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we're not going to turn this article into a platform for promoting one point of view on the issue. Please see the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV, as well as the article Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have separate articles where the legality of the bombings is discussed at length. It would be a redundancy to include that information again here. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 August 2013

I think the sentence"As Japan continued to ignore the Potsdam terms, the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August" sounds like a justification of the attacks. Please try using a sentence like" But Japan refused to surrender and United States brutally(or even word "sanguinarily"might be used)bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, causing massive number of deaths and damage that affected generations of people." Enginhakvar (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

the US position is that the bombing saved the lives of millions of people (both Japanese and American). Rjensen (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Not done: This is a contentious topic, and it's not sensible to replace the current neutral wording with text which reflects only one view as is proposed here. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Such a request is egregiously swimming in PoV. We need to remain neutral. — Richard BB 10:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Position of France

I note that France,logically is placed in the "Allies" section of the infobox. However, Vichy France made a considerable contribution to the Axis cause. I am pretty sure that Vichy French forces actually killed more Allied troops than they did Axis ones. Many French people also considered the Vichy regime the legitimate one, rather than the Free French government-in-exile. Additionally, the French Resistance had very little support from the French people until a late stage of the war. Should Vichy France be put in the Axis section of the info box, or some other information added to the article to balance it?Rwenonah (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The status of Vichy France has already been discussed at length on this page. Please refer to the archives. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but the issue does not seem to have been resolved.Rwenonah (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "issue" you refer to. The status of France, Free France and Vichy France as listed in the article are the result of consensus established from extensive previous discussion on this page. If you have additional material not previously referenced that will contribute to the discussion then please provide it; however there is no point in going over the same old arguments ad-nauseum. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The most recent discussion ended to have been over a vote in which 4 editors voted for the inclusion of the Vichy French flag and 3 voted against. The last line in said discussion was someone asking if anyone had any ideas about dispute resolution. Apparently we have different understandings of "resolved" and "consensus". Indeed, judging from this vote, the consensus appears to have been for the inclusion of the flag.

Max Hastings, in All Hell Let Loose, writes "The German occupiers of France were disliked, but so too were the British across the Channel." After the Syrian campaign, 32,000 Vichy troops decided to be repatriated to occupied France, while only 5,000 joined the Free French. Admiral Rene Godfroy said "For us Frenchmen the fact that a government still exists in France [Vichy France], a government supported by a parliament established in non-occupied territory and which in consequence cannot be considered irregular or deposed. The establishment elsewhere of another government [Free French], and all support for this other government, would clearly be rebellion."Max Hastings also writes " Everywhere Vichy held sway, the French treated allied prisoners with callousness and sometimes brutality'" Most importantly, he wrote " "The statistical fact remains the Vichy's armies and domestic security forces made a more numerous contribution to Axis interests than those Frenchmen who joined the Gaullists, other resistance groups or Eisenhower's armies made to the Allied cause.' " Rwenonah (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you have not read through the discussions on Vichy France. The most recent of which had no such vote. And if you need to know the meaning of "Consensus" please read "Wikipedia:Consensus".Particularly the section: Determining Consensus. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the most recent discussion had no consensus made.. And that doesn't change the fact an earlier vote seems to have ended with the suggestion that the Vichy flag be added. I also question your total non- acknowledgement of the numerous sentences above supporting my position.Rwenonah (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

India in the Allies belligerents

Why is there no mention of the Commonwealth forces that fought in the war? India also fought in this war but is not listed, this seems a bit of an insult against the troops that fought in this war. Although the United Kingdom is included it is not made clear that the commonwealth took part in this war. The United Kingdom has never and does not include India and these nations, it is inaccurate and lazy to leave out India's role in this conflict. The United Kingdom exclusively refers to the British Isles and Northern Island, this is an inaccurate and unfair representation of the actual commonwealth forces that took part.

I suggest either adding in British India in the belligerents or putting them at least under client states, that or removing the 'United Kingdom' and replacing it with something more inclusive for the actual forces involved.

For more information on India's role in the war please see:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC) 

Last comment

This is my final say. Also there is a strange system here I think, a user sees everything like codes and IP adressses and also a user can delete or change other people's comments. So I am not going to discuss it further. Thank you for answering also. There are some respected people's comments here. I suppose it would be good for the article to remain completely out of the discussion of what is a war crime and what is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enginhakvar (talkcontribs)

Anyone can see the IP address of anyone who edits while not logged in; this is clearly stated when you try to edit without an account. However, users are prohibited from editing or removing other people's comments (unless they are particularly uncivil or trollish comments, or if they break the rules about using the talk page as a forum). — Richard BB 10:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

When Soviet joined the War?

According to the site Soviet participation in WWII started in 1941. This is just not true since they invaded Poland in 1939 just after the Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The 1941 date is in reference to their involvement with the Allies. — Richard BB 14:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, as you can see, History according to the Wikipedia list of Axis and Allies does not indicate that the USSR had a pact with Germany and invaded Poland. That is the Wikipedia truth, get used to it, no need for a footnote. Sorry, I tried, but got disenchanted with Wikipedia as History has no chance against propaganda. BTW, this comment will probably be erased soon, just as those that try for the Truth, not the made-up truth of a few professionals YamaPlos talk 05:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Italy as Allies?

Shouldn't state that the Kingdom of Italy be declared an allied nation after 1943 to the remaining of the European war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Image

The main image is pretty good but I suggest some changes. It is pretty balanced but there are no western front pics and there 3 eastern front pics including 2 of Stalingrad. I suggest 1 of the Stalingrad pics be replaced with a Western front. Maybe this one. Regards. Stumink (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

ww2 is a gray are on when it started but the invasion of poland and then theres the pearl harbor on 1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan wooldridge (talkcontribs) 20:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bit of a shame that the British don't appear on it.. I mean, sure, the Aussies do.. but Britain was the longest serving ally of the 3. Can't this be rectified, albeit for a bit of respect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler Mussolini Photo

Hello, Is that guy behind Hitler smoking. What is that? It's a peculiar. WTF is what that is today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It just looks like a cigarette to me. — Richard BB 10:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not a cigarette, Hitler was strongly opposed to tobacco and prohibited smoking in his presence. If you look carefully at the enlarged photo you will see that the white line is actually the collar of the man standing next to him. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Good eye! — Richard BB 10:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

Harry S. Truman and Clement Atlee should be added to the allied commanders and leaders. A cross(†) should be placed beside Adolf Hitler because he commited suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipperdude15 (talkcontribs) 22:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That "cross" is actually a " ", it represents a sword and indicates someone killed in battle, it does not include suicide. As for Truman and Atlee, they were latecomers, but each were active leaders for several months of the war so their addition is certainly arguable. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
We have consistently used the dagger for commanders who committed suicide when all was lost. For example, Battle of Philippi, Battle of Tannenberg and Battle of Okinawa. I see no reason not to use it here as well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change "a global waror another gassy, farting, and poo-poo war." to ... not that. Shinysparkly (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Vandalism has been reverted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

My previous Edition

If I give the reference and change the grammar, can I edit it again? Actually, I use a Hyperlink to the main article of this battle as the reference.This is one of the major battles in the China in 1939. I tried to use a short sentence to describe this 3-month battle because it is a profile article.I tried to find an applicable position to do this edition but the only section about the war from 1939 to 1940 is the one I edited before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talkcontribs) 23:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013

Add Vichy France to Axis puppet states and add Ethopian Empire to allied powers (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Vichy France is covered by Note b. Ethiopia is already listed under Allies and its situation is expanded on in Note d. --Stfg (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013

Vichy France should be listed as an axis puppet state (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Not done: That has been discussed many times, and there's no consensus to make that change at present. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013

In the belligerents section the United States of America is listed second for the allies. This implies a larger role than some more involved countries such as the United Kingdom, France, China and Poland which is historically inaccurate. The USA should be listed between Poland and Canada in terms of contribution or at the end of the list if it is intended to be chronological. (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Not done: That ordering of the "big four" is the result of many previous discussions, and, as I understand it, consensus is for the current ordering. I believe that the current ordering reflects the importance of the overall contribution to those countries of winning the war. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Start Date in Asia??

At the moment the article says some consider the war started earlier than 1939 - I guess this was in China with Japan. What is the date for such an earlier start? 1937 ?? And what DATE? Can this be sourced and put in the article as at the moment its weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

British Empire

Surely should be linked to from the article. At the moment it says India was a puppet state, but Australia not. This does not make sense as it was not a puppet but part fo the empire. Listing the United Kingdom rather than the British Empire seems odd. What is the rationale for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Australia and the UK were sovereign while India was a dependent territory. Oddly despite being a dependent territory, India acted as a sovereign state, although under the direction of the UK. Hence the viceroy declared war and India would be accepted into the U.N. before it achieved independence. Referring to the British Empire would be confusing because it consisted of various countries that were considered as sovereign states. The category "client and puppet states" is confusing, because those terms were not used and Mongolia was de jure independent. TFD (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. At this period only the White Dominions were genuinely independent of the UK (and even then they still continued to defer to it in relation to foreign affairs). India was technically run out of New Delhi, but the government there was exclusively British and did pretty much as told. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


I think that the images I've added[1] are well placed and relevant. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Tobby72 (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Add respective military strength to each belligerent in the infobox?

How could I put each belligerent's military strength in the infobox? Could somebody help me with this one? I have a lot of sources that tells the troop strength of the belligerents in the war.

Given that the size of the various forces fluctuated hugely during the war, that wouldn't be very useful IMO (which figures would you choose?). Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Date of war's beginning

This is bordering on the absurd and it crossed the line of WP:FORUM a long time ago.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

World War II did not begin on 1st September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. It began on 3rd September 1939 when the UK and France declared war on Germany. The Soviet Union and Germany had agreed on 23rd August to invade Poland in the following month in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The UK and France could have simply ignored the German invasion of Poland, as they ignored the Soviet invasion. ( (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC))

Germany declared war on Sept 1, 1939, which is the date used by the reference books & reliable sources. Who says Britain and France could simply ignore it???? Rjensen (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Germany did not declare war. The UK and France declared war on Germany on 3rd September, starting World War II as every country in the British Commonwealth and Empire then declared war on Germany. The UK and France only declared war on Germany, even though Germany and the Soviet Union both invaded Poland at the same time. ( (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC))
You assertion is erroneous in a number of ways. Germany invaded Poland without any formal declaration of war, so there is no piece of paper to point to. However invading another country itself is a de-facto declaration of war, so Germany did declare war first on September 1. The subsequent declarations by Britain and France were a response to Germany's aggression, they did not initiate hostilities. Also the Soviets did not enter Poland until September 17, they did not invade simultaneously with the Germans. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Soviets and the Germans had agreed on 23rd August 1939 to invade Poland. Anyway it only became a world war when the UK declared war on 3rd September, causing Australia Canada India etc to declare war. ( (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC))

The fact that other countries entered the war at a later date does not change the fact that the war had already started on September 1, 1939. Their reasons for doing so are irrelevant to this fact. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It only became a world war when the UK and France chose to declare war on Germany on 3rd September 1939. ( (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC))

No, it became a World War when Germany violated the conditions that compelled Britain and France to declare war in response, and that was done on September 1. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry how does Germany invading Poland constitute a World War? Britmax (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It does not, it signifies the beginning of a world war. Arnoutf (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Germany and the Soviet Union both invaded Poland at the same time. The UK and France had no right to declare war on Germany. ( (talk) 09:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC))
No they didn't, read the article. And I think you will find that Britain at least had an agreement to guarantee Polish independence. Britmax (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Except the UK did nothing of the kind, because it only declared war on Germany - even though everybody knew Germany and the Soviet Union had both agreed in August to invade Poland. ( (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC))
Please give us your source for this and your reason why the UK should declare war on the basis of what "everybody knows". And please indent your reply so I don't have to do it again. Britmax (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
We all knew about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939. Germany only agreed to invade Poland because the Soviet Union had also agreed to invade. ( (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC))
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a system of technicalities. Its an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. The millions of reliable sources on WW2 say that the war began on September 1 based on the German invasion of Poland. The fact that France and Britian did not "Technically" declare war until a few days letter is moot because the sources give the 1st as the beginning of the conflict.--JOJ Hutton 12:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
World War II only happened because France and the UK chose to start the conflict. If they had been serious about protecting Poland they wouldn't have only declared war on Germany. ( (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC))
Editor continues to discuss the subject, not the article. The fringe position takes above is original synthesis not supported by sources. BusterD (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The war began on 23rd August 1939 when Germany and the Soviet Union both agreed to invade Poland in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Hitler admitted to Marshal Mannerheim that without this agreement he could not have invaded Poland, as he did not feel ready for a possible war with the Soviets until November 1940. ( (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC))

That's an opinion. Please discuss the page and sources, not the subject. BusterD (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not an opinion. Hitler said he could not have invaded Poland unless Stalin did as well. Otherwise he would have been fighting the UK and France in the west and the Soviet Union in the east in 1939. ( (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC))

It's wrong to pretend Germany started a world war by invading Poland in conjunction with the Soviet Union. World War II began on 3rd September 1939 when the UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, British India, Malta, Gibraltar, Newfoundland, the Sudan etc declared war on Germany. (RandyBowers1982 (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC))

Well then you should personally write to every book publisher that has ever printed a book on World War II and tell them how wrong they are. You should also personally contact the governments of every involved nation and attempt to correct their ignorance. Otherwise Wikipedia articles are not a place for original thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that only says what is already printed in reliable sources.--JOJ Hutton 13:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The UK and France could have just remained neutral. If Britain truly had an agreement with Poland then it would have declared war on the Soviet Union. (JimO'Roarke (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC))
Germany could have remained neutral too. They had no justifiable reason to attack Poland, but they did. The war began with them. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Germany only invaded Poland because the Soviet Union had agreed to invade as well. And invading Poland did not start a world war - the UK and its Empire declaring war did. ( (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC))
Well then go find a source for what has so far only been your opinion. Wikipedia articles are only written using the most reliable sources and your opinion cannot trump one of Wikipedias core content policies. So when you come back with a source, then we can discuss. JOJ Hutton 18:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hitler never even wanted to invade Poland, he offered a pact but the Polish government refused. They should have accepted the offer. The UK and France did not really care about Poland, if they had then they wouldn't have only declared war on Germany. ( (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC))

Hello, could Finland be added in the second paragraph, between Poland and the Baltic States, and linked to ? Finland, like Sweden, is not a Baltic State. The Allies' Soviet Union had already invaded Finland 30 November 1939, well after the War had begun (?)Jace1 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Finland had 3 wars in this period: Winter War, Continuation War and Lapland War and maybe this can be made clearer in the article OR in an link from WWII in Finland if such an article or redirect exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Those wars were understood at the time to be part of the wider Eastern European theatre of war. The winter war started with the USSR attacking the Finnish border in Karelia and openly aiming to replace the legal government with a puppet cabinet the Kremlin had chosen themselves (headed by the exiled Finnish communist O.V. Kuusinen); this attack in late 1939 and the whole aim of taking over Finland was a direct consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and its secret protocol of setting up German and Russian spheres of interest in the eastern Baltic Sea area; even if those protocols had not been made public at the time it was grasped by very many people at the time, not just military people either, that the war with Finland hinged on the alliance between the Soviet Union and Germany. Germany wasn't going to oppose anything and vitally they had pledged not to invade the USSR, so the Soviets had a free hand.
Actually Britain and France were planning to enter the winter war during its closing months on the side of Finland, not because they cared a whole lot for Finland but because they wanted to bring a major theatre of war into Scandinavia. There's been ample writing about that in books about the phoney war months and about the last few months of the Chamberlain cabinet. It didn't happen, but it indicates again that the Winter war was perceived as part of the wider war - and continues to be seen as such by serious WW2 researchers. When war broke out again between Finland and the Soviet Union in the summer of '41, it was once again clear to everybody that it was closely tied to what was going on south of the Baltic, even if Finland managed to maintain a good deal of independence in her planning and conduct of the war. The idea that those conflicts were not really part of WW2 is...well, silly. (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2014

Bilalboy555 (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been hacked

You'll have to be more specific. Britmax (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't see any unrepaired vandalism in the edits in the week or so leading up to this request, so I've closed this request. I didn't check transclusions, though, so Bilalboy555, please do let us know if there's still some ongoing problem. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The Actual Number of "Groups" That Formed During WWII

This section of the article seems to leave out of the associations that formed during WWII besides the two opposing forces of Allied and Axis Powers. What about the Neutral Powers being included since their presence these countries when geographically suitable played roles in both the military and non-military activities of the Allied and Axis Powers?WordWrightUSA (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing the infobox

How to edit the infobox--Ersroitasent (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

When your block expires, you might. In the meantime you might read the talk page to see what you are getting into here. Britmax (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Image edits

I'm trying to edit the image choices for this article; the previous pictures simply did not correspond to the text directly, or on their own did not illustrate the gravity of the conflict. Also, there was an over saturation of British, American, and Soviet military photos in somewhat "propaganda style" snapshots. Again, not illustrating the reality of the conflict, or the brutality of it.

Also, some key players such as Stalin, or Roosevelt were not shown at landmark events like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, or the Yalta Conference.

Another issue was the lack of historic accuracy. One example was the image form the Battle of Kursk; it showed a Soviet dive bomber, yet the most outstanding fact about the Kursk battle was its distinction of being the largest tank battle in the world. So, a picture of a Soviet tank would illustrate the point better.

I ask for assistance, if anyone knows of good pictures that will help to diversify the article, please include them; I'm trying to add images especially in the Pacific Theater where Filipino, Australian, and Indian troops fought. This will help and show the conflict in a more accurate and diverse light. --Factor01 (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

List of all War Declarations and other outbreakes of war

I'm not sure about the usefulness of this section. It's placed in the wrong area of the article; as it pertains to the "outbreak of war" but, it's placed in the middle of the page. Also, I question the necessity of a table chart in this article. I breaks up the text and provides tedious block data that is difficult to visualize. I recommend it be removed, or moved to the end of the page. --Factor01 (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It makes much more sense at Diplomatic history of World War II. Rjensen (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

War breaks out in Europe (1939–40)

I would like to add a short paragraph on the Nazi atrocities in Poland shortly after the invasion. The section will include links to already established Wiki article Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939–46) and Nazi crimes against the Polish nation. By adding this paragraph, I would like to highlight the issue of war time atrocities that were especially prevalent during WW II. --Factor01 (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this a new paragraph from what you've just edit warred in with no supporting references? Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
You statement is rude and dismissive. There are already separate Wiki articles on this topic (so I guess it has to be legitimate reference), so why is this an issue. Also, I can include references if you just let me, and not revert back right away. Can I post the paragraph at this point? --Factor01 (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
NO! Please see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:V: you can't just edit war material in with no justification, references or support from other editors when the material is questioned. I've critiqued the material above, and it would be good to discuss it in a sensible way rather than for you to keep on edit warring it in as you appear to want to. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Factor01 made a good point regarding a genocide and civilian casualties. WWII was not a "Napoleonic" conflict. Most suggest that some 40 million civilians died in the war, mostly Asians and Eastern Europeans. Polish, Russian or Chinese civilians were regarded as legitimate targets. Similar dispute is taking place on -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
As far as I see Nick-D does not object the addition of atrocities per se, but asks for high standard of writing and referencing, and asks the editors to prepare texts to be inserted on talk before adding substandard quality texts into the article. Arnoutf (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes reverted

There's a long-standing convention with this article that all significant changes should be discussed before being made (and this is stated in an edit notice which appears when the editing window is opened). As the changes to images and the table of declarations of wars had not been discussed I've removed them. I agree with the comments above regarding the table, and many of the images which were added seem of relatively limited value and gave the article a rather crowded look. In particular, the rationale for including various insigna is not clear to me as these context-less images add almost nothing to readers' understanding of the war. I agree that there's scope to improve the selection of images, but given the high profile of this article the different options should be discussed and agreed upon before being added, and increasing the number of images doesn't seem like a good idea given that the article already has a crowded appearance. Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I have to strongly disagree with your actions of reverting the changes made earlier to the article. Regrettably, you removed the line in the Background section about the German federal election, July 1932. May I ask; why? I think the fact that Hitler was elected into office is a very important statement. Also, you removed a short paragraph about the Nazi atrocities in Poland (shortly after the invasion of September 1939), and Soviet repression in eastern Poland. Again, very relevant topics!
  • WWII was not just a military conflict, there was the Genocide. The murder of millions of people, under a planned and deliberate ideology (German National Socialism); and for someone to delete those sections is a very questionable. WWII was not a "Napoleonic" conflict with two armies lining up in a field. So, statements about the plight of the civilians victims is only right, and justified in this case.
  • Also, your argument that the article feels crowded is dubious. Please look at the WWI article as an example, and see just how may photos are on that page. Also, pleaes look at the user comments; where statements were made that the WWII page lacked insightful maps, and images. Please excuse me, but I will to a limited degree revert your changes. As I do not believe that they are at all constructive, and I will respectfully, but openly make the suggestion that they are designed to hide some realities on this topic; as the additions I included in the earlier edit are historically very accurate, and relevant. "A picture is worth a thousand words". --Factor01 (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just reverted your material again pending agreement one way or the other from the discussion here. As the German federal election, July 1932 article rightly states, Hitler wasn't elected to power so this material in the article is factually wrong, and your change made it more confusing. The Nazis failed to form government in July 32 and actually went backwards in November 32 before Hitler was appointed Chancellor through a non-democratic process. As this is a GA which could probably be easily developed to A-class and the World War I article is a B class article (and really more like C class), I don't think that it's a suitable model. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
ok, I will remove the mention of the German Federal election of 1932. But, I will revert some the changes back, since there are numerous grammar edits, and the paragraph about Nazi brutality in Poland is correct. Also, the image of the Burma Campaign, and SS are a legitimate references to the history. --Factor01 (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Please don't add material or tweak the images without gaining agreement from other editors. This is edit warring. Please make a case for why the specific text and images you propose adding are an improvemen, and see what the response from other editors is. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Why do this the hard way by edit warring? Getting rid of the misleading material on the election was an improvement, but you haven't provided any rationale for including a para on the war crimes committed against the Poles (the Poles suffered terribly, but so did citizens of the USSR, Chinese people and several other nationalities so I think that this may be unwarranted weight), or any citations to support this, or have provided any rationale for adding those images. In regards to the para on the war crimes, it's not even referenced and contains factual errors: Under the guidelines of Generalplan Ost, many ethnic Poles were expelled from their homes, to make way for German colonists from the Reich.: largely true, but a key point is that few "colonists" ever turned up. On direct orders from Hitler, the German SS started a ruthless murder campaign': The Army and other security forces were also involved. sending many more to the newly build concentration camps as slave labour vastly more Poles were forced to work in factories and farms than on concentration camps (and this took time to implement), The three million Polish Jews were placed in ghettos, to await the final solution: factually wrong as the Nazis hadn't decided to murder all the Jews at this point of the war. Moreover, the harsh conditions in the ghettos formed part of the campaign of brutality and murder, and they weren't simply holding areas. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd also note that the material in question here (including the changed image captions) is full of obvious over-linking (please see WP:OVERLINK). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • If you let me, I will go one by one and wrote about civilian casualties in Poland, USSR, and China. Each section at a time. Also, I have to dispute your claims listed above: 1,500,000 Poles were expelled to make room for German settlers. Is that not a large enough number that is worth mentioning? At the start of the invasion about 200,000 Poles died, and 2 -3 million by the end of the war. Again, not worth a mention? --Factor01 (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Not in an article with the sweeping coverage this one needs, no. These events have their own articles. Britmax (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • No that's where you are wrong. The article in detail lists all the military campaigns (yes, thats one aspect of the war). But, it omits any chronological mention of civilian casualties and atrocities. They should be addressed section by section, in order to show the true nature of the conflict (not in depth, but a short sentence or two, in order to acknowledge the occurrence). WW II was a war of inhalation, genoside, and wholesale murder. Yet, you don't think that's worth noting in some greater detail? --Factor01 (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
No, otherwise everyone else will feel that their hobbyhorses need the same amount of detail and the article will be five times as long as it is now. Britmax (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

List of formal war outbreaks now as a separate article

I'm sorry to say that I didn't notice that there was several other lists whitin the article. A list of formal war outbreakes are basical for the article. The list of major battles are equaly importaint. I see no "competition" here. Even if many states of war between different nations emerged through diplomatic breakdown, not all outbreaks can be reffered to that category. Pear Harbour and Barbarossa for instance. The list is mainly for chronological use, and certainly not intended for statistics. Only dates that led to a formal state of war between nations are included. The list is taken from a 15 volumes Swedish 1960's encycklopedia (more info in the article). And I cannot find any reason to doubt the source. The comments-column isn't present in the source but all comments about previous diplomatical breakdowns are. Some readers may having difficulties when reading Soviet Union vs Finland 1939 and Fionland vs Soviet Union in 1941, but there was two separate wars with peace in between. Also reg. France, the situation changed after the fall of France. The Third Republic ceased to exist after the fall of France. A few such examples in the comment-column are not included in the source, but may help some readers, I presume. Boeing720 (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

List vs list - too alike ? impressiveness and contence

I thought a list of war declarations and other ways of achieve a state of war (like attack without any war declaration or through ultimatum etc) was called for. Eventually it became located at correct place in the main article, among the other lists like "List of Battles" etc. Now it turned out that there already was a similar list. Both are currently nominated for deletion. Hence I ask of You all to have a look at Declarations of War during World War II aswell as List of all war outbreaks during World War II. Including their talk-pages. If only one of these two lists are needed, I ask - what is better as complement to the main World War II article, a brief and simple list of importaint dates, at which a state of war emerged between nations and a few comments. Based on one single reliable source. Or an from a technical point of view supreme article, that is based on various sources and hence either has forgotten imperative dates and wars like Soviet Union vs Poland, Soviet Union vs Finland, sates nothing about Denmark, Yugoslavia and Greece. And doesn't cover the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour etc. (But that looks much more impressive). I'm a part in this question, and have no "Sock Puppies" (whatever it's labeled as) I like to add that my deletion proposal of the other list only is based of its indeed very poor quality of facts, if anyone is able to actually believe me in this matter. But I atleast hope that You all give both lists a chance, and then give Your input of which article that is better from the general point of view, or if both possibly fulfills a purpose, perhaps... Boeing720 (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrailty, undue weight issues

In reply to Nick-D statements that my text submission for this article may carry undue weight, because it highlights Polish suffering; I would like to present this quote from the Western Europe/Atlantic & Mediterranean (1942–43) section:

...and "de-house" the German civilian population. By the end of the war most German cities would be reduced to rubble and 7,500,000 Germans made homeless.

Apparently, it makes good sense to note that the Germans were made homeless, by the allied bombing. But, when I tried to add a picture of a Soviet woman getting executed by the German SS, and write a small paragraph about the Nazi atrocities in Poland; that was just way too much for the article; and the administrators to allow. --Factor01 (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A sentence on the destruction of Germany's cities and 7.5 million people being rendered homeless as a result hardly seems inappropriate... This was a rather major element of the war in Europe (the bombing campaign targeting German cities accounted for something like 20% of total British military expenditure, for instance). The crimes committed by the Nazis are covered in the Casualties and war crimes and Concentration camps and slave work sections, so your suggestion that the article is highlighting German suffering and downplaying the conduct of the Germans is nonsense. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


I propose using the following two pictures in the Background section (replacing the current one) to show two points; the early rise of nazi power [2], and the close relationship between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany [3]. --Factor01 (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed Hitler image is an improvement over the current one (which is Hitler's PR photo - yuck), but the other image seems misleading given that relations between Germany and Italy weren't actually all that close until just before the outbreak of war (Mussolini worked to try to stop Germany's expansion into Austria, for example). Two images of the European area and of Facists seems a bit much as well IMO. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I propose to keep the very importaint picture indeed of the Munich agreement, the fate of Czechoslovakia was decided above their heads by Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier and Mussolini. This must not be forgotten. Boeing720 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Revised text; War breaks out in Europe (1939–40)

Please note the revised paragraph containing text related to German operations and policy directed at the civilian population, shortly after the invasion of Poland. As recommend by user Arnoutf, the wording of the text was changed to include neutral terms. I would also, like to highlight the fact that in many of those events the German army, a.k.a the Wehrmacht was an active participant. Thus, making these actions indelibly tied to the German war effort, and not just to a separate Nazi ideology. I would also like to point out the the Axis attack on the USSR (1941) section also has a similar statement in its content; example provided above the proposed addition to the War breaks out in Europe (1939–40) section.

Hitler's objectives were to eliminate the Soviet Union as a military power, exterminate Communism, generate Lebensraum ("living space")[105] by dispossessing the native population[106] and guarantee access to the strategic resources needed to defeat Germany's remaining rivals.[107]
Following the German invasion of Poland; the Nazis began a systematic campaign of repression, and economic exploitation.[1]. Under the official guidelines of Generalplan Ost many ethnic Poles were expelled from their homes, to make way for German colonists from the Reich. German Gestapo and RSHA carried out mass executions of Poles throughout the country, in operations Tannenberg and AB-Aktion.[2]. In street roundups, perpetrated by both the paramilitary Nazi SS, and regular army units of the German Wehrmacht; Polish civilians were arbitrarily arrested, and sent to the newly build concentration camps as slave labor. The three million Polish Jews were placed in ghettos, and their property confiscated.[3].

--Factor01 (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

New images review

I would like to add the following pictures (REVISED) in the following two sections Axis attack on the USSR (1941) and Advances in technology and warfare. Please provide input on validity of the proposed images. 1. Soviet civilians during the Battle of Leningrad [4] 2. The Enigma cypher machine [5] 3. The Trinity nuclear test [6]

Where are you proposing that these pictures go, and is the idea to replace existing pictures? The photo of an Enigma machine seems ill-chosen given that they're not very interesting to look out, and their key feature was that they were a dramatically unsuccessful technology: the Allied side of the signals intelligence contest is much more important, though it also wasn't very photogenic. The photo of the preparations for the atomic bomb test is rather dull: it's a bunch of men standing on some planks in front of a tower. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, Nick-D we don't have to include the Enigma photo, even thought I will dispute your ill informed comment on the significance of the technology. Now, regarding the Trinity nuclear test [7]; you noted that it's not very interesting. Well, mate, it was a test. Most laboratory tests are not going to be "exiting" and you will have only two types of photos emerging from that event; the scientists who prepare the site, or the explosion itself. Since, you asked where the images should go, even though I wrote it above. I will explain again; those two images would have gone in the Advances in technology and warfare section. Because, in my opinion the test to detonate the first nuclear device, and to generate the first atomic chain reaction in the history of man, was a very significant step in the technology of warfare, and no better way to highlight the event than by showing the scientific preparation for that event, including the men who made it happen. Also, regarding your comment of the picture "planks in front of a tower". That's the "nuclear detonator" being raised atop the "detonation tower". (note the photo caption). As for the Battle of Leningrad photo [8], it can be added, or replace the existing Soviet POWs image in the Axis attack on the USSR (1941) section. In any case, in my opinion; it is very important to show what the average civilian went through during actual combat. --Factor01 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Concentration Camps

I may be missing it somewhere in the article, but I do not see anything about how the U.S. forcibly relocated ethnic Japanese, including Japanese-Americans who had been born and lived their entire lives in the U.S.A. to "relocation camps" on the basis that they "might be Japanese Empire sympathizers". Many of these Japanese, including entire families, were unable to return to their original homes after the war -- they had been sold to other people, assets liquidated, etc. While there was no systematic genocide such as in the Nazi concentration camps, this still seems like a relevant enough part of World War II that it would be found here. Does anyone have any thoughts on its inclusion, or can point to me where it already is located if it is? Fullfiguredalchemist (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is covered in the second last paragraph of the 'Concentration camps and slave work' section. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thank you. It was so short I must have missed it. Fullfiguredalchemist (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

New text review

  • New text highlighted in Bold, with including affected paragraphs, and references.

War breaks out in Europe (1939–40)

On 1 September 1939, Germany and the Slovak puppet state invaded Poland, on the false pretext that Poland had launched attacks on German territory.[4] On 3 September France and Britain, followed by the fully independent Dominions[5] of the British Commonwealth,[6]Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa – declared war on Germany, but provided little support to Poland other than a small French attack into the Saarland.[7] Britain and France also began a naval blockade of Germany on 3 September which aimed to damage the country's economy and war effort.[8] Germany responded by ordering U-boat warfare against Allied merchant and war ships, which was to later escalate in the Battle of the Atlantic.

On 17 September 1939, after signing a cease-fire with Japan, the Soviets also invaded Poland from the east.[9] The Red Army take over of eastern Poland was followed by a wave of Soviet repression. The Polish army was ultimately defeated, and Warsaw surrendered to the Germans on 27 September, with final pockets of resistance surrendering on 6 October. Poland's territory was divided between Germany and the Soviet Union, with Lithuania and Slovakia also receiving small shares. The Poles never fully surrendered, and the government refused to collaborate with the Nazis; they established a Polish Underground State, an underground Home Army, and continued to fight alongside the Allies on all fronts in Europe and North Africa.[10]

Following the successful German invasion of Poland, the Nazis began a reign of terror on the civilian population[11]. Under the guidelines of Generalplan Ost, many ethnic Poles were expelled from their homes, to make way for German colonists from the Reich. The German SS started a ruthless murder campaign[12], executing thousands of Poles, and sending many more to the newly build concentration camps as slave labour. The three million Polish Jews were placed in ghettos[13].
  • Cyprian, Tadeusz (1961). Nazi Rule in Poland, 1939-1945 (Google Books search inside). Co-author: Sawicki, Jerzy. Polonia Publishing House. pp. 63–65. Retrieved 10 October 2013.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
I am not in favour of most of your suggestions.
Re: and the Slovak puppet state -- Puppet state here adds a tone to the line which I feel is not very encyclopedic, while it is not clear what crucial information it adds beyond what is already there.
Re: the Soviets also invaded Poland from the east.[9] The Red Army take over of eastern Poland was followed by a wave of Soviet repression. The Polish army was ultimately defeated, and Warsaw surrendered to the Germans ..... Entering the Soviet repression at this place implies that the Soviet repressions were introduced, carried out and finished before the battle of Warsaw. This is not the case, so this addition, at this place disrupts the flow of the storyline.
Re: the new paragraphs: phrases like reign of terror, murder campaign etcetera read nice in prose, but are in my view unencyclopedic in tone. There may be something to the content but the style needs to be made much more neutral in tone. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Despite the lack of support for the addition of this paragraph here, including comments by several editors that this level of coverage is excessive, I see that it was added to the article. I've just removed it. This is getting into serious edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

German presidential election, 1932

I propose that in the Background section we add a note about the German presidential election, 1932; it was in this election that Adolf Hitler received 37% of the popular German vote, and was subsequently nominated by the re-elected German President Paul von Hindenburg to be the new Chancellor of Germany. The main point of this addition is to stress the fact that Hitler had rather substantial support among the German public who supported militarism; and his initial accent to power was through the democratic process. The current link in the section Adolf Hitler's rise to power disturbingly skirts the issue, and fails to call things by their proper name. Instead uses vague and misleading terms like "rise to power" or 'seizure of control". That is why I recommend we include the phrase and link German presidential election, 1932 in the Background section.

In German federal election, March 1933; 33 of 35 parliamentary districts won by the Nazi Party
Candidate Party First round Second round
Votes % Votes %
Paul von Hindenburg Independent 18,651,497 49.6 19,359,983 53.0
Adolf Hitler Nazi Party 11,339,446 30.1 13,418,547 36.8
Ernst Thälmann Communist Party 4,938,341 13.2 3,706,759 10.2
Theodor Duesterberg Stahlhelm 2,557,729 6.8
Other candidates 116,304 0.3 5,474 0.0
Invalid/blank votes
Total 37,603,317 100 36,490,761 100
Registered voters/turnout 43,949,681 85.6 44,063,958 82.9
Source: Nohlen & Stöver

--Factor01 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

While there is probably merit for material noting the extent of the Nazis' popular support, covering this in the context of elections isn't the way to do it given that the Nazis didn't rise to power through genuinely democratic means. Modern historians such as Richard E. Evans and Ian Kershaw stress the fact that the Nazis never received majority support, and were actually in electoral decline when Hitler was appointed to power in January 1933. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Nick-D I'm not sure where you get your modern "revisionist" historians from. But, the statement you made is nothing more than MANIPULATION and here is why: Your noted that "the Nazis never received majority support, and were actually in electoral decline when Hitler was appointed to power in January 1933"; this is revisionist history, and selective picking! Please look at the electoral results below; during all this time Hitler's Nazi party had the largest popular support of any political movement elected to the Reichstag, and with their DNVP coalition partners held a near majority until 1933, when they gained full majority in the electorate.
German federal election, July 1932 NAZI PARTY: popular vote 13,745,680; percentage 37.27%
German federal election, November 1932 NAZI PARTY: popular vote 11,737,395; percentage 33.09%
German federal election, March 1933 NAZI PARTY: popular vote 17,277,180; percentage 43.91% - DNVP coalition partners: popular vote 3,136,760; percentage 7.97%
  • So, Nick-D I'm not sure how much further you can keep going with these misleading statements. In fact, Adolf Hitler made no secret that he wanted to abolish the democratic system in Germany, in this Election Speech of 1932 (that you can see yourself on You Tube), Hitler told a crowd of German voters that he wants to do away with the "30 or so German political parties". And, guess what they voted for him. So, even if you argue about details of Nazi political maneuvering; you have to admit and include the fact that one third of the Germans supported Hitler's radical military and racial ideologies. --Factor01 (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Why the aggressive approach? My suggestion that is if material is judged worth including on the Nazis support base it shouldn't be presented in the context of elections the Nazis didn't actually win or suggest that they had majority support as this isn't supported by electoral results or the conclusions of historians. Presenting this as some kind of agenda of covering up something or other is silly. The March 1933 election was held after the Nazis had achieved power, and wasn't a democratic election given that it was accompanied by massive bullying of voters and the opposition as well as a large scale government-run propaganda campaign. Even with the odds rigged in their favour this way the Nazis failed to achieve a majority. As the figures you quote show their proportion of the vote actually fell during the free(ish) elections held in 1932. You might want to read up on Richard J. Evans and Ian Kershaw before labelling them "revisionist": they're the authors of the standard modern works on Nazi Germany and Hitler respectively. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I will say it again, that Richard J. Evans and Ian Kershaw are potentially revisionist in their views (by revisionist I mean; the idea that all Germans were victims of the Nazis, who got manipulated into supporting Hitler). Let's look at the election number of the German federal election, November 1932. The election in which (as you correctly noted) the Nazis lost support and seats (34 seats lost) in the Reichstag. But, lets look at who gained the most seats at the expense of the Nazis?
So, the two parties that gained seats at the expense of the Nazis were both radical, the votes did not go to the moderates! And, these two political parties also wanted to abolish German democracy; one in favor of a return to Imperial Monarchy based on right-wing nationalist policies (holding the same anti-semitic, and racist ideologies as Bismarck), and the other a Communist State! So, when Evens, and Kershaw say that the Nazis were loosing support; what is it that they were trying to imply? That the Germans found some common sense last minute? Maybe… But, in reality… No!!! The Germans just found two other radical parties to vote for!!! In any case, it proves that there was a significant reactionary German voter block; that supported extremist ideologies, and despite the loses, the Nazis still were the largest political organization in the electorate. So, by including a note about the German elections we are simply noting that there was a significant right-wing element that was supported by German voters (especially in the old Protestant/Prussian regions), and that Hitler and his Nazis did not just magically appear on the political scene and gained power; they had grass roots support among the German voters; who read Mein Kampf, heard Hitler's speeches and still voted for the Nazis.
Popular Vote: German federal election, November 1932
--Factor01 (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
If you actually read the comments by NickD you will notice that he does not deny there was substantial support for the Nazis (about 35% is substantial indeed). But 35% is not majority.
Germany in the 1930s was in serious problems, and this tends to attract radical vote. But equating all radical antidemocratic voting to a pronazi vote is plain odd in my view.
Accusing established professors of history of revisionist view needs support from high quality sources. Please provide a source to substantiate your claim these people present a revisionist point of view. Arnoutf (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's Factor01 who is presenting a revisionist point of view, and additionally an unsourced one. 35% is not a majority, and it is really not surprising that many Germans voted for extreme parties - there was a surge of support throughout Europe for extremist parties, not just within Germany.Rwenonah (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox - specifically relating to China and Japan.

Both of these countries in the 'Belligerants' list are marked with a note - they each have a different letter but the note is exactly the same. I wonder whether it would make more sense to have these marked with the same note.

Please feel free to delete this note once this is sufficiently resolved. Bevstarrunner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

False statement made by page admin to justify deletion on newly added text

I'm not sure how you can say that: "remove para added despite total lack of support on the talk page" when the following users made earlier comments in support of such a paragraph. User Tobby72 stated on the talk page:

  • Factor01 made a good point regarding a genocide and civilian casualties. WWII was not a "Napoleonic" conflict. Most suggest that some 40 million civilians died in the war, mostly Asians and Eastern Europeans. Polish, Russian or Chinese civilians were regarded as legitimate targets. Similar dispute is taking place on -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

...after submitting the first draft user Arnoutf commented:

  • Re: the new paragraphs: phrases like reign of terror, murder campaign etcetera read nice in prose, but are in my view unencyclopedic in tone. There may be something to the content but the style needs to be made much more neutral in tone. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So, how do you have the nerve to say a the new paragraph had "total lack of support on the talk page"? The only support it did not have is yours, and the admin bully you are; you made a false statement to justify you deletion of the paragraph! --Factor01 (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No-one had endorsed the text you added (it's hard to see how Arnoutf's comment you quote is an endorsement!), and myself and at least one other editor had posted to say that this was WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia works on consensus-based editing, so please take the time to read WP:CONSENSUS. There's no such thing as a page admin BTW. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed no endorsement at all, merely an invitation to bring the topic up for consideration here on talk and try to construct at least a fair quality text, to be slotted in after consensus was reached at an appropriate place in the text. Arnoutf (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The issue of German Elections in 1932, and the inclusion of a paragraph about Nazi atrocities in occupied countries are very much related. I would like to explain my thinking as to why the two should be included. WWII was a conflict of annihilation, not just a "Napoleonic" style war over territory. One of the expressed goals was "Genocide", or the deliberate murder of entire ethnic groups.
  • Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter—with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. ... Our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness—for the present only in the East—with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians? ... Poland will be depopulated and settled with Germans. ... As for the rest, gentlemen, the fate of Russia will be exactly the same as I am now going through with in the case of Poland. -Adolf Hitler
So, I don't think that the article stresses this point enough; the two sections that address the issue Casualties and war crimes and Concentration camps and slave work do indeed cover the topic, but the overall article presentation gives a reader the impression that all this was a by-product of the war itself; instead of emphasizing the true reality that actually the war was the inevitable outcome of planned Genocide, and radical German racial theories. In fact, in his early days in Austria; Adolf Hitler did not harbor any particular ill will towards the Poles. The Polish lands made up part of the Austrian Empire, and the Poles did not set themselves apart very much form the Germans, Czechs, or Hungarians who inhabited the empire. Many Polish aristocrats lived in Vienna, and the Viennese were actually somewhat sympathetic to Poles due to the Battle of Venna (1683) legacy. Its when Hitler moved to Germany, and was exposed to the Prussian ideology of the old Junkers (that dated back to the time of Frederick the Great, and Bismarck) that his racial views became more and more radical.
  • I intend to... gradually get rid of all Poles... like it was done to the Iroquois of Canada. -Frederick the Great
In conclusion, this Prussian mentality was part of the greater German society; and many Germans (who voted for Hitler) especially in the north of the country held such view on race; in regards to Poles, Jews, Russians, and other Slavs. And, they too hold the responsibility for WWII, not just the "Nazis". To simplify the matter, and allude through omission that these were just the ideas of a few crazy Nazis, who "deceived the German nation" is a lie. And, to separate World War II as an armed conflict from its Genocidal origins is historically Revisionist! That's why, I propose the inclusion of a note about the German Elections of 1932, and the inclusion of a paragraph about Nazi atrocities done in Poland and the Soviet Union. --Factor01 (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Please provide a text that is sourced with reliable secondary sources, has an encyclopedic tone, and is written in professional level English, as well as a suggestion where to revise the text and we may be able to talk.
This is what both me and NickD have asked of you before. The arguments above may be true but cannot be pasted into the article as they are. (PS Napoleon invented secret services and engaged in deliberate terror against occupied civilians, so not that Napoleontic either)
It is clear that the history of Polish people during WWII is close to your heart. As a project we need editors who care about subjects. BUT, being emotionally involved with a subject sometimes makes an editor wanting to stress the importance of the issue, or even their own take on it. That is not helpful. Please assume good faith with other editors that are working towards improving the project. Even if you disagree with the content of their edits - or priority list - please assume they are trying to do the best and are not out there to get you. That will make editing much more fun for everyone and will increase chances your edits are accepted. Arnoutf (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely with Arnoutf. Factor, you seem to be here with an axe to grind: we don't need to rejig the article to highlight the wickedness of Hitler or the crimes committed by Germany (and Germans) as you are proposing given that this comes through strongly from providing a "flat" history of the war. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not here to grind an axe; I'm here to try and provide a more accurate picture of the events; and your constant dismissal of my suggestions using the "neutrality" excuse is starting to lose validity, as I continually provide facts that weaken your arguments. I'm basing my ideas of how an article of such magnitude should be presented using the WORLD WAR 1 page as a benchmark. In it, you will find a section called Genocide and ethnic cleansing. Imagine that! A section called "genocide" Why the heck do you not have a stronger emphasis like that on the WORLD WAR 2 page, where they were murdering people on an industrial scale! The issue here is more than a paragraph about the Poles or the Soviets… it is that you Nick-D as a "moderator" make every effort possible to water down the brutal truth behind the WWII conflict. In fact, I still would like you to comment on my reply regarding the German Election issue, where I challenge your misinformed statement about the nature of the German electorate, and their support for Hitler. The WWII article needs to highlight the following point:
  • German Elections of 1932, where Hitler received substantial support (if not a complete majority) from the German voters
  • Renaming the "Concentration camps and slave work" section to "The Holocaust (or Genocide), concentration camps and slave labor"
  • Include a short paragraph about the German SS atrocities in Poland, and USSR; including examples of specific operations
I do not think that those requests will somehow alter the neutrality of the article as these events happened; and they happened on a massive scale. For example the German SS had over a 1,200,00 paramilitary troops, and their impact on the conduct of the war can not be understated. Yet, is there any real mention of their activities and objectives? The answer is… NO! --Factor01 (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I've been watching this discussion for a while, and it seems to me that you do have an axe to grind. The article shouldn't be highlighting anything unless you provide multiple sources which show that these events had a disproportionate impact on the war and are also highlighted by historians. Even then, the changes you propose are flawed. While Hitler may have received support, he did not gain power through that support, but through a coup, so it doesn't belong in an article about events which started 5 years later. The World War I article's "genocide" section is much shorter than this page's relevant sections, of which there are three (Casualties and war crimes, concentration camps and slave work, and occupation). There is really no need to rename the section "genocide", since it took various different forms. Including a section about the atrocities in Poland and the USSR would create a East-European-emphasis in the article, and there is no reason for such a thing, given that atrocities happened in virtually every theatre of the war; China and Yugoslavia, for example. Even if your changes were not flawed, you have presented no sources so far except your own views. If and when you do present sources, other editors might be inclined to give your changes a closer look. Rwenonah (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
If you have been watching the discussion (as you claim) you must have noticed that the draft paragraph I submitted included sources. Also, what you propose makes no sense! What does this statement mean that you wrote? "There is really no need to rename the section "genocide", since it took various different forms." WTF??? So, what you are saying is that if genocide took on various forms it's not really genocide than? …and you actually got involved in this argument by contributing that idiotic statement to the process?
Also, you said that "Hitler gained power… through a coup". Just stop embarrassing yourself on this subject! The Nazi party gained the most seats in the Reichstag, and under pressure form Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg, the German president Paul von Hindenburg picked Hitler to be the next Chancellor of Germany; from there the Nazis consolidated power (mostly through political power plays, and coercion). But, no coups d'état ever took place! Even the two articles that cover the topic on Wikipedia don't list Germany as having a coup! List of coups d'état and coup attempts and List of coups d'état and coup attempts by country. Now, I strongly disagree with Nick-D's interpretation of events. But, at least he has the right facts down, and the argument is about the varying interpretation of the issue. You Rwenonah on the other hand are wildly off course on the basic facts about the subject.
Also, you want me to present sources on the genocide during the WWII (better known as the Holocaust)? Really… really? Is this still a controversial topic with varying degrees of interpretation? Maybe, you are inclined to have views on the subject like David Irving; that's why you want me to provide sources, when I only suggested the renaming of the section to include the word "genocide" in order to make the title of the section more descriptive? --Factor01 (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I can only say be nice, assume good faith, and keep cool to that. Arnoutf (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "But, no coups d'état ever took place!" The key to eventual Nazi power in Germany was the Preussenschlag coup, which ousted the government of Prussia in 1932, not to mention the Beer Hall putsch attempt. As you say, it was a gradual process, but nonetheless... Insofar as I can tell, your "draft paragraph" only addressed the Poland/Soviet Union part of your proposal, which, as I pointed out, is and was flawed in its Eurocentrism. Since the section you propose to rename is on the subject of "slave labour and concentration camps", renaming it "Genocide" would indeed ignore the fact that "concentration camps" had various purposes and only shifted over to genocide in the middle of the war, so my statement was perfectly logical. Renaming it to include the word genocide would be less problematic.

I would like you to provide sources that we should place emphasis on your chosen areas of focus, and that modern historiography on inter-war German politics is "revisionist". You still haven't explained why these parts of the war deserve to be "highlighted". Why does the article need to highlight these three things? And just a friendly piece of advice; it's rather unwise to accuse people of Holocaust denial. This is a very sensitive subject and some people could get very offended ("idiotic" is best avoided too). Rwenonah (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

First off, lets not mix apples and oranges; Preussenschlag coup is one thing, and it was actually initiated by the German president Paul von Hindenburg (Centrist Independent), and not the Nazis! So, again I don't understand what was the point of trying to correlate this event to the Nazi political maneuvering in the Reichstag? Also, the Beer Hall Putsch happened in 1923, and had no direct link to the political power plays of 1932; those were two every separate events.
Also, if I write a paragraph in the War breaks out in Europe (1939–40) section; because I have more knowledge about the European side of the war, and the text I want to include pertains specifically to events in the first few months of the European conflict; like the German atrocities in the weeks following the occupation of Poland; including the Intelligenzaktion plan, how is that bias? By you standards of editing, am I obligated to write a paragraph in every section of the article like War breaks out in the Pacific (1941) or Pacific (1942–43)? Sorry, that does not sound right at all; and it does not constitute a bias, just because I refrain from editing sections devoted to the war in the Asia. But, please feel free to add more material in those sections yourself, if you feel that you have sufficient knowledge on those events.
Finally, I think that renaming the section Genocide, concentration camps, and slave labor is a very legitimate proposition. It directly addresses the issue that Hitler and the Nazis planned mass murder from the onset of the war (read the Hitler quote I posted earlier on the talk page that proves just that). Also, your statement: "renaming it "Genocide" would indeed ignore the fact that "concentration camps" had various purposes and only shifted over to genocide in the middle of the war" is again, and I'll use that word... idiotic! How, in your right mind can you suggest that just because the plans for mass murder started halfway through the war, or that concentration camps served multiple purposes justify the negation of the deliberate murder of millions of people, and not call it "Genocide"? Really… REALLY!!! Here is link for ya... called Extermination Camps; now, those camps were very "specialized" in their function to only MURDER people!
A few days before the invasion of Poland, on 22 August 1939, Adolf Hitler said to his generals:
  • Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter—with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. ... Our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness—for the present only in the East—with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians? ... Poland will be depopulated and settled with Germans. ... As for the rest, gentlemen, the fate of Russia will be exactly the same as I am now going through with in the case of Poland. -Adolf Hitler
Source of the quote: Gaymon Bennett, Ted Peters, Martinez J. Hewlett, Robert John Russell (2008). "The evolution of evil". Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. p.318
The quote is a textbook definition of "genocide". Merriam-Webster dictionary. Genoside: the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group. --Factor01 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem isn't with what you choose to edit; the problem is that you now want to "highlight" certain aspects of the war to place special emphasis on atrocities in Poland and the USSR. Doing so would present a Eurocentric view in the article, something we want to avoid. The fact is, general articles like this may not be the place for specific information like that. Now, let's look a my statement. If you renamed the section "genocide", it would ignore the other, numerous functions these camps performed earlier in the war. This would be a factual inaccuracy. Renaming the section to include the word genocide would be an entirely different proposition. Rwenonah (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, did you not read Hitler's quote that I included just above in my reply? Also, here is another to illustrate my point:
  • It is a question of existence, thus it will be a racial struggle of pitiless severity, in the course of which 20 to 30 million Slavs and Jews will perish through military actions and crises of food supply. -Heinrich Himmler, Operation Barbarossa, June 1941
Source of the Quote: Cesarani, David (2004). Holocaust: From the Persecution of the Jews to Mass Murder. London: Routledge
So, here you have two quotes that were made by Hitler himself, and his henchman Heinrich Himmler; that document a planned and deliberate effort to murder millions of people, or as it's called "Genocide". And, you still don't think that this warrants a name change in the title of the section, in order to emphasize the severity of the issue? Maybe we should call the section: Extermination camps, concentration camps, and forced labor? So, it appears that the whole purpose of starting WWII in Europe was to carry out a genocide in the east, and militarily defeat the Western Democracies; as opposed to the Pacific, where the Japanese were more interested in economic domination of its neighbors, and the subsequent brutality that resulted. But, not the stated annihilation of entire ethnic groups like in Europe. Thus, the European and Asian sections will be inherently different in their content, but that should not imply a bias. --Factor01 (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Those quotes clearly prove that the Nazis intended genocide. So? What's your point? Renaming the section "Genocide" would ignore the other aspects of Nazi exploitation. I have no problem with renaming it to include the word genocide. Regardless, placing emphasis on atrocities within Poland would present Eurocentric bias and ignore the significant atrocities in other theatres, most notably China and Yugoslavia. Rwenonah (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok, that was the original proposition to include the word "genocide" in the title; not to replace the entire title. Anyway, so do you agree that a name change is acceptable? The section could be called The Holocaust, concentration camps, and slave labor, or Genocide, concentration camps, and slave labor Which do you think would be more appropriate, in my opinion the second is a better choice? --Factor01 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree.Rwenonah (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
So, I think that the best title would be Genocide, concentration camps, and slave labor making the reference neutral; referring to both civilian mass murder on all fronts in Europe as well as in Pacific. --Factor01 (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer "Concentration camps, slave labour and genocide" - as the Japanese camps were definitely concentration camps, and employed slave labour, but to what extent Japanese atrocities were a full-blown planned genocide (in the narrow sense of the holocaust) is not that clear, although the mass killings might qualify as genocide in a broader sense. By changing the order we place slightly less emphasis on genocide and would in my view circumvent the discussion about narrow or broad use of the term. What do you guys think? Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I have no issue with that… my biggest argument was to highlight that fact that "genocide" was a planned and deliberate part of the war; by including the term in the title. So, I'm good with the proposition. --Factor01 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest "mass killings" or similar over genocide: the large-scale murders committed by the Soviet and Japanese governments which were related to the war generally aren't considered to have been genocides. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, I have to disagree with Nick-D. Mass murder that occurred outside of the textbook definition of "genocide" is documented under the Casualties and war crimes section, where we do find references to the Japanese Nanking Massacre, or the Soviet Katyn massacre. But, genocide is a separate issue. The section Concentration camps and slave work covers the topic of the The Holocaust; and even if deliberate genocide was conducted by only one of the belligerents, you are looking at this issue from the wrong angle; and concentrating on the "perpetrators" of those actions. But, instead; you should focus on how many ethnicities and races were affected by genocide during WWII: Jews, Poles, Russians, other Slavs, Romani, Freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. --Factor01 (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
By placing genocide last, the word is not emphasized, which in my view allows for a broader usage of the word (which does include mass killing). Also while Japanese and Russian mass murders were not aimed at destroying a whole ethnic group, there was a clear ethnic component to atrocities against (e.g.) the Chinese, Indonesian, and Western populations in Japanese occupied territories, which in my view would warrant use of the term genocide. Mass killings on the other hand is a rather vague and can also apply to what happened at the battle of Stalingrad with several hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides. But that is not what we want to imply here.
In other words I would strongly prefer genocide here. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── At this time, I will go ahead and make the recommended change to the title; with as Arnoutf suggested adding the word "genocide" to the end of the phrase: Concentration camps, slave labour and genocide. --Factor01 (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I expand more detail in section Japan invasion of China

I want to expend more detail of this section. I just use one sentence to simplify two major campaigns and one small battle. All of these are only one sentence. I think I follow the high-profile principle. Moreover, China has only two major campaigns. One of them are what I supplement. It seems there are many detail in other field. I just supplement in one sentence for a major campaigns.
I wonder whether my require will be ignored. Hence I want to ask here if nobody answer my question, how do I deal with this. Miracle dream (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2014‎

What do you want to add? Britmax (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
From September to November, the Japanese attacked Taiyuan[14][15], as well as engaging the Kuomintang Army around Xinkou[14][15] and Communist forces in Pingxingguan.[16][17]
I try to use one sentence to summarize what happened from September to November in 1937.Actually in 1937, there are two major campaigns, one is in Shanghai, the other is what I mentioned above.Miracle dream (talk)
I don't think that we need a blow-by-blow account of the fighting which took place before the generally agreed start to the war. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Britmax (talk) and Nick-D (talk)Actually this campaign is the only campaign missed in this section before the beginning of WWII After adding this, the section will contain all battle detailed before the generally agreed start to the war. To avoid make this too long, I try to use one sentence to summarized it. This section will simply introduce all information of war between China and Japan before the WWII beginning. In fact, even adding this sentence, this section still has the same length of section "Spanish Civil War (1936–39)" and is much shorter than section "European occupations and agreements". Actually this campaign even important than flooding the Yellow River in 1938.Miracle dream (talk)

Mussolini - March on Rome, 1922/League of Nations Session - Manchurian Crisis, 1932; image

I would like to include an image of Benito Mussolini during the March on Rome [9] or [10] in the Background section. I think this image is very appropriate in this case, because it shows Mussolini in 1922, at the very start of his political career during the March on Rome; when he and the Italian Fascists seized power. Also, his regime was the first of it's kind, and became the model for military imperialism of the 1930's. The Italian Fascist governing style was copied by Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, and Imperial Japan alike, making Mussolini an early icon of world Fascism. P.S. I think there were several suggestions to add a picture of Mussolini and Hitler together, but this image just focuses on Mussolini and Italian Fascists. --Factor01 (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that we should have both photos in this section depicting European topics, especially as Italy was very much a secondary power. What's your source for the Japanese government being influenced by Italy? Japan had its own path to totalitarianism and war. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I would recommend only one of the two photos choices, whichever is of better quality. Now, I do understand that Italy became completely irrelevant by the middle of the war. But, I think that at the very beginning it played a significant role in the creation and development the Fascist model of government; and for that, Mussolini should be highlighted. Also, I completely agree that Japan was not fully Fascist in the "European" sense of the word, and as you noted it had its own path to totalitarianism. But, it adopted many of the totalitarian methods and ideologies of governments from Europe, as in Statism; this political ideology is sometimes referred to as Japanese fascism. This ideology includes aspects of militarism, nationalism, and in the case of Japan a state religion centered around the emperor. --Factor01 (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok, at this point if there are not other questions, I will go ahead and add the image at this time. --Factor01 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, no-one had agreed to your proposal to include this image, with the only person who commented (me) disagreeing. As a result I've just removed the image. Editing by consensus means that you need to take the views of others into account, and can't just ignore them as you seem to want to do. Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Well… in any case I think that the section is well servers by an additional image to illustrate the text. If you do not think that the Mussolini picture is well warranted; than I would suggestion adding an image of the Chinese delegation addressing the League of Nations in 1932, after the Mukden Incident.[11] This photo highlights the issues in the Pacific region, as well as the futility of the League of Nations as an institution. By the way I'm sure that British spelling for "labour" is just that not "labor". --Factor01 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

About Belligerents order

I guess the order of Belligerents are based on their military contributions. Hence, I wonder why India is in the front of Greece,Netherlands and Yugoslavia? Does it mean India has more military contribution than Netherlands? Moreover, I know the invasion of Poland means the beginning of WWII, but for military contributions, whether it really greater than Greece or Netherlands because it involved only 1 month for the first step of this war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talkcontribs) 00:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I would imagine that that was the rationale. The Indian Army of World War II remains the largest-ever all-volunteer military force and peaked at something like 3 million personnel. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Indian troops were part of the British Commonwealth forces, there was a list of Belligerents that included India as a sub bullet point of the UK, but that got changes a while back. As for the significance of the Poles; the country fell in a month but, the as the article states the military was evacuated and "continued to fight alongside the Allies on all fronts in Europe and North Africa". --Factor01 (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it should changed to British India from India. India is used to refer generally Republic of India, which did not exist in WW2.Ovsek (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Image: Mukden Incident - Background section

I would like to suggest adding an image of the Chinese delegation addressing the League of Nations in 1932, after the Mukden Incident[12]; in the Background section. This photo illustrates the events related to the Pacific region leading up to armed conflict, as well as the a session of the League of Nations which became synonymous with inaction. Also, this image has a direct mention in the text, and finally the picture is related to the conflict in Asia; which as noted by some other commentators is somewhat under represented. --Factor01 (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but is there a better photo? That one is a low quality scan from a book or newspaper (the bottom half is mainly black) Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are not many other images related to the the early pre-war events in Asia, I tried to find other pictures that illustrate the buildup to full scale war (without adding more pictures of soldiers, tanks, or bombers) instead focusing on the futile international effort in trying to avert the conflict. That is why, the photo is unique (though, of poor quality), because it shows world diplomacy; addresses the Manchurian Crisis in Asia, and depicts the League of Nations, that played a prominent role in events leading up to WWII, yet it proved itself to be completely impotent. So, we could add this one for now to highlight the point, and hunt for a better image in the future. Any thoughts?--Factor01 (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Should we add the proposed image, or is the idea effectively dead? --Factor01 (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather leave this photo out given the poor quality: it doesn't help readers understand the war. Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Canada Flag

On the right side under the Belligerents section, please use the correct Canadian flag. What you have there appears to be the flag of Ontario, a province in Canada. Flag_of_Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's actually the flag Canada used at the time of the war, and not the flag of flag of Ontario. Nick-D (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Serbian sphere of non-influence

Serbia was a puppet state from 1941-1944 during a large scale of the war. Should it not be included as an ally power? The fact is serbia is deeply rooted in germanic history and is susceptible for discrimination, however it was a victim of genocide. Was finland and leningrad not occupied throughout a major portion of world war 2 as well though? Yes, I understand these regions were occupied, however I noticed all the axis occupied countries had genocidal camps, and serbia was one of them. Was it not on the side of the allies as bulgaria and romania was on the side of the axis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

question to Nick-D and a proposal to revert edition

I move this topic to this public talk page from your talk page. My previous comment:I change something and you revert it. Actually, I just revert this to original version. You change this without discussion and moreover without any explain. [13] In this link, you revert my edition and that's OK. The problem is you also change the description of "Nanking Massacre" which was not edited by me. You did not explain why you change it and did not discussed in talk page before your change.
Another problem is the death number has dispute. We don't know whether it is ten thousands or hundred thousands so use the event name to keep neutral. I guess we had better not to use a disputable number to instead of neutral event name. Hence, I hope to revert the change. Miracle dream (talk)
I suggest to keep the event name "Nanking Massacre" like the original version to describe it. We cannot determine the correct figure but at least the event name is widely accepted. "Many","lots of", "large number" or other words may also have some dispute and these should be described in main article of nanking massacre. Hence, we can use event name "Nanking Massacre" to avoid dispute and it's also a way to keep neutral.In fact, we can revert it to the version before we started edition.
Do I need to copy your response for this? Miracle dream (talk)

What wording do you propose to work that into the article while still keeping the sentence grammatically correct and readable? Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nick-D (talk)Simply"committing Nanking Massacre".or "committed the Nanking Massacre." which is the original version (avoid any figure here and neutral description) That means: "The Japanese continued to push the Chinese forces back, capturing the capital Nanking in December 1937 and committing Nanking Massacre." or "The Japanese continued to push the Chinese forces back, capturing the capital Nanking in December 1937 and committed Nanking Massacre."Miracle dream (talk)
@Nick-D (talk)Another proposal: "The Japanese continued to push the Chinese forces back. In December 1937, Japanese captured the capital Nanking in December 1937 and committed the Nanking Massacre" Miracle dream (talk)
I don't think that any of those options is good grammatically, and can't think of a good way to work the term into a sentence. As there doesn't seem to be any particular need to have the term in the article, I think that the piped link is a better option. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nick-D (talk) I don't think current way is a good description because it has dispute number and can not be considered as a neutral word. My proposal is the original version for this article and actually you change this version without any explain and discussion. Then we cannot use a dispute word because of good grammar. Actually keep neutral is important. We can use a neutral word and correct the grammar later. As an admin, I guess you would have a neutral attitude,right? Moreover, my proposal is the original sentence to describe this which was kept in this article 1 or 2 year. Nobody thought is Inappropriate before you change it. Also, can you tell me what's the grammar problem for my proposal. Miracle dream (talk)
Abusing me on my talk page by accusing me of being racist is just about the worst way to have this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know my words may infer you are the racist. Can you see your talk page? Miracle dream (talk)
I didn't know my word may infer you are racist. I guess I misunderstand the word what I wrote and my English is not good OK, I disengage this 24 hours and I am sorry about that but can we continue this discussion after this 24 hours? I know I offend you but I think it is necessary to deal with this discussion. Also, I am sorry and I hope you can accept my apology.Miracle dream (talk)

Byzantine Empire???

Unbelievable that vandalism exists on such an important article for a quite long time...--Severino (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Severino: Where did you spot this in the article? I can't see it anywhere. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see it was added to the bloated infobox yesterday and fixed four hours late today by Srnec (talk · contribs). I've just permanently semi-protected the infobox to stop this happening again - apparently only a small number of accounts have this high profile template watchlisted, so we're lucky that it hasn't attracted more vandals. Thanks for reporting this. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Severino (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Exact Date for Dropping atom bombs hiroshima and nagasagi

The article says "In early august the atomic bombs were dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki", but it could read "On august 6th the plane enola gay dropped the (name of bomb) atomic bomb on hiroshima, followed by the the second atom bomb being dropped on Nagasaki three days later". It Wouldnt let me edit it though

Beautron7 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Commanders and Leaders

Harry Truman should be listed under the allies in the Commander and Leaders box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

First use of name

There are discussions in the talk page archives dating back to 2007 on this topic: is there any reason why this article doesn't indicate when the term "Second World War" was first used to describe the conflict? It is discussed at the general article World war, but it should be included here too so people don't have to go hunting for it. The discussions 7 years ago suggested adding it to the introduction of the article. (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverted quote from Adolf Galland

Reverted the Adolf Galland quote in the War breaks out in Europe (1939–40) section. This type of information is completely irrelevant, and trivial to the overall context of the section. Who is Adolf Galland in the first place, and why is his quote so important? Also, a significant portion of the section was also altered without prior discussion; the new edit actually removed sourced text, with links to other WP articles used as reference. --Factor01 (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but if you don't know who Galland is, I don't think you should be editing this page at all. Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther, please understand that due to size and scope of the article only the most fundamental information should be added. Also, any alterations to the existing text needs to be discussed first and gain approval, due to the significance of the article, and the varying interpretations of the events. --Factor01 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Shouldn't Finland's belligerency change at the end of the war be mentioned in the note like Bulgaria, Romania etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge the Fins fought for the Fins, at the start of the war this was against the Russians and aligned with the Germans (but never open support in e.g. the siege of Leninburg), by the end of the war they fought the Germans who entered their country. So no clear alliance was ever there, and no change of alliance (as in Romania and Bulgaria) occurred. So I would suggest to keep as is. Arnoutf (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The became aliied with the Britsh etc against the Germans. This change should be noted as it is with other Eastern Front belligerents even if the circumstances are not as clear as Romania and Bulgaria. (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

League of Nations image

I'd like to propose adding an image of a League of Nations session the Background section. The image would be related to a mention of China's request for diplomatic assistance from the League. Also, I think the institution is a rather significant symbol of futility from that era; it grew out of a need after WWI to resolve national disputes in a open diplomatic session, but ultimately the nations of the world were not able to prevent the outbreak of the WWII. [14]. Image caption reads: Parliaments from around the world. The Parliament of the peoples. View of the meeting hall of the League of Nations in Geneva. Please advise if such photo is a useful addition to the text. --Factor01 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That section does not currently have any material focused on the role and performance of the LoN. I'd suggest that it should (a sentence or two), but the photo shouldn't precede it IMO. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

World War II vs Second World War

Please forgive me if this has been discussed beforehand but I couldn't find any evidence of it being so. Anyway, as this article is written in British English it'd surely be logical for the article itself to be titled in the British and Commonwealth style of 'Second World War' as opposed to the American style of 'World War II'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EncyclopaediaNilssonia (talkcontribs) 15:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Per WP:CONCISE. I can't imagine any British person coming on here and being confused by "World War II" instead of "Second World War". I mean, its not like there were other World Wars besides the first one, and by having the "II" at the end, I think it's sufficient and concise enough for one to understand which war this article is talking about. Twyfan714 (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Super-secret double probation?

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

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

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

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