Talk:World War II/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Xaxafrad's additions and my edits

Just to explain my edits of Xaxafrad's additions based on the french article.

1) I removed the reparations issue as this was not a faithful translation and is prone to be misunderstood. The French article essentially talks about unsatisfactory resolution of WWI, which does not just involve German misunderstanding of the reason for reparations...

2) I removed the Spanish Civil War as I don't believe this is generally seen as a part of WWII (it's a precursor war).

3) Added a short explanation for the urge for European Unification, maybe a link to Euro Federalism might have been more appropriate then the EU link I used, but I'm not sure these motivations are fully explained in any article.

4) Added political dissidents/opposition persecution to Atrocities, this is actually how many concentration camps such as Dachau started. Note that other political currents should probably be added (Christian Social(ists) for instance, I'm not entirely neutral in this case).

5) According removal of murder of dissidents... as that's now covered under atrocities.

6) Removal of Napalm as that doesn't seem to have seen much use in World War II. What's really meant is fire bombing, and probably White Phosphorus.

Otherwise just minor changes and corrections.

One question, which language standard is used for this article? I'd assume international, but I find many sentences in later parts of the article using american spelling. I was wondering because of the term labor/labour.--Caranorn 12:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Were you the person that made the introduction a lot longer? If you did than bravo cause it's a lot better than it was... --LtWinters 19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No that was Xaxafrad's work, I just edited it somewhat.--Caranorn 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War and WW2

I think there is virtually no mention of Spain, or the Spanish Civil War in this entire humongous article. Spain was a republic before 1936. Franco, a nationalist, almost a socialist, was supported for three years by over $200 million sent from Hitler and Mussolini. The republican government was supported by the Soviet Union. The others allies and members of the League of Nations kept their heads in the sand, afraid of another bloody nose (actually, they were afraid of jumping into a war they weren't sure they could win, since losing another war could lead to a popular uprising, and that's the last thing a democratic government wants). The Spanish Civil War is intimately tied to the pre-war political climate of Europe. It also laid the foundation of distrust between Hitler and Stalin. Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in this article? 75.111.32.151 21:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it should be mentioned, but you were wrong about one thing. The US did send troops into the Spanish Civil War. There was no draft, it was only volunteers. --LtWinters 22:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you find a good place in the article I'll add it for you. --LtWinters 15:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that "The US sent troops into the Spanish Civil War" or "Some combatants (on one side or the other, e.g. in the International Brigade or whatever) in the Spanish Civil War were Americans". These two statements are emphatically not the same. If the former, I find that remarkable, and this is the first time I have ever heard about this. I would be grateful if you could provide more details. Badgerpatrol 15:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there was a volunteer military unit in the International Brigade made up of Americans, called the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. By 1937 it had about 450 members, and I'm not sure how they organized that but in the WWII infantry that could be from 2 or 3 companies to a whole battalion. It saw combat from 1937-1938. --LtWinters 17:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What does the spanish cival war have to do with world war 2? M_1 20:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish Civil War is relevant because it was supposed to lay the foundation of testing technology and political relationships for WWII

Resistance and Collaboration

Well I commonly read over stuff so if no one corrects me by 4/20 then I'm going to add stuff, but doesn't that subtopic "Resistance and Collaboration" not include any collaboration? All it says is some Germans resisted allied rule... but what about the French collaboration? Petain was sentenced to life in prison for it! The only reason they didn't execute him was because of his WWI contributions.--LtWinters 15:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support inclusion of Vichy and other examples of collaboration. Don't forget that Petain wasn't the only Vichy collaborator. Maxime Weygand, Pierre Laval, Joseph Darnand, and François Darlan were all notable collabortators. Parsecboy 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to do that now because since we did a huge revision on the main body of the article that section may be deleted. --LtWinters 00:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek Civil war

This happened after World War 2. So why is it under the heading of "Contemporary wars of world war 2" ? Its like saying that the Turkish war of Independence was a war of world war 1 when of course, it happened after. Tourskin.

Where's it say that in the WWII article?--24.225.156.40 18:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Greek Civil War was a direct consequence of WWII, I'm not sure it's in the article right now, but a short sentence would not be out of place. If you read the GCW article you will find that the first and second stage of the Civil War coincided with WWII.--Caranorn 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.156.40 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

It is in the article people, its under CONTEMPORARY WARS with that list including the Finnish Lapland war, anglo-iraqiu war, winter war etc.

On another note, I now see that the Greek civil war did have an earlier phase during World war 2. I wouldn't call it a direct consequence, other than the fact that there was a power vacuum. Well world war 2 didn't help the country, thats for sure. Tourskin 01:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

War in Europe

I just have to correct what is written about Vidkun Quisling weakening the norwegian defense forces, it is absolutely prepostorous. It was created many theories about this after the war, but every seroius historian in Norway has rejected this as rediculous propaganda. In my opinion the picture of Vidkun Quisling is, for those who know of him as in foregin history, very incorrect, though that is another subject. If there was any weakening of the norwegian defense the guilt is to be carried by Quislings political opponents who almost completely disarmed the norwegian military during their reign in the 30s, but that is also another subject.

The news about Quisling was reported almost immediately after it happened, in an article entitled, "Quislings Everywhere". The historians you cite, who think this is ridiculous or preposterous, must have had their brains trampled in by moose. Haber 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox combatants

Since I don't think a short list of "major" combatants violates WP:NPOV, as evidenced by numerous other interwiki infoboxes, I'll include as many countries as I think the infobox can hold, without becoming overwhelmingly large. Xaxafrad 05:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Finland not in the Axis? I think they were a considerably more major power then Bulgaria. And how can we have Australia, France and Canada, but not include Poland in the Allies? Why do we have the number of combatants that we do? I'm assuming you have a fact-based and referenced answer to these questions, otherwise, I'm calling NPOV. Oberiko 12:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One more point, why are they in the order that they're in? It's not alphabetical, so why is Australia placed higher then the United Kingdom? Oberiko 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of including Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada, couldn't it just say "United Kingdom with colonies and Commonwealth"? And if Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania are included, then Poland (and probably other Allies) should be as well. Is it possible to find a list of armed forces by country in WW2, and just add the countries with the highest numbers? 96T 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be very hard (quite likely impossible) to find a list everyone will agree on. Generally I'd agree that countries such as Poland, Belgium or Greece, for their initial contributions to the war, should be included in a list that includes countries like Canada, Australia or New Zealand. But in the end, the best solution seems to be to list no one and instead link to the Allies respectively Axis articles. I wish that mediation (I was not listed initially, and decided not to sign up) had lead to some solution acceptable to everyone.--Caranorn 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding Poland, Greece, Norway and Finland if no one can give me a good reason why they shouldn't be there. Oberiko 22:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, we can't keep doing this guys. This is why that whole mediation thing failed a month ago, because people kept saying well I'll put in whatever I feel like. SO NO ONE PUT IN ANY MORE COUNTRIES. THERE ARE ENOUGH AS OF RIGHT NOW. If you want to put in another one, just leave a message here and we'll discuss it and if it seems reasonable then we'll add it. --LtWinters 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That was basically the point I was trying to make. It's an extremely slippery slope here from having X to having X + 1. Once I added Poland, Greece, Norway and Finland, I'd be clear to add New Zealand (they were in the war so much longer then Poland) as an Ally, and the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent of the Axis (they supplied more manpower against the Allies (Polish Campaign) then the Bulgarians did). Of course, since we then have the USSR on both sides, I'm clear to do the same with Finland.

Poland never surrendered to the Germans. Poland through out the entire war was a major allied power. Until Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, Poland was right behind Britain in the number of troops as well as resources provided against Germans.

In the long run, I wanted to show this. I can easily prove country X was in the war and can usually find some metric where they are more major then another nation we already have. As soon as country X is in, I can go to country Y which did nearly as much and ask why the line was drawn to exclude them. Repeat until the full list is present. At this point, the infobox is essentially useless as a summary ("Why are Finland, France, U.S.S.R. and Italy listed twice (or more!)") and we have to go back to the Allies and Axis. Doesn't sound pleasant, I know, but it's something that has happened and will again, I just wanted to speed up the process and demonstrate exactly why we can't list the combatants by nation. Oberiko 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my idea. Let's just stick with the Big Three for each side. United Kingdom, USSR, and United States in that order (alphabetical), and Italy, Japan, and Nazi Germany. I would add that right now but those infoboxes are too confusing for me to learn to operate, so if someone else could do it I'd appreciate it (sorry, I don't want to sound lazy so I'll learn sometime).--24.225.156.40 11:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

96T, if we are going to use the Commonwealth (technically "British Commonwealth" in 1926-49) as shorthand for Canada, Australia, India etc — and I stress that I do not support this — then we should also remove the UK since the basic idea of the Commonwealth (as opposed to the Empire) was that the UK was just one member among many, not the leader or even "first among equals". Also Ireland was technically part of the Commonwealth during WW2 and it was neutral so... Grant | Talk 07:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I realize my original judgment in listing combatants was poor; it was almost arbitrary. So instead, I'm going to use the countries mentioned in section 0 of Allies and Axis as a short list of "major" combatants, using the "and others" link to fill in for the remaining sections of those articles. Tell me how that violates NPOV. If somebody wants to add Canada or Poland or Hungary or Finland, let them do it to the lead sections of the Allies and Axis articles first. Doesn't that sound fair? Xaxafrad 18:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Poland was there, but you either conveniently didn't see them or chose to ignore your own logic. I've added them. Oberiko 10:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --LtWinters 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Xaxafrad, I agree with the 5v3. Nice job. Haber 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So, if I were to add "The original Allies, as a result of the Franco-Polish Military Alliance and Polish-British Common Defence Pact at the outbreak of the European Theatre of war, were the United Kingdom, France and Poland." to the Allies page, would I then be able to add Poland to the list of major Allies? Same goes for the Soviet Union if I include them as a major co-belligerent on the Axis page during the early phase of the war. Oberiko 22:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a fine idea to me. We can include the Soviet Union on both lists, with notes, and it will be even more informative. I don't think such notes will be overly cumbersome, but we'll have to see how they look to be sure. Oh, what about the Western betrayal? Didn't that kind of make those "old era" treaties meaningless? The UN is really a much better deterrent to war than the "if you attack me, my friends will attack you" strategy. Xaxafrad 02:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus for including the combatants in the infobox, I anticipate another long and tedious edit war. Grant | Talk 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus for including them, and since if they are included there is even less consensus for just who "them" are, isn't the best solution - for the stability of the article and the sanity of editors - to just leave them out? Primum non nocere and all that. Eron ^Talk 03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Don't expect logic to prevail, however. Grant | Talk 03:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Why are we cramming in as many countries as possible? THERE'S A PAGE FOR BOTH AXIS AND ALLIES! There's really no reason to throw such minor countries as Bulgaria in there. --Throw some d's 12:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would much rather have just Axis and Allies than try to list all countries - especially when someone decided to put some countries on both sides. Yeah, that's really comprehensive. "Italy was on both sides! What? What do you mean you don't get it?"Jwinters820 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting On Infobox

~please only put you name, date, and time, and if you must a sentance or two on your position~

This voting is on which major nations will be in the allies/axis infobox. It has been suggested (although it may change) that all votes be entered by 4/22.

ALLIES AS: United Kingdom and All Commonwealth, United States, and USSR

AXIS AS: Italy, Emperial Japan, and Nazi Germany

YES:

--LtWinters 02:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

NO:

--I think that "Allies" and "Axis" is better than your proposal because it solves endless arguments such as why isn't China included (IMHO, their war effort was greater than that of Italy). And btw, if you list the Big Three alphabetically, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics would be placed first, not last (not that I think that's wrong). With respect, Ko Soi IX 04:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Axis and Allies (or vice versa) seems to be the only approach that could work in the long run. Even if it were decided to opt for major Powers, those should not be the Big Three.--Caranorn 12:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

YES: absolutely. how can anyone argue who the major powers are? it's almost common knowledge. Merely leaving it as Axis and Allies provides no information. --Jwinters820 12:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What about China? They tied down almost the entirety of the Japanese Army and lost a significant number of people. Why are you against putting the Chinese in the infobox? Oberiko 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It obviously isn't common knowledge, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about it. One can make an excellent case for any number of nations (for the Allies, France, China, Poland and various Commonwealth nations stand out, for the Axis Hungary, Romania, Vichy etc etc can and have all been suggested). Equally, we can make arguments against them. Some have offered arguments against for example the USSR being classed as a "major" ally. It would not be hard to construct cases against the UK and US either, on various grounds (perhaps this has already been done at some stage of the debate). The whole situation is ridiculous. Either everyone should go in the infobox, or no-one at all. PS- I apologise to you Lt. Winters if my comments below sound short, but I think we are all a little frustrated here by what I frankly see as needless intransigence. It seems that you are a newbie and may not be familiar with how the Wikipedia "system" "works" (...). You should probably read the archives of this page and the relevant pages on constructing straw polls. Your poll is flawed because it completely ignores the total removal of nations from the infobox, a course of action which is in fact supported by the vast majority. Voting will not work because one side has resolved to refuse to accept any outcome that is not favourable to their point of view, regardless of the strength of support for it. I don't mean that as a personal attack on anyone, I am stating it as a manifest fact based on prior experience. What we need now is to come to some sort of compromise to end this frustrating mess. PPS- I assume that "Jwinters820" is either your sockpuppet or a friend or relative. It's usually considered quite bad form to participate in Wiki debates without acknowledging this. All the best, Badgerpatrol 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think with the sub-note "and others", it is very fair to include only the major powers (stated above) in the info box. Obviously France wasn't a major player, and China almost never comes to mind when thinking about major combatants in WWII. Taking all of the countries out would be taking information away. Who doesn't know the terms "Allies" and "Axis?" Providing just the major countries involved provides information without too much information. --Throw some d's 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is about China - they did nothing to fight the Japanese compared to the Americans (Taking back most of the pacific islands and nuclear bombing two major cities (which resulted in the Japanese surrender.)) -- Throw some d's 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This will sound odd but actually I changed my mind about China as Oberiko pointed out... 20 million dead? That's as much as the USSR so I feel its fair to put them in. --LtWinters 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But it comes back to China being a major combatant. It fought one country and, for the most part, lost. Jwinters820 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm LtWinters' cousin. He told me about this, and I thought I'd give my two cents. --Jwinters820 21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC) If there are links to the individual pages for Allies and Axis powers, why list all countries? The major combatants provide enough detail for a basic understanding, and if a reader wants more information, he can click on the links. -- Jwinters820 21:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting on More Votes < --- Shall we delete this section? Jwinters820 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why France is included in Allies list, and Poland isnt? There was more Polish troop in war, than French...

Guest

Q: Who thinks we should waste our time with yet another vote over an intractable issue that has been discussed exhaustively over the past 3 months and over which we have already conducted 4 votes (or is it 5? I think the madness is starting to set in as my mind atrophies from the tedium and frustration....) , of which only one was legitimately and logically conducted (the result of which was completely ignored for no good reason). Badgerpatrol 09:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

NO

• ME. Badgerpatrol 09:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Winters, asides from this being a shoddy vote set-up, read the history archive (the two combatants sections) to see the discussion. This is a waste of time. Oberiko 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's a waste of time, why did you comment? --LtWinters 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's not a waste of time, why didn't he vote? Badgerpatrol 15:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he has a life?--LtWinters 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

YES

I just want to point out that the Spanish, Italians, Dutch, and Polish were able to agree on something, to name a few. Why can't we?

Note that they also don't agree with each other. And other Wiki's generally aren't considered extraordinarily reliable sources. Oberiko 01:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are reliable sources, and although they argued they were at least able to put down something. You guys seem to be forgetting, if you search ww2 in Google this article is the first you get, and in yahoo its the third. This article is not for us- its for the 7th grader doing a history report on WWII, and trying to make this article more confusing than it is allows us to understand it- but not the reader. --LtWinters 10:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

NO

I feel that even if they did not directly participate in the war, the fact that they supported either the Allied or Axis should be enough to keep them on the list. It would be unfair to dishonor countrys that participated, even if they barely did so. --Eiyuu Kou 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is to list the nations that made big contributions, not small ones. Those nations who made minor contributions would be kept on the allied list, but not on the major power list. It's like saying Spain should be listed as a major power because it severed relations with Japan. --LtWinters 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

YES!

Regardless of what countries made large contributions, the facts stand: the major powers, recognized by historians and universities, are the four Allied Forces (United States, United Kingdom, and USSR) and the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan). Other countries may have lost many soldiers, pointing out the dedication and the inferiority of the countries armed forces, yet the diplomatic power and influence rests in these few countries' hands. --Dkwinters 12:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom's Role Played Down

Considering World War 2 was started when Great Britain declared war on Germany.

The thing that really made it a world war was Great Britain's massive empire being at war with the Axis, and that Great Britain in the lead up to World War 2 had been the World's main policing Superpower due to its leadership of the League of Nations and the extensiveness of its empire, influence, and overseas trade. Great Britain's role during the Second World War was played down over the duration of the Cold War by people mistaking Great Britain's strength during the Cold War as its strength during the Second World War.

In regards to Second World War roles played by nations people tend to overexagerate the Soviet Union's role by mistaking the increase in its power during the Cold War as its power during the Second World War and with Great Britain they down play its role by mistaking its power during the Cold War as its power during the Second World War.

In 1939 when the Second World War started Great Britain was no weakling considering though it no longer had the world's highest GDP it was the world's largest trading nation and its GDP was only second behind the United States, with the largest empire in the world (more than all others at the time combined), and militarily it had the world's largest navy, arguably the world's most advanced air force with the launch of the Spitfire fighters and it being the only country in the world to start using radar and was also the first country to start researching the atom bomb.

My point is that in the factbox I think Great Britain should be the first mentioned considering all this and the main points of that the Second World War was really Great Britain's war against Fascism when it declared war on the number 1 Fascist country Germany and got its ally France to do the same, who at the time just followed whatever Great Britain did.

The Second World War was started by Great Britain as its last resort of stopping Fascism's advance around the globe as it was the world's only policeman at the time along with its protege France, and so Great Britain really should be the first mentioned in the infobox. Also Great Britain was in the Second World War longer than any other country in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.10.175 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this about the infobox? If it's not, and it's really about the content of the article, then go ahead and add whatever comments about Britain you want, 88.109.10.175, but use references if you want them to stick around....Oh, I see it is about the "factbox". In that case, go to Allies of World War II and make Britain the first country named in the article, and I will make it the first country in the infobox. But all those facts you spoke of, if true, deserve to be in Wikipedia, somewhere (because the WW2 article is pretty full, although some facts would probably be appropriate for general inclusion). Xaxafrad 02:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you being serious or facetious? Do you mean that the countries listed in the infobox are now going to follow whatever order they are listed in on Allies of World War II and Axis Powers of World War II. If you're not joking...where's the logic in that? Badgerpatrol 09:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Xaxafrad, I notice that you didn't even follow your own logic and didn't add Poland. I've added it and now question the NPOV since we have Poland (which fought for a month as a nation) but not some other nations that fought for the entire duration of the war. Oberiko 10:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The article I was looking at when I picked out the "major" members of the Allies was this one. I still don't see Poland in the lead. Xaxafrad 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox lineup

Wouldn't the most simple way to order the countries would be to have them in chronology of when they joined the war rather than in any fashion or some other way? The Axis lineup seems to be ordered by chronology of when they joined the war. In what way are the Allies supposed to be set at the moment? I think it's very disrespectful to the UK that it's so low on the list and makes it seem like the war it created against Fascism has been hijacked by others.

UK was arguably the third most important allied power. It's war effort was probably greater than that of China, while certainly less than that of the Soviet Union and the United States. As for the "war against Fascism" - they did create it to an extent, in Munich in 1938. Ko Soi IX 04:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nations violate NPOV

Why is Poland in the infobox (which it is according to Xaxafrad's logic of using the Allies page), which was only in the war as a nation for about a month, but not Canada, which fought from the begging until the end? Oberiko 10:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bulgaria, Italy, Finland and Romania (which still satisfy the use of the Allies page) but not Canada? Definite NPOV. Oberiko 10:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are these guys allies?????? Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, and Finland?--24.225.156.40 11:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Because they fought with the Allies and because they are mentioned in the lead in for Allies of World War II. To exclude them would therefore be illogical. Badgerpatrol 12:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit pointy. Everyone agrees (I hope) that "Allies" and "Axis" are the two combatant groups. No one agrees (apparently) on which members of those groups should be listed, in what order, and how many of them. Yes, yes, there is a Big 3 faction, a 5v3 faction, a list-'em-all-and-let-God-sort-'em-out faction, but there is no consensus. It's all opinion. So I'll ask a question that I asked in a previous incarnation of this debate: what do reliable, verifiable sources say? Is there a consensus view among reliable historical sources as to who the "major" Allied and Axis nations were? If so, then we should publish that list with a reference. If not, then any list is inherently POV, probably original research, and has no place here. - Eron ^Talk 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, EronMain; we've tried that before, and any source that lists a certain list can be contradicted by another source with a different list. Several editors as well as myself have been saying this for a long time now: the only suitable option is to list only the links to the Allies and Axis pages. Parsecboy 12:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. If the sources that we are supposed to use can't even agree, how are we supposed to? - Eron ^Talk 12:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That is at least a sensible suggestion. Unfortunately...any list, even if defined using sources is not going to be stable. There is so much written about WWII that any number of sources can be invoked to support a given editor's point of view. It will not be hard to find a source that mentions only the "Big 3". It will not be hard to find a source that includes those 3 and France. Or those 3 and China. Or those 4 and China. Or that includes Poland. Or that lists the Commonwealth as separate to Britain. Or that doesn't. Or that lists the USSR as fighting with the Axis. Or that doesn't. Or that lists France as being Vichy and therefore with the Axis. Or that doesn't. That is the problem. The selection of the sources in this case is just as liable to POV as anything else, and in a situation like this where national sentiment and POV are inherent (I notice that this recent edit [1] left in Finland as an Ally (even though they actually declared war on Germany in March 1945) but took out Romania and Bulgaria (which declared war on Germany in 1944), that's a big issue. Badgerpatrol 12:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I restored (and asked the editor to leave input here). Oberiko 12:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Canada should be listed as a MAJOR combatant because they fought in actual battles alongside the other Allies but they even have a memorial to commemorate the soldiers lost in WWII. --Eiyuu Kou 16:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

The section says it all. It seems Badgerpatrol and Oberiko's last edits to both this article and the Allied Powers article were to prove a point (that anyone could add any country any which way). Don't do that! It only disrupts the information we are trying to provide to average users. lets instead try and debate rationally how we can solve the current problem.--Caranorn 13:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. So I'm going to restore to Allies and Axis until (if) an objective, NPOV criteria is selected. Oberiko 01:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It was actually my intent to rejigg the intro to Allies of World War II to reflect the actual complexity of the issue, but I suppose you are correct that the effect has been to emphasise how ridiculous the notion of deciding the infobox according to the arbitrary ordering in another page. As to your other point- rational debate has been tried and has failed. A coterie of editors- in fact, perhaps just one person- has demonstrated that they will neither listen to rational debate, put forward any logical counterargument, or abide by the overwhelming result of a fairly conducted and reasonable poll. I think that one side of the debate has *always* been careful to coolly discuss the issue, take everything slowly, canvass the opinions of everyone and only take action when it seems a consensus has been reached. The other side- hasn't. Any frustration that has now built up (over a simple issue that should and could have been resolved months ago) directly stems from that obstinacy and needless intransigence. Badgerpatrol 13:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just don't know where to respond in this discussion any more, so I'll add my comments to the end. Is it really "ridiculous" to use the articles devoted to the listing of all the allies of both camps as an informal authority on who the "major" members were? Wikipedia is usually not a list, but those two articles are effectively just that, but with an appropriate amount of prose thrown in. More or less prose can add comments about minor countries, or remove all comments about any countries. If it comes to that, then let the infobox reflect it. Didn't somebody talk about Britain's importance in the war and spout dozens of facts, seemingly off the top of their head, all in support of changing the infobox instead of the body of WW2 or Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II, and without signing the talk page. How serious should we take those suggestions? Xaxafrad 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to interwiki infoboxes

World War II
World War II montage image Clockwise from top: Allied landing on Normandy beaches on D-Day, the gate of a Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz, Red Army soldiers raising the Soviet flag over the Reichstag in Berlin, the Nagasaki atom bomb, and German police entering Austria.
Date September 1, 1939 – September 2, 1945 Location Europe, Pacific, South-East Asia, Middle East, Mediterranean and Africa Result Allied victory. Creation of the United Nations. Emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as superpowers. Creation of First World and Second World spheres of influence in Europe leading to the Cold War.
Belligerents
Allies  Australia  Belgium  Canada  China  Czechoslovakia  Egypt  Finland  France (to 1940)  Free France  Free Thai  Greece  India  Italy  New Zealand  Poland  South Africa  Soviet Union  United Kingdom  United States ...and others	Axis powers  Bulgaria  Croatia  Finland (to 1944)  Germany  Hungary  Italy (to 1943)  Japan  Manchuria  Norway  Romania  Slovakia  Soviet Union (to 1941)  Thailand  Vichy France ...and others
Commanders and leaders
Allied leaders	Axis leaders
Casualties and losses
Military dead: 12,000,000 Civilian dead: 33,000,000 Total dead: 45,000,000	Military dead: 6,000,000 Civilian dead: 3,000,000 Total dead 9,000,000

As of April 20th, of the 86 interwiki articles linked from en:WW2, 34 have been developed enough to gain infoboxes...

• 5 wikis (including en) list only Allies and Axis: en, fr, ca, no, th
• 14 wikis list some individual countries, and link to the full articles: es, pt, nl, da, id, vi, tr, zh, hr, ru, bs, sr, sh, fy
• 6 wikis note there were other countries, but have, so far, inconsistently linked to the full articles: pl, it, he, sk, bg, bn
• 9 wikis may or may not include a note about, and links to, the others: ja, sv, fi, lv, cs, ur, el, ar, yi

I took the liberty of bolding the top 10 biggest wikis which have links from wikipedia.org, as I'm assuming those wikis have the most users, and the most oversight, and are most likely to be well developed and within Wikipedia's guidelines. It doesn't seem like listing a few countries in the infobox really violates NPOV. So again, I assert that the listing of just a few countries is not biased, is not against Wikipedia policies, and is more informative to the dear readers.

But there are some obvious drawbacks to such a listing. I won't spell them out at this point, as anyone involved in this discussion is already aware of the situation. If a 3vs3 short list is undesirable, then let's go with something like 15vs15...I'm going to take every country from all the interwiki infoboxes and see if that makes our infobox want to throw up. If it looks okay, then we'll see how many countries still want to be added.... Xaxafrad 17:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time at this point, but if anyone wants to comment (additions, subtractions) on my new list before I start getting the appropriate wikilinks together, feel free: (US, UK/Crown colonies, SU, France, Canada, China, India, Australia, Poland, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, Belgium, Brazil, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia) vs (Germany, Italy, SU, Japan, Bulgaria, Finland, Romania, Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia, Thailand, Yugoslavia, Vichy France, Manchukou, Spain, Argentina, Turkey). That's 17vs17, and I'll be alphabetizing them for the infobox. Xaxafrad 17:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that would actually violate one agreed usages of the infobox itself, as agreed on by the Military History task force.

“ combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. ”

Oberiko 18:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is 17 a large number? If I only need to take off my socks to count to it, it's not too big. Note the heavy use of the word "may" in those guidelines (because it's not a policy). I also read somewhere that flagicons were discouraged, but that's mostly the only reason I want to see some individual countries. For reference, only a handful of the interwiki infoboxes didn't use flags. Xaxafrad 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think 17 is easily readable, especially since if it's at that amount, we would have a few nations on both sides. That would cause a lot more confusion then it would solve. I'm still not understanding what your objection to Allies and Axis is though. Oberiko 21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that I feel "Allies vs Axis" is unnecessarily short, I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I think we can find another solution. In my view, I'm working on the problem, while you're ignoring it. But in your view, I'm guessing, there wouldn't even be a problem if I would ignore the infobox.

Ultimately, I didn't stick with that exact list, mostly leaving off Argentina, Yugoslavia, Turkey, and maybe some others; it wound up with 16 vs 13.

I still believe we can have a partial list of combatants without violating the NPOV or OR policies. Xaxafrad 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Axis and Allies (+ allied forces) is to short at all; it's the only entry which fully encapsulates the combatants without going overboard on explaining who and why (which we have three separate articles for) and not choosing who to include based on dubious criteria. Oberiko 04:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I say yes to Germany, Japan and Italy for the Axis, USSR, UK, USA and China for the allies. We can also go just Germany and Japan for the axis (Italy can be excluded, for they were not as significant as the other two) and USSR, UK and USA for the allies. Thegoodson 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of my point. 20vs14, as I have now put together, doesn't seem too big when viewed as a whole with the rest of the article. Which other countries might you recommend to add? Xaxafrad 04:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like that new info box at all. First off, how did we choose those 20 and 14? Why not 21 and 15? What objective criteria did you use to select them and why? As you've included non-nations, such as the Free French, does that mean we can include resistance movements, including partisans? What about governments-in-exile? Does a nation like Brazil really warrant mention? And what will you do about leaders, put every leader (both political and military)? And why is Norway in the Axis side?

I've reverted (until we resolve this) and put the infobox you created here for reference. Personally, I feel this causes many more problems then it solves. Oberiko 04:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I went to the interwiki versions of WW2 and selected all the countries from the lengthiest infoboxes. Then I scanned some comments from the above discussions and added an extra handful. Which resistance movements, partisan groups, and governments-in-exile do you propose to add, or was that facetiousness? Do other resistance movements have their own flag? Is Brazil really inappropriate? Let's remove it (done, on the reference infobox). I don't recommend listing leaders with a large partial list of countries. Norway was occupied by Nazis, and the government was at least partially purged of non-National Socialist elements.

Doesn't a long list (15-20ish) best reflect the enormous span and composition of the alliances? And why should such a reflection not be permitted in this article? It's not because of length issues: between the lead and TOC on the left, and the info and campaign boxes on the right, they're just about equal in length, with the long infobox. This big war deserves a big head, stylistically speaking, no?

I'm truly sorry that I can't see a good reason for not listing these countries. You might have to explain your position as if to a child. Xaxafrad 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you listed a good reason yourself. I shouldn't be able to add or remove a nation simply because I feel it belongs there or not, that's what caused the masses of problems prior (Person 1:"France belongs there." Person 2:"France doesn't belong there.") My opinion on if a nation belongs there or not, along with that of everyone else, is just an opinion; who can say it is correct? Basically, it's not who is in the box I'm so concerned with, it's why they are in there.

I do not believe that a long list best reflects the composition of the alliances, as the listing puts all nations on equal terms. Is Chile (which remained neutral until 1945) an Ally to the same extent as the United Kingdom? It would be misleading to the reader to have them both there.

Looking at the map on the right shows the alliances; it's basically the entire world, would you list every nation in there? If you do, the list (which is supposed to be a concise overview, not a detailed explanation) is meaningless. If you don't, where would you cut off and why? How would you determine the cut-off point? What makes the cut-off point that you decide any more valid then one that I decide?

The problem lies in the metrics. There are hundreds of ways we can try to measure the contribution of a nation: the length of time they were at war (both officially and unofficially), material/supply contribution, military contribution, political role and influence etc.. To highlight these difficulties: of the Big Three, who was the most important member? It'd be easy to bring verifiable facts to the argument in support for any of them, and ultimately would depend on the metrics used. If we can't answer it between three nations, how are we supposed to effectively place a demarcation somewhere between over fifty? Oberiko 13:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

TOTAL INCONSISTENCY...WHAT THE HECK?

Soo...in like three places in the article, different numbers of casualties are marked. Like in the first part, the article says like 62 people died, and in the second part it said 73 people died!!! What the heck! This article is soooo inconsistant!!! Can someone make it better? Lila 14:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we're too busy arguing over issues which should have been sorted out months ago and for which the solution is obvious. I do have a gap in my Wiki diary in about February next year tho, provided the current issue has been resolved by then (Inshallah....) Badgerpatrol 14:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Given these edits, I would suggest that if you don't want inconsistency, don't introduce it. - Eron ^Talk 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed that because WAY over 62 million people died. At first, I didn't see the number in the fisrt part of the article. But you are evading. Lila 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What am I evading? If you think there are factual errors or inconsistencies in the article, then do something about it. But try not to make the problem worse in so doing. - Eron ^Talk 14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We should include a numerical spread of estimates to make the uncertainty explicit (although I do think it is already stated fairly clearly that there is no exact estimate). 62 million is certainly a reasonable figure, as is 75 million. Badgerpatrol 14:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've edited the general statements ("XX million dead...") to reflect the apparently well-referenced count of approximately 72 million as detailed in World War II casualties. So that at least is consistent. The infobox breakdown into Allies/Axis and military/civilian does not match this total and some serious number-crunching may be required to fix that, once we figure out just who the Allies and Axis countries were. Then there will be some no doubt controversial decisions over things like where to count Holocaust victims. (Killed by the Axis, so they must be Allied casualties? Residents and citizens of Axis countries, so the must be Axis casualties? Oy.) In any event, at least the grand totals in the body of the article now match, unless I missed one somewehere. - Eron ^Talk 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We should put somewhere that all guesses are estimates, because I've heard so many different figures. All these figures you guys keep saying are higher than what I've heard. I've heard 52, 55-60, and 62 million, never 72 million. Are there any other sources that say there were 72 million deaths? This figure comes from the addition of all the other sources, which is not working. --LtWinters 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If 72 million is wrong - and I'm not saying it isn't - then World War II casualties needs to be fixed too. All I was attempting to do was to ensure internal consistency in this article, and consistency with the main Wikipedia article. I'd rather be consistently wrong than inconsistently wrong. - Eron ^Talk 20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that it needs to be fixed, but it really can't because all sources differ. For example, a Dutch source on Belgian casualties may say 1 million Belgians died, but a Belgian source might say that 1 million Belgians died, but because only 1 million deaths were confirmed, and another 100,000 were reported as possible deaths yet not comfirmed, obviously the Belgian source is going to say 1.1 million, so all numbers of different sources will not add up. So yes, WWII casualties needs to be fixed, but it can't because as I keep saying all sources are different, so let's just leave it as it is. But what we should do is say in the WWII page that over 62 million died, or 60-73 million people died, or something along those lines. --LtWinters 21:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations within this article might be a good way to fix this. Haber 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just gone over the article again and revised the approximate total downwards to 60 million, which seems to be what majority of sources say. I have provided three different (online) external references that support this; print would be better, I think, but I don't have access to any such sources right now. I've also trimmed out a lot of redundant and conflicting numbers from the casualties section, and I have eliminated the use of World War II casualties as a reference. Now I'm off to fix the infobox number to agree with the sources I have found. - Eron ^Talk 14:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess that works...umm well you know I personally do not think wiki is that reliable...i.e.

There is probably some high-school student doing some project on WWII (bumps self) and they are looking at the article every day, but each day they see a different amount of casualties and when they put the number in their paper...and then it all is confusing.....ya know what I mean? Lila 15:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, it is a bit confusing. World War II was a world-spanning conflict that lasted for years. It is a deep, broad, complex subject with few simple answers. Looking just at casualties, for example, there are many different estimates of the total numbers - as you have noted. So you may need to look at more than one source and try to find a number which is consistent, or which at least appears to be well supported. (Which is basically what I did to try and make this article consistent.) - Eron ^Talk 15:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Yeah, in fact, we should put something in the article about certain people (*wink wink nudge nudge neo-nazis) who deny that a lot of the atrocities during WWII acually happened. Lila 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of war

The anniversaries page states September 1, 1939 as the beginning of the war, as does every other book and documentary I have ever seen. Why does the intro to the article state 1937 as the beginning of the war? This date is accepted by no one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.174.104 (talk • contribs)

Because Japan entered the war by invading China on that date. --LtWinters 20:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it was called the Sino-Japanese War Lila 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Second World War did not start in 1937, it began when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. I am going edit the part which states that the war began in 1937. Thegoodson 21:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure on how I feel about this because well... the war did start in Asia in 1937 but a world war is supposed to be a war on over 2 continents and it wasn't on 2 until 1939...--LtWinters 23:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

...really? It's not that I don't believe you, but could you give me a link or something that proves what you just said? Lila 13:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

yea, go to http://threeworldwars.com/world-war-3/ww3.htm, scroll down to the definition of a world war... WW3 for wikipedia says something similar, that says multiple continents if it matters... --LtWinters 23:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Chronology, and other sections

So I'm just trying to get this article into a good shape; 173kb doesn't seem good. It's 61kb now, after pushing the chronology section into the chronology article, again, and also moving the causes and aftermath sections into better locations. Some people will think it's better, some people will think it's worse...I hope to hear from both groups. Xaxafrad 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I assert that this article is a general article about the many facets, aspects, and characteristics of this arguably unique war and hasn't the room for such operational detail as was included in the chronology. How many people keep adding things to the middle of the article, without noticing the notice at the top of the article admonishing editors to consider placing new content in sub-articles? Isn't this article almost too big, even without the chronology section? I might call it well-rounded, as it stands now, while the chronology section was like some kind of tumor. Xaxafrad 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of keeping this as a general article, I just deleted the Ukrainian Insurgent Army section. It was a direct copy of the lede from the main article, and was far too specific for an overview article. Hope no one minds, though I am sure someone will. - Eron ^Talk 00:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I know wikipedia's policy is that articles too long is not good, but why is that the policy? For what reason is that? And I agree with the removal of the Ukrainian army.--LtWinters 02:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so I don't have to start another talk section....I shuffled some of the causes and aftermath sections around, and these two swathes were left behind. Maybe they're redundant? What do you think? Xaxafrad 07:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Under causes is actually the only place in the article where the causes are succinctly summed up, but there might be a way to do some consolidation with other sections. In the aftermath, as far as I know this is the only place where the Marshall Plan is described. It's important to retain that info. Haber 11:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, the content of the previous causes section has been included in the new prelude section, and the bits about George Marshall and the UN have been included in the European aftermath section. Xaxafrad 02:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Totaling the amount of destruction is fraught with difficulties

Wow, this poor article. We've got the honor student lead, the infobox that doesn't inform, and now the chronology has been discarded. Revert? Haber 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert to what? Oberiko 03:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a work in progress, like a lot of articles, but it's not that bad, is it? It could almost be featured, as is, I think. But it could also not be a good article any more...<goes to look at other FA/GA war articles> Please look at: Yom Kippur War (3 weeks in 1973, 71kb), Kargil War (3 months in 1999, 62kb), Polish-Soviet War (1917-19, 100kb). Okay, so I'm willing to give WW2 ~150kb to work towards FA with. Xaxafrad 03:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think that an encyclopedia article about WWII should tell readers quickly that a man named Adolf Hitler was involved, and that Great Britain and France were in the war, while avoiding overblown language. Call me weird. The chronology is actually one of the better-crafted sections of the article, if exceedlingly long-winded (and that can be fixed without axing it). Anyway, you seem to have a sincere interest in helping the article, and the old brief intro/overview/chronology layout wasn't so great either. I agree with getting rid of the overview. Thanks for your efforts. Haber 01:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the overview was still in the article, just split up and integrated with subsections. I've just deleted about 8.5kb, including some of these sections which I feel are redundant at this point. We're getting there. I agree 150 kb is a reasonable goal. Haber 03:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Prelude to war

I was considering adding the following text (clipped from History_of_Germany#Weimar_Republic) before the causes section. I know it's in the opposite direction of smaller, but I think it makes the article more well-rounded and informative. I recall reading (on Wikipedia) about the brief French occupation of the Rhineland (or Ruhr) in 1926, in violation of League of Nations rules. And Asia.... Xaxafrad 06:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Main article: Interwar period

On 28 June 1919 the Treaty of Versailles was signed. Germany was to cede Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen-Malmédy, North Schleswig, and the Memel area. Poland was restored and most of the provinces of Posen and West Prussia, and some areas of Upper Silesia were reincorporated into the reformed country after plebiscites and independence uprisings. All German colonies were to be handed over to the Allies. The left and right banks of the Rhine were to be permanently demilitarised. The industrially important Saarland was to be governed by the League of Nations for 15 years and its coalfields administered by France. At the end of that time a plebiscite was to determine the Saar's future status. To ensure execution of the treaty's terms, Allied troops would occupy the left (German) bank of the Rhine for a period of 5–15 years. The German army was to be limited to 100,000 officers and men; the general staff was to be dissolved; vast quantities of war material were to be handed over and the manufacture of munitions rigidly curtailed. The navy was to be similarly reduced, and no military aircraft were allowed. Germany and its allies were to accept the sole responsibility of the war, and were to pay financial reparations for all loss and damage suffered by the Allies. The humiliating peace terms provoked bitter indignation throughout Germany, and seriously weakened the new democratic regime.

Faced with animosity from Britain and France and the retreat of American power from Europe, in 1922 Germany was the first state to establish diplomatic relations with the new Soviet Union. Under the Treaty of Rapallo, Germany accorded the Soviet Union de jure recognition, and the two signatories mutually cancelled all pre-war debts and renounced war claims.

When Germany defaulted on its reparation payments, French and Belgian troops occupied the heavily industrialised Ruhr district (January 1923). The German government encouraged the population of the Ruhr to passive resistance: shops would not sell goods to the foreign soldiers, coal-mines would not dig for the foreign troops, trams in which members of the occupation army had taken seat would be left abandoned in the middle of the street. The passive resistance proved effective, in so far as the occupation became a loss-making deal for the French government. But the Ruhr fight also led to hyperinflation, and many who lost all their fortune would become bitter enemies of the Weimar Republic, and voters of the anti-democratic right. <end of section stub>

yea we definantly need a prelude.... wurd. --LtWinters 00:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

D-Day

I think we need to add a topic on D-Day because it was arguably the most important event in the war. Smartguy583 14:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

D-Day probably isn't even in the top 10 most important events of WWII. The war was already won by then. Parsecboy 01:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're kidding... The war would probably have been won, but not nearly as easily (not that it was easy...). · AndonicO ^Talk 01:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Andonic and Smartguy apparently only know the history they teach in American middle and highschools (of which I am also a product) that greatly enhance America's participation in the European Theatre and minimize the Soviets, who, incidently, destroyed the vast bulk of the German Army. The Germans were essentially defeated by 1943; the Western Front from '44 onward was primarily a clean-up operation of the last German resistance, with the exception of the Battle of the Bulge of course. Parsecboy 01:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The invasion of Normandy involved under 10 combat divisions and was notable for its scale only as an amphibious assault. As an operation though, compare it with the larger ones in the east such as Barbarossa, Stalingrad and Kursk; ultimately it was those massive clashes that resulted in the defeat of the Axis. That said, I don't diminish the Western European Campaign, as without it I'm sure the Soviets would have just kept pressing west, ultimately conquering Europe. Oberiko 02:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure they would've kept going after defeating Germany; Hitler still would've committed suicide in Berlin, and the German government/military would've collapsed shortly thereafter. There would've been no need to continue past Germany, nor would there be any justification of a Soviet occupation of France. Parsecboy 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy and Oberiko, are you guys for real? Yay, you understand that the Eastern Front battles involved large numbers, but seriously, this is getting embarassing. Also, please don't make generalizations about the educational backgrounds of new contributors. We're trying to encourage greater participation, not drive people off. Haber 12:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Their assessment is correct however. The USSR had the war won by 1944. The western front was notable mainly for helping preclude Soviet occupation of the whole of Germany and perhaps parts of the rest of western Europe. The German commitment to the western front was very small compared to that in the east, and by the end of the war Soviet industrial production was also enormous. They're quite right that the Soviet contribution is often downplayed in Anglophone countries (at least) and seen as equivalent somehow to the western allies. It wasn't - the USSR would almost certainly have won the war on its own, and quite possibly in 1945 (provided of course that the Japanese were tied down in the Pacific for whatever reason). The article should reflect this. Badgerpatrol 13:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask what part of our comments you find to be embarrassing? Also, it should probably be pointed out to the top comment that Operation Neptune (which was the initial invasion in Operation Overlord / Battle of Normandy) has a page, if that was his concern. Oberiko 16:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Talking about D-Day in isolation as <10 divisions is a meaningless stat without context. Saying things like D-Day doesn't qualify as one of the 10 most important events of the war is also silly. No one is downplaying the Soviet contribution. There is a middle ground between "Anglophone" interpretation and the other extreme, and in most of that middle ground D-Day is still considered a very big deal. When my fellow contributors spew obvious but misleading factoids, staking out extreme positions and then belittling the education of anyone who disagrees, that embarrasses me. Haber 17:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't belittling anyone; you cannot argue that the history taught in American middle and high schools is highly nationalistic. People who know only have experience with this type of education have a skewed view of history. Yes, D-Day was a big deal, but it was not a turning point in the war. It doesn't deserve it's own section any more than any other large battle. Parsecboy 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the merits of various school systems. Just be aware your comment was not helpful. Haber 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If Operation Overlord failed, and which in there was a good chance it could have, then we would have had to invade through Italy and well that took a very long and tough campaign just to do that. So yea we really should because I mean we're talking about small operations worth 5,000 people well this is an operation concerning a quarter of a million men, and laying down the base for the invasion of Europe. --LtWinters 23:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, who is "we"? The Soviet Union was already invading Europe, from the East, and they would have had no need to go through Italy. D-Day was important, as it opened up the Second Front which undoubtedly hastened the end of the war, but I think that is already covered adequately in the article here. - Eron ^Talk 00:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

D-Day is not getting its own section. Its covered in detail in the June 1944-January 1945 Western Front Section. It wasn't the most important event of the war. That will probably have to go to either the German invasion of Russia, German defeat at Stalingrad or German defeat at Kursk. Germans had 400,000 men fighting in Normandy and 200,000 in Italy in 1944 where as they had over 5 million men deployed on the Eastern Front. More than 85% of all German troops were on the Eastern Front and 90% of all German casualties occurred on the Eastern Front. Mercenary2k 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Smartguy couldn't find the D-Day section because the Chronology is so long? Merc, when are you going to get around to trimming those Eastern Front sections? Some of them are longer than in Eastern Front (World War II). And how about some references while you're at it? Haber 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya I will sonn. Mercenary2k 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

D-Day is an important event in WWII because it liberated France. (I think). Sure it isn't the most important but it sure ranks up there. Besides, Stalingrad shouldn't even have been fought. Hitler's generals wanted to take over important oil fields that were further below Stalingrad. --XAM 01:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. If the U.S. involvement wasn't necessary and the war had been practically won by the time they became involved, then why did Winston Churchill bother kissing all that American ass (especially FDR's) and wishing and hoping and begging for them to enter in the conflict at all? Seems he would have known how much more prestigious and advantageous it would have been for Britain to go it alone and split Europe (ideologically, of course) with the USSR. Instead, he spent the remainder of his years administering the break up of his beloved Empire as a result. CanadianMist 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Without America Britain would've been sidelined after the Mediterranean campaigns; they didn't have the manpower and supplies to invade France by themselves. Regardless, the point during which Churchill was "kissing American ass", the war effort looked very dire. Britain was being defeated at almost every turn. He couldn't count on the Soviets, because at that time they were either in a non-agression pact with Germany, and then being crushed under Barbarossa. There was no other large power at the time that could help turn the tide. Parsecboy 21:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, well made. Thank you. CanadianMist 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Churchill's mother was American and from my knowledge of his writings it strikes me that he frankly envisaged a new world order based upon a partnership of the Anglophone nations- an equal partnership between parties that he saw as natural allies based on shared cultures and general aims. Had he known that the UK would be sidelined and impoverished with a dissolving empire following the war, whilst the US would be vastly strengthened and invigorated, he might not have been so keen to bring the US into the war. By the same token, Parsecboy is absolutely spot on- at the time that Britain most actively agitated for American involvement, the (vastly numerically superior) Germans (and until mid-1941) Soviets) were running rampant across most of Europe, the UK was facing possible economic ruin, British cities (and large quantities of shipping) were being attacked and wrecked on a near-nightly basis with thousands of civilians killed, the economy was in poor shape, and British overseas territories (and potentially the Eastern Soviet Union) were under dire threat from the Japanese. From a quick scan of the above discussion, I can't clearly see who in particular stated that the US' (in particular) involvement wasn't necessary or that "the war had been practically won by the time they became involved" - that's certainly not my point of view, not sure where you got that idea from (a previous discussion maybe?). The war was far from won in 1941- in fact, absolutely everyone was getting a severe kicking from the Axis at that stage. No-one seeks to belittle the contribution and sacrifice of any nations or individuals. I do think however that the key factor (overwhelmingly) was the Soviet resurgence rather than the actions of the Western Allies, and that their immense contribution is not properly recognised, at least by non-historians. (Equally I suppose one could certainly argue that the key contribution made by the British, Commonwealth and Americans to victory in the European theatre was fighting the Japanese in the Pacific....) Badgerpatrol 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

D-Day should be added if it isn't already. I would not call it the most important event in the war, however. This is because the nuclear bombing of Japan pretty much brought WWII to its conclusion. --Eiyuu Kou 16:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that it does not deserve a subtopic, and we should keep it as it is. However, I would not be against anyone adding more information to that paragraph for two about it. --LtWinters 21:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think D-Day deserves any more recognition than the other main battles (mentioned in various posts above). Additionally, there is the Operation Neptune / Overlord reference to their Wikipages, so there is a place to cover the topic more succinctly. It is a good point that from the American perspective, this was a major part of WW2 and has a significant role in our culture and history; but Wikipedia isn't an American-history encyclopedia. As such, it would be inappropriate to give it any more recognition than it deserves on the world stage. Entirelybs 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

The result of the now archived Good article review was no consensus, keep by default. Just FYI. IvoShandor 11:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up, Ivo. After reviewing the comments, it is obvious that people have mixed feelings about this article. Some folks say it's too long, others say it's necessarily long. But the primary reason given for delisting was a lack of references. Considering the amount of material covering the many, many details of WW2, I would expect to find a great number of references on the subarticles, which fail to get added to this article because editors link to the subarticle and assume that's good enough (like I did, with the famine comments in the lead). I don't know if that's not good enough; I think it should be, but someone who knows better should comment on what kind of references are acceptable.

Given the Polish-Soviet War FA, I don't see why this article's length should be considered detrimental. WW2's overall structure is fine and will probably not change a great deal in the future, aside from some section mergers, perhaps. The solution to the length problem involves a fine-toothed comb and deciding what details should be summarized. It will be a slow, and probably agonizing, process.

What edit wars? There's no edit war over the infobox. That issue has been largely resolved. As I find it difficult to fathom the reasons for not listing individual countries (fear of the potential future isn't a good reason for me), I also can't think of any truly compelling reasons in favor of a partial listing of individual countries. That said, let's argue about FA standards instead. However, there might be an edit war brewing over the total number of casualties...We'll see how that plays out.

Other than that, doesn't WW2 look like a good, even featurable, article? Xaxafrad 01:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that I commented in the discussion, but I think the point of the review is also to help improve the article as well so I would consider heeding the comments. As for refs, I would provide them myself, the lead probably doesn't need them if the info is cited in text. It is bad to assume people would click on the subarticle IMO. IvoShandor 02:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting ignoring the GA review comments, even though a third of them were in reference to previously short lead section. And I wasn't assuming people would click on the subarticles. I was assuming the dearth of references was due to editors inserting various bits of facts, and off-handedly including a link to the main (sub)article in lieu of a reference. This practice probably falls near the category that includes weasel words. Xaxafrad 05:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just speaking in general terms anyway. The article isn't bad, like most articles though, it can probably be improved, of course. : ) Good luck, this is a very important topic, I tend to avoid high stress areas myself. IvoShandor 06:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

Right now we've got the article divided up as such:

• Europe
  • Events
• Asia / Pacific
  • Events

That's two "top level" chronology sections and a break down in between.

To improve the article flow, I think we might be better off having those two top leves and four "secondary level" sections:

• Germany (and other closely associated Axis Powers such as Italy) against the western Allies
• Germany against the Soviet Union
• Japan in Asia (China, Burma etc.)
• Japan in the Pacific

These four areas are, IMHO, relatively isolated from each other and we could improve readability by not having as many "meanwhile, back on Theatre X..." sections breaking up each area. A (rough) example of what I mean would be something like the following:

• Europe
  • Background
  • Against the Western Allies
    • Background
    • Blitzkrieg in Europe (Poland, Norway, France, Battle of Britain)
    • The Atlantic
    • The Mediterranean (Greece, Mediterranean Sea, Malta, East Africa, North Africa, Italy)
    • Western European Campaign (1944-1945)
  • Eastern Front
    • Initial invasion
    • First winter, Soviet counterattack
    • Second German lunge: Operation Blue, Uranus, Stalingrad
    • Kursk, Soviet advancement, Berlin
• Asia / Pacific
  • Background
  • In Asia
    • Second Sino-Japanese War
    • Rest of Asia: Mongolia, Hong Kong, Burma etc.
  • In the Pacific
    • Pearl Harbor
    • Island hopping and naval conflicts
    • Dropping of atomic bombs on Japan

That seems like a good idea. I'll start shuffling sections around when my home computer is in working order again. Xaxafrad 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

I am pretty sure those numbers aren't too correct. I am talking about the casualties in the top right side bar thing. --XAM 01:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Those figures are taken from references, referred to later in the article here. What do you think is incorrect? - Eron ^Talk 01:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It just seemed like there were hardly enough Axis casualties. You are probably right but I just wanted to make sure.

It is important to remember that the total numbers include the disproportionately large numbers of civilian casualties suffered by China and the USSR during the war. - Eron ^Talk 14:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is all very simple. Don't say final numbers, give them ranges. For example see here http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm Soviet military losses varies from 6 to 26M people. This is just ridiculous. Wikisib 17:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than calling the work of others "ridiculous" you could always just do something to improve it, if you see the need. - Eron ^Talk 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid using the website http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm. The owner says, "I do not release my work into the public domain. I do not allow my work to be distributed under GNU Free Documentation License. (This means you, Wikipedia.)" Getting into trouble over some casualty stats would be ridiculous. Haber 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He can keep the rights all he wants, but the fact is, he cannot prevent us form citing his work. There is no plagerism involved, we didn't copy his whole site, we merely picked out a fact and cited it. If I understand United States copyright law correctly, Wikipedia is safe. American Patriot 1776 13:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Legally, I think you're right, and it seems anyway that he's mainly concerned about his maps. On a practical level, I don't think it's wise to mess with somebody who already has a bone to pick with Wikipedia. There are so many good sources out there, why bother with this one? Haber 13:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I bothered with it because it was used as a reference in the World War II casualties article, and it seemed to bring together a lot of data from other sources in one convenient bundle. I agree that another source - ideally a print source - would be better. I'll look up a couple of other references and see what I can find. - Eron ^Talk 13:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I looked up two print references. Neither provide overall totals, but they do provide breakdowns, by country and by military/civilian, which can be totalled. John Ellis's World War II: A Statistical Survey lists approximately 45.7M deaths: 14M Allied military, 22.4M Allied civilian, 5.9M Axis military, and 3.4M Axis civilian. The Oxford Companion to World War II lists approximately 49M deaths: 14.2M Allied military, 24M Allied civilian, 7.7M Axis military, and 3.1M Axis civilian. Neither approaches the 60M figure currently listed - let alone the 72M posted on World War II casualties. (A review of the figures on that page, and current discussion on its talk page, suggests that this total is open to debate.) From what I have found so far, any source that lists casualty figures does so with a number of caveats, and the general feeling is that it is impossible to provide truly accurate figures. Everything is an estimate. Given the dearth of reliable statistics, I am not sure how to proceed. Based on my own research, I would be reluctant to put down any figure greater than 50M; I have no solid sources to support a higher figure. The number at World War II casualties seems to have been arrived at by totalling up estimates from a variety of sources. While on the surface this is simple arithmatic - which I myself did to get totals from Ellis and Oxford - I am concerned about the use of multiple sources to arrive at a single figure; I think this borders on original research. -Eron ^Talk 15:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has any closeness to OR (each figure is cited after all), but I'll agree that it's disturbing on the wide variety of figures. I would advice that we collect as many "overall" figures as possible, from as many reputable sources as we can find. We can then use a reasonable range on this page, something like "Most sources indicate casualties as ranging between 45 - 50 million, however some present figures as high as 65 million." and then use the broader WWII casualties page to list the sources and figures given, grouping them by source. Oberiko 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that would work well. What do we do about the infobox figures? - Eron ^Talk 17:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The infobox we could use the same range and have a link to the casualties page as a reference, something like Approx. 45-50 million ¹. Oberiko 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

EronMain, just to clarify. You totally misunderstood me and I never called anybody's work "ridiculous". "Ridiculous" is the range of numbers (6M-26M) which we get from different sources (this is nobody's fault, this is how it is). My point is that it is not possible to pick a good number in the range of 6-26.Wikisib 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The total dead for years was placed at 55 million, both civilian and military. The Russian losses were said to be 26 million on the talk page. I have always heard up to 25 million, both military and civilian. This obviously included those taken by Germans never to be seen again. The consesus is that it is 60 million plus, but people don't want to back up statistics with the fact that they can't back them up with the evidence. 86.149.209.189 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)