Talk:World War II/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Overly long sections

It looks like a lot of the sections are getting a bit to big. I think it'd be best if we came to a decision as to what the scope of this page is supposed to be. In my opinion, it should be as brief a summary as possible of the "main" articles, not a place to explain the nuances and intricacies of each theatre. Does anyone disagree? Oberiko 13:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the page is 154kb, which is quite monstrous. I think we could do quite a bit by paring it down and moving information to subpages, if it doesn't already exist there. Another issue I'd like to point out is that there are far too many pictures, especially in the Eastern Front section; it already looks cluttered on the 24" monitor I've got at work; I'm sure it's atrocious on a little 13" laptop screen. Parsecboy 13:51, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Aye, quite poor spacing and it seems to be almost pictures for pictures sake rather then a "pick-of-the-litter" to help demonstrate something concisely. Oberiko 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the page is too long; I think it is just right. The subject matter is epic and the article sustains that impression. In my opinion, further addtions, if necessary, should only be made to pan-war topics, overall statistics and main currents. Individual theater topics should be considered 'locked' at this point. Binksternet 18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Locked? I'd strongly disagree. IMO, we need quite a bit of work to bring some of the theatres up to spec (such as South-East Asia and China) as well as work standardizing their formats and length. Oberiko 20:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. Tell me- why is it a problem to have it be long and have alot of pictures? Is there an actual reason? --LtWinters 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem for article length is this: we're not producing an article here for our own good; we're making one for the outside world. What's the point if they can't read the whole thing in a reasonable amount of time? If they want more information on a specific battle, that's what the sub articles are for.

The problem with too many pictures is, on my 14" laptop screen, it becomes a jumbled mess (talking about large portions of the Eastern front, as well as the Liberation of Western Europe section). We have pictures for the sake of having pictures, not because they're really necessary to illustrate a specific point. Parsecboy 00:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a world war that lasted over a decade ofcourse its going to be long there were so many theatres, really the way it is is fine what makes it long is that there was so much time for each theatre which events happened, so of course it's going to be long. It is a very tight summarization, and people aren't coming to read the whole article anyway. What they're doing is scrolling down to their section and reading what they need, at mose people read the introduction. 90% of the people that go on don't understand that you can click go to the top of the section and click on 'the western front' or 'the second battle of whatever'. Concerning pictures taking up too much space, I really don't think so, it all depends as to what computer one has. I have a rather large monitor which is why it doesn't squeez everything together. But I think locking it would be good- we really havent been having any edit for for a couple months, I really don't see anything wrong with it anymore. And somepeople bring up the point we need to shorten the article so when it gets reviewed it won't take such a long time- it's not supposed to be formatted for those who review it, as parsec said, it's supposed to be formated for those outsiders reading it. --LtWinters 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Item scope should not have significant bearing on article size. By stating otherwise, articles like military history (which has to encompass all wars and battles throughout all of human history) would have to be thousands of pages long, not to even consider the even larger-scope of the history_of_the_world, which would dwarf all military history by a factor of at least ten; something like the Universe, an article on, well, everything, would then have to be infinite pages long.

I think we have to assume that people coming here are doing so for two purposes: either to read relatively large portions (and quite possibly the entire thing) to get a very broad, general understanding of the war, or as a starting point for something in particular which they would drill down to. Now, I see no reason why we can't cater to both crowds. Right now, we're doing the casual reader a great disservice; if I wanted a quick overview of the Eastern Front, where am I to go? I know or can easily find that I can go to Eastern Front (World War II) for more extensive detail, but there's no where for the "I want to sum it up in 5-10 minutes" crowd that likely makes up a good deal of our readers.

The picture situation is another one where we should be striving for the "best" solution. For each picture we should ask ourselves why we have it, and what is unique about it. Take, for example, the picture of Omar Bradly; why him? Why not another general? What does his picture add to the article? What would we lose if we took it away? Is it worth the visual distortion that we now know is being caused to certain screen resolutions? Oberiko 01:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg

Article needs a wikilink to Blitzkrieg. Binksternet 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There already is one. Hit Ctrl+F and type it in; 3rd one down. Parsecboy 12:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Control F? That's my browser's "Find" feature with which I can most certainly locate the Blitzkrieg heading. What I'm referring to is the Wikipedia page Blitzkrieg which doesn't show a link to it coming from World War II as shown when one hits Alt-J from within the Blitzkrieg page. (Alt-J from within the WWII page shows a link back to it from Blitzkrieg.) Perhaps the Blitzkrieg heading on the WWII page can be made into a wikilink. Or, if the resulting header-as-link isn't good formatting, perhaps the term can be written into the following text. Binksternet 18:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Go to the WWII page, hit control+F, and then hit enter twice. You should be on the third instance of the word "Blitzkrieg" in the article, which is wikilinked. The first instance of Blitzkrieg you should find is in the TOC. The 2nd is the actual section title, and the 3rd is the first time the word occurs in the text, and is linked. Parsecboy 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Asia/Pacific v Europe/Africa

Right now we have Europe and the African theatres discussed before moving onto the Asia/Pacific Theatre. However, military events began in Asia as early as 1931. Should we perhaps switch the order of asia and europe?--LtWinters 21:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep the Asian events prior to the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937 as background to the Asian theatre of WWII (kind of like the Anschluss or the annexation of Albania in Europe), but you have a valid point. There are two reasons (justified or not) that I can think off why we'd keep Europe before Asia: first, due to this being the English Wikipedia, the article caters primarily to a Western audience which are likely to be more interested in the Western section of the war; second, some scholars (primarily Western) don't consider the Asian theatre of World War II to have begun until 1941 when the Japanese attacked the United States and European colonies in South-East Asia.

That said, I personally wouldn't have any problem with Asia being listed before Europe due to it being in heavy conflict first. Oberiko 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I could think of another reason - in terms of soldiers involved, military casualties inflicted etc. the European theater was considerably larger than Asian. With respect, Ko Soi IX 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Why do we keep archiving so little so often? Some issues are still valid and I think we should wait till we have around 20 topics listed to archive, not 5. Anyone else feel the same?--LtWinters 13:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Let's get rid of miszabot. Parsecboy 14:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that something only an admin can do?--LtWinters 16:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. If you can find a policy that says only admins can remove it though, I'll take it down. Oberiko 16:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, I took it off right after I made that last post. It's not an admin thing at all. Parsecboy 17:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, OK. I'll archive the whole thing after a month(except active discussions). That OK?K14 13:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be time based, it should be based on when discussions are resolved and no longer require any attention. Oberiko 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image discussion

Hello. We are discussing a proposed change to the main image at the template page. Any input would be appreciated. Oberiko 22:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath

Is like along list which is rushed. Tourskin 23:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious error

It is contrary to simple facts to state the WORLD War began on 1st Sept. On that day a war between Germany and Poland was started. The World war began on 3rd Sept when Britain, Australia and New Zealand declared war on Germany, followed later that day by France.62.141.104.190 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, we should use December 8th as the starting date, as that was when Germany declared war on the US, which united two separate, local conflicts, into a truly World War. However, the majority of historical works put Sept. 1 1939 as the start of the war, so that's what we use. Parsecboy 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"The majority" is driven by propaganda cliches, whereas there are plain and undisputed facts: on 1st it was a bilateral conflict; on 3rd it became multilateral and with Britain being then a global empire -- an arguably world one.62.141.104.190 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How very Eurocentric of you. And what exactly is a "propaganda cliche"? No, after 3 Sept, it was still bilateral. Two sides fighting. Not 3, not 4. It was only sort of multilateral after Pearl Harbor, and the European war and Asian war became more or less one unified war. Parsecboy 16:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, it comes down to how one defines "a world war"; fear there is no clear-cut definition. But what is quite obvious to me is that to state The World War started 1st Sept 1939 is downright wrong. ("propaganda cliche" in this case is Churchill-Stalin-Roosevelt propaganda about Hitler being solely to blame for the whole affair -- you know, it always takes two to tango).81.211.44.171 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hitler attacked member of an alliance. He was specifically warned that GB and France will respect their guarantees. Nevertheless he attacked Poland, and he was surprised that France, for a long time Polish ally, and GB, which has just warned him, did exactly what they say they will do. Hitler was solely to blame for the whole affair . If not for his absurd and impossible to fulfill demands (like that Poland should voluntarily make a referendum over whether Pomorze should go to Germany, in the same time demanding that in such referendum Poles who settled there after 1918 couldn't participate, but allowing to participate tens of thousands of Germans who were settled there by German Colonisation Commissions). Or for complaining about fate of German minority in Poland (e.g. that German schools were closed) forgetting that this was sole reaction for closing all Polish schools for Polish minority in Germany. Szopen 16:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Parsecboy and Szopen here. The European Theatre of World War II started when Germany attacked a member of the Allied Powers. France and the U.K. were slow to react (and slower to actually do something), but that doesn't negate the former point. Oberiko 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I see: when Hitler had annexed part of Czechoslovakia he did not start a war, as he had been allowed to do thus by GB; but with Poland he was not. On a serious note, Wiki, I assume, is not a court of law adjudicating on one's culpability; it is a compendium of facts. Talk of the alliance does not prove anything -- countries enter into them and quit them as they see fit (that's what makes them sovereign powers). The simple fact is that on 3rd Germany was in a bilateral conflict with one country; by the end of that day a number of countries declared war on her making it thus a world conflict. These are plain and inescapable facts, whoever is to blame for that.62.118.179.117 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, on September 3rd, it technically was still just a localized, European War. If you want to argue in technicalities, the only acceptable date for the start of World War II (in terms of it being a truly global war) would be December 8, 1941, when Germany declared war on the United States, uniting two separate, local conflicts. However, the vast majority of historians state that the war started on Sept 1, 1939, no matter how Eurocentric that is. Therefore, that is the date we use, like it or not. Parsecboy 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides, technicalities only make it harder in the end. We don't need a bunch of asterisks and such. Jmlk17 10:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

First Use Of The Term

Can anyone tell me when the term "World War II" was first applied to this conflict? Ttenchantr 22:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

According to wordorigins.org, the term was first applied by Time magazine in their 1939-09-11 issue. —Adavidb 10:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the term was used by a local canadian newspaper on the day of the German invasion (1st September), and there were some legal documents such as the Kellog-Briad pact that were ratified "to prevent a second world war". There used to be a section in this article that detailed the origin of the term WWII. It seemed to have got chopped off during the last rewrite. Looks like it's time we started a Etymology of World War II page giving the full details. --Oshah 21:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh never mind, I see it has been discussed in World War --Oshah 08:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• The term should be discussed at the start of the article. Malick78 18:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Delisting from being a good article

I'd like to delist this article as being a "good article" since I don't think it adheres to the following points:

• 3b - stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
• 4 - It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Does anyone object? Oberiko 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't object. I think the article could stand for a major cleanup. It's already a monstrous 154kb long. I think we need to start cutting it down in size. We don't need to duplicate sub articles that were created with the purpose of trimming too much detail from this article. Parsecboy 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No objections re 3b, but could you elaborate on what you see as the neutrality concerns? - Eron ^Talk 03:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Primarily in the Soviet-German War section. The images mostly depict the Germans in a negative light (slave labour, massacres etc.) while most of the Soviet images are heroic (a teenage son off to join the partisans, Soviet propaganda posters etc.). Oberiko 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing worse than summarizing articles in a larger form than the daughter itself (I've seen this in [[tobacco smoking re: health effects), though I'm not sure this is the case here, having not read the article myself. I do note however that despite being almost absurdly long (it would take at least 2 good hours to read through it all), its lead section is quite short. A long lead section, approaching a full page, would be appropriate here for someone who wants to get an overview of the topic without reading the whole thing. If you're going to make the article massive, do the same with the lead. Richard001 01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro and the first few sections of the Western Allied section a few months ago, but haven't been able to get around to the rest of the article. I don't think it needs to be longer as the goal was to be as concise as possible, like an executive summary. Oberiko 11:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

De Gaulle

I've given up on arguing against the inclusion of France as a major ally, even though it contributed more to the anti-Allied cause for the two most crucial years of the war (1941-43). But I'm removing De Gaulle from the leaders list in the infobox. He wasn't the leader in 1939-40, for one thing. Truman was infinitely more important and we don't even have him! Grant | Talk 17:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully agreed with you on not having De Gaulle (or even France) in the major powers box (one of the "Allies and Axis" people), but I'm against the inclusion of Truman. Having two leaders for one nation opens up a huge can of worms (such as the potential inclusion of Paul Reynaud, Neville Chamberlain, Clement Attlee and others). Oberiko 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. The Allied and Axis leadership is (even) more subjective than the issue of "major powers", because there were so many who played important roles. However; the difference between Chamberlain, Reynaud and Attlee on one hand, and Truman on the other, can be summed up, in Dennis Leary's immortal turn of phrase, by "two words: nuclear f*cking weapons!" Grant | Talk 07:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make aware the editors who watch this page, but not the infobox template talk, that a discussion is occurring there on whether to include France in the infobox or not. A link to the discussion: here. I'd prefer as many opinions as possible in an attempt to establish the widest consensus as possible. Thanks. Parsecboy 00:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Soviet Tilt

The article states, "It was here [the Soviet Union] that the war was won or lost, for if the Red Army had not succeeded against all the odds in halting the Germans in 1941 and then inflicting the first major defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943, it is difficult to see how the western democracies, Britain and the US, could have expelled Germany from its new empire."

That statement is clearly an expression of opnion as opposed to fact.

The article, however, is missing clearly factual, yet anti-Stalin/anti-Soviet information. For example, the article fails to point out that from at least as early as August, 1939 up through June 22, 1941, the USSR was Germany's ALLY! While Britain suffered in the Battle of Britain, while Yugoslavia and Greece were attacked, the USSR not only failed to oppose such German actions, the USSR SUPPLIED German needs. The article also fails to point out that the free world recognized the USSR's perfidy and kicked the USSR out of the League of Nations. The fact is that, but for the USSR's support of Germany up through the middle of June, 1941, Germany could not have sustained its war making.

As for where the war was won or lost, the article fails to point out that of all the major participants, only the USSR fought on only one front at a time. And, by the way, the USSR did not engage in battle against the Japanese until AFTER the Japanese had been severely weakened by the USA and Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.86.224 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And what you fail to point out is that 90% of All German Forces were fighting the Soviets and only 10% were fighting the Allies. And 85% of all allied forces were fighting the Germans and only 15% were fighting the Japanese.Mercenary2k 00:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the former Soviet/German alliance had no impact on whether the Soviet Union was critical to ultimate Nazi defeat. The Soviets shed far more blood than any other Nazi foe and if they had knuckled under at Moscow, there's no telling how long it would have taken to beat the Nazis, if at all. No telling of WWII can leave out the immense Soviet sacrifice. Binksternet 03:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, the sentence "It was here [the Soviet Union] that the war was won or lost, for if the Red Army had not succeeded against all the odds in halting the Germans in 1941 and then inflicting the first major defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943, it is difficult to see how the western democracies, Britain and the US, could have expelled Germany from its new empire." is very much POV. Even though I am very well aware of the Soviet effort, this statement completely neglects the Western potential and effort - the world war was far more complex than this - consider for instance the Western GDP:s here. This thing has to be rewritten, and I will do so. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 16:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I rephrased it to this : It was here that the bulk of the war was fought, where the Red Army halted the Germans in 1941 and then inflicting the first major defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 16:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the qualifier "European" to your sentence, to clarify that the Soviet-German war had no effect on the Pacific war. Otherwise, your revision is fine by me. Parsecboy 16:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I reinserted the statement which Dna-Dennis unilaterally deleted. This statement was sourced by a recognised WWII historian (who, by the way, is not Russian, he's British).--Miyokan 02:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And I rephrase it again... it does not matter whether he is a historian or not - it is still POV speculation and not fact, so it has no place in Wikipedia. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 04:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reinserted and added 'According to WWII historian Richard Overy'. He is an expert on the matter.--Miyokan 05:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, it does not matter. It is POV speculation and has no place here. We could in a similar way speculate that the winter in 1941 saved the Soviet Union from total Nazi annihilation, but this is still speculation, and has no place in this article. The wordings the war was won or lost, against all odds, it is difficult to see how the western democracies...could have expelled Germany are obvious POV opinions and speculations, so they have no place here. I rephrase it yet again. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 05:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I find Miyokan's most recent rewrite to have all the elements needed for a neutral and complete article. Expert opinion on the subject has long held the Eastern Front to have been crucial to Nazi defeat. Binksternet 06:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If we would write about every historian's POV opinions and speculations, Wikipedia would not be an encyclopedia but a forum of opinions. This information has no place in the WW2 main article - if you so desperately want to keep it, it belongs on the Richard Overy page or on a page called something like Speculations on the outcome of World War II. The original wording does definitely not belong here, so I revert again, for the last time today, respecting the 3RR. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 07:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deniss! Whats your problem? All that's said there is true and sourced so stop. M.V.E.i. 09:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced, yes. That doesn't make it true, it only makes it verifiable. So one author made the assertion that without the USSR, the Western Allies couldn't have defeated Germany; how does that make it true? M.V.E.i., it is POV. Not only that, it's Eurocentric. That's the problem many of you eastern Europeans have; you completely ignore the fact that a war was raging for twice as long as the European war in Asia. Parsecboy 10:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap.

A) Yes, body counts, number of troops engaged, and equipment engaged is important. No one is disputing that the Eastern Front was huge.

B) Saying that the war was decided on the Eastern Front completely ignores the technological and logistical side of modern war.

My opinion is that the war was won in the Atlantic, and in the air, yet I have not inserted this claim into the article.

We all should understand that it was a team effort, that without British command of the sea, the American economy, and hordes of Russian cannon fodder the war could not have been won. Haber 12:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

All of what you wrote is original research. Your opinion about where the war was won does not matter, as you are not a recognised WWII historian.--Miyokan 12:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Overy is an expert on the matter and it now clearly states "According to Richard Overy...". Overy's statements are allowed to be included as he is an expert on the matter, similar to how a psychiatrist is called to give expert testimony in a court case. You can't scream POV every time that you don't agree with something.--Miyokan 12:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There are historians on every side who will say anything. Overy does not need to be taken out of context and put into Wikipedia just to prove your point.

Nobody's opinion needs to be there. It's an encyclopedia. My original research, as you call it, was clearly labelled as opinion on a talk page. Haber 12:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not scream POV, we say it is POV. I quote Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Neutrality and verifiability:

"A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it... ...Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article."

I am sorry, but Wikipedia guidelines are clearly against you, Miyokan. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a historian said it or not, lets keep to the facts. Several of the books I've read point to each Ally as having "won" the war.

• World War II (By Cyrus Leo Sulzberger)
  • "There is no doubt that we deliberately violated any internationally accepted concept of neutrality for eighteen months before we became belligerents. There is also no doubt that had we not done so, first Britain and then Russia would have lost the war." (pg. 67)
• RAF Wings Over Florida: Memories of World War II British Air Cadets (By Willard Largent)
  • "Now heralded as a major achievement in Roosevelt's presidency, the Lend-Lease Act may well have had the greatest impact of any singly event in modern world history. Had it not passed there is little doubt that Great Britain and the USSR would have lost World War II, with disastrous results almost certain to follow." (pg. 3)
• Yalta (By Pierre de Senarclens)
  • "The marshal [Stalin] was also particularly amiable and deferential toward Roosevelt and acknowledged that, without American assistance, Russia would have lost the war." (pg. 24)
• Aspects of British Political History 1914-1995 (By Stephen J. Lee)
  • "This brings up the crucial contribution made by Britain to the eventual defeat of Hitler. Her own survival prolonged the war long enough to ensure that Germany was crushed by other powers with vastly greater industrial strength. Britain kept the war going in the vital period between the fall of France in 1940 and Hitler's invasion of Russia in 1941. From 1943 onwards Britain greatly assisted the war effort of the Soviet Union. Her supremacy at sea meant that Russia could be kept supplied by the North Atlantic route to Mermansk, while the bombing of German factories helped constrain the German war base. Most important of all, Hitler was prevented from applying the full strength of his panzer divisions against Russia by the need to bolster up Rommel's campaign against Montgomery in north Africa" (pg. 168-169)

And so on. So, let's not have any "X country won the war" since viable quotes can be found for each and historians are just as susceptible to bias as anyone else. Facts only please. Oberiko 12:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Those are numbers and fact. Where did most of the Germans fought? Where did they lost most? USSR. If you dont like a fact that doesn't give you the right to scream POV. M.V.E.i. 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Facts we don't have a problem with. It's fine to write that "X million troops" or "Y% of the Z armed forces" etc. The problem was stating the opinion that this is where the war was won. As shown above, I can just as easily say that the American lend-lease is how the war was won, or "British tenacity" was why the Allies were victorious. Oberiko 16:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential solution?

Would anyone object to allowing the disputed quote, along with its source, to be a footnote in the article? ie. "The Soviet-German War was the largest theatre of World War II"¹

¹According to historian X in the book Y, "it was here that the war was won"

Thoughts? Oberiko 13:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I really admire your efforts on arbitration, Oberiko. I do not object to the wording "The Soviet-German War was the largest theatre of World War II". Yet, on inserting a footnote, I still would have to say no. If we include the disputed opinion in this article, we would in a similar way have to include other historians' opinions (for instance, those you mentioned above), in order to be neutral. Is this article at all a place for speculations? In my opinion, no - they belong on a page called something like Speculations on World War II. My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dna-Dennis's reasoning here; if we include it for the Soviet Union, then we'd have to do one for each to avoid POV problems. This article is for facts, not a historian's speculation. Parsecboy 15:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For those who might not be aware, there is an article called Historiography of World War II. Haber 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede. The counter-argument of being able to include dubious information (such as material by David Irving) is significant one. Oberiko 16:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversions

We can't have constant reversions. I'm going to have to start enforcing WP:3RR if this continues. Oberiko 16:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Revert-warring isn't going to get anyone anywhere. I think there is a strong consensus (here and on the page history itself) against inclusion of the line from Overy. Those pushing for its inclusion need to accept it and move on. M.V.E.i., you've already reverted 4 times today. Parsecboy 16:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A new approach

It seems like quite a few of us here are butting heads on things; I propose that we try something new. Instead of clashing over details the article itself, why not get back to basics and redesign (in bullet point notation) the article structure itself?

I'd like to start with the proposal of a few guidelines:

1. As always, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are our top rules: I would ask that all serious editors go through them; our secondary rule set should be the Manual of style
2. There should be no going over level four headers ("==My header==" being a level 1 for our purposes)
   • Any more then that means that the information isn't being summarized effectively enough, especially when we have hundreds of other articles to spill content overflow / details into
   • I'm going to coin the term blue article for this page, as it should basically be a collection and well organized and presented links to other pages. By that, I mean that World War II is vast enough that most our sentences should be on key topics, most of which have (or can potentially have) their own articles
3. Adherence to the rule of seven (see this link for details) †
   • Each grouping section should have no more then seven sub-sections
   • Each information section should have no more then seven paragraphs or main points
4. Images and quotes should be used sparingly, and agreed upon prior to insertion if possible
   • As a general rule, I would advocate no more then three images per information section; four images if general consensus can be reached that the last image definitely adds value
   • If in doubt, check books and other encyclopedias for guidelines on picture usage, most of them are relatively sparse

† Please note the emphasis on "no more then seven", we should be striving for as much concision as possible. Remember, less is more!

Thoughts or suggestions? Oberiko 13:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. I've actually been sort of working on a new version of the article, to try to make this a more manageable size. I haven't had a whole lot of time to work on it; I've been pretty hammered at work lately. I basically took the "Overview" section of this article, and have been fleshing it out a bit more. Hopefully I can get it to a decent state this weekend. If so, I'll show you guys, and you can edit it as well. There aren't any pictures in it yet either, so that can be left for later. Parsecboy 14:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide us with your framework? What I'm thinking would be something like the following:

• Course of the War (H1)
  • European Theatre (H2)
    • Background (H3)
      • Europe after World War I
      • German and Italian expansionism (including assistance in the Spanish Civil War)
      • The Allied responses
      • The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
    • Germany's war against the Western Allies (H3)
      • Blitzkrieg (H4)
        • Conquest of Poland
        • Phony War
        • Soviet aggression in the Baltics (Winter War etc.)
        • Conquest of Norway
        • Conquest of France
        • Bombing of Britain

Where the regular text represents our grouping sections (with header level shown in italics just for example) while the italicized text represents the content items within each section. Oberiko 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued Image discussion

STOP removing images and information on the Soviet Union. I'm SO tryred of your western snobery thinking you can delete and remove everything you want. I tryed to reah a compromise but that didn't work, son we will just have to delete American images, and American information, like you do to the Soviet Union, because you just can't stop. GET A LIFE. M.V.E.i. 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. When i looked thru it, The west does have to much images here. The war with Japan doesn't worth so much images. Want to do something useful? Delete part of them. M.V.E.i. 16:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We decide images by article structure and point illustration, not purely on subjective importance. Please read WP:IMAGES on some of the policies of image use, some of which were previously being violated. Oberiko 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Remain WP:Civil M.V.E.i.. I don't think this is bias on their part, if you look, there is still far less information and imagery pertaining to the Western Allies then there is to the Soviets. Oberiko 15:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that is understood. Most of the war in Europe took place in the Soviet Union, the Soviets sufferd the most, and they won the war. Why should the west get the same as the USSR while the USSR lost more and fought more?? Making the Soviet Union section worst to make the west look better, is just redicilous. M.V.E.i. 16:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. We are not assigning priority for images based on scope. The Soviet Unions "larger" contribution is reflected by the greater number of articles. Saying they should get more then the war with the Western Allies is an opinion, and one that is not shared by many editors. Your other claims are equally dubious, quite arguably the Polish suffered far more then the Soviet's, having a much higher % of the population killed (in incidents such as the Katyn massacre) and being totally absorbed after the war. No one is trying to make anyone look worse, quite the opposite in that we're trying not to make anyone look "better" then others. Oberiko 16:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

By numbers of victims on a certain territory the USSR suffered more. You dont count the % out of the whole Soviet population but of the occupied areas. Also, Soviet Union won the war. This equality thing is absurd. Making everyone look nice and happy shure is polit-correct, but the truth is more importent (but as i see, in some places that doesnt metter anymore, and for them polit-correctness is more important then the truth. Well, shame on them, thats a big hole the're digging for themselves). M.V.E.i. 16:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no universal "truth", there are raw facts (dates, numbers, events etc.) and opinions (the importance of said dates, numbers and events). Fact: The Soviets provided more manpower, and the Americans provided more money/material/equipment; opinion: the Soviet or American contribution was larger. Fact: The European Theatre had X number of soldiers and deaths, the Asian Theatre had Y number of soldiers and deaths; opinion: The European or Asian Theatre was more important.

Secondly you're looking at the article incorrectly. We're summarizing what happened as much as possible, not allocating space/images based on personal reasons for thinking something was more important or not. If something can be written / shown more concisely, we'll do it; regardless of numbers. That's what links to other, more specifically detailed articles, are for. Oberiko 16:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, i thought you know WW2 history. My grandpa fought on a tank on the Soviet side (in fact, i had many in my family who fought against the Nazis at WW2). The American weapon didn't serve the Soviets more then a Year, and this weapon was weak. The Soviet weapon was the one that won the war. T-34 the most importent tank of WW2, was it American?? or maby Katyusha? The American weapon was really weak, and it surved the USSR only that year that they had to retreat. M.V.E.i. 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Americans' state of weaponry in the beginning of World War II had little improved since the American Civil War. However, that was not their main contribution.

USA's most important contribution to the WWII in Europe is its financial aid to European Countries, most importantly, the United Kingdom (by the way, the UK finished paying it back only last year), and transportation technology, including hundreds of thousands of Ford cars and trucks, to the Soviet Union (which the Soviet Union never really paid back). 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I like to think I know my history, yes. Personally my family fought with the British RAF and served in MI5, along with a great-uncle in the U.S. Navy, but that's of absolutely consequence to the article nor does it give me any additional kind of authority. In your opinion the T-34 was the most important tank; what of the Panzer IV or Panther? The Sherman? I'll bet I can find authors who think those (and quite likely other tanks) were the most important. For that matter, why focus on tanks? There's a well known quote by an American General that the M1 Garand rifle was the best piece of equipment produced, and numerous authors consider the Messerschmitt Me 262 or other early jet fighters to be the best aircraft. And what of ships?

Secondly, if American contribution was weak, why would Stalin himself say that without American assistance, Russia would have lost the war (Yalta, pg. 24)? No, this is why we don't assert opinions, everyone's got one and they rarely coincide. If you were to say that X T-34's were built, or that T-34's destroyed Y number of German tanks, or that notable wartime person Z believed that it was the most important, that would be different. Again, fact and opinion. Oberiko 17:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Read this article. See the statistics were the Germans kept 3/4 of their army?? And read Tiggers in the Mudd were an ex-Nazi soldier who fought both at the Eastern and the western front stated that ONE RUSSIAN WAS WORTH 10 AMERICANS. M.V.E.i. 13:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; this article is not to tell every tiny detail of the war. It's supposed to summarize in somewhat broad strokes what happened. That's why we have European Theatre of World War II, Eastern Front (World War II), Pacific War. etc., and literally scores of smaller articles for individual campaigns, and articles below them for individual battles. We don't need 3 images for one battle, when one will sufficiently illustrate it.

M.V.E.i., how do you think those T-34s were supplied? Where did the Soviets carry their gasoline and ammunition? On American-made trucks. Where did they get most of their supplies? America and Canada. Without American Lend-Lease, the Soviets would've been defeated, without a doubt. Regardless, that's not what this article is about. Stop pushing your POV here. Parsecboy 16:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who pushes his POV, which is really funny. If you would know history you would know that the USSR evecuated it's factories to the Far-East and Ural territories and that the Soviet Union kept making it's own things. America was needed only in 1941, the first year. If American weapons would be so strong dont you thing that the Nazis wouldn't keep 75% of their forces in the Eastern Front?? Read some books, learn history. Pushing your POV is not an excuse for changing history. Read the book Tiggers ion the Mudd written by an ex-Nazi soldier: "One soviet tank is worth 10 Americans". He fought bouth at the eastern and western front by the way. M.V.E.i. 17:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Condescension won't get you very far here. If you want to pretend that American and Canadian supplies weren't important to the Soviet Union, you can go live in your dream world. Read Military production during World War II, maybe it will open your eyes. Are you trying to tell me that the 100+ thousand Soviet tank and over half million Soviet artillery pieces were supplied by a paltry 197,100 trucks? Cause that's how many the Soviets built in 4 years of war. However, America by itself built almost 2.4 million trucks. Again, if you want to stick your head in the mud and believe the Soviets could've won without American aid, fine by me, but don't do it here. America also produced over 4 times as much iron ore as the Soviets, and close to 8 times the amount of oil, crucial to any mechanized force. Perhaps it's you who needs to learn history. Parsecboy 17:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then wh those Americans weren't so strong?? The Nazis kept 75% of their forces at the eastern front to fight the USSR. And the Soviets would win without America. It wouldtake them a year longer, but they would win. At least read Richard Overy. M.V.E.i. 17:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also an opinion that second world war wouldn't have happened at all when communist soviet union wouldn't have existed... I can easily find the sources for it. Shall we add it here? Владимир И. Сува Чего? 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As written above, according to Stalin (who I think would have some authority on the matter) Russia would have lost the war without American assistance. Again M.V.E.i., you're posting speculation and opinion, not fact. Oberiko 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Read this article. M.V.E.i. 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sidenotes have become really popular lately. So I decided to add one here: As a sidenote, I would like to say that the number of victims in Soviet were great. Why? This is different thing. If you look at battle statistics you will realize what the word Cannon fodder really means. As I have read from some history books that 10 men with machineguns took down hundreds of soviets I wouldn't be surprised over the statistics. The Red Army misused grunts and the old story of politruks shooting down soldiers who tried to retreat. Maybe they are myths, I don't know I wasn't there. But I am just saying that number of killed is no way a proof for that claim.

About the source. It is an opinion. Wikipedia is not really a place for opinions what comes to this article. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I would argue that there's nothing constructive left to get out of this thread. May I suggest to all editors that we stop posting in this section, regardless of potential provocation? Oberiko 17:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing useful will come from this thread, or any discussion spawned from it. I'm done at this section. Parsecboy 00:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Article protected due to edit war

Due to the edit warring over images, I have full protected the article for the next 24 hours. Tomorrow I will revert it back to semi-protected. In the meantime, please talk on the talk page and try to work out your differences.

Further multiparty edit warring once the protection is listed will be subject to sanction. Find a consensus here, please. Georgewilliamherbert 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Well, for a start, the Manual of Style quite clearly states the following:

• Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.
• If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery.

I believe the amount of images does not mesh with agreed styling, especially for a summary article. We've tried discussion, so I suggest we go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment Oberiko 09:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the relevant guideline pages are pretty clear on the issue here. I think an RfC would probably be the best option at this point. Parsecboy 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"You agree", how nice. You started it. M.V.E.i. 13:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is pretty easy. This article has far too many images. Why is that a problem? Because it makes the page slow to load on a slow computer and sandwiches text, which is both against a policy and looks ricicolous and distracts the reader, making the text difficult to read. Therefore, to make the article easy to read, some images have to be removed. I can't see why anyone has a problem with that. 96T 13:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Now it's understood, but no one stated that as a reason before. M.V.E.i. 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Image and text

The first image seen on the page does not match up with its accompanying text.

The image in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WW2_TitlePicture_For_Wikipedia_Article.jpg The text in question says "Animation of alliances and territories controlled during the Second World War, every few months from September 1939 to September 1945. Axis in black, Allies in blue, and the Soviet Union in red."

No, it isn't an animation. It's a montage of various iconic images from WWII. Completely different, you see. May I suggest:

Images clockwise from top: Allied soldiers landing on the Normandy beaches; The infamous motto "work makes you free" above the main gate of Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp; a Soviet soldier raising his nation's flag over the ruins of the Reichstag; a nuclear bomb blast over Japan; German troops march through [where?].

That might be too long, but at least it'd match with the picture.

All with appropriate links, of course. I'd do it myself but I don't know how and I'm rather busy right now. Sorry. WikiReaderer 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, the image has been reverted to the agreed upon animation to which the caption was referring. Parsecboy 20:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I appologize for forgetting fixing caption. But, current animation is factually inaccurate, therefore it will stay out from infbox until mistakes are fixed(details at infobox discussion).--Staberinde 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)