Talk:World War II/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Flawed overview -- para 3

The unsourced paragraph 3 at top-page is flawed as regards "... acceptance of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonisation movements in Asia and Africa ...".

"Acceptance" by whom? Certainly not by the main colonial powers, Britain, France, Portugal. When the war ended, Britain and America promptly reneged on their 1941 Atlantic Charter which had lured partisan movements around the world (including Poland) to side with the Allies against Germany and Japan, in return for the promise of "freedom" from colonial rule. When this "freedom" failed to materialise after WW2, indigenous independence movements, with Sino-Soviet help, mounted fullscale liberation wars in Kenya, Malaya, N.Korea, N. Vietnam, Philippines, and later in southern Africa. Not to mention a violent mutiny and bloody rebellion in India.

Para 3 is further flawed by omitting any reference to the crucial, immediate post-war Bretton Woods Agreement to reform international financial institutions, tariffs and trade, etc, which had been identified as among the main economic causes of WW2. Communicat (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to its self proclaied "good article" status, the ww2 article is riddled with other errors and ommissions and double standards in accepting or rejecting citations. The milhist panel -- HoHum, Nick-D, Blinkster etc -- seem to be suffering from an ownership problem The article is "their" turf and anyone who trespasses on it, especially Communicat of late, is trampled upon in jackbooted nazi style. There are many examples in the talk archives. Milhist panely w2ould be put to better use by actually improving-correcting-shortening the artile instead of acting like a bunch of nazis. A more couteous and open minded atitude would be nice. Besides, none of the milhist panel appear to have any historical or editorial qualifications listed on their user pages. At best they seem to be self opinionated computer geeks and not much else. 41.145.238.141 (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You will find that calling people names will not get you far here...Pls simply point out what YOU believe is wrong and find a source for it...We dont care about opinions here only verifiable sources. Moxy (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to Admin: Not dormant; please don't archive yet; is partly subject to ongoing dispute resolution process. Communicat (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

USSR and USA at the top?

I find this insulting that they have been put ahead of the UK and France in the belligerents list considering that they joined in 1941 I urge that this should be changed back to something that makes more sense, France and the UK fought much harder in the War than that of the USA And Russia despite what numbers of casualties say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of placement, saying who "fought harder in the war" is an inherently subjective judgement, and has no place in an NPOV article. Length of time involved, casualty rates, scope of involvement, even alphabetical are orders that can be objectively stated. Any one would be fine as a potential scheme for ordering. Subjective boasting of "who fought harder" is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me disagree with the statement that "saying who "fought harder in the war" is an inherently subjective judgement". It is possible to measure who fought harder simply by counting the losses sustained by some belligerent and, more importantly, by losses inflicted by him on its opponent. By both these criteria Britain (and, especially, France) cannot be placed on the top. More importantly, I would say that placement of France along with Britain would be insulting.--188.123.242.211 (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

you fortify Davido488's point here "Length of time involved, casualty rates, scope of involvement, even alphabetical are orders that can be objectively stated" Who was involved in the war longest? Who was most involved, Who Turned the tide in the African campaign at El alemein, who stopped the German advance into the west and maybe even the USA, who repelled the Japanese in Burma, who stopped the German advance in the middle east, in terms of Involvement, Length, and casualties it is no doubt that the UK should come top of the allies belligerents list

It's only fair that France should come Second as France fought extremely well for liberation from the start as one of the first to declare war involved in battles in Vietnam to Africa, losing over a million people. Please take it into consideration86.135.58.219 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I couldn't of put it better myself really, the UK and France deserve to be above the Russia and the US do to a longer duration and and Span of conflict around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break. Enough of this nationalism going on here. 8 out of every 10 German soldier killed in the war were killed by the Russians.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 22:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost any metric of involvement will be argued to death. i.e. inflicted casualties, casualties inflicted versus casualties taken, amount of territory taken/recovered, size of forces, resources devoted to warmaking; all the previous factors relative to GDP, length of time engaged in the war, order of joining, most important battles, most distributed global involvement, etc. To argue about any of them simply for the "terrible outrage" of the order shown in an infobox would seem to indicate people are willing to devote more time to arguing than to improving the article.

My suggestion would be to identify the main combatants (for which there will be argument enough), and then list them alphabetically; and then get on with some proper editing. (Hohum ^@) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Enough of the nationalism. Let's keep this article NPOV (FWIW, I hate the USSR. They kicked out my ancestors in 1918)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetically?? What in the world for? The current listing is perfectly NPOV. Its not "nationalist", its based on actual involvement in the conflict. And anyway how in the world would alphabetizing help anything, you cannot very well list all combatants - we'd still have to select the "preferred" ones. Plus the infobox in alphabetic order would be just plain stupid ("Australia and Belgium vs Bulgaria and Italy"). If we really need some determining factor it should be combined troop strength, not the sodding alphabet :P (except for the "Big Three" of course, which should be at the top in the current order regardless of troop strength).

The current listing is very accurate, the USSR's involvement virtually dwarfs that of all other countries combined. If it weren't for its status as one of the "Big Three" Britain should probably be below China. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I said "main combatants" alphabetically. I've given clear reasons why "level of involvement" can be argued about ad nauseam, and already has been on this talk page, and the infobox template talk page - read the archives. So, again, wasting more time on a minor point of presentation seems to gather more interest than content. (Hohum ^@) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Let's all leave it as it is :)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Eighty percent of all German losses were inflicted upon them by the Red Army on the eastern front. The efforts of the Western Allies on the eastern front accounted for only 20 percent of German losses, whereas total losses of the German Wehrmacht were 72 percent of its officers and men, most of them. dying on the Soviet-German (i.e. Eastern) front. Since the British Army deployed no more than 28 divisions as compared with the American army’s 99 divisions, the British contribution to Allied victory must have been in the region of only five percent. As for the Americans: the military potential of the US, as estimated in 1939 in terms of gross national product and industrial production, represented more than 40 percent of the world’s total. Yet that advantage was never translated into a proportionate contribution on the battlefield. The 99 American divisions were overshadowed 4:1 by Red Army divisions.The price paid by the USSR for defeating Hitler on the principal and decisive front of the war was enormous. Well over 40 million Russians, half of them civilians, died — many more than the combined total military casualties of Germany and the Western Allies together. Sources: John Erickson, Stalin's War With Germany, (2 vols) London: Grafton, 1985, where individual campaigns are listed at Vol II, p.1181; Alexander Werth, Russia at War 1941-1945, New York: Avon 1965: Norman Davies, Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory, London: Macmillan 2005. Forty million Soviet fatalities stated in Stan Winer, Between the Lies, Southern Universities Press: London 2007, 2nd edn, p.87 online edition p.82 citing Professor of Defence Studies at Edinburgh University, on the basis of former Soviet military archives opened to the West in 1994. Communicat (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I must reiterate, let's leave it as it is. There really is no since arguing over the order of flags! I'd rather not have to watch one of the lamest edit wars occur on an article that I am very proud to have promoted to GA status. Wikipedia never seems to be able to keep articles like these at GA level for long and this is why.....--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's okay with me. I couldn't care less about the order of flags. My posting had more to do with NPOV errors of omission and the apparent Russo-phobia demonstrated by at least one milhist administrator, of which more later. Communicat (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC

I'm not going to argue on here because if I do I will never stop arguing and will probably be blocked which I cannot be bothered with, BUT Britain may not be ahead of Russia but should be ahead of the United states alphabetically and terms of casualties and war effort, and how high a country is on the belligerent IS relevant, but never mind because we all know this site is full of bias Americans trying to make everything done by America look that bit better than everyone else. So just leave it as that I'm not going to bother anymore on this silly article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.58.219 (talk • contribs)

My question above was asked for the same reasons as this. There must be a process of listing belligerents that cannot be disputed. --Half Price (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why alphabetical ordering was suggested in the first place. But I think the infobox is also a bit of an overview of involved editors, as I am pretty sure for example that small states in Europe like Luxembourg were more involved than e.g. South Africa. Arnoutf (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? More than 10,000 S.African soldiers (third of the entire SA force in North Africa) were captured by Rommel at Tobruk. SA army threw German army out of German colony South West Africa. SA pilot Edwin Swales VC was posthumously decorated for heroism during the air offensive against Germany. Many other SA pilots were seconded to RAF. Etc. Now, how does Luxembourg compare with that? Communicat (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The alphabetical ordering has one major disadvantage, namely, it is not clear from it which countries were major WWII participants. As a result, Australian pupils come from school being firmly confident that the WWII was a war between Australia and Japan, and that Australia won this war (I am telling about a real example). Another example is the initial Davido488's post (which can be better explained by simple ignorance rather than by Russophobia). It must be clear from the infobox that in actuality the WWII was the war between a handful of major Allied countries (of which only three made a decisive contribution in the the victory) and three major Axis' members (of which only one was the Axis leader). Of course, it would be incorrect to forget the contribution of South Africa, however, it would be even more incorrect to list, e.g. Belgium before, e.g. the USSR.

With regards to "a process of listing belligerents that cannot be disputed", we already discussed this issue before and came to a conclusion that no strict rules exist on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In which case we need some. Otherwise this will happen again and again. Should I take this to any Wikiproject? --Half Price (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact scrap that, Template:Infobox_military_conflict states that "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command." Admittedly it also adds "If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article" --Half Price (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The only obvious objective way to determine it, is to place them in order of time participated. It is the only measure that can be measured without bias. Obviously it would be UK, USSR, USA, France, and so on. If you try and list them in order of importance, everyone will have different measures as to what that means.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The only obvious objective way to determine it, is to place them in order of time participated. It is the only measure that can be measured without bias." Of course, no. There is a lot of opportunity for bias here. For instance, if we interpret this criterion formally, than the first place should be given to Poland (at war since Sept 1, 1939), although no actual hostilities took place between this country and the Axis during 1940-42. Another example is the Phoney War. Anyway, since the most important consequence of any war is the loss of human lives, it is natural to expect it to be the most objective criterion. It is very strange for me that some quite formal criteria (e.g. formal duration of the state of war) seem less biased then casualties are. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"loss of human lives, it is natural to expect it to be the most objective criterion". Yes but how do we calculate that. What is more loss of human lives, if US military casualties of about 410,000 (0.32% of 1939 population) worse than the approx 500,000 civilian casualties in Greece (about 7% of 1939 pop). Are not the 2,000 casualties in Luxembourg relatively twice as much as those of the US (these 2,000 represented 0.68% of 1939 population). If you say US counts for more, you implicitly say that large countries will always suffer more (even if the 100% of the Luxembourg population would have suffered from genocide there would be far less casualties compared to the US). Even a so-called simple thing as casualties is not. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Our task is not to calculate relative casualties. We need to provide some objective criterion for absolute (not per capita) military contribution. The country that deployed greater army, sustained greater losses and, importantly, inflicted greater losses on the opponent made greater contribution. With regard to small countries, they by definition cannot be listed first because, independently of relative losses, their military contribution was small.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that casualties are not a good way to see importance of the war, i.e following your rationale the pinnacle of military strategy would be to emply only unarmed troops (or horse cavalry or light infantery) as that will guarantee you a lot of casualties on your side, an hence by your reasoning massive casualties on the side of the enemy. I do not see why we cannot calculate relative casualties. OR why civilian casualties do not count. Casualties alone is no measure for importance of a country (e.g. if you look at casualties USSR (23 Million) Poland (5.7 Million) and Dutch East Indies (3.5 Million) score about ten times more than the US; if you look at military casualties the Yugoslav partisans (446,000) trump the US (417,000)). So "objectively" the order of allies would be (all casualties USSR, Poland, Dutch East Indies, India, Yugoslavia) or if you limit yourself to military it would be (USSR, China, Yugoslavia, US, UK), if you look at relative death it would be Poland, USSR, Yugoslavia, Greece. Useful to put Yugoslavia before US and UK, not really, but that will be the consequence of the "objective" measure. Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the pinnacle of military strategy would be to emply only unarmed troops (or horse cavalry or light infantery) as that will guarantee you a lot of casualties on your side" Quite the opposite. As I already noted, the losses inflicted on the opponent are more important criterion.

Re: "I do not see why we cannot calculate relative casualties." Because it is irrelevant. We discuss the relative importance of nation's contribution into the war, not who fought harder. The fact that Luxembourg sustained relatively more losses than the USA does not mean its contribution was comparable with that of the USA. The WWII was primarily a war between great powers.

Re: "Casualties alone is no measure for importance of a country (e.g. if you look at casualties USSR (23 Million) Poland (5.7 Million) and Dutch East Indies (3.5 Million) score about ten times more than the US;" That is both correct and incorrect. Dutch East Indies casualties led to only minor Japanese casualties (and, frankly, did not affect a situation in any important theatre of war). Polish casualties were mostly civilian casualties and didn't change German ability to wage the war. By contrast, Soviet casualties (which were accompanied by almost equally high Axis casualties) led to exhaustion of the Axis military machine, a loss of the greatest part of German possessions in Europe, and, eventually, to the victory in the most important WWII theatre. Therefore they are the measure.

Re: "So "objectively" the order of allies would be" Such a reductio ad absurdum is hardly relevant here. My point was that, as soon as we want to invent a single objective criterion for military contribution, military casualties are the most appropriate one. However, as I already noted, the casualties must be military, not total, and, importantly, the casualties inflicted on the opponent should weigh more than the casualties sustained.

However, I never stated that such a single criterion can be universal: it is impossible to use the same criteria for comparison of quite different theatres of war: yes, based on the amount of troops involved, losses sustained/inflicted, strategic importance etc., we can compare, e.g. African campaign and Case Blau (and made quite objective conclusion abou relative importance), however, it is hard to compare, e.g., BoB and Battle of Leningrad.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To summarise. Of course, it is incorrect to state that the country that sustained greater total population losses made greater military contribution. However, a combination of military losses sustained by a country plus military losses inflicted by the country on the opponent can be a primary criterion when we compare similar theatres of war. Other criteria can be (i) the level of military production; (ii) the country's role in providing military resources for the most important theatres of war; (iii) the technological level of warfare the country was involved in; (iv) political weight the country had during the war and its role in making the most important strategic decision; (v) (you may expand this list if you have any other ideas).

Based on i-iv, both the US and the UK should occupy one of first three positions. However, the USSR also meets these four criteria: the level of military production was high there (the USSR was responsible for production of a lion's share of the armament used in the Eastern Front), technological level was relatively high (the most modern German tanks, artillery and partially planes were produced for the use in the East); political weight of the USSR was enormous during WWII (after 1941).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well your post above argues that casualties sustained alone are indeed not the most suitable objective criterion. I fully agree. Note that it was you who proposed this first. On the other hand, while you correctly argue that most of German advanced tanks were produced for the east, almost all German navy (including U boats) and the most avanced Luftwaffe was deployed against the Western allies. All in all, the inclusion of political weight, level of technology etc. adds additional interpretation which is not 100% objective (let alone the decision to put sustained military casualties over civilian casualties).

I do agree based on your analysis that the main allies were indeed the traditional big 3: USA, UK, USSR. Each of the was essential in its own way and I would hesitate to put one over another, for those 3 alphabetic order seems fine to me. Arnoutf (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Note that it was you who proposed this first." I am not a proponent of the use of any single criterion, my point was that, as soon as we decided to use some single criterion the losses would the most objective one. However, I doubt such oversimplification would be correct.

Re the decision to put sustained military casualties over civilian casualties. I see no problem with that because total casualties just show who suffered more, whereas own military casualties show who fought more and, accordingly, the opponent's military casualties show whose military contribution was greater.

Re navy etc. That is correct, and that is one of the reasons why all the Big Three's members can be grouped together (separately from other Allies). However, that is insufficient to say that their contributions were comparable. Obviously, whereas all Big Three's members meet criteria i-iv, the scale and strategic importance of the Eastern Front leaves no doubts that Soviet contribution was far greater. However, there is one more argument that you missed, namely, that from 1 Sept 1939 till 1941 the USSR was de facto (although not de jure) the German ally. Of course, one may argue that during that time the USA were collaborating extensively with Japan by providing her with oil and other resources needed for the war with China, however, one way or the another, Nazi-Soviet collaboration is the only fact that may counterbalance the enormous Soviet contribution into the victory. That is why I cannot unconditionally support the placement of the USSR on the top of the list. Probably the idea of the alphabetical order is not so bad, however, as you probably noticed it does not change the Big Three's order much: the Soviet Union goes first, the United Kingdom is the second, whereas the United States of America occupy the third position. However, if we agree on that the footnote has to be added to the infobox explaining that the Big Three's members are listed alphabetically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, and indeed the Eastern front was a massive drain on German personell and resources. But even that is not as simple (as you already indicate with the Germany-USSR alliance). In the early stages Anglo-American supplies to Murmansk have helped the Russians to stabilise the Eastern front; and in the later stages the massive bombing of German industries has weakened their Eastern tank divisions considerably.

Re alphabetic order; I share you concern, but as any other criterion seems to spark nationalist tendencies I see no alternative. One thing I wondered about, why are we talking about Soviet Union instead of USSR and not about United States and United Kingdom, that seems a bit inconsistent to me. Arnoutf (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that it should be the USSR, rather than the Soviet Union. In which case, if going by it alphabetically, it should be the United Kingdom first, United States second, and USSR third. --MILLANDSON (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, what is the reason for use of abbreviation in one case (the USSR) and full names (United Kingdom and United states) in others?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to Amin: Not dormant. Don't archive yet. May be subject to ongoing dispute resolution. Communicat (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing Dispute -- expressions of interest invited

Senior editor Moxy at his userpage gives this message to editors: "Please stop tagging (adding templates) to the top of every article you read and actually take the time and fix the problems." Now that's all very well and good. But, having followed that advice and actually taking the time and trouble to fix problems at WW2 overview page, (see View history entry 17:53, 5 August 2010), I've now simply had my edit reverted arbitrarily by milhist administrator User:Nick-D (see View history entry 22:47, 5 August 2010). This despite the verifiable fact that I'd first proposed the changes clearly and courteously at section headed Flawed overview? - Para 3 on this discussion page, without receiving any response to my proposed changes from User:Nick-D or anyone else. So, after a few days without feedback, I simply followed Moxy's advice and labouriously fixed the problems, only to have the edit reverted by User:Nick-D. It's not the first time he's done this kind of thing. I'm happy to work productively and co-operatively but have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in puerile and unproductive editing wars with evidently disruptive administrators. Do well-intentioned people really have to go through all this $h1t in order to improve an article? Communicat (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I was astounded to find that nothing leapt out at me as particularly poor about Communicat's recent edit (diff) to the lead. It's unusual to splatter prominent dispute and NPOV tags over such a minor difference though. Perhaps Nick-D could say what his objections are in more detail. (Hohum ^@) 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe some astute editor will do reversion to my proper earlier version. Still no word from the esteemed User:Nick-D. Maybe they do things differently in the land of Oz.Communicat (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Below are my commentaries on some Communicat's edits.

1. "The war was fought between the Allies -- America, Britain, British Commonwealth forces and the Soviet Union -- against the Axis powers: Germany, Italy and Japan."

Comment. The sentence fully ignores the role of other Allies, especially, Poland, France, China, as well as other European Axis members, especially Romania. It is also worth mention that Britain was a part of Commonwealth. My proposal is:

"The war was fought between the Allies — primarily British Commonwealth and the United States, as well as the Soviet Union — against the Axis powers, primarily Germany, Italy and Japan." Yes, that's good

Let me also note that this sentence (both old and new versions) reproduces the first lede's sentence:

"... which involved most of the world's nations, including all of the great powers, organised into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. "

We have to discuss how to avoid this repetition. Well spotted. Should have seen it myself the first time

2. "The Allies were supported militarily by communist-led resistance movements throughout Europe and the Far East. "

Comment. The Communist supported resistance movement was a real fighting force mostly in Yugoslavia; the role of resistance in France or Italy is usually exaggerated. Resistance in Poland was supported by non-Communists or even anti-Communists. My suggestion: remove from the lede. See further discussion, esp. Far East groups, below in section "Anti-communist prejudice".

3. "British wartime leader Winston Churchill, in his voluminous history of World War II , depicts a generally cordial relationship between the Western allies and their Soviet allay."

Comment. Churchill was hardly a professional historian, his writings can be considered partially as memoirs (a primary source), so we cannot rely upon them too much. My suggestion: remove. A lot of people DO unfortunately rely on them volumes. But yes, remove source if you're a purist, as all good editors should be. Lots of other secondary sources available to support same premise, viz., cordial relationship.

4. "Documents declassified after the war provide a different perspective. In secret wartime correspondence between Soviet leader Josef Stalin and Churchill, Stalin complained repeatedly that by land, sea and air, the Western allies were failing to use their military forces to good effect while, as a result, the Soviet Union suffered appalling losses on the eastern or Russian-German front. "

Comment. Declassified documents are primary sources. secondary source Introduction by editor Richardson (which refers to docs in mainbody of book) can be source ref. If not, the same docs can probably be found in Hinsley somewhere, if one only has the time to look for them ... The lede cannot devote a space to discussion of them. No, "discussion" is not proposed. Just a one-sentence mention.Discussion of tension between the Big Three's members hardly deserves mention in the lede. The implications are so vast and important that I consider it worthy of mention. In addition, introduction of the dead wikilink into a good article is hardly a good idea (especially, taking into account that the name is not common). Not common in the West. Standard in the former Soviet Union. My suggestion: remove. My suggestion: disambigulation warning.

5. "Russian historians contend that the Eastern Front was the principal and decisive front of the war. "

Comment. It is incorrect to present this POV as a national POV. Many western historians (e.g., Glantz, Bellamy et al) share this point of view. All the more reason to say so. My general suggestion regarding ##3-5 is: add a brief description of WWII theatres along with discussion of their relative importance. Space problem. Maybe an entire section to itself? But, article already tooooo longgggg and needs trimming overall. Rather you than me.::::"Revisionist historians propose that, because of the wartime tensions that existed between Stalin and the Western leaders, the roots of the Cold War can be traced to events in World War II. "

Comment. I am not sure we need to discuss the revisionist point of view for at least two reasons: firstly, to discuss the revisionist POV, one have to present a mainstream point of view; secondly, I am not sure if we need to discuss the roots of Cold War in the lede of the article about the WWII.

Conservative mainstream view has entered the ideologically conditioned (Western) collective psyche to such an extent that it hardly requires further regurgitation. So, in interests of NPOV, I think revisionist view might merit at least a brief airing.

My general conclusion is that, although some Communicat's points (which have been put forward by him on the talk page) are valid, it would be premature to support the changes made by him. I propose to discuss these prospective changes on the talk page first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2010

Thanks for taking time and trouble to comment thoughtfully. My responses for ease of reference are reds above. Communicat (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As a quick comment, the problems with the material added in these edits were. 1) The text on the nations involved in the war (which now seems to be resolved) Small matter of copy editing 2) the claim that "The Allies were supported militarily by communist-led resistance movements throughout Europe" is simply wrong - while communist groups played the key role in the resistance in several countries, the Communists didn't 'lead' the resistance in western Europe which was coordinated by the various governments in exile located in Britain. My use of term "communist-led" is clarified in Section below headed "Anti-communist prejudice". Greek resistance had no contact with monarchist government in exile which they intended to overthrow anyway. Italian resistance had no govt in exile. Italian communist-led partisans, the only partisan force that actually managed liberate enemy-occupied territory, insignificant? 3) The armed resistance movements in most of Japanese-occupied Asia were fairly small and unimportant. Korean / Vietnamese / Chinese (Mao's) resistance "small and unimportant"? Hmmmm. The Philippino resistance movement was probably the most significant of them, but it was not 'communist led' as it was coordinated out of General MacArthur's headquarters. Filipino resistance was conducted on the ground by groups operating in enemy occupied territory and completely cut off from communication with McArthur. 4) The material on Churchill's memoirs is simply out of place in this very high-level article on the war - you may wish to add it to Winston Churchill as historian Not memoirs as such. Taught as "history" in many schools. But never mind. Debatable point. 5) the claim that "Russian historians contend that the Eastern Front was the principal and decisive front of the war." is also out of place in this high-level article and ignores the fact that most western historians now agree with this view in relation to the war in Europe, If there's East-West consensus on decisive front, then surely this merits some acknowledgment, not for the sake of knowlegeable historians but for the benefit of less informed mortals who rely on wiki for enlightenment, though it's obviously not correct for the war in the Pacific (where the American offensive through the South-West and Central Pacific was decisive). Digression. 6) the material added to the 'Chronology' section was wordy and seemed to suggest that the USSR didn't participate in the war until it was invaded by the Axis in 1941. I didn't write it. Material was moved to Chronology because of repetition and to make space for reworked 2nd / 3rd pars. Moved material needed cleanup, as stated. I'm not going to engage with your rude comments about me beyond observing that reverting edits is part of normal editing, and wasn't performed in my role as an admin. Rude comments: I merely reacted to your own rude and defamatory comment that I'm trying to air "pet theories". The fact remains that I cited WP:FRINGE concerning the rule that equal weight must be given in an article to all reliable majority and significan-minority positions in support of NPOV. Discussion, what there is of it, has carefully circumvented that matter and otherwise appears to be leading nowhere. So what's the point in discusing it further, I wonder. (User Paul Siebert Phd excepted) Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Many Thanks but I don't agree with most of your observations. See bolds above. Communicat (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to note (1) "Philippino" (your word) should correctly be Filipino. (2) The word "Front", as in "principle and decisive front", means the forward position of an army in battle (Oxford English Dictionary). The Pacific war, which you refer to, was a Theatre, not a front. Communicat (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please reformat your response so that it's not in the middle of what I wrote? This makes it very difficult for other editors to follow what I posted and your response. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You presume to have the authority to speak on behalf of "other editors", (who've not complained). I see no diversionary need to "reformat" my responses above. In fact, it's the least confusing way to address directly and lucidly the multiple points at issue. Instead of presuming to complain on behalf of "other editors", why don't you just DEAL with the issues? Which of course you have not. Communicat (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Although Nick-D has no authority to speak on behalf of other editors, he is probably right: it is really rather difficult to follow. To demonstrate this point, try to imagine how the initial post would look like if Nick-D responded in the same manner you did (by wedging his comments between your comments on his text). In addition, it is generally recommended to avoid using bold text, which may be interpreted as shouting. I don't think that was your intention.

I believe the problem will be resolved if you post (or re-post) concrete proposals, namely, which concrete pieces of text should be modified, how concretely should they be modified, and what sources support the changes you propose.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to admin: please don't archive yet. Not dormant; may be subject to dispute resolution process ongoing. Communicat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Duplication / cleanup

Para 2 duplicates info and should be moved to Chronology section after cleanup. Sentence too long and unsourced. I fixed this in my earlier edition (see History) which was then reverted by admin. Maybe someone else should try, seeing as admin doesn't like my edits. Communicat (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to admin: please don't archive yet; not dormant; may be subject to dispute process. Communicat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC).

At least one para is missing in the lede.

In my opinion, the lede does not adequately reflect the article, because the course of the war (the article's major part) is absolutely not reflected there. The para about the war's start:

"The war is generally accepted to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth. China and Japan were already at war by this date, whereas other countries that were not initially involved joined the war later in response to events such as the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the Japanese attacks on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and on British overseas colonies, which triggered declarations of war on Japan by the United States, the British Commonwealth, and the Netherlands."

is immediately followed by a the para about the war's outcome and aftermath:

"The war ended with the total victory of the Allies over Germany and Japan in 1945. World War II left the political alignment and social structure of the world significantly altered. While the United Nations was established to foster international cooperation and prevent future conflicts, the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as rival superpowers, setting the stage for the Cold War, which would last for the next forty-six years. Meanwhile, the influence of European great powers started to decline — while the decolonization of Asia and of Africa began. Most countries whose industries had been badly damaged began moving toward economic recovery and across the world political integration emerged in an effort to peacefully stabilise after war relations."

By contrast to, e.g. the WWI lede, nothing has been said about the major parties' objectives, how the war developed, about the main theatres etc. That seems odd taking into account that a whole para is devoted to the war's start date (which is ridiculous, and in that sense I agree with Communicate).

I propose to think how to fix that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Bearing it mind that it's a summary article, which condenses the entirety of WWII, which was of far wider scope and complexity than WWI, it may be a bit of a challenge to condense the main contents into one paragraph. However, I suppose, very briefly:

1. German war aims.
2. German early successes
3. Japanese war aims
4. Japanese early success
5. Reverses to Germany in Russia
6. America enters war, re-invasion of Europe.
7. Reverses to Japan in Pacific

Even with only one densely packed sentence each, that is a paragraph, and it misses a lot. (Hohum ^@) 18:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, although I would suggest to add the grinding down of German advance towards UK and in the atlantic, basically adding tat to the lines Reverse to German advance. This would be a line, or a version thereof something like:

"By the end of 1940 the Battle of Britain eliminated the threat of an invasion of the UK. By the end on 1941 operation Barbarossa had ended in a failure to overwhelm the USSR. With the UK victory in El Alamein in 1942 German ground forces were no longer advancing on any major front, and were forced to abandon Africa and to the defensive on the eastern front." Arnoutf (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe include British War Cabinet minister (of Aircraft Production), Colonel Moore-Brabazon's articulation of British grand strategy: "Let the German and Soviet armies tear into each other. We will pick up the pieces." McClaine, Ian, Ministry of Morale: Home Front Morale and the Ministry of Information in World War II, London: Allen and Unwin, 1979, p.207 Communicat (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Re "With the UK victory in El Alamein ..." Nonsense. Australians, New Zealanders and especially South African's played an important role. Communicat (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Moore-Brabazon quote seems inappropriate on two counts. Firstly, a specific quote by an almost unknown figure would be too specific a piece of minutia even for the main body of this summary article, let alone the lead. Secondly, it would need to be used as a quote by an authoritative and reliable historical work which identified it as being representative of British grand strategy; not a book about propaganda.

Agree, "Allied victory at El Alamein" would cover all forces. (Hohum ^@) 22:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "With the UK victory in El Alamein in 1942 German ground forces were no longer advancing on any major front..." I probably didn't understand something, but this is simply incorrect. By the end of the Second Battle of El Alamein the Paulus' Sixth Army was still conducting its offensive at Stalingrad. Moreover, some successful major offensives, e.g. Third Battle of Kharkov, which was more massive than whole African campaign, took place even after Stalingrad. The Battle of Kursk was also a German major offensive, and the Wehrmach did advance at the beginning.

Re: "... and to the defensive on the eastern front." It is not clear for me how the victory in Africa could force the Wehrmach to go to the defensive in the East, taking into account that the latter launched several successful major offensives in the East after El Alamein (see above).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, the relation Africa-Russia was very careless; probably me wanting to phrase it too briefly. Let me try again to give the reversal of fortune line for Germany.

Suggestion for the first half for the European theatre. (open to rephrasing and suggestions) "Germany set out to establish a large German empire in Europe. In 1939 Poland was invaded and quickly overrun, in early 1940 German forces invaded and conquered most of North-Western Europe. By the end of 1940 the Battle of Britain eliminated the threat of an invasion of the UK stopping Germanys western advance. In 1941 operation Barbarossa aimed to overwhelm the USSR. The Germans advanced deep into Russia and managed to besiege Leningrad, reach the outskirts of Moscow and besiege Stalingrad. After the Russian victories at Stalingrad and the Battle of Kursk in 1943 Germany no longer had the offensive initiative on any major front."Arnoutf (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Digression: Re Moore-Brabazon (Lord Brabazon, who even had an aircraft named after him, if I'm not mistaken). My suggestion was tongue-in-cheek. Thought it would be recognised as such. Turned out he was drunk at the time. Many a slip 'tween cup 'n lip. Or maybe in vino veritas?. Communicat (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Germany set out to establish a large German empire in Europe." Since Nazi goals were more global, I would propose:

"Germany set out to establish a large German empire in Europe, and eventually to dominate the world."

Re:"In 1939 Poland was invaded and quickly overrun, in early 1940 German forces invaded and conquered most of North-Western Europe." Since invasion of Poland has already been discussed in the previous para, since not only North-Western Europe was conquered, and because we speak not only about Germany, I would propose:

"During 1939-early 1941 by a series of successful military campaigns and political treaties the Axis conquered or politically subdued most of continental Europe besides neutral USSR."

Re: "By the end of 1940 the Battle of Britain eliminated the threat of an invasion of the UK stopping Germanys western advance." As someone correctly noted before, the Axis advance to the West was stopped by Atlantic ocean, not by Britain. In my opinion, it would be better to say that during late 1940 - first half of 1941 Britain remained the only Axis' military opponent they had to take into account. I propose:

"Britain eliminated the threat of an invasion of the islands thus remaining the only major anti-Axis fighting force, which continued extensive naval warfare and fight in Mediterranean."

Re: "In 1941 operation Barbarossa aimed to overwhelm the USSR. The Germans advanced deep into Russia and managed to besiege Leningrad, reach the outskirts of Moscow and besiege Stalingrad. After the Russian victories at Stalingrad and the Battle of Kursk in 1943 Germany no longer had the offensive initiative on any major front." In my opinion, we do not need to focus on the geographical names that sound odd to the Anglophone audience and on other details. I think it would be sufficient to say that after June 22 a new theatre emerged that dwarfed all other theatres of WWII. In addition, it is incorrect to write about Germany only. For instance, Romania and Hungary sustained more than 600,000 military losses in the East, which demonstrate the degree of their involvement in the conflict. I also don't think we I propose:

"In June 1941, the European Axis invaded the USSR, thus giving a start to the largest land theatre of war in history, which, from this moment on was tying down and grinding down the major part of the Axis military power."

With regard to the rest part of the Eastern Front story, I think it should be told concurrently with the events in Pacific/Mediterranean. For instance, Midway, El-Alamein and Stalingrad should be combined in one sentence. I propose:

"In December 1941, Japan, which had already been at war with China since 1937, and which aimed to establish a dominance over East Asia and Oceania, attacked the US and European possessions there, quickly conquering significant part of the Pacific. The Axis expansion was stopped only in 1942 after defeat of Japan in a series of naval battles and after devastating defeats of European Axis troops in Mediterranean and at Stalingrad. In 1943, with a series of German defeats in the East and the Allied invasion of Italy the Axis no longer had the offensive initiative on any major front"

Summarising all said above, below is the text which describes the events before the D-Day:

"Germany set out to establish a large German empire in Europe. During 1939-early 1941 by a series of successful military campaigns and political treaties the Axis conquered or politically subdued most of continental Europe besides neutral USSR. Britain eliminated the threat of an invasion of the islands thus remaining the only major anti-Axis fighting force, which continued extensive naval warfare and fight in Mediterranean. In June 1941, the European Axis launched an invasion of the USSR, thus giving a start to the largest land theatre of war in history, which, from this moment on was tying down and grinding down the major part of the Axis military power. In December 1941, Japan, which had already been at war with China since 1937, and which aimed to establish a dominance over East Asia and Oceania, attacked the US and European possessions there, quickly conquering significant part of the Pacific. The Axis expansion was stopped only in 1942 after defeat of Japan in a series of naval battles and after devastating defeats of European Axis troops in Mediterranean and at Stalingrad. In 1943, with a series of German defeats in the East and the Allied invasion of Italy the Axis no longer had the offensive initiative on any major front."

I think, two or three more sentences about the end of the war would be enough. Feel free to modify the proposed text if you disagree with something or if you think the wording is awkward.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well said. How about adding something about Blitz of Britain coming to end when USSR became Britain's only fighting ally in Europe. GAF bombers shifted focus to bombing Russian cities. Not sure if that's in mainbody article, but if not, should be. Plentiful sources available. Communicat (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

@Paul, looks good, some minore suggestions for rewording (bold)

"Germany set out to establish a large German empire in Europe. During 1939-early 1941 in a series of successful military campaigns and political treaties the Axis conquered or politically subdued most of continental Europe apart from neutral USSR. Britain eliminated the threat of an invasion of the British islands thus remaining the only major Axis fighting force, continuing extensive naval warfare and fight in Mediterranean. In June 1941, the European Axis launched an invasion of the USSR, giving a start to the largest land theatre of war in history, which, from this moment on was tying down the major part of the Axis military power. In December 1941, Japan, which had already been at war with China since 1937, and which aimed to establish a dominance over East Asia and Oceania, attacked the US and European possessions in the Pacific, quickly conquering significant part of the region. The Axis advance was stopped in 1942 after defeat of Japan in a series of naval battles and after devastating defeats of European Axis troops in the Mediterranean and at Stalingrad. In 1943, with a series of German defeats in the East and the Allied invasion of Italy the Axis no longer had the offensive initiative on any major front."

@Communicat, the Luftwaffe (medium range) bombers were struggling with the range to do any substantial military damage to the UK by that time; also Luftwaffe could no longer protect the vulnerable bomber because of increasing fighter air defense in the UK. I am not convinced the moving of these rather inefficient bomber fleet to Russia seriously affected the war. I think this is an interesting topic for the battle of Britain article, but I think it is too detailed for this one, and in any case too detailed for the lead section. Arnoutf (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction: mine above should have read "Blitz on London" not "Blitz of Britain". I've sources to counter your view above. Await Paul input. Communicat (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but notice that the Blitz itself also had no major military impact. Still relevant for Battle of Britain but too much detail for this large overview article, let alone its lead. Arnoutf (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently the main article states: "The diversion of three quarters of the Axis troops and the majority of their air forces from France and the central Mediterranean to the Eastern Front prompted Britain to reconsider its grand strategy. " If that is what Communicat means, then the event which is only briefly mentioned in the article hardly deserve a mention in the lede. If Communicat believes the importance of this event is understated in the main article, let's discuss how to change the article first, and only after that can we speak about the lede's change.

One way or the another, the more I look at the lede the more I am inclined to think that Communicat was right that too much attention is devoted in the lede to the WWII start date. That is probably a result of an old dispute [1]. One way or the another, I think that, if the above text (the Arnoutf's version) will be supported by others, it would be good to combine the para starting with : "The war is generally accepted to have begun on 1 September 1939..." with the new text. Does anyone want to try to do that?

And, finally, we need to discuss how to describe D-Day and the events after that. I propose to focus on that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if arse-about-face method is best, but according to exigencies of wiki methodology it might or might not turn out to be the only practical way. Debatable. My own preference, for what it's worth, would be the Pathfinder approach, viz., establish / modify lead first, and then revise mainbody, having defined in lead what must be the key ingredients to follow. (Bearing in mind especially that the article as a whole needs very extensive editing / shortening, otherwise is TL;DR). But that's just me.

Re Strategy: My point: What in fact was Britain's strategy (as distinct from tactics) before Britain "reconsidered strategy" as stated? (Maybe I'm just getting lost the maze here). Crucial Brit strategy was Strategic Air Offensive aka area bombing / terror bombing, which consumed very much more expenditure in terms of Brit casualties and money than was expended on Navy and Army (sources available). Which in turn was cause of delayed opening of second front in Europe. Merits at least one modest sentence in your reworking of para which can otherwise not be faulted. And speaking of sources, does your para indicate relaxation of sourcing rules in this instance?

Slight Digression: Re other editor's claim of Blitz not having any major military impact. It had profound impact in so far as it "justified" Brits subsequent retaliatory strategy of area bombing, i.e. bombing of civilian population. And never mind what other editor has to say about GAF's allegedly "inefficient bomber fleet". Destruction of Coventry, Stalingrad, Leningrad etc convincingly proves otherwise. Communicat (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think writing the summary (=lead) before the main text requires at least agreement to fit the main text to the new lead very soon after. I think for an article as developed as this that is not very likely.

I guess you mean that you have a single reliable source that combines the argument: Focus on Air Offensive over Navy and Army led to delay in invasion in exactly the same way as you do; since combining this argument from several reliable sources would be synthesis a form of original research. I would be very interested in this source.

Heavy UK industry was moved to Scotland, outside the reach of medium range bombers, making them ineffective. Heavy Russian industry was moved beyond Ural making the bombers ineffective. That left them with a very usable role as ground support bombers, but since at that time there was no ground front in the struggle with the UK in Western Europe, the bombers were ineffective there as well. All other uses was terror bombing, which is not considered of any great military use by current historians. Arnoutf (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

My word, arn't you clever. So clever that you managed to miss the element of Strategy, regardles of whether it was good, bad or indifferent. Have you nothing better to do except react pedantically to everything and anything I post? What's your problem? Rhetorical question. Don't reply. Communicat (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Before talking about any British strategy, let's come to agreement about the strategy of modification of the article. We all agree that some modifications of the lede are desirable, however, please, take into account following considerations:

1. The article is a good article and it is really in the good shape;
2. The article is not a draft and not our sandbox;
3. The article is being constantly read by large number of ordinary readers, so at any concrete moment the article should be self-consistent.

In connection to that, I propose to do two things in parallel: firstly, to finish the work with the current lede to make it consistent with what the article says, and, secondly, to propose a new lede (and, accordingly, a new article's concept). However, this concept should not be based solely on Winer's writings, we need much more solid ground for these edits. Try to provide more sources, because I was unable to do that so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think in the light of your point 1 (it is really in the good shape) that we should apply evolutionary improvements, rather than revolutionary overhauls of the article. If we adopt the evolutionary approach, I think that (after the proposed lead changes are implemented) we should probably work new additions/changes into the main text before revisiting the lead again. Arnoutf (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I took the most essential statements from the para telling about the war's start date and combined it with the version you edited. Below is what I got. If this version is accepted it will substitute the para about the start date and will be followed by the para about the war's results and aftermath. We have to think how to represent post D-Day's events, because the para is not finished by now.

""The war is generally accepted to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Germany set out to establish a large German empire in Europe. During 1939 — early 1941 in a series of successful military campaigns and political treaties the Axis conquered or politically subdued most of continental Europe apart from neutral USSR. Britain eliminated the threat of an invasion of the British islands thus remaining the only major force continuing the fight against the Axis in the Mediterranean and in extensive naval warfare. In June 1941, the European Axis launched an invasion of the USSR, giving a start to the largest land theatre of war in history, which, from this moment on was tying down the major part of the Axis military power. In December 1941, Japan, which had already been at war with China since 1937,, and which aimed to establish a dominance over East Asia and Oceania, attacked the US and European possessions in the Pacific, quickly conquering significant part of the region. The Axis advance was stopped in 1942 after defeat of Japan in a series of naval battles and after devastating defeats of European Axis troops in the Mediterranean and at Stalingrad. In 1943, with a series of German defeats in the East and the Allied invasion of Italy the Axis no longer had the offensive initiative on any major front."

The only thing, which is not clear for me is if "thus remaining the only major Axis fighting force" doesn't sound ambiguously. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that bit reads a bit difficultly. How about "thus remaining the only major force continuing the fight against the Axis in the Mediterranean and in extensive naval warfare." For the rest looks good to me. Arnoutf (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Let's think about post D-Day events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm really hoping that all of these edits are actually beneficial and will keep the article as a GA and not a GAR candidate. Communicat, please stop trying to make the text written the way that you want it to be. It does not appear that the current consensus is on your side to be honest....--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As some comments on the current proposed para (which I agree is an improvement):

• "Britain eliminated the threat of an invasion of the British islands" - "eliminated" is too strong. Britain managed to fend off invasion in 1940 by preserving the RAF while inflicting heavy loses on the Luftwaffe, but didn't 'eliminate' anything. There's also a lot of doubt in the sources about whether the Germans actually had the capability to invade Britain in 1940 given the underlying military and industrial balance of power, with the most common view being that it didn't. During this period Commonwealth forces were also rapidly building up in Britain in North Africa and started to reach significant levels. As such, I'd suggest that this be changed to simply "Britain and the Commonwealth remained the only major force continuing the fight against the Axis in the Mediterranean..."
• "aimed to establish a dominance over East Asia and Oceania" - Japan didn't intend to go anywhere near Oceania other than capturing the strategically important harbour at Rabaul to deny it to the Allies. The fact that some of the key battles of the Pacific War took place in and around New Guinea and the Solomon Islands was not anticipated by the Japanese, who never wanted to capture these areas. Also, the conquest of the Dutch East Indies in South East Asia was one of the main Japanese objectives in starting the war. As such, I'd suggest that this be changed to "aimed to establish a dominance over East Asia and South East Asia" Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good comments, thanks. Most of them I agree on taking in as you suggest. For the first "Britain eliminated the threat of an invasion of the British islands"; perhaps "After British victory in the Battle of Britain it was clear there was no threat of an invasion of the British islands" would do better. The British were scared of an invasion so there was at least a psychological threat, for which reason I would suggest to keep something like this in. Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, when placing in larger context my suggestion emphasise BoB too much. Arnoutf (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Re White Shadow 01:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC) order to me above: Don't know what you're talking about. I'm not allegedly "trying to make the text written" the way I want it to be. My posting of 13:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC) was in direct response to specific query posed to me by Paul regarding question of strategy. In fact, far as I'm concerned, the less I have to do with current reworking of the lead, the better for me. I've bigger fish to fry.

Please don't post any more on my talk page pleading with me not to go to arbitration. I am the one who will decide what to do regarding stalemate. The rules allow me up to three months to make up my mind. Communicat (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The current proposal is now to replace the 2nd para of the lead with the following. Can you give further suggestions for improvement. Personally I think it is about ready to put into mainspace.
The war is generally accepted to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Germany set out to establish a large German empire in Europe. During 1939 — early 1941 in a series of successful military campaigns and political treaties the Axis conquered or politically subdued most of continental Europe apart from neutral USSR. Britain and the Commonwealth remained the only major force continuing the fight against the Axis in the Mediterranean and in extensive naval warfare. In June 1941, the European Axis launched an invasion of the USSR, giving a start to the largest land theatre of war in history, which, from this moment on was tying down the major part of the Axis military power. In December 1941, Japan, which had already been at war with China since 1937, and which aimed to establish a dominance over East Asia and South East Asia, attacked the US and European possessions in the Pacific, quickly conquering significant part of the region. The Axis advance was stopped in 1942 after defeat of Japan in a series of naval battles and after devastating defeats of European Axis troops in the Mediterranean and at Stalingrad. In 1943, with a series of German defeats in the East and the Allied invasion of Italy the Axis no longer had the offensive initiative on any major front. Arnoutf (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, since the Axis was formed after 1939, the second sentence should be changed to:

"During 1939 — early 1941 in a series of successful military campaigns and political treaties Germany conquered or politically subdued most of continental Europe apart from neutral USSR."

Secondly, some links would be helpful in the second and third sentences:

"Britain and the Commonwealth remained the only major force continuing the fight against the Axis in the Mediterranean and in extensive naval warfare. In June 1941, the European Axis launched an invasion of the USSR, giving a start to the largest land theatre of war in history, which, from this moment on was tying down the major part of the Axis military power."

Thirdly, we need to finish this para. Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that it would be incorrect to start the next sentence with the D-Day, because the loss of offensive initiative refers to Kursk/Husky (summer 1943), so there is almost one year gap between these events. Therefore, the last sentence should be changed tp fill this gap. I propose:

"In 1943, with a series of German defeats in the Eastern Europe, the Allied invasion of Italy and American victories in the Pacific the Axis had lost strategic initiative and passed to strategic retreat on all fronts. In 1944 the Western Allies invaded France, whereas the Soviet Union regained all territorial losses and invaded the territory of Germany and its allies. The war in Europe ended with capture of Berlin by Soviet troops and subsequent German surrender on May 8, 1945. By that time Japanese naval power was defeated by the US, and invasion of Home Islands became imminent."

If these changes are generally accepted the lede will look like:

"World War II, or the Second World War (often abbreviated as WWII or WW2), was a global military conflict lasting from 1939 to 1945 which involved most of the world's nations, including all of the great powers, organised into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. It was the most widespread war in history, with more than 100 million military personnel mobilised. In a state of "total war", the major participants placed their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities at the service of the war effort, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources. Marked by significant action against civilians, including the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, it was the deadliest conflict in human history, that resulted in fifty million to over seventy million fatalities.

The war is generally accepted to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Germany set out to establish a large German empire in Europe. During 1939 — early 1941 in a series of successful military campaigns and political treaties Germany conquered or politically subdued most of continental Europe apart from neutral USSR. Britain and the Commonwealth remained the only major force continuing the fight against the Axis in the Mediterranean and in extensive naval warfare. In June 1941, the European Axis launched an invasion of the USSR, giving a start to the largest land theatre of war in history, which, from this moment on was tying down the major part of the Axis military power. In December 1941, Japan, which had already been at war with China since 1937, and which aimed to establish a dominance over East Asia and South East Asia, attacked the US and European possessions in the Pacific, quickly conquering significant part of the region. The Axis advance was stopped in 1942 after defeat of Japan in a series of naval battles and after devastating defeats of European Axis troops in the Mediterranean and at Stalingrad. In 1943, with a series of German defeats in the Eastern Europe, the Allied invasion of Italy and American victories in the Pacific the Axis had lost strategic initiative and passed to strategic retreat on all fronts. In 1944 the Western Allies invaded France, whereas the Soviet Union regained all territorial losses and invaded the territory of Germany and its allies. The war in Europe ended with capture of Berlin by Soviet troops and subsequent German unconditional surrender on 8 May, 1945. By that time Japanese naval power was defeated by the US, and invasion of Home Islands became imminent.

The war ended with unconditional surrender of Japan on 2 September, 1945. World War II left the political alignment and social structure of the world significantly altered. While the United Nations was established to foster international cooperation and prevent future conflicts, the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as rival superpowers, setting the stage for the Cold War, which would last for the next forty-six years. Meanwhile, the influence of European great powers started to decline — while the decolonization of Asia and of Africa began. Most countries whose industries had been badly damaged began moving toward economic recovery and across the world political integration emerged in an effort to peacefully stabilise after war relations."

For comparison, below is the current lede:

"World War II, or the Second World War (often abbreviated as WWII or WW2), was a global military conflict lasting from 1939 to 1945 which involved most of the world's nations, including all of the great powers, organised into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. It was the most widespread war in history, with more than 100 million military personnel mobilised. In a state of "total war", the major participants placed their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities at the service of the war effort, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources. Marked by significant action against civilians, including the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, it was the deadliest conflict in human history, that resulted in fifty million to over seventy million fatalities.

The war is generally accepted to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom and France with their colonies. China and Japan were already at war by this date, whereas other countries that were not initially involved joined the war later in response to events such as the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the Japanese attacks on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and on British overseas colonies, which triggered declarations of war on Japan by the United States, the British Commonwealth, and the Netherlands.

The war ended with the total victory of the Allies over Germany and Japan in 1945. World War II left the political alignment and social structure of the world significantly altered. While the United Nations was established to foster international cooperation and prevent future conflicts, the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as rival superpowers, setting the stage for the Cold War, which would last for the next forty-six years. Meanwhile, the influence of European great powers started to decline — while the decolonization of Asia and of Africa began. Most countries whose industries had been badly damaged began moving toward economic recovery and across the world political integration emerged in an effort to peacefully stabilise after war relations."

In my opinion, although the new lede is somewhat longer, the difference is not dramatic (21 vs 14 lines).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good work, and the revised central paragraph now covers the gap in the chronology identified by you at the start of this section. I would be happy if the text you put above is put in the article as it is. Thanks for the positive collaboration in this. Arnoutf (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed this, but it seems a bit misleading to refer to a "neutral USSR" prior to June 1941 given that it took part in the invasion of Poland in September 1939 and generally acted in consultation with Germany. The Soviet Union was very much a player in the war prior to the German invasion. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I didn't think the USSR activity during that period deserved a mention, because during the period between August 1939 (Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) and June 1941 (Barbarossa) it was not a major player. How do you propose to fix it? Frankly, the situation is very complex because from 1 Sept 1939 to 22 June 1941 the USSR:

1. Won a border war against Japan;
2. Expanded its territory at the expense of some Central European states;
3. Conducted a war against Finland;
4. Negotiated about further division of the spheres of influence with Germany;
5. Remained formally neutral.

How all of that can be described in few words? Probably "... apart from formally neutral USSR, which also expanded its territory at the expense of some of its neighbours."

From one hand, if you think it would be not too wordy for the lede, we can add that. From the other hand, I am not sure it would be absolutely correct in a situation when conquest of Norway, Danmark, Greece or Yugoslavia is left beyond the scope totally. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just omit 'neutral'. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

...with Romania making the largest contribution to recapture territory ceded to the USSR...

Taking into account that in the attempts "to recapture territory ceded to the USSR" Romania captured Odessa, established a control over Crimea and reached Stalingrad, it is hardly believable that to recapture Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina was the Romanian genuine and primary goal. I propose to re-phrase it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Had Germany won on the eastern front, I doubt that Rumania (Romania) would have been allowed to annex these lands. Their goals were lost territory and some of western Ukraine. How would you re-word it?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we do not need to tell about Romanian motives at all, because nothing is said about other Axis members and Finland. In addition, apart from Bessarabia, Romania was forced to cede significant part of its territory to Hungary, which didn't make it an anti-Axis country. In my opinion, this edit is a national POV, and very inconsistent POV: the editor wanted to mention a huge Romanian contribution into the war simultaneously trying to provide a plausible pretext for that (to stress a difference between Nazi Germany and Romania).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Romanian opposition parties were against Romanian operations beyond Bessarabia and Bukovina. ([2]) Two preeminent political figures of the day, Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Brătianu declared that "the Romanian people will never consent to the continuation of the struggle beyond our national borders."(Charles King, The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the Politics of Culture, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, CA, 2000. ISBN 081799792X) ----- The number of Romanian troops sent to fight in Russia exceeded that of all of Germany's other allies combined. A Country Study by the U.S. Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress attributes this to a "morbid competition with Hungary to curry Hitler's favor... [in hope of]... regaining northern Transylvania."(U.S. government Country study: Romania, c. 1990.[3])

I propose the wording "...with Romania making the largest contribution to recapture territory ceded to the USSR, gain Hitler's favor in hope of regaining Northern Transylvania, and pursue its leader Ion Antonescu's desire to combat communism." Lt.Specht (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes the venerable Herr Leutnant and his crusade against communism on Wikipedia :P. Yes, I'm sure Romania as a nation absolutely craved to fulfill its Führer's "desires" to fight communism... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the reliable source must be provided to prove that the only Romanian goal was to recapture the territory annexed by the USSR after 1939, as well as "to combat Communism". In addition, I still got no explanation why Romanian motives are explained in the article, whereas Hungarian, Slovakian or Finnish are not.
However, since Romanian contribution into the war was really significant, I have no objections against mentioning of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead: problems

1) Grand strategy: war is essentially about fighting, and fighting is predicated by grand strategy. Grand strategy of main belligerents should be brought into the lead (and then amplified in article).

2) Partisans: involvement of partisan / guerrila resistance in support of Allied war effort should be mentioned (after identifying main Allied particpants at start of new / reworked para.2). Tentative wording could be: "The Allied war effort was militarily supported by communist, nationalist, and populist armed resistance groups and movements around the world, the most active and successful of which were the communist and/or communist-led resistance organisations."

(Editors note: The latter included: Maquis in France which provided valuable intelligence on enemy disposition, etc; Yugoslav partisans under Tito; ELAS-EAM in Greece; Italian communists in N. Italy; Mao's guerillas in China; Kim ilSung's guerrilas in north-east Korea; the Viet Kong and Vietminh against French Vichey and Japanese forces in Vietnam; and the Malay People's Anti-Japanese Army in Malaya. Foregoing assertions are self-evident / undisputed truths, and as such do not require source attribution. English language Sources are available for European resistance, less so for Far East / Indo China resistance, in respect of which many non-English language sources -- especially Mandarin -- ARE available, but with attendant translation problems for wiki and and other mainstream English-language publishers.)

3) The last sentence of 1st paragraph (which is too long, and same applies to preceding 1st sentence of same para) states ..."it has been estimated etc". Estimated by whom? Better wording would be: "Official estimates of fatalities range from 50-million to 70-million killed."

4) 3rd paragraph: "...setting the stage for the Cold War ..." Has been already agreed in earlier discussion that roots of CW were in WW2. Should therefore read: "escalated the Cold War which would last for ..." Communicat (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. IMO, many people take for granted that the Axis started the war because it was evil, so no additional explanations are needed. That is incorrect, so at least a brief overview of each party's plans and intentions, as well as of their change during the course of the war is needed. Since the article's The War Becomes Global section states that:

"Hitler's objectives were to eliminate the Soviet Union as a military power, exterminate Communism, generate Lebensraum ("living space") by dispossessing the native population and guarantee access to the strategic resources needed to defeat Germany's remaining rivals."

and

"Japan planned to rapidly seize European colonies in Asia to create a large defensive perimeter stretching into the Central Pacific; the Japanese would then be free to exploit the resources of Southeast Asia while exhausting the over-stretched Allies by fighting a defensive war."

a mention of Nazi New World Order, Japanese Great Asia Co-Prosperity Zone is needed in the lede (as well as probably the mention of the Axis' anti-Communism, Nazi anti-Semetism etc.) However, I would go further and added similar description of each party's global plans to every WWII section (probably, with subsequent modification of the lede).

Re 2. Since partisan resistance has been only briefly mentioned in the article, I don't think it deserves mention in the lede. Try to modify the article first (although I personally think on additional details about partisan movements are needed in such a summary style article).

Re 3. Removal of weasel words (as well as a passive voice) is welcomed. I propose "Estimates of fatalities range from 50-million to 70-million killed."

Re 4. Disagree. The present wording is more neutral, because not all sources agree that CW was an immediate result of WWII. The present wordings means that new players emerged that were a CW's key participants. It leaves the question about the CW's start date beyond the scope, which is quite neutral and does not contradict to any existing source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

re (I). What I meant was precis of military strategy per se; viz., along lines of "Britain's strategy was to disorganise and break the will of the German people through mass aerial bombardment, before attempting to launch any concerted ground attack on the European mainland. The Wehrmarcht's strategy against the USSR was an encircling movement aimed at separating Moscow from the rest of Russia. Italy's was blah blah. Japan's was (repeat as stated succinctly in the above quote you gave). Your other comments are valid.

re (2) Only Yugoslav communist resistance is mentioned in article, and it is refered to no less than six or seven times. No mention whatsover of very substantial Far East / Indo Chinese communist resistance. Conclusion: Eurocentric bias.

re (3) Agreed.

re (4) Okay then, leave the CW's start as is, but lead must mention start of the East-West nuclear arms race, which was of course a central feature of the CW. Communicat (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. Seems too detailed for the lede, although we can discuss introduction of that into the main article;

Re 2. Please, read a Second Sino-Japanese war talk page. Many Chinese editors question the role of Chinese Communists in resistance to JIA. IMO, the present article should not contradict to the SSJW article unless you provided a very reliable sources as a support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

re 1: Might strike you as "too detailed", but military strategy is highly relevant, conspicuously absent from current lead, and of central importance to any article on war, especially a lead intro. Hence, Lead should be expanded to accommodate military strategy, because lead is probably first thing people read and strategy is arguably the main thing they're interested in. Rest of article on related sub-issues should be substantially shortened to accommodate longer lead. As for Re 2, above: I think you'll find the "Chinese editors" referred to are in fact Taiwanese editors whose views are possibly tainted by biased anti-communist political agenda. Communicat (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

re 2: Eurocentric bias? Incidentally, this war was primarily a European war (a European proudly exclaimed while realizing that the two wars destroyed Europe beyond recognition or true recovery :). With all respect to the Second Sino-Japanese War, it can (and often is) easily be considered a separate conflict. No WWII history book I've read covered it in detail. Most you'll hear is "in Burma the British needed to keep the supplies running" or "a lot of Japanese resources were committed to the war in China". The Americans would easily have won without the Sino-Japanese War since the Pacific was won with naval and air power above all. Even if the Japs had occupied the whole of China, there'd be fighting in India but there wouldn't be any Japanese victory, but I digress. Even if we disregard all the above, to my knowledge the Communist Chinese primarily fought a "regular" war, holding their regions from the Japanese (albeit being more aggressive towards the Japs than the Kuomintang). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your "knowledge" is faulty, re the 'Communist Chinese primarily fought a "regular" war,'. See:

Mao's Guerilla Warfare chapter six And yes, you do digress somewhat, but nobody's perfect, hey? Communicat (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Paul comment above: Please, read a Second Sino-Japanese war talk page. Many Chinese editors question the role of Chinese Communists in resistance to JIA. IMO, the present article should not contradict to the SSJW article unless you provided a very reliable sources as a support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is obfuscation and has no bearing on the matters at hand. There is nothing in this present discussion that contradicts the SSJW article in any way, though it may contradict some of the bellicose and UNsubstantiated TALK by dissidents on that article's talk page, which you are now presenting as a supposedly reliable source. I'm wasting my time trying to engage any of you in reasoned discussion. Communicat (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much any modern military strategy would disagree that grand strategy is about fighting, To refer back to Clausewitz, War is the delivery of foreign policy objectives by means of coercion. Initially the grand strategy was to force a withdrawal, although that very quickly became decapitation of the Reich.

ALR (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Following the Casablanca Conference the Allied goal was actually to force the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan by destroying their ability to continue the war. Any changes of leadership (via decapitation) wouldn't have had any impact on this. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler-Stalin Pact: Stalin invaded the Baltic Countries according to the stipulations he negociated with Hitler and alledgedly did in consent with his Western Allies. The crimes against the Baltic Nations is an important part of the total crime.

The article should reflect this crime as well and not duck the question of crimes against the Baltic population.

Additional the following attack of Stalinist Red Army on Poland an Finland must be mentioned.

Of course Hitler's totalitarian government, as well as lot of people in the Governments of Western countries such als GB and the USA were supporting Stalin's crimes, but wikipedia is not the right place to sugarcoat theses historic facts as happens now.

85.176.225.117 (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

All those actions by the USSR are mentioned (with links to the specific articles) in the 'War breaks out in Europe' section. Nick-D (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Re ALR posting above re "...disagree that grand strategy is about fighting..." You'll notice in preceding talk that I subsequently modified my wording "grand strategy" to "military strategy". A top-level and much visited military history article that omits any reference to military strategy does merit some constructive criticism, don't you think?. Communicat (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Direktor posting of 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC) above viz., "...the Communist Chinese primarily fought a 'regular" war,' and my rebuttal thereof, i.e. "read Mao's Guerilla Warfare chapter six ". I take it Direktor's subsequent silence on the issue indicates that he concurs. Communicat (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin pse dont archive; not dormant; may be subject to dispute mediation etc Communicat (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)