Talk:World War II/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

"Rapid Japanese conquests over much of the Western Pacific ensued, perceived by many in Asia as liberation from Western dominance and resulting in the support of several armies from defeated territories."

feel like this is quite a misleading (or has the potential to mislead) recent addition to the lead 80.41.36.232 (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this is accurate, except for the reference to "several armies". I know that the Japanese were building an Indian army, among others, but I don't know that these ever amounted to much.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

World war ll

After becoming Reich Chancellor in 1933, Hitler swiftly consolidated power, anointing himself Führer (supreme leader) in 1934. Obsessed with the idea of the superiority of the “pure” German race, which he called “Aryan,” Hitler believed that war was the only way to gain the necessary “Lebensraum,” or living space, for that race to expand. In the mid-1930s, he began the rearmament of Germany, secretly and in violation of the Versailles Treaty. After signing alliances with Italy and Japan against the Soviet Union, Hitler sent troops to occupy Austria in 1938 and the following year annexed Czechoslovakia. Hitler’s open aggression went unchecked, as the United States and Soviet Union were concentrated on internal politics at the time, and neither France nor Britain (the two other nations most devastated by the Great War) were eager for confrontation.

Outbreak of World War II (1939)

In late August 1939, Hitler and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin signed the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, which incited a frenzy of worry in London and Paris. Hitler had long planned an invasion of Poland, a nation to which Great Britain and France had guaranteed military support if it was attacked by Germany. The pact with Stalin meant that Hitler would not face a war on two fronts once he invaded Poland, and would have Soviet assistance in conquering and dividing the nation itself. On September 1, 1939, Hitler invaded Poland from the west; two days later, France and Britain declared war on Germany, beginning World War II.

On September 17, Soviet troops invaded Poland from the east. Under attack from both sides, Poland fell quickly, and by early 1940 Germany and the Soviet Union had divided control over the nation, according to a secret protocol appended to the Nonaggression Pact. Stalin’s forces then moved to occupy the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and defeated a resistant Finland in the Russo-Finish War. During the six months following the invasion of Poland, the lack of action on the part of Germany and the Allies in the west led to talk in the news media of a “phony war.” At sea, however, the British and German navies faced off in heated battle, and lethal German U-boat submarines struck at merchant shipping bound for Britain, sinking more than 100 vessels in the first four months of World War II.

World War II in the West (1940-41)

On April 9, 1940, Germany simultaneously invaded Norway and occupied Denmark, and the war began in earnest. On May 10, German forces swept through Belgium and the Netherlands in what became known as “blitzkrieg,” or lightning war. Three days later, Hitler’s troops crossed the Meuse River and struck French forces at Sedan, located at the northern end of the Maginot Line, an elaborate chain of fortifications constructed after World War I and considered an impenetrable defensive barrier. In fact, the Germans broke through the line with their tanks and planes and continued to the rear, rendering it useless. The British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was evacuated by sea from Dunkirk in late May, while in the south French forces mounted a doomed resistance. With France on the verge of collapse, Benito Mussolini of Italy put his Pact of Steel with Hitler into action, and Italy declared war against France and Britain on June 10.

On June 14, German forces entered Paris; a new government formed by Marshal Philippe Petain (France’s hero of World War I) requested an armistice two nights later. France was subsequently divided into two zones, one under German military occupation and the other under Petain’s government, installed at Vichy France. Hitler now turned his attention to Britain, which had the defensive advantage of being separated from the Continent by the English Channel.

ccarticle3 To pave the way for an amphibious invasion (dubbed Operation Sea Lion), German planes bombed Britain extensively throughout the summer of 1940, including night raids on London and other industrial centers that caused heavy civilian casualties and damage. The Royal Air Force (RAF) eventually defeated the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) in the Battle of Britain, and Hitler postponed his plans to invade. With Britain’s defensive resources pushed to the limit, Prime Minister Winston Churchill began receiving crucial aid from the U.S. under the Lend-Lease Act, passed by Congress in early 1941.

Operation Barbarossa (1941-42) By early 1941, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria had joined the Axis, and German troops overran Yugoslavia and Greece that April. Hitler’s conquest of the Balkans was a precursor for his real objective: an invasion of the Soviet Union, whose vast territory would give the German master race the “Lebensraum” it needed. The other half of Hitler’s strategy was the extermination of the Jews from throughout German-occupied Europe. Plans for the “Final Solution” were introduced around the time of the Soviet offensive, and over the next three years more than 4 million Jews would perish in the death camps established in occupied Poland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.146.145 (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

clear cut ethnic boundaries

Some paragraph should be devoted to one lesser known but hugely effect of WWII: the creation of clear-cut ethnic boundaries in all Eastern European states. Firstly, Germans were expelled, then Poles, Czechs, Slovaks who had lived scattered outside post-WWII boundaries were settled there. E.g. the previous language border German-Czech had been established in the Middle Ages -- and was just then aligned with the political boundary. Talk should be that somehow -- since the Nazis planned such actions in favor of Germany -- this created a political momentum for such actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tino Cannst (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, if I do not misunderstand you, we cannot speak about clear-cut ethnic boundaries, both in after WW1 and WW2 the territorial arrangements in many cases far cry followed ethnic boundaries, and forced/artificial resettlements does not imply this either.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC))

I see your point about "clear-cut ethnic boundaries," but the topic was touched upon under subsection Impact, 1st para, redirecting to Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Wiki users have the liberty to provide more info. I believe this topic is probably adequately written up for World war II's purpose. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mussolini truppe Etiopia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Romania's Ion Antonescu to Main Axis Leaders

Romania played a huge role in the European conflict, which is overlooked by most historians because the Eastern Front is seen as a fight between Germany and the USSR, which overshadows Romania's actions in the war.

But Romania's role to the course of World War II was much more important than it seems. In fact, if Romania wouldn't have joined the Axis, the invasion of the USSR would have been impossible. Hitler himself said it. Without Romania's oil and troops, Germany would never have been able to do what it did in WW2. You can listen to the Hitler-Mannerheim recording, that's where he says it (it's on YouTube).

Here are some quotes of historians on this:

The British historian Dennis Deletant has asserted that, Romania's crucial contributions to the Axis war effort, including having the third largest Axis army in Europe and sustaining the German war effort through oil and other materiel, meant that it was "on a par with Italy as a principal ally of Germany and not in the category of a minor Axis satellite".

According to historian and author Mark Axworthy, the second most important Axis army in Europe, arguably, belonged to Romania, though, this is disputed since many would agree that this position goes to the Italian army.

Thus, I believe people should stop ignoring Romania's role in the conflict and should, instead, see Romania as a main Axis power, like Italy and Japan.

Therefore, in my opinion, Ion Antonescu should be added to the Main Axis Leaders section in the infobox. Lupishor (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively in the past, and the standing consensus is that the leaders should remain as they are. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Japanese Leadership

Under Axis Leaders in the information bubble, I'm wondering whether it would be appropriate to add Hideki Tojo either in addition to Hirohito or instead of him? Despite the literal cult of personality surrounding him, there's scholarly debate about the degree to which the emperor was directly involved in decision making. Tojo's military government was, at least day-to-day, calling the shots. You can see this reflected in, for example, how Hirohito had to have someone smuggle an audio recording ordering surrender to be played on radio in order to force the military government to surrender - that was also, by the way, the first time a Japanese emperor had ever spoken directly to the Japanese public. Quodfui (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

See List of prime ministers of Japan. Hideki Tojo was only in power from 1941 to 1944. Other wartime Prime Ministers of Japan were Nobuyuki Abe (1939-1940), Mitsumasa Yonai (1940), Fumimaro Konoe (1940-1941), Kuniaki Koiso (1944-1945), Kantarō Suzuki (1945), and Prince Naruhiko Higashikuni (1945). Dimadick (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree--Tojo was much more powerful than the emperor 1941-44 and he made the major decisions according to all the RS. He should be included--as he is featured in top billing in all the major histories I have seen. The other prime ministers mattered far less because the government had little power in 1944-45. Typical = (1) Warlord: Tojo Against the World by EP Hoyt; (2) Sutton, "The Trial of Tojo: The Most Important Trial in All History?." American Bar Association Journal; (3) Weinberg, Visions of Victory: The Hopes of Eight World War II Leaders (Tojo represents Japan); (4) Butow, Tojo and the Coming of the War. Rjensen (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that the debate over the role of Hirohito is long over, with the consensus being that Hirohito was the most important figure in the Japanese Government's decision making. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Hitohito's involvement in the war still remins ambiguous. We do know, however, that Hideki Tojo was largely involved in the war. Gravestep (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hirohito played a decisive role at the very end in terms of surrender, but said little before then, and did not make diplomatic or military decisions. Rjensen (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The other leaders list only their most supreme leader. If we're making a special case for Japan, do similar cases apply to the others? What, exactly, is Japan's special case, in terms that don't appear to rely on just editors' opinions? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't we list Churchill and Mussolini? Both of them acted "under" others who were heads of state (i.e. the kings of the UK and Italy) but who were not the ones who actively set and executed policy. Hirohito chosen profession was that of marine biologist, not something you normally associate with a man active in political affairs. I don't think the Japanese emperor has much in the way of reserve powers, i.e. the ability to dislodge a political logjam, although in this instance of standing in the way of those who wanted his nation to go down in flames, he apparently had enough authority as the symbol of the nation. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we don't list figureheads. So, Hirohito was a figurehead? Beyond "I don't think...", do we have a source for this? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

yes before 1945 -- he almost always followed the military except in August `1945. Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I repeat, source? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Look at " The Emperor had followed the precepts of constitutional monarchy in wartime by following the advice given to him by his cabinet. However, in 1945, he was able to intervene in favour of accepting the terms of the Potsdam declaration because he had been invited to do so by his Supreme War Council. This version of the emperor’s historical role as deliverer of peace, and a victim of war, was restated for posterity by Prime Minister Takeshita Noboru in his eulogy for the Sho¯wa Emperor in January 1989: ‘He resolutely brought to an end the war that had broken out in spite of his wishes, out of a determination to prevent further suffering of the people, regardless of the consequences to his own person’ (Takeshita 1989)." [Kersten, Rikki. "Revisionism, reaction and the'symbol emperor' in post-war Japan." Japan Forum. Vol. 15. No. 1. 2003. page 19] Rjensen (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. An assertion has been made that the emperor was just a figurehead during WWII, like the kings of the UK and Italy, and therefore should not be listed as the sole leader of Japan in the infobox. We might interpret the above comments as evidence for such, but that's SYNTH. Besides, the claim that he "almost always" acted so undermines even this SYNTH, as sometimes deciding to not act as a figurehead implies not actually being a figurehead, as does his specifically leading Japan at the end to make peace.

Whatever the arguments, we have to follow the sources. If they agree that the emperor had no real power during WWII, then we must not list him as the sole leader in the infobox. If they agree he was in power, then we must list him. If the sources conflict, then perhaps we shouldn't attempt to list a leader, per the whole purpose of infoboxes to quickly present only basic and objective facts. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see much in the way of sources supporting the strong-emperor point of view, either here or at the article on Hirohito (a lot of citation-needed templates there). Dhtwiki (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Persecution of Serbs in WWII

Hello, I would suggest that we include the information that the persecution of Serb by Ustashe was a part of wider Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia campaign. That important piece of information is currently lacking. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC) :In the war crimes section it mentions the persecution of Serbs by Ustashe. It should be mentioned that it was part of a Genocide by the Ustahse, correct. However the mass murder of Croats and Muslims by Chetniks is missing in the article. Which was deemed Genocide in nature by a number of historians, though not as major as that against the Serbs by Ustashe. PortalTwo (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Form - Format Question

I have been using the layout of this article as a template for other articles that I create or edit. My question relates to the placement of Notes, Citations, and References. Currently (April 26, 2020) in the World War II article I am seeing what I consider references in among the citations (e.g. Citations 1,3,4,6,7,8, etc.) I am also seeing what I consider notes in among the citations (e.g. 25,63,70,139,145, etc.).

Experienced editors can you comment? Thanks, Virgil Fairchild VFF0347 (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

82.7.91.10 (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC) can you please change the text to less complacated

You might find the World War II article on the simple English Wikipedia more helpful - please see https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding Indian Ocean, and maybe the Arctic Ocean to the 'Location' part of the infobox

The Indian was a major theatre of combat that is mentioned only once in the article. The Pacific War article has the Indian Ocean in the 'Location' part but I still think it deserves its own mention in the World War II infobox because of the numerous naval actions between all major warring powers(Monsun U-Boats, Italian Submarines, German cruisers) as well as the Battle of Madagascar. Having only the Atlantic and Pacific in the 'Locations' part makes it seem like those were the only 2 oceans that had combat, even though the other two did aswell. IvanNik772 (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Harry Truman

Under the section titled "Commanders and Leaders", would it be too much to add Harry Truman under Franklin Roosevelt? After all, Truman ordered the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and he took over when Roosevelt died in office. I know it may be weird to have 2 different leaders for one country, but you can annotate it by adding a symbol next to Roosevelt indicating he died in office. Thanks. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Total fatalities

The introduction (second sentence) states an estimated 75-80 million deaths however the casualties section states an estimate of 60 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Casualties_and_war_crimes Clearly either one or both figures here need to be reviewed and amended.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:D8D:1321:FCEC:1F78 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge

Hello, All:

A search for "Battle of the Bulge" in this article returned nothing. I found the separate article on "Battle of the Bulge" to find the date. With that I found the following:

On 16 December 1944, Germany made a last attempt on the Western Front by using most of its remaining reserves to launch a massive counter-offensive in the Ardennes and along with the French-German border to split the Western Allies, encircle large portions of Western Allied troops and capture their primary supply port at Antwerp to prompt a political settlement.

What do you think about modifying this sentence to explicitly include the name of that battle? For example:

On 16 December 1944, Germany made a last attempt on the Western Front by using most of its remaining reserves to launch a massive counter-offensive in the Ardennes and along with the French-German border to split the Western Allies, encircle large portions of Western Allied troops and capture their primary supply port at Antwerp to prompt a political settlement. (These events are commonly called "the Battle of the Bulge" or the "Ardennes Counteroffensive."

Thanks to all who have helped make this a "Good Article". DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This article can't include every battle.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The article regularly "pipes" the names of battles for the sake of readability, noting that it covers a huge number of battles. Naming them all individually would be cumbersome. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. After making my own list of major events of WWII, I concluded that you are correct: That Battle of the Bulge made headlines but does not qualify as anywhere close to marking a turning point in the war. It slowed the allied advance into Germany by a couple of months, maybe. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly one of the major events of the war, this article just doesn't specifically name it. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

In the first paragraph, fourth sentence, first word, I believe there is a typographical error. It should read Tens instead of Ten. 2600:6C44:657F:BD8B:A5BF:8822:5B9D:AC1C (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done TheImaCow (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Unexpected edit and Charles de Gaulle in Main ...

May someone fix the unexpected edit that was an accident, and I think that Charles de Gaulle and Free France should be in Main Combatants and main Leaders. The Axis defeat would probably not possible without De Gaulle and the Free France Movement. Free France was also the Provisional Goverment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miggy72 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

The page has been altered. Someone put a giant american flag in the page main boxes. and minimized everything else in said boxes. The page needs to be reset. Bcs1080 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bryan Stewart Bcs1080 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing it out. Calidum 17:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

US Congressional authorization for oil embargo?

On 2020-06-28 part of this article read, "In July 1941 Japan sent troops to southern Indochina, thus threatening British and Dutch possessions in the Far East. The United States, United Kingdom, and other Western governments reacted to this move with a freeze on Japanese assets and a total oil embargo."

QUESTION: Was that embargo authorized by the US Congress?

I had earlier heard that the US Congress had authorized an embargo on scrap iron shipped to Japan, and that FDR extended that to oil without authorization from the US Congress. However, I don't have a reference for whether the oil embargo was imposed by Congress or only by FDR with questions about his legal authority to do so.

I think this issue is relevant to what is happening today in terms of what the mainstream media choose to emphasize and what they tend to suppress. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

the beginning of the war was in 1939 Omar Zalok (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The article says "1 September 1939" which is the accepted date. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

In "Allies close in (1944)", it says: "After that, the Western Allies slowly pushed into Germany, but failed to cross the Ruhr river in a large offensive." Operation Queen was aimed against the lesser-known Rur river (without "h"), not the Ruhr river, see the linked article. The Rur is west of the Rhine and is on a north-south-axis. Thus, it was reachable for the Allies in 44 and crossing it made sense. The Ruhr is east of the Rhine and runs from east to west. The allies weren't there at all in 44 and crossing it never had any strategic value. Coca-Coela (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Coca-Coela (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done: Your attention to detail is much appreciated. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 10:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Possibly adding all countries linked to the Allied and Axis Powers

Instead of just showing the main allied and axis leaders, we should give credit to all the countries that had bigger roles throughout the war. Like Romania and Yugoslavia for example. Age20035 (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Listing all details defeats the purpose of an infobox, so there must be limits. Listing the "main" leaders fits. What defines "bigger" roles, how many additional leaders are we talking about, and why are they needed in the infobox? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a long standing consensus, based on an extensive RfC, to limit the numbers of countries and leaders in the infobox to only the major powers involved in the war. Nick-D (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yugoslavia did not have a big enough role during the war to justify this. I disagree with this approach to the infobox, as this has been discussed ad nauseum per Nick-D. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding to this, was China a major player as well 102.164.66.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Many other pages about wars list almost, if not all of the combatants. Gravestep (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

-Howdy. I was an editor a decade ago and haven't been back much since, but just want to point out this conversation has literally been going on for 15 years. Just stick with the major players else everyone gets upset that not all 90+ countries are represented and then it just looks a mess.

--108.53.1.82 (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes by Monopoly31121993(2)

I've just reverted a series of changes by Monopoly31121993(2) (talk · contribs). These changes added a number of inaccuracies (for instance, wrongly claiming that the "Commonwealth" declared war on Germany when it was the individual dominions which did so and that there was an "Axis" rather than just a Japanese offensive in the Pacific), changed the wording attributed to other references for unclear reasons and had not been previously discussed. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, please stop mass reverting all of my edits which took me hours to implement in the page. If there are specific things you would like to change that's fine but mass reverting everything that I have done is just blocking me from editing the page which I assume in good faith is not your intention but certainly is starting to look that way to me. By the way, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada were not part of the the British Empire in 1939 when they declared war on Germany. They were, as I wrote, part of the "Commonwealth." Lets try to improve Wikipedia together and not mass revert constructive edits.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss your proposed changes. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Monopoly31121993(2) the statement that Nick-D is "mass reverting all of my edits" and "mass reverting everything that I have done" is not true. Nick has rv'd some of your edits and per his request and WP:BRD you should be willing to discuss the changes in question on the talk page. The WP:ONUS is on yourself to start the discussion with your proposed changes and find a consensus for the changes.   // Timothy :: talk  11:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, Thank you for your feedback. In Nick-D's revert he has reverted no less than 13 deletions of content that I had added over the span over several hours. The comment provided was the following "revert extensive undiscussed changes to referenced material." While I this revert may not have been "everything that I have done" it was certainly pretty much everything I had done that day. In the future I hope that we can work together to improve this page and one way to do this will be to leave comments on specific reverts and why they are being done. If needed, we should discuss them on the talk page.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to appear pedantic here, but if you want to add these edits, and you've been reverted, the onus is on you to start a discussion of those edits here on the talk page. WP:BRD is very clear. Also, if you think anything you are adding is even slightly controversial (the Commonwealth and Axis stuff Nick-D has identified above, for example), then do them in separate edits so that only they will potentially be reverted, and useful and valid edits can remain. If you lump good and questionable changes into one edit, you can expect it to be reverted. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Making separate edits is exactly what I did. It was the mass-revert of something like 8 of those edits that I am referring to.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I created this thread to discuss your edits two weeks ago, so I'm not sure why you're complaining about the lack of an opportunity to discuss them. Please do so. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought I had (above). Specifically, I asked you to stop reverting multiple-changes as one revert. If you instead revert the specific edit that you take issue with it will be much easier for me to address your concerns with it.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the comments by Timothy and Peacemaker67, Nick-D (who is also an admin to boot) has not been the only one reverting you, you have also been reverted by User:TheTimesAreAChanging, as well as myself. As noted by the tag at the top of the article's editpage, this is a high-profile and high-traffic visible article, changes need to be discussed. Keiiri (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's a question for me here so... ok. Thanks for adding your 2 cents.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Paragraphs

Guidelines say we should have no more than four paragraphs in the lead, and just earlier this month that is exactly what it had. Not sure how we got to this current, not at all well-composed, six paragraphs. Keiiri (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Because people keep making well meaning small changes to it, and over-time they've led to a bloated lead (as well as bloat elsewhere in the article). The lead would be a good priority for improvements. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Keiiri: I support the previous revision over the one you just reverted to. The main difference between the two is just a paragraph break, and having an enormous second paragraph like that just to conform with the "4 paragraph rule" (see WP:PARAGRAPH) is harder to follow. Also, the previous revision has several improvements to style and flow.

That said, I think that the "middle 3" paragraphs that describe the war's events in the previous revision could be pruned down to 2, though I don't really see a good place to remove sentences without making the summary of the war confusing. — Goszei (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

That's true, the four paragraphs guideline is not a necessity, and by and large I have no problems with your preferred version, in fact I prefer I myself looking at it now. My main thing was reverting controversial additions by Monopoly31121993(2) without discussion, the same user whose additions were also reverted by others. Keiiri (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Keiiri: Oh, I see now. I think I must have got tangled in the revisions, thanks for patching things up. — Goszei (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

historians have spent a LOT of attention on the liberation of France

We follow the reliable sources and they emphasize the liberation of France as an important goal of the US and UK. Not even Poland or Italy gets this much attention. In addition to all the military books on Eisenhower, Montgomery and D-Day see:

• Berthon, Simon. Allies at War: The Bitter Rivalry among Churchill, Roosevelt, and de Gaulle. (2001). online
• Bourque, Stephen Alan. Beyond the Beach: The Allied War Against France (Naval Institute Press, 2018).
• Funk, Arthur L. "Churchill, Eisenhower, and the French Resistance." Journal of Military History 45.1 (1981): 29+.
• Hurstfield, Julian G. America and the French Nation 1939-1945 (U North Carolina Press, 1986). online
• Kersaudy, Francois. Churchill and De Gaulle (2nd ed 1990) online
• Rossi, Mario. Roosevelt and the French (1994).... Rjensen (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• By that logic we should include the liberation of the Philippines (central to US strategy in the Pacific), the liberation of Hong Kong and Singapore (ditto for the British), Belgium (critical for the Allies given the central importance of its ports, and obviously vital for the Belgians), Greece (seen as hugely important on strategic grounds for the British), New Guinea (modern Australian literature on the war stresses the importance of this to the Australian Government), the Soviet occupation of Poland (one of Stalin's war goals to create a post-war 'buffer zone') and so on. There are large literatures on all of those topics, but they're all ultimately the result of the defeat of the Axis powers. The infobox already includes too many 'results' of the war, and adding the liberation of France to it is plainly silly given that this was one of many Allied war goals which were part of the ultimate goal of enforcing unconditional surrender on the Axis (per the agreements between the Allied leaders on the goals of the war). Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No--Wiki editors should follow the published secondary sources. French liberation was a much bigger operation and was joint US-UK plus others (Canada etc). The politics were very high priority for Churchill and FDR and historians have provided France far more attention (I just listed a small proportion of US & UK studies). Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but wasn’t the liberation of France just a part of an even bigger operation of defeating Nazi Germany? Vichy France was hardly a significant military power compared to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, so I don’t think adding “Dissolution of Vichy France” to the infobox is justified. —Nug (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You're pointing at generally specialist works here, and haven't even bothered to note whatever the relevant page numbers are. I could do the same trick with works on the Pacific War and American-Filipino relations to demonstrate that liberating the Philippines was a key Allied objective. As an example of a generalist work, the detailed coverage of the strategies of the Allied alliance in the Oxford Companion to World War II (pp. 390-395) doesn't indicate that there was any particular emphasis on the dissolution of Vichy France [which had been under German occupation since November 1942 anyway] and the liberation of France, and notes that Churchill was unenthusiastic about invading France for much of the war, preferring an advance on Germany through the south. Instead, it notes that the focus of the war in Europe was on defeating Germany. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Simply because something is well sourced does not make it fit into infobox. Infobox is supposed to provide quick overview of most important facts, editor discretion needs to be heavily applied to keep it in reasonable size. Frankly if I were to consider any additions to "results" section, then the very significant border changes and demographic changes through genocides/population movement/expulsions/deportations would be far more relevant than the fall of Vichy.--Staberinde (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit war over Poland

@Monopoly31121993(2):, @Nick-D:, @Peacemaker67:

Is it fair to say that an edit war has been in progress between User:Monopoly31121993(2) and User:Nick-D since 2020-06-19T15:00:47 over whether the 1939 German invasion of Poland should be illustrated with a photo of [[:File: Polish infantry marching -2 1939.jpg|thumb|upright|Soldiers of the Polish Army during the defence of Poland, September 1939]] or of [[:File:Polish victim of German Luftwaffe action 1939.jpg|upright|right|thumb|Julien Bryan's iconic photo of a Polish girl crying over the body of her 14-year-old sister who was strafed by a German pilot appeared in Life. 150,000-200,000 Polish civilians were killed during the September invasion]]?

This article has received almost 27,000 views per day on average since 2015-07-01. User:Nick-D contributed 6 different edits to this article since 2020-05-06T14:17:47. User:Monopoly31121993(2) contributed 9 in the same period.

Can we please discuss here the concerns of User:Monopoly31121993(2) and User:Nick-D on this issue?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

My concern is that Monopoly31121993 is edit warring in unreferenced casualty figures, in an article where the long-standing view has been to not mention casualties of individual battles as the article covers such a huge number of them (e.g., why mention civilian casualties in the invasion of Poland and not, say, those during the invasions of Malaya, Latvia, Norway, the liberation of France or many, many others). The rationale for replacing the image also isn't clear to me, though it is a good photo. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer the strafing image. Otherwise, there are three images of soldiers, which seems to be an overkill. If the caption is listed w/o the last, misleading statement, would that be acceptable? As in:

Julien Bryan's iconic photo of a Polish girl crying over the body of her 14-year-old sister who was strafed by a German pilot appeared in Life.

It's a famous image and it brings in an element of human suffering that diversifies, so to speak, the images in this section. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I agree with Nick that we shouldn't be inserting casualty figures from individual battles or even campaigns into this article, it is supposed to be a high-level overview of the topic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was a standing agreement against listing causality figures (which I will suggest in a separate post should be amended in certain cases). I included the new text, which Nick-D reverted for having "excessive detail" when 1, it was barely longer than the previous text and 2, it more accurately characterized the actual invasion of Poland (having been based on the more detailed article on the topic (Invasion of Poland) and 3, included several helpful links for users to other pages (e.g.bombing of Wieluń, Battle of Mokra, Bombing of Warsaw in World War II) which were not even mentioned in the prior text.

As far as adding the image without the causality figure, I guess that's OK but I don't see why we are neglecting to mention the scale of civilian suffering is in the interest of Wikipedians when discussing this topic. Especially given the fact that civilians made up such a high proportion of the invasion's causality figures (something like double the combined German and Polish military losses). I would prefer ::Julien Bryan's iconic photo of a Polish girl crying over the body of her 14-year-old sister who was strafed by a German pilot appeared in Life. Between 150,000-200,000 Polish civilians were killed during the invasion, nearly double the combined number of military deaths for Poland and all of the invading countries.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(1) The Life Magazine image conveys much more than just another picture of soldiers (many of which are probably staged).
(2) A single mention, early in the narrative of the actual conflict, of this horrific civilian casualty figure will alert the reader to this aspect of WW2. If the purpose of a summary article like this is to raise questions in the encyclopedia user's mind about more in-depth aspects of the subject, then this is the ideal point to break the "rule" of no individual casualty figures. I think the article would be better to have this casualty figure mentioned, simply to flag civilian casualties as an issue. Poland's civilian deaths from WW2 were among the worst (depends exactly how you measure them), so justifying the choice of their figures to do this.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The Casualties and war crimes section discusses casualties, and notes Polish civilian casualties specifically. Giving partial figures with a photo which misleadingly implies that they were caused primarily by the German Air Force doesn't seem helpful to readers, and could further worse the problems with the article being over-crowded with stuff. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not take any inference from the proposed caption that the Luftwaffe were the main source of civilian casualties in Poland - I cannot detect any such implication in the text put forward. Nor do I think others would readily take the inference that you suggest. I doubt that anyone actually knows the proportion of Polish civilians killed in conflict (as opposed to whilst captives, or similar) by air force versus ground force action. Given the amount of bombing and the general lack of sophisticated air raid shelters for the civilian population, one might suspect that it is a significant number. The whole purpose of the caption is to get the reader to look further in the article. We all know that most consultations of Wikipedia are partial - just dipping in and out of an article (especially a more lengthy one, such as this).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Monopoly31121993(2), I'm not sure this discussion yielded a clear consensus, this image adds undue weight, we ALREADY have images of Polish casualties in the article (I agree with having them in the article, however this image will just create an imbalance). Also, the original image is long standing — there was a lengthy discussion on that as well, a while back. So, until there is consensus for a change, the original image should stay. --E-960 (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired:, @Nick-D:, @Peacemaker67:,@K.e.coffman:,@DavidMCEddy: E-960, There were 7 editors who contributed to this discussion, myself included. We discussed the image itself and the fact that an earlier caption referred to specific numbers of civilians killed in its caption (which was amended). None of the editors opposes having the historically significant image itself. You are the only person who completely rejects that idea so the consensus is not your opinion. If you want to re-open a discussion to discuss removing the consensus image feel free to do so.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted as you are still edit warring unreferenced claims to this article in the guise of a photo caption. What references support the statement that "More Polish civilians were killed during the invasion than all combatant deaths combined"? I remain unethusastic about this image, as it misrepresents the conduct of the German military: the killings of civilians were largely conducted by the Army, in much the same was as took place on a larger scale in Barbarossa. Modern historians tend to stress this, as it illustrates that the German military was a key element of the brutal Nazi regime from (quite literally) day one of the war. Suggesting that the large scale civilian deaths were an accidental side effect of the war misrepresents the nature of this conflict. I'd note that the article already has two very powerful photos of Polish civilian victims of the war, including one illustrating the role of the German Army, so am not sure what the case is for replacing an image which represents the fact that the Poles put up a fight (the only image of the Polish military in the article, I think) with a third image of Polish civilian victimhood. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Nick-D has now also removed the image and left the comment "stop adding unreferenced claims to this article." He is referring to the caption's claim that more civilians were killed during the invasion of Poland than soldiers. This is based on the fatalities citations provided on Invasion of Poland page. As Nick-D was always the least enthusiastic about changing anything in this article, would anyone else (:@ThoughtIdRetired:, @Peacemaker67:,@K.e.coffman:,@DavidMCEddy:) like to restate their arguments for including the image (e.g. that it's a historically significant image, that the image is likely a propaganda image, that the image is simply soldiers marching and not visually valuable in any way, that the page is overwhelmingly of soldiers or war machines and neglects other parties in the conflict). It would be nice to settle this. Thanks.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You can't base something in this article on citations in another article. That is called WP:CIRCULAR. You have to check the citations in that article and satisfy yourself that they say what they are supposed to, then add them here along with the material. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Monopoly31121993(2), we already have two images that highlight Polish victims, as well as two showing Russian civilian casualties. I think that is reasonable, and this should stay as is, your argument focus just on this one image and does not take into consideration the full scope of the article. --E-960 (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Peacemaker67 I presume the argument is that in articles like [[World War II casualties of Poland#Causes (go to sub-para "acts of war") there are references to support the position. They just need to be read and checked by the editor and used in this article. I don't think we should let procedural arguments stop this being a better encyclopedia - someone just needs to carry out the necessary procedures. The Time Life photo is an extremely powerful image that conveys much more than "just another picture of soldiers". It also usefully conveys that all those statistics about casualties are stories about horrible things happening to real people. There is probably not enough of that in this article (because it is written by military history enthusiasts).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired, we already have powerful images in this respect a bit further down (in the Genocide, concentration camps, and slave labour - Occupation sections), I don't understand why you or user Monopoly31121993(2) don't recognize that fact, and fail to take the whole article into consideration? --E-960 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

TIR, yes “someone” ought to do it. If not the proponent of its inclusion, then who? You? This is a GA and minimum standards for inclusions apply. It isn’t procedural, it’s ensuring people edit properly. I have no issue with the inclusion of the image, only that it be done properly and the caption is accurate and cited to reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I should have said "someone with access to these sources.....". I would do this edit if I could. (I think we share the same frustration over this matter.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Powerful images: (1) I have just carefully viewed each and every one of the images in the article. I do not think there are any "powerful" images of the same class as the Life magazine picture. Photos that show dead inmates of a concentration camp or partisans being hung are horrific, but I think any picture editor (of a newspaper) would agree that Julien Bryan's photograph is one of the handful of striking images that any top photographer might take in an entire career. It is without doubt powerful. (2) The Life picture illustrates very well the impact of WW2 on the civilians who were caught up in actual conflict. User:E-960 makes the point (if I understand it correctly) that the effect on civilians is dealt with by showing war crimes committed outside conflict. I disagree with this. It would be entirely misleading to the encyclopedia user to not make totally clear that civilians died during conflict - whether as a result of war crimes (as in this instance, when civilians were deliberately machine-gunned by Luftwaffe aircraft), as economic targets (civilians working in war-supporting industries) or as unintended targets. So this picture illustrates not just the emotions when a civilian is killed in Poland, but is representative of all cases of people not in the military being killed in conflict. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realise the ref in Polish could be translated to a readable standard. So it seems to me reasonable to show the Life image, as previously existing in the article, as shown here.

Julien Bryan's iconic photo of a Polish girl crying over the body of her 14-year-old sister who was strafed by a German pilot appeared in Life. More Polish civilians were killed during the invasion than all combatant deaths combined.

I have, for the present, stuck with the caption as previously offered. I feel it is supported by the reference I have added. The statement "More Polish civilians were killed during the invasion than all combatant deaths combined" is a bit woolly - but I think it has to be as there is a range of figures given in the reference for Polish civilian deaths during the 1939 invasion and also some discussion over the number of military deaths. Obviously the reference is there for other editors to read and see if they agree with this approach - accepting the fact that the absence of any precise figures is a result of warfare followed by policies of repression and extermination. I have not added a page number to the ref as (a) it is not visible in the webarchive version and (b) you have to read a lot of the source to develop an opinion on the likely range within which exists the actual but unknown civilian deaths-in-conflict figure for 1939.

One could research further the numbers killed by the Luftwaffe in the 1939 Polish campaign - there are references available, as they are easily poached from World War II casualties of Poland, but they discuss other instances of civilians being killed by the Luftwaffe, so only are necessary for the discussion hereon of whether or not Luftwaffe-caused deaths were significant in Poland (these refs show they undoubtedly were). I don't think there is any need to over-cite

I would add a reminder of my remarks above of the need for a picture of civilian deaths in conflict in the article - the understanably extensive mention of genocide, premeditated/planned murder, etc. could otherwise blind the reader to the large number of civilians in WW2 who were caught up in fighting and died as a result.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

So yes, there is consensus that this image is a valuable one and simply needs proper citation (which ThoughtIdRetired has now added). E-960, the concern that including an additional image of soldiers (especially one taken as as a propaganda photo) was already discussed when the new image was under discussion but my own opinion is that the argument images of civilian deaths should be reserved from the genocide and war crimes section is not something I support. I can see how some military history enthusiasts of a certain ilk would prefer images of modern weapons or heroic looking soldiers (which this article has its fair share of) but the extremely limited number of images should reflect the reality of the historical event and the LIFE image does that far better than a picture of a column of soldiers walking along a road.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, Monopoly31121993(2), stop throwing around words like "propaganda". Most likely the image was taken during mobilization, and its not a photo-op like this image here[1]. Also, I don't think you understand what consensus is, it's not a simple vote. The issue here is that we already have several images of this type in the article, also the image caption you propose is basically two entire sentences at this point. There is a section titled 'Casualties and war crimes' which deals specifically with this type of subject matter. Please augment it as you see fit, with details regards the deliberate targeting of civilians. --E-960 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Substitute the words "official publicity" for "propaganda" and the count of these types of photograph are overwhelmingly in the majority in this article. The only ones that are definitely not "official publicity" photographs are the press photo of St Paul's surrounded by blitzed buildings and Czesława Kwoka (a photo the Nazis wanted destroyed so no-one could see it). Having just one more picture taken by an independent journalist (Julien Bryan) would not be a hardship for any editor with affection for the current article, and would certainly provide something much more readable for the encyclopedia user.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is not that the image is not applicable to the article, it is, but as I mentioned before the larger context is required, just like in the WWI article. I would suggest that this image is used in the, Strategic bombing or Aerial bombing of cities as it pertains to deliberate terror of civilians. Also, please note that the image is currently in use in Invasion of Poland and Luftwaffe articles. Also, I have no issue with including a sentence or two in the 'War breaks out in Europe' section regarding the deliberate targeting of civilians and the very disproportionate Polish civilian casualties during the invasion. --E-960 (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Reflecting on the issues over this photograph, I think we need to consider that most Wikipedia articles are not thoroughly read from one end to another by encyclopedia users. Many consultations of Wikipedia are actually quite superficial. If there is an important point to get across, an attention grabbing picture, early in the article, is a good mechanism. In my opinion, this photo does have that attention-grabbing capability. Presuming that there is agreement on all this, that leaves the question: Does this picture convey important enough messages to be used as an attention-grabbing device? I suggest (so, just my opinion) that this photo performs multiple roles:
(1) It highlights the terribly high ratio of civilian casualties in Poland
(2) It brings home the individual nature of such a death - we all know the supposed quote from Stalin: "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is just a statistic." The photo should put the individual tragedy aspect to the fore, before the encyclopedia user starts doing mental arithmetic with any statistics in the article. I feel that would make this a better article
(3) It alerts the reader to civilian deaths during active conflict - something to set alongside the other civilian deaths that we hear so much about
(4) If the reader investigates the picture further, they will find the allegation that this was deliberate targeting of civilians by the Luftwaffe - obviously at a very early point in the war - something to set alongside subjects like the myth of the clean Wehrmacht.
So, are the messages (my suggested ones, or others) in the Julien Bryan photo important enough to use this device of an attention-grabbing photo?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If this is the road you want to take, then other sections need to include such images — Rape of Nanjing, Massacres in Greece, etc. --E-960 (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just reverted your edits re-adding the Polish image and changing a bunch of other images - this runs close to violating WP:POINT. Let's gain consensus to changes. As noted above, one of my concerns with the photo of Polish civilians being attacked from the air is the issue of balance - while each of the three images of Polish civilians of the war is good, all three seems to give undue weight to Polish victimhood, while not acknowledging the role of the Polish Armed Forces at all. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, I find your comment obnoxious, I am not doing this to "make a point" of some kind, but to propose a compromise, since several editors would like to focus more on the civilian casualties in this article. In which case, if applied together, the image of the Polish victims of Luftwaffe, Nanking Massacre and Massacre of Kondomari create better context (instead of just having the image of the Polish victims). Since WWII was the deadliest conflict in human history, re-focusing the article in not unreasonable, and I think this would be a better option than trying to create an entire section, which covers Resistance and Collaboration, both of which were marginal in the full scope of the war between nation states. --E-960 (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Please propose changes then and see what other editors' think (I'd suggest starting a new thread as you're proposing quite significant changes). Please don't edit war and disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, again with the accusations of disruptive editing and edit warring. Pls, go back to the edit history and tell me what images did I re-add after you reverted them? Five images were initially added, when reverted none were re-added. So, you are throwing words around. Every editor has the right to edit — Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --E-960 (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my proposal on showing the direct impact of war on civilians was intended to apply solely to the Julien Bryan photograph. The arguments I have presented presume that the remaining portfolio of pictures in the article remain broadly unchanged.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then it's undue weight. --E-960 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

The image at the top of the 'Allies Gain Momentum' subsection has the Essex-class carrier USS Lexington (CV-16) in the background, but its caption links to the page of the older CV-2, which was sunk more than a year before the photo was taken. OwlEyes00 (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thank you. I've changed the link. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration/Resistance

The following is posted as a proposal to the C/R subsection, for review by editors and readers to this article. Additionally, Advanced Wiki references are implemented to direct any reader to a specific book's reference, page number, etc. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As recommended in the past, I would suggests trimming each of the two texts to about half its current length, there are some detail that are just to specific for a high level article such as this one. Also, one major point.. I would focus on "collaboration" and not "accommodation" this is a rather separate issue, and quite controversial, as accusing ordinary people of just going to work and living under occupation has never been universally accepted as part of collaboration. Also, as presented in the below text, "camp guards" were not ordinary accommodators, but volunteers from the SS divisions, so this point is not factually correct. In this article, I would focus on voluntary or state collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Also, I recommended this in the past, and now Dhtwiki as well, why are you using vertical reference source citations, it makes it near impossible to edit the text. --E-960 (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Having so many references—especially if there are several sections, as there have been in the past, IIRC—gets in the way of reflist-talk templates and archiving working properly. If this is a proposal for discussion, why don't we agree on language first, and then on references? Why are there so many references per statement? Having so much text and so many references is daunting for anyone to get through. You're not responsible for providing a complete bibliography at this point. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how text can be considered without knowing what references support it. Without references its just random peoples views. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Bigeez, have you considered including this text in the Collaboration with the Axis Powers and Resistance during World War II articles? I'm not sure squeezing all this information in this article is warranted. Even if we half the text it's still a lot, and the WWII constantly get criticism for being very long as it is. --E-960 (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Do we 95 references for six moderately sized paragraphs of text posted to the talk page (repeatedly, if this is the same text that has appeared here before)? Many short sentences, even sentence fragments, have two references. This level of detail, posted here, is excessive, and, if memory serves, makes certain templates unworkable (reflist esp.) if done repeatedly. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your suggestions and comments.

I had begun writing C/R in 2018, after spotting the topic missing. Editors agreed to its inclusion in this article. Collaboration and Resistance started as a lengthy one, then edited, re-written to allow for a comprehensive Pacific and European theatre picture. Guidance had been excellent from editors who were experts in their chosen theatre. At first, there was a Eurocentric bent, which was duly corrected. The goal was set for two sections, Collaboration, and Resistance and for 6 paragraphs, 3 in each respective section: 3 for Collaboration, 3 for Resistance. Each section would have a lede, a Pacific, and a European part. Each paragraph would have 8-10 sentences, for a grand total of 48-60 sentences.

However, each theatre had different dynamics. Some sections became more heavily-weighted than others. They also incorporated different themes: vanquished colonies vs. countries, ideologies, communism or not, Pacific or Europe, etc. Thanks to editorial guidance, we got rid of accommodation included in the early goings because an editor had requested it early-on. Finally, there are 6 paragraphs, with the following number of sentences within each para:

Collaboration:

1. 13 sentences
2. 8
3. 6, subtotal 27

Resistance:

1. 7
2. 13
3. 10, subtotal 30,

Total 57. (Goal: 48-60)

I hoped to be within the mark. I am on the high side. Yet, I discussed the main foci; main themes; why communism did or did not affect it; and when it did, its end-result; where things were essential and their sequela; who did what; and who and where. No more, no less. References are point-specific — by the experts — to a book’s specific line, not to a text without a URL, only for the reader to have to find it elsewhere.

Any of the thousands who go to this article should receive a thorough understanding of C & R without a redirect. There are entire books written on these subjects, and we have it in 57 sentences. I hope that that is the point of this proposal. Let us remember that no one hits the mark the first time. Regards and Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have those sections in the article. But collaboration is a controversial minefield. The article on collaboration in World War II has seen a lot of editorial disputes, through overall I find the proposed section relatively elegant, as it does not go into the disputed details. One part I see as problematic is " Some could not avoid collaboration like the Judenrat or the Jewish Ghetto Police", as limiting this to just Jews seems POVed and also it opens the field to listing other similar organizations for example Blue Police ("The policemen were to report for duty or face the death penalty"). Perhaps it would be best to just remove this sentence rather than risk eternal additions, removals, and associated discussions. For the resistance, I think it might be worth linking to the recent article on railroad sabotage in WWII (disclaimer: significantly written by me), as it makes a well-referenced claim that this was one of the most common forms of WWII resistance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Bigeez, please fix the inline reference source citations, so they are horizontal not vertical - which makes it very difficult for users to edit (I've pointed that out when you first posted the text a few months back, and you still did not adjust it, yet you are asking editors to contribute). Also, each one of those text should be about 300-400 words (about two paragraphs not three), there are simply too many secondary details (Gorgopotamos Bridge, Jedburgh and Sussex missions, 1) support for Nazi-fascist culture 2) antisemitism 3) anticommunism 4) a national desire for an independent fascist state) — all those items can be combined and summed up further instead of broken down individually. At this stage, I took out some of the secondary details that should be included in the main articles about C&R, but are too specific for this article. --E-960 (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Dhtwiki: thank you for your insightful comments. As a rule, when I research a topic I try to elaborate on all sources supporting all points of view from reputable sources. It seems excessive, but that is because the article was much longer earlier-on. In the process of editing, some sentences were deleted but the reference kept. Each reference is quite specific, analysing and encapsulating the scenario. But you’re right, my references are burdensome; easily changed or deleted. My children like the ease-of-use with the quick link to Google books. Let us agree on content first, not put the cart before the horse, and I do see your point.

• Hello @Piotrus: many thanks for your thumbs-up analysis. I agree. Let’s avoid any controversial points, and remain Wiki-neutral, although to write up a less-than-accurate collaboration article would be a tall order. We'll need Ariadne’s thread to find our way out. Thumbs up on the article on railroad sabotage. Do you agree where I placed it?

• Hello @E-960: many thanks for positive suggestions. I tried out the horizontal referencing you requested 2 Nov 2019, but probably missed it last year. No worries mate, I’m worse. Personally, after I looked at it, it felt more confusing so I reverted to vertically-oriented references. If others agree, I will change it. I agree with your editing: very good. Though, I must agree with one well-respected editor regarding "communists," requesting that it specifically be part of the article. For instance, how in France it was incited by Barbasossa, where communists specifically partook, and where they specifically were shunned.

Thank you all for your vote of confidence. Any recommendations on hastening its improvement are most welcome.

Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see where it is placed, could you quote the relevant sentence here? I also wonder if we could say something about the relative size of the resistance movements. As per sources cited in Home Army, IIRC Polish resistance was the biggest until late war, when Soviet overtook it; Yugoslav was also pretty big. (I could never find numbers for Chinese resistance to compare...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Bigeez, the one issue with French resistance is that in the big scheme of things it played its part, however when examining the scope of their activity they were not particularly extraordinary compared to Polish, Yugoslavian or Soviet resistance, that's why I'm hesitant to highlight it too much. Also, I would argue that the resistance article is a bit overweight with references to communist partisans (in places like Yugoslavia, Soviet Union and Greece they were the main resistance, but in places like Poland or France they were marginal). Also, too much emphasis is given to SOE or OSS, I would trim that text and augment the paragraph with some of the suggestions from user Piotrus. --E-960 (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Rather than just critique the text, I'd suggest jumping in and editing it (paying attention to sources of course!) Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Piotrus: it is in the 11th sentence, 1st para under Resistance: worked with both nationalists and communists, particularly on railroad sabotage. However, it was a suggestion; if other editors agree for its inclusion, I am fine with it. About size of resistance, rather than take up more space with specific numbers, I believe it is important that it was mentioned. We cannot be bogged down with numbers in this subsection. Editors keep critiquing the length of the article. Why start a pissing contest whose resistance was bigger? Readers can redirect to that specific resistance page. But I do see your point. FYI, I had a sentence in there originally, but it was deleted by E-960, who thought it took up too much space. This is the sentence: German policies in Byelorussia resulted in the second-largest resistance group in Europe, following Tito's resistance in Yugoslavia.

• Hello @E-960: All good points. I chose a major northern European country for resistance — Poland — and highlighted it for good reason. I chose two southern Balkan countries for the discussion on communism, and highlighted them to exemplify that point. Is that your POV about French Resistance? Others will disagree, especially in events leading up to the Normandy invasion. I understand your point about the size of resistance, like I mentioned to Piotrus. Communists did indeed play a large part. My answer is the same as mentioned above for Piotrus. Numbers and size here are unimportant.

Thank you both for your constructive suggestions. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure it is correct that the Home Army formed the Polish Underground State, I think it was the other way around. Also, the Underground State was pretty unique, and it may be safer to say this, rather than talk about the uniqueness of Zegota (I just created the Category:Organizations which rescued Jews during the Holocaust). I think the uniqness of Zegota is related to the fact that it was created early and it was state supported, unlike other organizations there which were generally not supported by states, mostly because no other states had as complex structure as the Polish Undeground state. I'd rather suggest the following wording: "In occupied Poland, the Polish government in exile formed the Polish Underground State, with its notable branches such as the Home Army, one of Europe's largest resistance organizations, and Żegota, Europe’s only state-supported underground organisation dedicated to the rescue of Jews." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, just one point, I would say that the "Polish resistance formed the Underground State and the Home Army", after reading up on the subject it appears that spontaneous local resistance joined efforts with the government in exile to form the undergrounds state. --E-960 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @E-960: and @Piotrus: I cleaned up the sentences; good job, mates. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have done a c/e of my own ([2]), please check. Primarily, the new sentence did not make it clear that Żegota was Polish, and per my comment above, it is not correct to say that Żegota was the only such organization, there were others. I know many sources describe it as 'the only one' but this simply seems factually incorrect. I think if we say it was the only state-created and sponsored organization, however, this is correct. Or another wording would be just to describe it as a "major" organization instead of "the only" one of its kind. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Piotrus: thank you for clarifying! Kudos for excellent editing. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration section's European and Pacific sections are completely disjointed. Pacific section is very generalised, no specific examples are given, European one is exactly reverse, overflowing with specific examples in an attempt illustrate every possible ideological aspect. I also gotta wonder if this isn't overly ideologically centred explanation, completely ignoring some more mundane motivating factors like opportunism and self-preservation.--Staberinde (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Staberinde: thank you for your comments. I disagree with complete and agree with E-960 who is up-to-date with earlier discussions that, if you wish, can easily be checked and be brought up-to-speed. The ad rem ideologies for both the Pacific and European theatres are laid out; that is our mark. But, you are correct; earlier versions of the sub-article had more detail, but due to size constraints is now not possible. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• There are easily more than 10 specific examples of collaborationist individuals/organizations/states listed for Europe. There are 0 for Asia-Pacific, even though plenty of very noteworthy examples existed. This is just completely inconsistent writing style. On a more specific parts, is Marcel Deat really the most significant thing to mention about Vichy? If focus is on ideologically motivated collaboration, then why there is talk about "conscripts" who by definition are not voluntary? On that same sentence, "occupied eastern countries" have been connected to "Netherlands"?--Staberinde (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Staberinde: Thank you for your comments. Yes, in the example on European collaboration, good pickup! It was misrepresented in the article's earlier editing, and I have re-written it. See if that is ok. The other issue cited is hyperbole. In earlier drafts, there were 6 paras, with ledes for each C & R sections. Those ledes were eventually cut-out. The lede for collaboration has now become a "combo lede" with the Pacific’s collaboration part of the lede. There are 2 paras still in each section, containing 11 — 12 — 12 — 10 sentences, in that order, for those paras. The last para has specific Pacific examples, not “0” examples as stated. There are more European examples because more European countries folded — than colonies that accepted: in the Pacific — as stated in the lede. No one pretended that this article would be plain sailing. Yet, the article is coming to a close. If you wouldn’t mind, keep it short and cite for us one single Pacific example, other than the ones in para 4 for our perusal, in order to bring the number of sentences in para 4 up-to-par with the other three. Your recommendations on hastening its improvement are most welcome. Cheers, and thank you again mate, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Staberinde, I think this was initially discussed, that the text should focus on clear cut and most significant examples of collaboration, in other words voluntary collaboration or state collaboration, when you tackle issues like self-preservation or coercion, even opportunism (mostly carried out by criminal elements across Europe), you run into a subject matter which is still to this day debated, and there are varying definitions of collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @E-960: thank you. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts article — though, I agree the Europe and Asia sections need to be balanced out a bit more. --E-960 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @E-960: agreed. Any suggestions for the Pacific example, as above? Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bigeez, one example of collaboration in China was Wang Jingwei and the Collaborationist Chinese Army. I would also back user Staberinde's comment, that perhaps you should even-out the two sections somewhat (in terms of details which are included). --E-960 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Also, I would still trim the paragraphs a bit more, in comparison to other sections they are still quite long. Also, please consider this note, that neither resistance or collaboration played a deciding role in the conflict, for example German military fielded 19,000,000 men, while foreign uniformed collaborators are estimated at around 1,000,000 (not counting armies of collaborationist states). --E-960 (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @E-960: many thanks, I knew you’d come through. I originally left Jingwei out, but after better judgment on your part, structured a sentence on just that subject from Brooks’ book; the picture of Wang Jingwei is spot-on, the picture looks good right there. Kudos on editing. I believe you're right about the last para. Waiting for Staberinde to supply the one single sentence with references he suggested. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Well @Bigeez:, I think Pacific section can be improved along those lines [3]. Removed some redundancy as it used lots and lots of words to state what can be basically be summed up as "Japanese promised independence but it was a lie", and also replaced very vague statement about collaboration in Philipines and Singapore with some more concrete examples.--Staberinde (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Staberinde: Many thanks for your editing: rather sublime. I didn't think I could add more fearing I would just lengthen it and confirm other editors' expectations. But yours is uber. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Bigeez: I really think you made a great effort here, however the topic of Collaboration/Resistance is such a complex subject that I don’t think it can be summarised neatly into these two proposed sections. As Leonid Rein notes in his book The Kings and the Pawns: Collaboration in Byelorussia during World War II in the chapter defining collaboration[4], there is still much discussion in the literature as to what constitutes collaboration and many scholars have offered many different definitions, and he asserts that ”over recent decades research in the field gradually came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to consider the conduct of the populations under occupation as either collaboration or resistance”. Rein contends that it would be wrong to draw a sharp dividing line between collaboration and resistance because during the course of the war many people changed sides and even engaged in activities that could be called collaboration and resistance simultaneously. This is a really difficult topic, and the article already has the section World_War_II#Occupation, which links to the sub-articles Resistance during World War II and Collaboration with the Axis Powers, so this topic would probably be best expanded upon in those respective sub-articles. --Nug (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Nug: thank you for the nod of approval! And yes, you are right, Rein does make that point. Further, I do understand what you mean, and believe it truly. But let’s not forget that, besides me, our few bedrock statements have been carefully trimmed by fellow editors, and that this article is to whet one's appetite; not enough to cogitate upon. I respect the opinions of our editorial staff, as I do yours; they have guided me and have set straight the narrative where necessary. For that I am truly grateful. And, notwithstanding, Leonard Reim did finally pen his book. Lastly, let’s not forget that success has many fathers; failure is but an orphan. Unquestionably, WWII was an important event in our lives; many who partook will eventually fade into historical obscurity. Let us then both move forward. Your comments are always invaluable. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Bigeez: Yes I agree with you, Rein did indeed finally pen his book, but he devoted an entire chapter to the definition of collaboration and the remainder of his 458 page book to Byelorussia, while we are attempting to define and give examples about collaboration/resistanace that spanned the entire world war, in four paragraphs. The current section World_War_II#Occupation is nicely balanced, the problem with the current proposal to replace that text is that collaboration/resistance isn’t the only outcome to occupation. As Czesław Madajczyk points out in his study Faszyzm i okupacje 1938-1945, there is a spectrum of responses to occupation:

1. Voluntary and conscious political treason
2. Treason forced through the use of violence or terror
3. Voluntary or forced collaboration
4. Fraternization
5. Loyalty, harmful for the interests of the occupied country
6. Passivity, connected to or resulting from the realities of war
7. Passive resistance, designated also as civil struggle or civil disobedience
8. Self-defence in case of threat to the national existence
9. Participation in conspiracy or in armed resistance
10. Flight abroad.

Making the section World_War_II#Occupation just about a binary collaboration/resistance response doesn’t reflect the full picture of what occurred, IMHO. —Nug (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Nug: thank you again. Certainly, all Czesław Madajczyk statements are very cogent, and were elaborated upon by all the references I listed. Please see Deak's book as well. On where the article should be placed, your quarrel is with another editor. I never placed C/R into Occupation. We hoped to receive a consensus on where to place it after we agreed on its content. It was projected to be placed under Aftermath in its own subsection. Thank you for pointing that out. For the moment, I will once again place it as under its own subsection. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The subject of resistance and collaboration is complex, and requires a lot of text to cover. However, when viewed in the full context of WWII, both resistance and collaboration played a marginal role. At the end it was still a war between nation states. Devoting too much space to this topic would give the impression that the German Nazis were like today's ISIS, which may have started out in one country, but was primarily made up of volunteers from many states. That's not the case, again to highlight the point, Germany fielded 19,000,000 troops, foreign volunteers/conscripts added to this only about 1,000,000 (high estimate) more soldiers and auxiliary police. So, I do tend to agree with the argument that making R&C a binary issue and having so much text devoted to it creates issues of un-due weight. Compared to other sections and doing word counts, the current trimmed C&R texts are still way too long, the entire sub-section titled "Genocide, concentration camps, and slave labour" has only 400 words — that's half of the current C&R text. I don't agree with making C&R a separate section (perhaps one C&R sub-section to cover both topics), and I think both texts need to be trimmed even further. --E-960 (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bigeez, we are starting to run into the same problems as when you first posted the resistance and collaboration text a few months back. I don't think that the R&C text should make up an entire section of the article, while "Genocide, concentration camps, and slave labour" is only a sub-section. Also, please take into consideration the input form other editors and act on it, in order to balance out the text and trim it further. After the first rounds of editing, the text still appears to out weight other more significant topics, and Europe/Asia paragraphs contain different levels of detail. Also, the title should read Resistance and Collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The current proposed Resistance and Collaboration text is not the proper fit for the article. It's too detailed, and the two separate texts on C&R are longer than other more prominent topics covered by this article. WWII did not come down to resistance and collaboration, and creating a whole section on this misrepresent WWII, which was primarily a conflict between nation states. --E-960 (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @E-960: thank you one again. I did hope to have one C/R sub-section to cover both topics, as we had agreed upon; not in its own section, as under Impact (not Aftermath as I wrote, mia culpa!), as there is a Casualties and war crimes subsection, etc. Your points are reasonable and well taken. Let me work on it. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Bigeez, can I recommend that your perhaps re-focus your efforts to the Resistance during World War II and Collaboration with the Axis Powers articles, as both of these need detailed and coherent overview texts. After weighing the context of the entire WWII article, it becomes clear that creating a separate sub-section for collaboration and resistance is problematic. Those topic fall under "Occupation" and the relationship between the occupiers and the subjugated populations. So, the question arises, why C&R needs a separate text? Other aspects could just as well be highlighted in such a way as well, for example subjugation and oppression of civilian population or colonization of occupied territories. The Occupation sub-section, already touches on the issue of resistance and collaboration, please work within its context and augment it a bit more, but at this point I don't feel that creating a separate text on C&R is the correct approach. --E-960 (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• @E-960: again, many thanks for your suggestions. Let’s not forget that although some of the cogent points are indeed covered under Occupation, the everyday reader who is unfamiliar with WWII — and not experts as say, you and I are — and lands on this article, cannot glean the information supplied under the Occupation subsection alone compared to its own subsection. It touches on C/R, but not enough for most editors who agreed — in 2018 and prior to that — on the utility for its creation. What's more, it was for this reason we both labored in 2019 and 2020. Your points are always well-taken. As you can attest, many versions were whittled down consequent to your recommendations, and were applied and revised according to most of your suggestions: restructuring the article, with R followed by C; allowance of only 9-10 sentences in each para; excellent placement of pictures; tossing out secondary points, to name but a few. We have both come a long way. The enactment of this subsection will only add to its entirety, mostly from your recommendations which we endorse. As always, cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  Hello @E-960: I forgot to mention, I formatted the references horizontally as you and @Dhtwiki: requested, and fulfilled suggestions by @Nug:, @Piotrus: and @Staberinde: with best intentions and recommendations for a subsection we all can be proud in accomplishing. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I have few new comments about the partisan section. 1) The "wreaked havoc on Japanese troops" seems a bit too poetic. 2) Why France is mentioned twice, first in one sentence together with Norway, Greece and others and then in a new sentence that only mentions communists and nationalists? 3) I am ok with France getting its own sentence, but it should talk about the ain French Resistance too. 4) I think Soviet partisans deserve a sentence, if we give one to French, Polish and Yugoslavs. 5) I think Italian resistance should be clarified as having lasted only from 1943 I don't think it is fair to lump it together with movements that lasted 2- or 3-times as long. 6) Why no links to Dutch resistance or others mentioned in the lead of Resistance during World War II, for example? I think each country's resistance movement should be linked in the general sentence, with the bigger / more famous ones getting their own sentence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Piotrus: thank you for your candid constructive comments. My enthusiasm was getting the better of my Wiki-style for (1). It is modified. French resistance is mentioned twice (2), first under general resistance, then by a 2nd sentence to begin the idea that communist movements evolved (came to fruition) after Barbarossa and serves as an example; similar, let’s say, to Polish resistance which have special mention twice for other obvious reasons. For (3), the French link to its own Wiki landing page, similar to Polish Resistance and added a good reference. For (4), equally important Soviets links to its own as well, and great references by Foot. We can write tomes on this. Alas, I am confined by other editors, and only afforded 9-10 lines! As far as (5) Dutch, I am sorry, I fixed it. In summary, as a journalist one needs to ensure flow in the context of the prior sentence, or it is a jumbled thought. Otherwise, the reader never returns. I wrote it so one statement will lead into another: SOE > to sabotage, sabotage > to partisans, > leads to communists/nationalists or not, > to finally OSS. Piotrus (talk), in summary, one of my children is a pianist. He mastered Chopin’s Ballade 1 in G minor; incidentally, I am listening to him as I write to you. In the beginning, both right and left hands play simultaneously the same notes separated by an octave. If it were played any differently, we would all be at a loss; it was cleverly crafted. Please don’t hesitate to edit directly as @Nick-D: recommended and we, too, will craft a masterpiece; let us know what you’re editing, that’s all. As always, great comments. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  OK! Also how about we organize the list of countries by date of resistance starting/Germans occupation, and consider links to Belgian Resistance, Danish resistance movement, Resistance in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and German resistance to Nazism. (Albanian resistance is just a redirect, and I asked another editor to consider stubbing Romanian resistance, also just a redirect). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hello @Piotrus: excellent points! Just keep it short, and incorporating into whatever themes already iterated, so as not to add too many words or sentences. Otherwise, it will confirm other editors' expectations. :) All the best, thank you. Cheers, Eli

I'll recommend a compromise solution, to include the the Resistance and Collaboration as a separate sub-section under Impact section following the Occupation sub-section, but in a way that does not out weigh the other sections in terms of size. I'll go ahead and make the changes, and if any editor feel some detail should be included they can re-add. At this point, the word counts, roughly are proportionate to other topics in the article. --E-960 (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @E-960: ok, I am with you, I knew we could do it. Nice job editing. Were you in journalism in your past life? I re-added Greece under collaboration for obvious reasons. Many thanks, cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Greece reference, I would include the reference to the Hellenic State next to Quisling regime and Vichy France, as Greece was already an established independent state before the war, unlike Ukraine, Slovakia or Croatia. --E-960 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @E-960: thanks for correcting that. You're spot-on with Tsolakoglou, Hitler-stache and all. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Bigeez, curb your enthusiasm. --E-960 (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @E-960: my apologies, I promise it will not recur. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

GAR request

@Monopoly31121993(2): can you please explain why you think that the article may not meet the GA criteria? You have not provided a rationale for the GAR request you've lodged. Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

A GAR request to my knowledge is logged to solicit editors' thoughts as to whether it would be a good idea to remove the article for GA list. Is that incorrect?Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. What are you concerns regarding the article not meeting the GA criteria? As you haven't identified any, the tag is confusing. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Technology in the Battle of the Atlantic: balance

I note that the sentence "Gradually, improving Allied technologies such as the Leigh light, hedgehog, squid, and homing torpedoes proved victorious over the German submarines." is tagged with a citation needed template. I suggest that, also, the content of this sentence has an incorrect balance.

To quote from the biography (The Fighting Captain) of Frederic John Walker by Alan Burn: "The [Ultra codebreaking] information may well have turned the balance of the Battle of the Atlantic, but by the time it was filtered through to the ships at sea it could never be absolutely reliable and was usually not sufficiently up to date to be of positive, immediate, tactical use. It put the Group in the right area but it was aircraft sightings, radar at night and HF/DF bearings that pinpointed the targets within striking range of the ships." (bold added)

Reading this biography, it is clear that Huff duff was a very important tool for surface ships in detecting U-boats. Hedgehog and squid, though useful inventions which did sink U-boats, were not fitted to many ships, whilst Huff Duff was ubiquitous by the spring of 1943. Hedgehog was only marginally more effective than depth charges. The Leigh light had the "public relations" advantage that its use was obvious to the Kriegsmarine, so it was OK to show photos of a big searchlight attached to the wing of an aircraft. Similarly, hedgehog and squid would both be reported back as a new forward firing weapon by any surviving submarine. In contrast, Huff duff was kept a close secret - there was a general belief in the German navy that the only effective DF of their signals was done by shore-based listening stations. I think the result of that secrecy has had an impact on Wikipedia content.

I suggest that the sentence needs to be rewritten, with suitable sources, but including Huff duff in the list of important technologies in the fight against U-boats.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: Is there some wording and sources you'd like to suggest here? Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I am working on obtaining access to some sources that I believe may give an authoritative overview of the relative importance of the various technical developments of anti-submarine warfare in WW2 (in the broadest sense, so including Ultra). So I will hold off suggesting any form of words until I have read further. Of course, the sources may turn out not to cover this subject. The purpose in mentioning on the talk page at this stage is to alert any others with suitable sources to assist in finding the best form of words. I think it is important to find sources that have done the interpretation of the information - anyone could trawl through concise data on U-boat sinkings and get a completely wrong picture of the importance of a piece of technology. That is because sinkings are not the only factor in winning the anti-submarine war: if U-boats are sufficiently pursued (not necessarily, even, attacked), they are not able to get into an attacking position.

So far I am just relying on (1) "When it became possible in 1942 to mount high-frequency DF (HF/DF, or ‘huff-duff’) on board escorts – something the Germans thought technically unlikely – this became a very important tactical tool." (Mawdsley, Evan. The War for the Seas . Yale University Press.)(This quote is from a whole section that addresses aircraft use, the early use of radar in U-boat kills, Ultra, etc.); (2) the biography of Walker (already mentioned) which has a good amount of technical information alongside the narrative. Since Walker is associated with about 10% of all surface vessel U-boat sinkings, this must have significance.

I note, incidentally, that there seems to be no coverage of German technological advances. Consideration needs to be given to the GNAT (torpedo) - the article suggests that only the Allies produced this technology - yet the German device was very effective. Also, the Bold (decoy) or "submarine bubble target" was an influential new device - but not mentioned. Clearly that is a lot to get into one sentence, so decisions will need to be made. However, a complete summary knowledge of WW2 anti-submarine warfare technical developments has to be a starting point.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Source list building is a work in progress, but in the interim, note: "...one of the most effective Allied countermeasures developed during the war..." (referring to Huff-duff) in [5]ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

To add to the above, I am concerned about the accuracy of "Advances were made in nearly every aspect of naval warfare, most notably with aircraft carriers and submarines" (bold added). The minor point first (aviation in naval war): land-based aircraft also played a significant part in naval warfare - e.g. anti-submarine warfare (Battle of the Atlantic) and by the Japanese (e.g. sinking of Repulse and Prince of Wales).
The main question is whether there were big advances in submarines in WW2. The U-boats used in action were of types that were modern versions of the WW1 U-boat. The highly successful US Navy submarines were of the same design concept, as were RN subs used particularly in the Mediterranean to good effect. The type XXI U-boat, though revolutionary and developed in WW2 had no impact on the conflict. Conversely, anti-submarine warfare saw huge advances. The basic ASDIC that the Royal Navy went into the war with was steadily improved and enhanced - with the final usage being an automated firing of Squid (weapon) from the ASDIC set. There is a long list of other anti-submarine warfare developments: HF/DF, radar, improved depth charges, improved tactics and training methods, etc., etc. Overall, WW2 anti-submarine warfare was, by the end of the war, far in advance of 1939 or WW1 capability. Looking specifically at submarines, with the problem sentence in the article in mind, we see the snorkel (already developed prior to WW2), the GNAT (torpedo) and wolfpack tactics - but I do not see how these equate with the huge impact of aviation on naval warfare.
What is the statement currently in the article trying to say? Is it right?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It is true that the type XXI U-boat may have had no impact on the conflict, but the same can be said for the Messerschmitt Me 262 and the V2 rocket, however no one disputes their immense post-war impact. XXI U-boat was a response to the allies' successful anti-submarine warfare developments you mention, just as the Me262 and the V2 were in many respects a response to the Allies' air superiority. Just because Germany's degraded industrial capacity meant it was unable to deploy the XXI U-boat in sufficient numbers, doesn't mean their impact was any less important in terms of military technology. --Nug (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The question that I have in mind is that already inferred in the article: was the development of submarines in WW2 comparable to the use of aircraft in naval warfare? I do not see how wolfpack tactics, a homing "anti-escort" torpedo and a revolutionary design that saw no active service add up to being equivalent to the development of "sea/air warfare" (Mawdsley, Evan. The War for the Seas - but other historians have similar terms for this concept). Hence choosing just 2 aspects: aviation (the article currently just talks about carrier-based air warfare) and submarines seems very unbalanced - especially since there was massive technological development of anti-submarine warfare.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Also: "Submarines, which had proved to be an effective weapon during the First World War, were anticipated by all sides to be important in the second (bold added). Pre-war, the Royal Navy's leaders believed that ASDIC would essentially neutralise the submarine threat (and the Canadian navy agreed). (This ref has some well-reasoned discussion on preparedness for war.) The near-total absence of any US Navy preparation for anti-submarine warfare suggests that they had not given submarine's proper thought. (Note that early in 1942 the British had to lend the USN 24 armed trawlers, and their experienced crews, for anti-submarine work.) I note that the emboldened part of the quoted sentence is unsupported by any reference.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Well in regard to the question "was the development of submarines in WW2 comparable to the use of aircraft in naval warfare?", it is probably worth noting that while the use of aircraft in naval warfare resulted in the end of the battleship as a viable weapons platform with no new ships being built post-war, submarines continued to be developed, with the Type XXI being the first to be designed for extended submerged operations and sustained high underwater speed, becoming the archetype for subsequent post-war submarine development. The pre-war question of long-term viability of the submarine in light of the development of anti-submarine warfare was answered by the Type XXI. --Nug (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Nug, I don't question that the battleship had a much less significant role when naval aviation (including land-based) reached its full potential in WW2 - that is very much my point. The belief of many on the Allied side, that submarines would not be a be a big problem was very wrong (but then the statement in the article is also wrong, so needs changing). But it was a submarine fleet with no big stepwise development from WW1 that was deployed (by all sides). By comparison, anti-submarine warfare's technology and tactics developed from one somewhat primitive sensor and one relatively undeveloped weapon (the depth charge saw a huge amount of improvement), to a whole range of detection devices and weapons. My initial thought on comparing the current text in the article with a range of sources was that there was a simple typo and it should have said "Advances were made in nearly every aspect of naval warfare, most notably with aircraft carriers and anti-submarine warfare."ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

To help show the thinking I have on article content, here is a first draft of a replacement for the second part of the second paragraph of the Advances in technology and warfare section. To be clear, I have reservations about the first part of the paragraph. My suggestions do not mention the role of Very Long Range anti-submarine aircraft patrols - this may be a defect. Suggested article content follows:

Both Britain and Germany entered World War 2 with, respectively, fewer anti-submarine escort vessels and U-boats than they needed. Despite interwar spending limitations, effective sonar, together with associated skills in anti-submarine tactics had been developed by the Royal Navy — and there had been some preparation to institute an immediate convoy system. The Kriegsmarine had U-boats, such as the Type VII submarine, which were essentially modern developments of the boats used in World War 1. However, wolfpack tactics made the this force a significant threat, though co-ordination by radio was its ultimate downfall.

The Allied introduction and continual development of both ship and aircraft mounted radar, further development of sonar, the use of shore-based and, crucially, ship-bourne radio direction finding equipment improved the detection of submarines. Better depth charges, and innovations such as the Leigh light, the hedgehog and squid ahead-throwing anti-submarine weapons, and air-launched homing torpedoes together with operational research and continual training improved the Allied ability to destroy or suppress submarines. The Kriegsmarine developed radar detectors, the submarine bubble target (a sonar decoy) and the schnorkel. The type XXI U-boat, a massive improvement on earlier types, was produced too late to have any effect in the war, but introduced concepts used in the submarines of the cold war era.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What you propose seems mostly reasonable to me, just add a brief elucidation of what the massive improvement the type XXI U-boat was, i.e. designed to run predominately submerged with a high underwater speed. Recall that it could run submerged at 17 knots, faster than a Type VII at full speed surfaced and faster than Allied corvettes. Also note the type XXI was fitted with the Kurier burst transmission system as a counter to Huff-Duff, so that along with its predominately submerged operations effectively neutralized many of the Allies' technologies you mention, the Llewellyn-Jones book has a good overview on p104. --Nug (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer - I have been really busy outside Wikipedia, hence the delay in responding. I would like to have got beyond the first draft shown above by now. In response, there is a need to be as concise as possible. I think this part of the article can only flag up certain topics and rely on links to fuller articles for good explanations. Some of the work, then, is getting the articles linked to up to standard - they are a bit of a mixed bunch in terms of quality. I will be back working on this as soon as I can get to it.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Economics

There was a Worldwide Depression not just in the US, which the US and Germany took advanage of negative interest rate deficit spending. France and Britain were still waiting for German reparations promised in WW1 Armistice. Pre-war infrastructure projects like TVA in US and Autobahn in Germany boosted later war production. Electricity for Aluminum, Uranium-235, explosives manufacture, etc. TaylorLeem (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"was" or "is" the deadliest conflict in human history?

@Rodney Baggins: Thanks for the thought, but to me saying, "World War II is" anything sounds like World War II hasn't ended yet. Accordingly, I'm reverting your change from "was" to "is" the deadliest conflict ... . DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To me, saying "World War II was the deadliest conflict" means that it once was but is no longer the deadliest because some other conflict has since surpassed it in deadliness. If you imagine "human history" laid out as a timeline, and look at the death tolls of various conflicts, you would pick out WWII as the deadliest on that timeline and you would say "it is the deadliest" on the timeline of human history. Fine to say "it was a very deadly conflict", yes past tense all the way, but when looking to use the superlative in describing it in terms of human history, which is a linear timeline with points of interest marked out on it, WWII is the deadliest in terms of that timeline. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, to me it sounds as though World War Two is, as in remains to this day, the "deadliest war in history". Britmax (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Britmax: I'm confused: Do you prefer "WWII was the deadliest" or "is the deadliest"?

Obviously, I prefer "was" while User:Rodney Baggins prefers "is".

I don't know if this matters, but I was raised in Kansas and have spent most of my life in the US. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

My tendency is towards "is". What goes in the article depends, as always, on consensus. Britmax (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not change it to "World War II remains the deadliest..."? Schazjmd (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Or "World War II still ranks as the deadliest ..."? DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

DavidMCEddy, I like that better. Schazjmd (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

An alternative solution might be to change the sentence entirely, from: "World War II was the deadliest conflict in human history, marked by 70 to 85 million fatalities..." to "The deadliest conflict in human history, World War II was marked by 70 to 85 million fatalities..." Then the "deadliest conflict" bit is contained within a noun phrase that sits in apposition with World War II, rather than being connected to it using a main verb "is" or "was".
For the record, I was picked up on this very point in the Tenerife Airport Disaster article a few weeks ago in this edit, where User:Echoedmyron showed me the error of my ways and I now agree with him. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably need to qualify "deadliest" in terms of total killed. In terms of per capita death rate I would reckon the conflict during the period of the Three Kingdoms in 184AD would have been deadlier, with a number of some 37 million killed, given the world's total population nearly 2000 years ago was a lot lower than in 1940. --Nug (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I think "was" is OK, as there is no evidence of anyone being confused about the issue. Surely if there was a deadlier conflict, it would be mentioned. I think the per capita issue is bogus. When Cain killed Abel, that amounted to the 25% destruction of the world's population. Or, hang on, the Bible indicates there were far more people living at the point... In fact, we have no reliable statistics for the distant past. I don't think "deadliest" implies per capita, but I think it might be better just to simply say "with the highest death toll".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It should be "was", as is would be present tense, indicating that the war is still ongoing, which it is not. FrançaisauNord (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, although it is not still going, it is still the conflict with the most fatalities in human history. Britmax (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A little bit of ambiguity is harmless, is it really that important to clarify that from WW2 to the present there has been no deadlier conflict? The most important information conveyed by the sentence pertains to events prior to WW2, and there is no ambiguity there. Let's not bikeshed over something so trivial.--TZubiri (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Another book for further reading

Here's another book for further reading- I don't know what the standards are for adding these kinds of materials on this page, so I leave it to you all to decide: [6] Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Chinese (1937)

If the academic consensus is that the Second World War began in 1939, why are the Chinese (specifically in 1937) featured as one of the header images in the description bar atop the page? The very first image. I'd like to point out that the contribution by the Chinese and their involvement in the conflicts prior to 1939 are not pertinent to this particular article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.120.44.40 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

1937 and 1939 start dates

Would it be more accurate to say WW2 started in 1937 (in Asia) and in 1939 (in Europe)? https://brill.com/view/journals/jcmh/4/2/article-p204_5.xml?language=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomnolence (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not really. The war in Asia in 1937 was just a regional war at that point, not a world war. The consensus is that WW2 started in 1939. --Nug (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

World War II#Chronology discusses this issue. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the overwhelming academic consensus is that WWII ran from 1939 to 1945. Until the majority of the secondary reliable sources independent of the subject say that WWII started in 1937, we stick with what we have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

May I ask why then, the Chinese are featured first in the infobox? If the general consensus is 1939, the photo pictured is dated 1938, which is contrary to what you both are suggesting here. Can we remove it? The Chinese cannot claim that these battles were part of the Second World War.24.120.44.40 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

Seeing the swapping of precedence of the main leaders in the info box, and despite the fact this has, if I remember correctly, been previously discussed, why not put the leaders in the order of the number of days they were in charge of a combatant nation? That would give (for the allies):
Chiang Kai-shek
Winston Churchill
Joseph Stalin
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Harry S Truman

Either way, I have reverted the change as undiscussed.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The infobox is fine as it is. I've just removed further undiscussed changes - the addition of Truman, and some rather odd flags which supposedly represented the Allied and Axis alliances. I do wish people would stop fiddling with the infobox given the extent and frequency of discussions of its content. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a strong argument for removing infoboxes due to the trouble they cause.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Roosevelt (always seated in the center), Stalin and Churchill

Roosevelt (center), Kai-shek and Churchill... no Stalin

Perhaps just utilize the same approach as for "Participants" and link the leaders to Allied leaders of World War II article. However, I don't think this is the optimal solution. Despite the numerous alternatives proposed for the list (including the current order with Stalin being first), it remains an obvious fact that the US and its president, were in the leadership role of the alliance. It was the US which sent aid and supplies to the Soviets, Chinese and British (not the other way around), it was the US which organized the United Nations in 1942, and it was the US which set the new economic order at Bretton Woods in 1944, and it was the US which had the A-bomb first. Stalin was able to set the terms for Eastern Europe, but that's it, Soviet influence was not global. Also, an obvious representation of the pecking order was the fact that every time the leaders met, the US president was seated in the center. --E-960 (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• What's the rationale for Stalin being listed first? --E-960 (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• The rationale when this was agreed ages ago is that the literature on the war generally notes that the USSR was the most important country in the Allied victory. I think that this still reflects the literature, and that the literature carries more weight than your views based in part on the order the leaders sat in in formal photos (!). Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, please... how about diplomatic protocol, as evident in the photos? Also, what literature? I'm sure you can find a book(s) which supports your point of view, since there are plenty of legitimate alternative interpretations of every event from WWII. However, another question, did the Soviets contribute in any meaningful way in the Pacific Theater... no. So, the main guiding rule here is what's "generally accepted" as the main view, certainly not that the USSR was the leader of the alliance, just helping the allies win in Europe is not enough in a two theater war. --E-960 (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• If we were only talking about the European theater I could see the argument that the Soviets did the most to win the war there, however taking into consideration the fact this was a two theater war, the US clearly contributed the most globally to defeat the Axis powers. Here is an article which at least lends support to that point of view [7] "The U.S. mobilized about the same number of troops as Russia but fought on more major front lines — not only in Europe but also in the Pacific and North Africa. American war production — its ability to churn out astounding numbers of bombers, tanks and warships — was possibly the key war-winning factor, say some historians, who point out American factories produced more airplanes than all of the other major war powers combined... And without U.S. supplies, the Soviet war effort would have been massively diminished. America supplied Stalin with 400,000 trucks, 2,000 locomotives, more than 10,000 rail rolling stock and billions of dollars' worth of warplanes, tanks, food and clothing. At the same time, the U.S. also supplied nearly a quarter of Britain’s munitions." --E-960 (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Since User:E-960 seems to want to argue the case (instead of relying on sources), it may be worth pointing out that Britain and her empire stayed in the war after France (her major ally in terms of military might: a large army and navy) was defeated. If Britain had surrendered, the USA would have had immense difficulty dealing with a massive Nazi controlled block. Additionally, the British and Canadian navies were the major components in winning the Battle of the Atlantic - without which all the munitions and equipment manufactured in the USA would never have reached the front line. This capability came to a peak just as it was needed, when the number of U-boats deployed reached something like the intended quantity. The US Navy had to learn from the British how to deal with submarines (and they were slow to implement the knowledge gained - possibly down to Admiral King - see Samuel Eliot Morison's semi-official history to see this well expressed by a US historian who served as such in the USN), and never learnt to co-ordinate USAAF anti-submarine capability with USN activity. I make these points simply to illustrate that it is very easy to take a partisan view. No single country on their own could have defeated Germany and Italy, or especially once Japan joined the War. The expertise, resources and determination of all those involved was needed.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired, did I not provide a link to an article to quickly summarize the point? Also, the WWII article is pretty lousy in comparison to the WWI article exactly because of this nonsense... an editor finds a book with their POV (and there are plenty of books on WWII, with alternative interpretations of the events) and argues to show a minority view as primary. 1937 or 1941 start of WWII, we had those discussions, somehow I don't find those debates on WWI talk page with the start of WWI (such as: well, the actual assassination did not start the war, but when France and Britain got involved, etc.). Same thing here, the nation which fought in Europe, Pacific, and North Africa, which provided aid to the Soviets, British and the Chinese, which organized the United Nations and Bretton Woods, which by the end of WWII had the only atomic weapon, and control of the world's seas and air, that nation was not the leader of the alliance. No, not the US, but Russia because, quote "the rationale when this was agreed ages ago is that the literature on the war generally notes that the USSR was the most important country", What literature, the same one that call WWI and WWII the second 30 years war? --E-960 (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I apologise that I missed making the obvious point - that this is an article about a historical event. Therefore the references cited should, in the main, be written by academic historians (as opposed to printed in a newspaper, for example): WP:HISTRS. Using this guidance substantially simplifies the perceived problem.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

And, what sources are used to justify the current leaders order? There is nothing cited in the infobox. --E-960 (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Status quo stonewalling

Nick-D, in your earlier comment you claimed that the order of the Allied leaders was decided long time ago, based on reference sources presented in a discussion, and I quote "the rationale when this was agreed ages ago is that the literature on the war generally notes that the USSR was the most important country in the Allied victory". You cited this rationalization several times when other editors tried to change the list in the past, including now. Yet, you never actually provided the link to that archived discussion or the sources themselves. I'd like to request that you please provide some evidence to backup your statement. --E-960 (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• E-960, I see that you are making these claims in various places on this talk page. Please stop: such charges should be made at AN/ANI, for instance, not here--right now they aren't even charges, they are just personal attacks and violations of AGF. Surely you can ask for a link to a discussion without accusing an editor of stonewalling. I have restored this comment because it contains a question related to article improvement, but you are skating on thin ice here. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The Allied Invasion of Germany vs the Western Allied invasion of Germany

This sentence

The war in Europe concluded with an invasion of Germany by the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, culminating in the capture of Berlin by Soviet troops, the suicide of Adolf Hitler and the German unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945.

is, as far as I understand, grossly misleading. I would suggest it be changed to something like:

The war in Europe concluded with the Allied invasion of Germany, cuminating...

That article doesn't exist, but it should, using the similarly problematic Western Allied invasion of Germany as a starting point. That article currently contains sentences like

The Allied invasion of Germany started with the Western Allies crossing the Rhine on 22 March 1945

Which is plainly wrong, as Soviet troops has entered (pre-WWII) German territory far before that date.

The degree of difficulties maintaining the alliance between the Soviet Union and the Western Allies during the invasion of Germany is a complex and difficult question, with a wide spectrum of possible answers. The current text, which is in the introductory paragraphs of the article, states as fact an unusual, simple answer at the very end of that spectrum: that there were two separate events constituting the invasion of Germany, with the main event being the Western invasion and a secondary event, which does not even get a link, being the Soviet-led invasion.

I think that there is enough commonality here to make it useful to have an article refer to a single invasion of Germany by all three relevant Allied powers, explaining the special circumstances of the Soviet-Western alliance in that article.

Eelworm (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The wording here is a bit clunky, but the issue is that we don't have a single article on the Soviet invasion of Germany like we do on the Western invasion or, as you note, on the invasion by the western and eastern Allied forces. It would be good to be able to link an article on the Soviet or overall invasion, but as neither exist what we've got in this article might be the best possible for now. I agree that the Western Allied invasion article needs loads of work - it's a fascinating and under-appreciated campaign. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring

This article has been sitting at WP:GAN awaiting a reviewer since April. If someone has an interest in World War II, and an inclination to review, that would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

World War I

This may be a silly thing to suggest but surely World War I should be mentioned in the lead? (I apologize if it I missed it and it is already) Aza24 (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the background isn't mentioned in the lead for reasons of space. If we mention WW1, we should also mention the Russian Revolution, the rise of fascism, and the growth of the Japanese Empire...--Jack Upland (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I totally understand the heistency of not wanting to include too much background, but to me – a person with limited knowledge on the subject – and I suspect most readers, I think of World War I and II as intrinsically linked: our only official, virtually undoubtable "world wars". It just seems rather odd that it isn't mentioned. Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Invalid outbound link for "Atlas of the World Battle Fronts (July 1943 to August 1945)"

I've realized that the outbound link for the anchor text "Atlas of the World Battle Fronts (July 1943 to August 1945)" is incorrect.

Incorrect link: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Atlas_of_the_World_Battle_Fronts_in_Semimonthly_Phases_to_August_15,_1945

Correct link: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Atlas_of_the_World_Battle_Fronts_in_Semimonthly_Phases_to_August_15_1945

Hwlw2655 (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC))

Commanders and leaders (alphabetical order)

I'd like to propose a neutral solution to this issue of commanders and leaders list in the infobox, and that is to list both Allied and Axis leaders in alphabetical order, this is the only truly neutral approach because it does not take into consideration any historical facts or opinions, which can be disputed or challenged at a later date — this is a practical administrative approach to resolve the issue. --E-960 (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

What issue? This is controversial only to you, and your reasoning on the issue above on your interpretation of photos so can't be taken seriously. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Nick-D, what sources did you provide to support the current list? Also, looking over your input form the past you argued against the use of the term "genocide" in the section title Genocide, concentration camps, and slave labour, here: "I'd suggest "mass killings" or similar over genocide: the large-scale murders committed by the Soviet and Japanese governments which were related to the war generally aren't considered to have been genocides. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC) and now you staunchly argue to keep the list as is noting that the Soviet Union was the leader of the Allies. In your comment you belittle my recommendation, but for years now you've been policing this page and enforcing minority views on this article. Pretty soon I would not be surprised that a discussion comes up arguing that Poland started WWII and citing some new book by a Russian historian. --E-960 (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Nick-D, in this discussion an editor also argued that Roosevelt should be first on the list, here [8], however you also stonewalled back on the issue and stated "You appear to be ill-informed: the Allies did not have a leader. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)". So, based on your earlier comment, I'm surprised that you are against the alphabetical approach. --E-960 (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not engaging with those kinds of scattershot bad faith accusations and personal attacks - including a weird suggestion that I or others have an anti-Polish pro-Soviet agenda and a WP:WALLOFTEXT approach where you regularly reply to yourself, argue every point in detail and abruptly shift your arguments when they're not working. Take your tedious conduct elsewhere, or better still knock it off altogether. If you want to be taken seriously and have serious discussions, behave seriously. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• @E-960: devolving into barely veiled insinuations is a sure way to kill a discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, Nick-D policed the article for years — Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and based on his earlier comments, Nick-D just uses whatever argument work at the time, but it's clear what the end goal is, keep the list with Stalin first (this order has not changed in at least 5 years). In the talk page Archives, there are plenty of objections to this in the past and Nick-D was the editor always involved who stonewalled any changes. Also, Nick-D ridiculed my initial suggestion for not being based on a reference source, yet let me just raise one crucial fact +THERE IS NO REFERENCE CITED FOR THE LEADERS LIST IN THE INFOBOX+ and if he says that there was a discussion years ago on this, then Nick-D will have no problem pulling it for us now and maybe citing those references in the infobox, so editors can review those sources, this would save a lot of everyone's time, but no it's more convenient to just stonewall any changes and then argue that "this was agreed ages ago". --E-960 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• If this article was just about the war in Europe, the Soviet Union clearly contributed most in ground combat, while the USA supplied huge amounts of arms and equipment under Lend Lease (including nearly half a million trucks to Russia), and the allied bombing diverted a lot of manpower and military equipment from the Russian front and restricted the expansion of the German war economy. But this article also includes the Pacific war, which the USA essentially financed, equipped and fought single handedly (not withstanding the efforts of the gallant Aussies!). What did the Soviet Union contribute to the Pacific war apart for grabbing some Japanese territory in the last weeks of the war? So if this article is about World War II, then the USA should unquestionably be the lead, if we are talking about just the European war, then it is debatable. Nick-D, can you link that prior discussion you mention? --Nug (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The obvious counter to User:Nug's points presented above include counting the number of days that the USA was at war (versus other nations) and correcting the impression that it was only USA and Australian forces that fought the Japanese (not sure how many survivors of Burma campaign are left to get angry about that one). The key to this is to find authoritative and neutral sources, written by recognised academic historians, to give a guide on the matter. I suggest that may be more difficult than one thinks - even a writer who aims for a neutral view may miss the mark, and sensible ones will dodge the issue.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired, that's why I think using alphabetical order for both Allies and Axis leaders is a practical solution to this problem - this order does not take into account any historical considerations and is neutral in that respect. Though, I'm also willing to throw support behind the "number of days in charge" approach as well. --E-960 (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I think that a WP:RFC is an appropriate avenue to take on this issue, we have a couple of editors who feel that the current list is not optimal with users ThoughtIdRetired, Nug and myself suggesting alternative approaches. The user who is against any changes is Nick-D, however this user has not presented any sources to back up his rationale despite the fact of being ask to do so by two editors. In this case, I would like to set up a RfC, and propose that an alphabetical order is utilized for this list. --E-960 (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that a majority of Germans themselves consider the Americans contributed most to their own defeat, according to this [9]. Historian Richard Overy, says that after the war Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:

1. Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
2. The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
3. The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.

So while Soviet cannon fodder slowed the axis down, it was American industrial might via lend-lease and air power that ultimately proved decisive. --Nug (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Nug, I agree designating the Soviets and Stalin as the leaders of the Allies is extremely questionable (especially when taking into consideration both Europe and the Pacific). In this UK government survey people in most countries considered that the US was the contributed most to winning WWII [10] also this National Review article written by historian David Hanson nicely summarized the point as well [11]. --E-960 (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A YouGov poll and a conservative magazine article from the US are hardly the basis on which we would be making this decision. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As a contrast, there is this WaPo article which clearly states that "The Battle of Moscow also reminds us of a truth that many Americans do not know: It was the Soviet Union that made by far the biggest contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Your quote: "defeat of Nazi Germany" please understand that this article covers both the European theatre of World War II and the Pacific Ocean theater of World War II, including the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II. --E-960 (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, the poll is just a filler to show that most people out there don't think the Soviets did the most to win the war for the Allies, besides no sources were presented originally to argue for the Soviets and Stain. But in terms of legitimate sources, the National Review article is a reliable source written by a historian at Stanford University, so I'm not sure how you can argue against it? Last point, my recommendation for the list is alphabetical order, especially that this is the English language Wikipedia and there is a split between US and UK/Australia, etc. which country did the most to win so a neutral listing approach is optimal which does not take historical facts into consideration, in this case I would use the Dictionary as reference backing alphabetical order, here [12]. --E-960 (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I am well aware that it includes the Pacific theatre, but what is quite important here is that the Allies agreed that Germany had to be defeated first (for good reason), and it was given the main effort by agreement. Alphabetical order is a very poor solution to something that should be able to be determined by reference to the consensus of reliable academic sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Defeating Germany first... ok yes, but then Japan, and the Soviets did virtually nothing there, it was mostly a US and British (Commonwealth) undertaking. Japan was not Italy (that folded like a deck of cards) that you can talk about as an after though, and that's where your focus on Europe/Germany is out of context.--E-960 (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to refocus things: The discussion is about how the leaders of WW2 are listed - not a relative listing of the importance of each country's contribution to the progress of the war. Whilst relevant to the decision-making, I think lesser reliance should be placed on, for instance, the massive production of armaments and ships by the USA (both before and after the USA was involved in actual conflict). Looking at that thread of the argument, the relevance would be Roosevelt's influence on the US industrial production of war material. One could add to that the influence Churchill applied to US policy on this - particularly before Pearl Harbor. (Note, this is just one tiny part of the whole decision-making, mentioned just to illustrate the process required - lots of other considerations need to be taken into account.) So what is needed is a collection of sources, written by acclaimed academic historians, that make such an analysis. It is easy to find a number of books written on the three leaders collectively. What is more difficult is to evaluate the academic credentials of those who wrote them. Do other editors have any thoughts on a reading list (with reasons) to try and tackle this problem?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As a fall-back, if a study of a range of relevant RSs did not give a clear view on the relative importance of the leaders of the allies, there is always the "number of days in charge of a nation at war" method of prioritisation.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem for listing the sources if they come from reliable books or periodicals, and are written by mainstream historians (I think it's easy to verify if someone teaches at a major university or only has a blog, etc.). Also, I think the "power" of a country in terms of military, production, etc. is a legitimate factor to consider, since a leader's "decision-making" or diplomatic persuasion ultimately rested on hard power a country had. --E-960 (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Being horribly theoretical, I suppose it is possible for a national leader to be somewhat ineffective whilst the country they lead makes a highly significant contribution. One could almost say that Truman fits the bill for that - but the comment would be unfair as it is a function of how American political power works, not his abilities. (I have in mind that Truman was unaware of the atom bomb project until after Roosevelt's death. He had little opportunity to influence anything - just carry on with pre-existing policies.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

An example from a high quality tertiary source (Britannica) is the article on Stalin which says he "emerged, after an unpromising start, as the most successful of the supreme leaders thrown up by the belligerent nations."[13]. The entry is by Ronald Hingley. Success is one metric that is relevant. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The very name of the WaPo article you linked above "Why it's time to give the Soviet Union its due for World War II" by Matthew Lenoe demonstrates he is not expressing a mainstream viewpoint, but rather arguing that the mainstream view should change to give the Soviet Union its due. The Soviet Union materially supported the German war economy for nearly the first two years of the war (including providing Soviet aviation fuel for German aircraft during the Battle of Britain). The Soviet Union, like Nazi Germany, was no friend of Western democracies. Without the 450,000 lorries and other equipment the USA supplied, the Soviet Union may well have never reached Berlin, and with the industrial might and air power of the USA would have seen an A-bomb dropped on some German city rather than Japan in August. Given the Soviet Union had zero involvement in the Pacific war until the last couple of weeks of WW2, beats me why anyone would list them ahead of the USA. --Nug (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

From memory, the rationale for the current ordering of countries is that reliable sources state that the war in Europe was the key theatre of the war (as Japan never had any hope of victory, while Germany did - hence the Allied Europe first strategy) and the Soviet Union played the key role in the Allied victory there, while also playing an important role in the defeat of Japan. The ordering of leaders reflects the resultant ordering of countries, as it would be untidy and confusing to list them in some other order. This is in line with the guidance at Template:Infobox military conflict/doc ("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. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article."). In short, reliable sources judge that the Soviet Union played the single most important role in the war, though the USA and UK (both as superpowers) and China (due to its size) also made massive contributions. Here are some examples from some of the standard works on the war which note the centrality of the Soviet victory in the Allied war effort:

• The Oxford Companion to World War II states in relation to the German-Soviet War that "strategically and statistically, it dominates the Second World War" (p. 341) and that Stalin played the dominant role in the Soviet war effort, which ended in success despite appalling blunders and human rights violations (p. 823)
• Norman Davies states in his Europe at War 1939-1945 that "the Soviet war effort was so overwhelming that impartial historians in the future are unlikely to rate the British and American contribution to the European Theatre as much more than a sound supporting role" (p. 483). A theme of this book is that the war ended with Soviet-style communism/totalitarianism dominating much of Europe, which confounds the notion of it being a "good war".
• Similarly, in Why the Allies Won Richard Overy notes that the Soviet victory on the Eastern Front was the main factor in the defeat of Germany (p. 321)
• Gerhard Weinberg judged in his A World at Arms that the Soviet Union emerged from the war as one of the dominant international powers due to it having "played a major role in crushing Germany" and having conquered most of Eastern Europe. He also notes that Stalin was "the only 1939 leader of a major country other than Chiang Kai-shek remaining in power in 1945" and "looked like the biggest winner from the war" at the time (p. 905)
• Historians generally stress that the brief but decisive campaign in Manchuria was one of the main factors which led to the Japanese surrender, though the balance of these factors is the subject of much debate. See, for instance, The Penguin History of the Second World War ("the Russian invasion [of Manchuria] shares in the distinction of having tilted the Japanese over to put an end to the war", p. 1186) and Richard B. Frank's Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire ("in summary, the Soviet intervention was a significant but not decisive reason for Japan's surrender", with the atomic bombs being the most important reason, p. 348). The claims being made above that the Soviet role in the Pacific War was unimportant are simply not supported by the sources, which argue the exact opposite.
• I'm not sure where the notion being expressed above that the ordering suggests that Stalin was somehow the Allied leader comes from. No sources I'm aware of claim this, with the The Oxford Companion to World War II and Davies both noting that the US-British Empire alliance and the Soviets only loosely coordinated their efforts.
• Without getting into further analysis, the above sources (and the other major works on the war) also note that the US led the western Alliance though Britain's role was huge and that China's role was modest given the size of the country and its armed forces, which explains how the ordering of the other countries came about. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The irony of the rationale for the current ordering of countries based upon the war in Europe being the key theatre, per the Europe first strategy, is that it was Roosevelt and Churchill who determined the Europe first strategy in the first place (without input from Stalin), demonstrating their leadership of the Allied effort. I'll have to analyse your sources in due course, but you seem to be cherry picking Richard Overy and miss the whole point of his book. Overy sums it up succinctly in the last paragraph of his book on page 399: “The Allies won the Second World War because they turned their economic strength into effective fighting power”. Economic strength mentioned here is American economic strength. --Nug (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Nope, he explicitly states that the Soviet Union played the main role in the defeat of Germany by beating it on the battlefield on the page cited. This is a very common conclusion among historians, as the other examples above show. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure Overy did explicitly state that on that particular page, but you missed the central conclusion of Overy's book, it was economic power that led to allied victory. The USA supplied the Soviet Union with with 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles and 13,000 battle tanks. For every American frontline soldier there were 10 logistics and support personal, in contrast Germany and Japan where the ratio was closer to 1 to 1. And given the reasonably even coverage of both the Pacific and European theatres in the article, it seems weird then to only focus on the European theatre when ranking the allies. --Nug (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Significance of 13,000 US tanks supplied to the Russians may be less when compared with 84,000 T-34s built in Russia (and, arguably, they were a better tank).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, but how effective would these tanks have been if not for the American 400,000 lorries to support and resupply them with ammo, 53% of which was manufactured in the USA, according to Albert Weeks. --Nug (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you not have even the slightest feeling of doubt over the accuracy of the statement that 53% of the ammunition used by the Russians was made in the USA? Why would a country in a war for national survival, that is capable of building 84,000 tanks (86% of their total?), put so much reliance on the USA for ammunition? Especially since numerous sources discuss Stalin's suspicion of the English-speaking Allies. Week's book, in my opinion, should have many more cites by notable historians if all his data was good. Do you have any main-stream academic historians who use this number (or anything close to it)? I note that Weeks is actually citing a Russian researcher, Boris V. Sokolov - what do you know about him? I would have expected the work by Sokolov, cited by Weeks, to be more widely cited by others if it was generally accepted.(Incidentally, it would not be the first time that a historian's ability with arithmetic is the origin of an error.) I note, also, from a search for cites of Sokolov, that there are articles on the chaotic accounting system that existing within Russia during WW2 - due in part to some areas being occupied by the enemy for a time, but also due to the general chaos and emergency. One could suspect this was a reason for Sokolov's research producing a misleading number.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Weeks is definitely WP:RS, he was an expert on Soviet Russia for more than fifty years and is Professor Emeritus of International Relations at New York University. Overy cites Sokolov in Russia’s War, as does Werth in Russia at War, as presenting significant conclusions upon the importance of Western supplies shipped to the Soviet Union in resisting German aggression. Soviet era propaganda about domestic production is legendary, so is it any surprise that Sokolov uncovered massive fraud in Soviet accounting of war time domestic production, Arsen Djatej and Robert Sarikas writes in The Second World War and Soviet accounting published in the journal Accounting History [14]:

"Boris Sokolov of the Moscow State University of Social Science has authored one of the most comprehensive research inquiries about the role of 'lend-lease'. In his book, The Truth About the Great Patriotic War, he dedicated an entire chapter to the issues of lend-lease, (Sokolov, 1989).The chapter is titled “The Role of the Lend-Lease in the Soviet War Efforts 1941–1945”. In his investigation of the relevant Soviet accounting records, Sokolov uncovered massive overstatements and understatements, to include deliberate fraud of accounting reports for military hardware and war supplies delivered by the Allies during the war. He employed research methods that utilized data from official records. The newly discovered availability of lend-lease documents has helped to verify the fraud uncovered by Sokolov. For example, by comparing accounting records of the total metric tons of metal rail manufactured in the Soviet Union to estimates of the total metric tons of metal rail installed in the Soviet Union, Sokolov concluded that more than half of the metal rail was supplied by the USA (Sokolov, 1989). Thus, Sokolov questioned the reliability of some of the Soviet accounting records."

Given that a journal on accounting cites Sokolov's investigation of the Soviet accounting practices, I think there is no reason to doubt Sokolov's numbers. --Nug (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

A precise reading of Overy's use of Sokolov's information rather justifies my questioning of the figure on ammunition. He talks about 53% of "all explosives". You have stated this as 53% of ammunition. That is something very different. He also provides a more overall view of the value of lend-lease. To balance your use of these statistics, he says things like "The raw statistics show that Western aid supplied only 4 per cent of Soviet munitions over the whole war period". He also talks about "the extraordinary performance of the Soviet economy during the war". This demonstrates that sources should be read carefully and the overall picture should always be borne in mind when choosing facts in a discussion. On the principle that actions speak louder than words, the value of supplies from the English-speaking Allies to Russia is demonstrated by Churchill choosing to send British tanks to Russia at a time when British troops were desperately short of tanks (i.e. tank units in Britain simply did not have any tanks). But it was Russian soldiers who manned those tanks in battle, whilst their British counterparts were training on bicycles and future American tank crews were not even in uniform. I think the argument that WW2 was won by industrial production, whilst true in one sense, could mislead in this discussion as: (a) there was also astounding Russian industrial production, and in a country that lost a lot of territory at one point; (b) workers in factories are irrelevant if you do not have troops fighting and dying in the field - something which Russia did most prominently out of all the Allies.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, these sources only serve to confirm the fact that the original order of leaders in the infobox was primarily based on the war in Europe, and did not fully take into account the events in the Pacific. Below, the quick summary of the sources just shows that most of them discuss the war in Europe:

• Oxford Companion to World War II — from this source you reference the "German-Soviet War", this does not take into account WWII in the Pacific.

• The wording is very clear that it is referring to the entire global war. You are seeking to dismiss a very clear source here based on your personal views. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

hmmm, your quote: "states in relation to the German-Soviet War" ...not global war. --E-960 (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Europe at War 1939-1945 — here you reference "the Soviet war effort was so overwhelming that impartial historians in the future are unlikely to rate the British and American contribution to the European Theatre", this is only talking about the war in Europe.
• Why the Allies Won — you highlight "Soviet victory on the Eastern Front was the main factor in the defeat of Germany", again this only relates to the fight against Germany.
• End of the Imperial Japanese Empire — this source does talk about the war in Asia, and you quote that "Soviet intervention was a significant but not decisive reason for Japan's surrender, with the atomic bombs being the most important reason", so this source backs the argument that in the Pacific the US (not Soviet Union) was the dominant force that defeated Japan.

Also, Nug rightly pointed out the irony of using the Europe First argument, since the strategy was agreed upon by Roosevelt and Churchill, so if we are talking about leaders and decision making this does not lead credibility to the argument that Stalin was the most influential of the allied leaders. --E-960 (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, encyclopedia Britannica article on Roosevelt [15] states: "From the start of American involvement in World War II, Roosevelt took the lead in establishing a grand alliance among all countries fighting the Axis powers." --E-960 (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Bingo. Axis powers ==> Germany + Japan + Italy. Did the Soviets fight in the North African campaign or Italian campaign? ThoughtIdRetired mentioned duration of involvement, another measure could be geographic extent of involvement. --Nug (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• The Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum also writes [16] that: "He [FDR] moved to create a "grand alliance" against the Axis powers through "The Declaration of the United Nations," January 1, 1942." Again, this confirm the global leadership role of Roosevelt, not just confined to the defeat of Germany. --E-960 (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Also, to add to Nug's point on the Europe First strategy set forth by Roosevelt and Churchill. The book, The Rise and Fall of the Grand Alliance, 1941–45 [17] states: "By 1943, Roosevelt had decided that China should be one of the "four policemen". So, it's becoming more and more clear that the US called the shots, as to what the alliance should be and what are its priorities. At this point, I would argue that Roosevelt should really be the first leader listed, once this issue was opened up for debate it's becoming clear that the original rationals and reference sources did not even take into consideration the global scope of WWII and FDR's decision making. --E-960 (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of posts in reply to mine pretending that the reliable sources I provided say something they don't, offering personal opinions about the war as justifications for dismissing those sources and making changes to the article and trying to interpret other sources to say more than they actually do. Reliable sources, and preferably major works on the war, which state that countries other than the USSR were the most important in the Allied victory are needed to support such an argument. As noted above, the guidance on infoboxes states that ordering should generally be in regards to the contribution each country made to the conflict. Any sources which don't go to this point are irrelevant. At the end of the day, if an argument is to be advanced that the US was the most important country in the Allied war effort this needs to be supported by multiple reliable sources, and very preferably prominent/standard works on the war, which state this very plainly. I am not seeing any such sources so far. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, you keep dismissing the fact that your sources focus on the war in Europe and the Soviet contributions there, augmenting this by adding a source talking about the Soviets in the Pacific amounts to WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Also, you need to understand that the list is not about countries but leaders, and the sources I provided lend credibility to and directly address the argument that Roosevelt was the leading figure in the "grand alliance" globally. This is the WORLD WAR II article, emphasis on the word WORLD. Do you have any sources, which state that Stalin was the LEADING figure and decision maker GLOBALLY among the group of allied leaders? --E-960 (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

As above, the ordering of the leaders is currently the same as that as the ordering for the countries, per the sources. To use a different ordering in the different sections would be non-nonsensical, and unnecessary. Rather than claim that the sources I noted are no good and we should go with stuff you claim is true on the basis of your personal views and interpretation of some photos, please provide references to major works on the war which support a different view on the relative contribution of the Allied powers. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed why an article covering a global conflict should base the ordering of leaders upon a single theatre. You admitted above that this was based on the Europe first strategy, that's the underlying synthesis here. Stalin mobilised a 6 million strong army to fight Germany, but Roosevelt mobilised an army of 11 million and a Navy of 4 million personnel. Then you proceed to find sources about the role of the Soviet Union in the European theatre, while ignoring the wider conflict. E-960 has already provided references to two reliable sources that explicitly mention Roosevelt's leadership of the grand alliance. --Nug (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not getting into a circular argument where you dismiss the sources I provided while not providing any sources yourself. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No circular argument here. The problem is that your sources address a faulty premise, that contribution in one theatre of war should determine the overall contribution of the entire war. --Nug (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I think a RfC or another form of dispute resolution is justified, Nick-D is just blocking new changes, and ignoring the fact that his sources do not address the full subject matter. Also, it's ironic that the user who has a picture of the UN assembly hall on his talk page argues that the USSR and not the US (which organized the UN) was the leader of the Alliance, btw the text of the "Declaration by United Nations" was drafted at the White House on 29 December 1941, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. --E-960 (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the answer to this is to randomise the three names each time the page is opened. Easily done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

On consideration, randomisation is the only solution - as long as it is clear that is what is happening, and why (because all major parties to the war made irreplaceable contributions). Worth noting, among potential sources, Craig Symonds, an American Naval Historian, in his World War II at Sea (OUP 2018), who with his subject matter (the war in the Pacific having an enormous naval element and D-Day being impossible without US shipbuilders) and his nationality, could easily think that the US was the most influential component of the war. Instead he studiously avoids any ranking when considering the leaders whose "oversize personalities or unassailable authority dominated the Second World War" (p. 642). That seems to be a reasonable course of action for any writer to take.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Boris Sokolov is not the best source to use.On May 12, 2016, he was expelled from the Free Historical Society for "inappropriate treatment of historical sources and incorrect citation of other people's works.https://volistob.ru/statements/postanovlenie-soveta-volnogo-istoricheskogo-obshchestva-ob-isklyuchenii-bv-sokolovaStarwarsfanforlife (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)