Talk:World War II/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Detailed military strength for World War II infobox

Why is it that we don't have detailed statistics for the military strengths for each of the major combatants in World War II, like we have in the World War I article? I find this extremely unhelpful, especially since it is extremely difficult to find any accurate information on a collection of these statistics anywhere on the internet. Such research would be even more difficult for novices or students. We include detailed statistics for military strengths and losses in most, if not all, or our articles on other major conflicts as well, so why should our article for World War II be the sole exception? I'd like to hear the opinions of other seasoned editors on this. If there are no serious objections, or if there is a consensus for including more information, I shall restore the additions from this revision. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this type of information would be helpful, there are a lot of misconceptions about WWII, and such a summary would help in capturing the most important stats related to the conflict. --E-960 (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that due to the large number of participants in the war, the infobox becomes bloated once information like that is included. This article is intended to provide a high level summary of the war, so information on individual countries' military strength, casualties, etc can't really be accommodated and doesn't need to be given that there are dedicated articles for these topics. The information you added is also flawed in that it's been assembled from a wide range of sources (for no clear reason), so I doubt that the methodologies are consistent - e.g. are these the total numbers of people who served in the military forces, peak strengths or a combination of the two? For casualties, how do the sources handle key issues like the Holocaust, the Bengal Famine and famines in German and Japanese-occupied territories, etc, etc. The longstanding preference based on a wide-ranging RfC has been to keep the infobox simple by not getting into stuff like this. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Holy cow, that RFC is nearly six years old! Isn't about time that this is looked at again, particularly in light of the fact that the infoboxes for World War I and Franco–Prussian War don't seem bloated at all. --Nug (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

There have been very regular discussions of the infobox since then, where the consensus has always been to not add anything. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Good grief no. The infobox is big enough already. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

For casualties, we handle them the way we already do at most military conflict articles: focus on military casualties. Civilian casualties can be noted together at the bottom for each side, or collectively in a "third column". But that isn't an issue, because we already have the overall casualties for the war listed out. The issue at hand is the lack of any military strengths. Are you actually suggesting that the infoboxes at World War I and Franco–Prussian War are too bloated?? The infobox is already far more bare than the other conflicts of comparable scale, and even my additions only constitute a modest expansion (it does not even look close to bloating the infobox if you give the revision another look). I've only added the overall military strengths and the strengths of the main combatants, which is not even as detailed as the infobox for the World War I article. If we can't find some way to deliver all of the key information, including military statistics, then we as editors have failed our readers. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look at your revision and I don't see any problem with it. Cheers, --Nug (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I've just reverted an attempt to edit war this material in which was made with an obviously false claim that there is a consensus in the above discussion. LightandDark2000 you might want to seek further participation in this discussion, but do not edit war further. I note that you have not responded to the concerns I raised about the sourcing of this material. For instance, why has it been assembled from a fairly random collection of references when there are single works which provide these statistics (presumably in a consistent way), are the statistics peak figures or totals, why do some of the statistics appear to refer only to Army strengths, why is the Japanese figure in a source only covering the Army up to 1939, and what reliable sources claim that Manchukuo was a significant participant in the war and why are you adding totally unreferenced 'totals' from what seem to be a mish-mash of inconsistent figures? This is low quality content, and edit warring it in with a false claim that there is a consensus is really unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

They are all supposed to be peak strength or peak deployment figures, consistent with the figures used in the World War I and Franco–Prussian War. Concerning the sources, they are all high-enough quality to be used; if any of the sources fail Wikipedia's standards for citations, then should should not have been used in their source articles (on the more specific theaters of the conflict). The sources used are hardly random; they are the sources I found on the respective articles (military history during World War II, specific theaters, etc.) concerning the exact peak military strengths during the conflict. I think that they are quite reliable. And if there are other inconsistencies or issues, the editors active in the World War II articles should have added better sources, not leave it up to one or two editors to dig up the information (especially not our readers). Instead of just deleting the information outright, why not dig up better sources that can address the issues you've raised? I've done my best to cross-reference reliable sources across the Wikipedia articles on which I found them (though I'm unable to actually read the content in non-free books or articles with paywalls), and I shouldn't be the only one doing this work. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

How about you follow Nick's suggestions, work on it in your sandbox and link it here when you reckon it is ready, rather than have poorly sourced and inconsistent information sitting in a high traffic GA? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Belligerents

The main leaders are mentioned as main "main allied leaders" and "main axis leaders so main nations need a mention as "main allied" and "main axis" Kommune12 (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

1939–1945 global war

@ThoughtIdRetired: I'm fine with most of your 2020-12-16T07:26:09 changes except one: Changing "1939-1945" to "20th century" seems too much for me. The 20th century included many other conflicts that were at most only tenuously related to World War II from the Russo-Japanese War (Feb 8, 1904 – Sep 5, 1905) to Rwandan Civil War (1990 - 1994), to name only two; an expanded list appears in Lists of wars in the 20th century.

I'm reverting that one change. Thanks for the others. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: - I think your message is directed at the wrong editor - I only changed US to British English in "organisation".ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Blatant use of WP:SYNTH in article

The arguments and sources used to keep Stalin at the top of the list are blatant WP:SYNTH - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

None of the sources presented by Nick-D and other editors who back his point of view, actually say "Stalin was the leading figure among the Big Four or Big Three". Let me repeat that, none of the sources presented actually say that. Instead, statements from books referring to the Soviet victory over Germany are then combined with statements from books on Soviet skirmishes in Asia, along with a dose of opinions to say that... since the Soviets were the most important belligerent in the Allied fight against Germany, then this must mean that the Soviets were the most important belligerent globally (given their presence in Asia), and thus Stain was the most important Allied leader globally and should be first at the top of the infobox list.

This is a blatant WP guideline violation, and it is being done be experianced editors, who btw make a point of belittling other editors on technicalities and behavior. Well, misrepresenting facts and sources using WP:SYNTH is far worse because it hits a Wikipedia accuracy. I've provided quotes from sources which specifically say Roosevelt was the leading figures among the Allied leaders and that he pieced together individual belligerent to form the grand alliance, here: [1]] and [2], and user GizzyCatBella provided links so several sources which list Roosevelt first among the allied leaders, here: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Yet, none of this is match for some well argued WP:SYNTH, backed by several editors no less. --E-960 (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a BLATANT VIOLATION OF DON'T SET UP A SEPARATE TALK PAGE SECTION WHEN THE ISSUE IS ALREADY BEING DEBATED!!!.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, DEBATED USING WP:SYNTH!!! And, by experienced editors who should know better. If the source don't say it as such, then it's synthesis, I don't care how experienced or polite you are in defending it, you are adding original research to Wikipedia and you have other editors backing it. --E-960 (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

BLATANT CHANGING OF FORUM AND SUBJECT.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Debated with other editors backing synthesis, so that debate is not going very well, and looks like a POV push using dubious sources. --E-960 (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There's an RFC over this above. If you think its synth make your case there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

E-960, your tendentious, American nationalist arguments clearly lack support both in the academic literature and among the broader Wikipedia community. You really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

hehehe... TheTimesAreAChanging, when you say "American nationalist arguments" I can't help but notice that that you are part of the Sega Task Force, I wonder if you would have been part of that group or even played SEGA if uncle Joe and his comrades got to Japan and set up one of those highly successful economic models the Soviets were know for. So, why don't you think before throwing around your anti-American non-sense. Btw, where was Wikipedia created? Also, where was the internet invented? Think about that before tapping away at your keyboard. Are you using Windows or a Mac, do you wear jeans and shop at a supermarket? All those things came from the USSR, I guess? Let me clue you in on a undeniable fact, the modern way of life was pretty much created in the US. BTW, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and Roosevelt's United Nations were also "American" inventions. --E-960 (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This is becoming disruptive. None of that is relevant and WP is not a forum. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the WP:SYNTH is becoming disruptive, apparently some editors refuse to acknowledge the fact that the sources provided to support Stalin's position on the list do not actually say that he was the leading figure among the other allied leaders, but address the Soviet role in the defeat of Germany (classic synthesis). Instead, they rant about some perceived "American nationalist arguments". --E-960 (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

E-960: If you would rather not be called out on your blatant Americentric bias, then I would try citing better sources than the FDR library and the National Review (to speak nothing of the rant above about blue jeans and supermarkets).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

E-960, for the sake of the Hungarian-Polish friendship, I ask you as well to stop and dropthestick (as @Peacemaker67: asked long before as well), since this debate is already below the necessary standard and you are much more experienced editor than to endorse such behavior which mostly inexperienced trolls share and tiring the community. You are much more valuable editor than this. Your opinion you said, your stance the issue is known (yeah, we Hungarians also horribly dislike Stalin and Communism), I deeply understand Poles and Polish feelings, etc. What I tell you know take as a friendly warning, don't give reasons admins to take an action. Let the RFC work. Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC))

E-960, ignring the blatant POV pushing you are trying to show for the US, just one small other point. The internet was created by a British guy? I take it you did not know that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:215:C500:3822:6DAA:DAF2:ED7D (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, considering this... that changes everything. --E-960 (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This here is the reason i deleted my old account and stopped editing. The amount of US propaganda taken as gospel is insane. Now we even have nationalistic comments in here too.. Dustie (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Start date

Just curious since the in the information box the casulties would include all the dead from the Second Sino-Japanese war so should'nt the start date be 1937? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240B:252:7941:CC00:BD83:D89C:8BE1:E083 (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Did the UK declare war on Germany before France did, 1939-09-03?

@Whizz40: Do you have documentation of exactly when on 1939-09-03 the UK and France declared war on Germany?

I ask, because you reversed the order in which the two are mentioned with justification "Chronological order". It might be good to include that information at least in footnotes, e.g., "World War II is generally considered to have begun on 1 September 1939, with ... subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom<ref>at 1939-09-03 11:33 UTC per {{citation ...}}</ref> and France<ref>at 1939-09-03 14:44 UTC per {{citation ...}}</ref> on the 3rd.

If you did that, it could also be useful to add that to the section on "War breaks out in Europe (1939–40)" as well as the Wikipedia articles on "Diplomatic history of World War II" and "European theatre of World War II".

Even if you don't have time to do all of this, it would help if you can provide references where you made these changes.

Thanks for your contributions to the Wikimedia mission, to make freely available the sum of all human knowledge. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi David, see French declaration of war on Germany (1939). See also sources in the third row of the table at Declarations of war during World War II. Whizz40 (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Colonialism downplayed: "surprise attack on the United States as well as European colonies"

Hawaii was not a state but a territory. This sentence implies that only European countries had colonies under attack by Japan in December 1941, and the American targets were somehow different than the European targets in colonial status. Why not say something like "colonies of the United States and Europe"? Basically, don't downplay US colonialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbowler (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This part of the article is defective, as (1) the link from "European colonies" only goes to the invasion of Malaya, (2) it does not make clear that American colonies in Guam, the Philipines and Wake Island were also attacked. I am not sure that these points were in the mind of the original complainant, but the omnibus terminology currently used is less than ideal. I do not feel I am familiar enough with the history of the early days of the Pacific War to immediately put forward a better piece of text, but this does need attention.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

They shouldn't be called "European Colonies" however. Wasn't Malay a British colony at the time? Was it something else? Gibraltar is currently a British Overseas Territory isn't it? What was it during WW2? We have no business downplaying or upplaying colonialism. What do the Sources say? Do they say The American colonies were attacked? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Malaya was definitely a British colony at the time. I think there were other British holdings as well, so wrong to have a link to just one place. What was the Philipines characterised as? It was certainly under some form of US control. My incomplete knowledge of the history of that area in 1941 includes the fate of French Indochina (largely modern Vietnam?) which was invaded at some point, and there were also significant Dutch interests in the area.

Some of the problem is the need for the article to summarise an entire conflict - and without digging through any sources - I have a provisional solution for the article as follows:

In December 1941, Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States and European and US colonies in East Asia and the Pacific.

So that is add "US" in the colonies bit and remove the link to just the invasion of Malaya. Is there a better link in Wikipedia to the events of Dec 1941 other than Pearl Harbor? I am still hesitant about the link to Attack on Pearl Harbor as this could easily mislead the casual reader by directing attention away from the invasions in other places and subscribes to "soundbite" history. The whole point about Pearl Harbor was to knock out the US Pacific Fleet while the invasions were underway - so whilst that attack is clearly a huge part of the story, the "why", and what else was going on at the same time, is often forgotten in summary accounts.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be reworded. There were simultaneous attacks on Hawaii, Hong Kong, Malaya, and Singapore. Why not be specific?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason for such a minimal suggested rephrase is because this is text in the lead. Therefore space is at a premium. Being specific is for later in the article - where it is addressed. However, I feel that events in French Indochina and in the Dutch colonies receive less mention than they should, both in this article and in Pacific War. Some overall assessment of what is and is not covered seems appropriate.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It sounds more like the reason is to specifically rage against American Imperialism but the problem remains that its unclear what you are talking about when you say American Colonies. And Soundbite history? The Soundbite was about a "a date which will live in infamy". But then there is no room in the lede to mention the attack on Hawaii and it should be replaced with some rant on American Colonialism? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The text is In December 1941, Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States as well as European colonies in East Asia and the Pacific. I don't think that refers to French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies. The attack on Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong was an attack on Britain, not just on its colonies. Britain was a major power fighting in the war. France and the Netherlands had been defeated by Germany at this point.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes if I recall most of the French Colonies were under Vichy French Control. And the specifics of this section of the Lead also seems to refer to when The US and UK declared war on Japan.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The point is that Dutch East Indies was an important target of the Japanese - as the article currently stands, that point is completely obscured by the text in the lead. The link to just British territory is misleading camouflage. Not mentioning the US colonial presence in the area is equally misleading.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing the link to the invasion of Malaya here. If there was an article on the Japanese operations in South East Asia in December 1941 or similar it would be the appropriate target, but without it the link is pretty misleading (the lack of such an article is a bit of a gap which anyone with an interest in the topic might want to fill...). Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the link. I also added "and US" so it reads "European and US colonies". I feel this is an important clarification as few people seem to understand the nature (or even existence) of the US presence in the region prior to Dec 1941. Otherwise, what was the significance of McArthur saying "I will be back" - why was he there in the first place? I appreciate that there is possibly an implied accusation (above) that I or others have a crusade on highlighting American colonialism - I am just interested in putting as complete a picture of exactly what happened in as concise a form as possible.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That is not very concise. You are ignoring the fact that the sentence refers to the surprise attack in December 1941, not the Japanese war generally.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are some of the Japanese attacks that happened in December 1941:
Wake Island 8 Dec 1941 air attacks with attempted landing on 11 Dec, repeated on 23 Dec
17 Dec 1941 Sarawak (so, that is a Dutch colony with notable oil resources)
8 Dec 1941 air raids in Philippines followed by landings 10 Dec 1941
8 Dec 1941 landings in Malaya (this is an hour before the attack on Pearl Harbor: international date line)
Overall, this is a complex story (from which these dates are just snippets). The attack was intended to seize key resources (oil, rubber, minerals, etc.) and neutralise potential opposition from those colonial powers that still had the means to resist. (Note that the Dutch had some naval and other resources in the area, despite the home country being under Nazi control. This contrasts with the French situation). I would support this assessment of the Japanese strategic aims with: "In Nagano’s view the most important thing was, at the outset of the war, to take the enemy bases (Singapore, Manila) and resource areas (Malaya, Netherlands Indies), ‘making our operational position tenable and at the same time obtaining vital raw materials . . . our Empire will have secured strategic areas in the Southwest Pacific, established an impregnable position, and laid the basis for a prolonged war’." (Mawdsley, Evan. The War for the Seas . Yale University Press.) The revised sentence in the article is trying to convey what happened in December 1941. Is there a suggestion that the events listed here (and other similar ones in the same month) are not summarised by the language chosen for this part of the article?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The surprise attack occurred on 8 December 1941. Everything that happened after that was less a surprise. The issue here is how to word that particular sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The sentence in the article talks about "December 1941". Not "7 Dec/8 Dec 1941". Given the complexity of a massive military operation, I don't think one can reasonably expect the Japanese plan to have been implemented all in one day. I have given a citation (above) that quotes one of the Japanese planners - it is quite clear that the attack on Dutch colonies is included in the overall initial series of attacks. Considering the attacks over the course of the month is, in my opinion, an effective way of summarising the whole series of initial events of the war with Japan. Note that the attacks were less of a surprise than one might suppose. Otherwise, why were HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse sent to Singapore, arriving a week before hostilities started in the region? The Dutch were similarly aware of the imminent risk of war and were working on plans to disable their oil facilities. I am less up to speed on exactly what the Americans were doing, but they knew there was a risk of war - they just didn't foresee a big carrier raid (perhaps that is a hangover from the angry debate with Mitchell over the vulnerability of big warships to aircraft). I am not totally clear on what alternative text is suggested by User:Jack Upland.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Which Colonies again? The problem with soapboxing on Wikipedia, after your done, wikipedia is still an encyclopedia. What the hell are you talking about actually? Can you name these colonies? Can you provide source?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You have one source shown above, Mawdsley's The War for the Seas, shown with some relevant quotes. Just quickly looking at another, World War II at Sea by Craig Symonds has a useful map of the initial Japanese attacks on pg 218. This does not show Wake Island, as that is to the East of the area mapped (but I presume that you do not dispute that the US had a Naval base there, largely to support the Panam flying boat base there). In Symonds' map you will see (just picking a few examples) "Philippines (US)" "Japanese Landing Dec 10 1941", "Borneo Dutch" no date of landings by the Japanese, just an arrow, but the Wikipedia article has this occurring on 12 Jan. If you are disputing the existence of Dutch colonies in the region, a quote from Symonds: The ultimate objective of the Japanese campaign—indeed of the whole war—was the Dutch East Indies, composed of four large islands (Borneo, Celebes, Java, and Sumatra) plus innumerable smaller ones. In addition to their value as exporters of sugar, pepper, rice, and tea, those islands produced 35 percent of the world’s known supply of rubber and boasted some of the most productive oil fields outside the United States.(p. 220)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's look at the surrounding text, which I think is problematic: Japan, which aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific, was at war with the Republic of China by 1937. In December 1941, Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States as well as European and US colonies in East Asia and the Pacific. Following an immediate US declaration of war against Japan, supported by one from the UK, the European Axis powers declared war on the United States in solidarity with their ally.

• dominate Asia and the Pacific — why include this? We don't mention German war aims in the lead. And it seems exaggerated. Also is repetitive, followed by East Asia and the Pacific in the next sentence.
• was at war with the Republic of China by 1937 — while this is true, it is also true that Japan had annexed Korea in 1910 etc. Questionable relevance. Also overlinking.
• launched a surprise attack — this links to Attack on Pearl Harbor, so very definitely referencing 7/8 December.
• United States as well as European and US colonies in East Asia and the Pacific — this is repetitive and hard to understand. What does it mean to say they attacked the United States and US colonies? Why not add that they attacked Britain and British colonies?
• Following an immediate US declaration of war against Japan — why say this? The USA had been attacked. Naturally it was in the war. This is wasting space in the lead.
• supported by one from the UK — why "supported"? The British Empire had been attacked. Britain did not join the war against Japan to "support" the USA. And in fact declared war beforehand.
• in solidarity with their ally — I don't think this is exactly true, and it makes it sound as if Japan was attacked, not the other way round.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Some good points from User:Jack Upland. I only homed in on one sentence.
On the "launched surprise attack" issue, the link to Attack on Pearl Harbor should originate from the words "United States".
Attack on US and US colonies, but not on Britain and British colonies. The intent is that it is clear that both a US Territory (so, not a colony) and US colonies were attacked. This contrasts with Britain, which only had its colonies attacked - there was no direct attack by Japan on Britain. Do you have a better form of words that conveys the same thing?
The US declaration of war, though perhaps inevitable, was a pivotal moment in the history of a nation with isolationist policies - I think it needs to be said - though an audit of readability may be due.
Remainder needs attention, but I have to get back to work now.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I got to say I agree with Jack Upland, the current wording is just awful. The original text before your change reads a lot better. Japan attacked both US territory and US colonies (so why not just say US), while only attacking European colonies but not European territories, so it makes sense to say surprise attack on the United States as well as European colonies. Claiming that this original wording somehow is "Colonialism downplayed" has been already observed by others as soapboxing. --Nug (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't really agree with saying there was no direct attack on Britain, or that the attack was on European colonies only. Making a distinction like that gives a false impression. The attack on Malaya etc was perceived as an attack on Britain. US territories are sometimes referred to as colonies. Malaya was referred to as a territory by Churchill when he was announcing the outbreak of war with Japan.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Good point. It is worth noting that the American colonial period of the Philipines effectively ended in 1934 with the passing of the Philippine Independence Act, Guam was under military occupation by the US Navy and colonization is generally considered to have begun in 1950, while Wake Island was uninhabited when the USA took possession of it in 1899, so I'm not sure using the term "US colonies" for these entities as they were in 1941 is accurate here. --Nug (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

If what you say about the date of the Philippines ceasing to be an American colony is correct, then Americans in the Philippines needs some attention, as it gives different information. What I would like to see is a good source on the subject. Certainly the map in Symonds' World War II at Sea implies the Philippines was an American possession of some sort.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The Tydings–McDuffie Act of 1934 saw the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935, with its own indigenous constitution and popularly elected President. While it was not fully independent of the USA until 1946, the Philippines was no longer a colony either. Prior to that was the American colonial Insular Government of the Philippine Islands. The process was not dissimilar to Australia, which prior to the Federation of Australia and its 1901 constitution that saw the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia, there existed six separate British colonies of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, and Western Australia. While the Philippines achieved full independence in 1946, Australia only achieved full independence in 1986. To claim that the Philippines was an American colony in 1941 is as anachronistic as claiming that Australia was also a British colony in 1941. --Nug (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is that simple. There certainly was an imperial situation back then. In 1939, Australian Prime Minister Menzies said, "Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war". Australia did not declare war. The situation is much the same in the situation we are supposed to be discussing. Any attack on these empires was an attack on the metropolitan country. However, I don't think this is getting us any closer to improving the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Menzies speech was in fact a declaration of war, and is titled as such here. Note that in 1939, some 99% of Australians could trace their roots back to Great Britain, hence there were deep cultural and emotional ties to the motherland of Great Britain. Hence Menzies use of the phrase "Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war" should be interpreted as since Britain has declared war, then of course Australia in solidarity and kinship also declares war too, rather than some kind of indicator of imperial compulsion. --Nug (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Nug, that is not true — see here — but again this has got little to do with what we're supposed to be discussing.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Australian Official History notes that Menzies believed that when the UK when to war Australia automatically did so as well (see pages 154-155 here). The Curtin Government had a different view, and declared war against Japan in its own right in December 1941. I also have no idea why this is being discussed. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The main source of misunderstanding is that people do not see a difference between the UK and GB. Australia or other dominions were independent from the British Government, but not from the British Crown. To some extent, that is the case even now (whose portrait is on modern Australian dollars?). When Britain declared a war on Germany, it was George VI who did that, not Chamberlain. Therefore, formally, the war state was declared on behalf of all dominions, although it the British Government had no authority to request any practical steps from them. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D has brought up an interesting point: "Australia hadn't ratified the Statute of Westminster in 1939 so wasn't yet independent of the UK", while most former colonial states wanted independence as soon as possible and even fought independence wars to achieve it, Australia was more like the 38 year old unmarried son refusing to leave the basement of his parent’s house. But of course this is getting off-topic. —Nug (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I found this[8] an interesting assessment of the problem of the various American possessions attacked by the Japanese in 1941. Not sure how it moves us on on terms of the article. The author is a history professor with a few books (and articles) published by reputable publishers.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to World War II notes that the Philippines was about halfway though the process of transitioning to independence as of December 1941 and had an unusual status as a result, but remained an "American possession" (p. 685). Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we should say: {tq|Japan launched a surprise attack on US and British territories in East Asia and the Pacific.}} "Surprise" is optional. The other territories attacked are covered by Japan soon captured much of the Western Pacific. The attack on Britain is important as Britain was a major player in the war, whereas France, the Netherlands etc had already been defeated by the Axis and their territories were easy pickings. The fall of Singapore was a major event in WW2, whereas the conquest of the Dutch East Indies wasn't. I think this would deal with the downplaying of colonialism, which I think is a genuine issue, not just because it is not neutral, but also because it is anachronistic.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the idea that the conquest of Dutch East Indies was not a major event. See the quoted text above: The ultimate objective of the Japanese campaign—indeed of the whole war—was the Dutch East Indies.... (Symonds). It needs to be mentioned somewhere relatively prominently. The idea that the Dutch colonies were easy pickings is, I believe, incorrect. Certainly they had been defeated in Europe, but the Dutch government in exile were British allies and the USA had major interests in preventing the Japanese in accessing the oil resources of the area. On the basis that actions speak louder than words, this is demonstrated by the establishment of the ABDA combined force (American, British, Dutch and Australian). The Dutch had naval assets in the region. Bearing in mind the political difficulties that the US Navy had working with anyone (e.g. USAAF), the level of intent shown is powerful. Note that the formation of this force was discussed in November. It might have been somewhat ineffective, but that was down to its military efficiency, which one would only have known about when it was tested in combat. Without the attack on both Pearl Harbor and the destruction of US military aircraft in the Philippines, ABDA might have had more resource.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that is irrelevant to what we are discussing.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, the whole discussion is about the following sentence:

"Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States as well as European and US colonies in East Asia and the Pacific."

In my opinion, the relevant facts that deserve inclusion into the lead are: (i) the US were attacked at Perl Harbor; (ii) Philippines, Indonesia, Malaya and other territories in South-East Asia were attacked by Japan. Any discussion of whether the attacked territories were colonies, independent states etc. is irrelevant to the lead. In addition, the attack of Perl Harbor was the attack of the US military base and the US navy. As far as I know, an attack of some state's military ship is tantamount to the attack of that state. Therefore, the attack of Perl Harbor was the attack of the US independently on whether Hawaii were a colony or a state.

With regard to East Asia, the exact status of these territories is hardly relevant to the lead. The term "possessions" seems to be an adequate umbrella term that covers all nuances. I also agree that only Perl Harbor was a surprise attack. Therefore, I propose this wording:

"Japan launched a surprise attack on the US naval base Perl Harbor and quickly conquered European and US possession in East Asia and the Pacific."

In addition, I agree with Jack Upland that the paragraph is far from perfect. Below are my comments to his criticism.

• "dominate Asia and the Pacific — why include this?" - I recall, similar statement about German war aims existed in earlier versions of the lead. It seems it was removed, and, for consistency, we should do the same here.

• "was at war with the Republic of China by 1937 — while this is true, it is also true that Japan had annexed Korea in 1910 etc." Actually, it is not true: Japan was not at war with China de jure. Despite large scale hostilities, China never declared a war on Japan before 7th of December, 1941. If we want to speak about de facto hostilities, why Khalkhin Gol, which was a full scale, although non-declared war, is not mentioned? The truce between the USSR and Japan signed after 1st of Sept, 1939, so this non-declared was was a part of WWII.
• "launched a surprise attack — this links to Attack on Pearl Harbor, so very definitely referencing 7/8 December. " Yes, and I don't think why we shouldn't say that directly.

• "Following an immediate US declaration of war against Japan — why say this?" Totally agree. We cannot afford a luxury to waste precious lead's space for these trivial things.

• "supported by one from the UK — why "supported"? The British Empire had been attacked. Britain did not join the war against Japan to "support" the USA." Actually, USA joined WWII that was fought by UK and USSR. It seems that paragraph is written in isolation from the previous paragraph.

• "in solidarity with their ally — I don't think this is exactly true, and it makes it sound as if Japan was attacked, not the other way round." Actually, the Axis was a military alliance, so war declaration was not an act of solidarity, it was an obligation. I agree the wording is totally awkward.

Similar problems can be found in other parts of the lead. Its current state is far from satisfactory. It seems, many local and poorly coordinated changes were made during last few years, and many redundant details were added, which create an impression of a fragmentary text written from different perspective. I propose to copy-edit it to remove redundant or unnecessary details. However, such a discussion should be moved to a separate section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the points we need to convey are as follows: because of this attack, Japan and the USA entered WW2, though Japan did not enter the war with the USSR. Then, as we say later, Japan conquered much of the Western Pacific.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Broadly agree with User:Paul Siebert comments above - I was mulling over something like "...attacked British Malaya [link needed here] and US military bases in Hawaii, the Philippines and Wake Island", therby avoiding use of the word "colony". I am concerned that the order in which events happened is often lost due to the problems of the International Date Line. Chronologically it was Malaya, Pearl Harbor, Philippines - and all within the same 24 hours and with the Philippines delayed by poor visibility at Japanese air bases. So on the point of "surprise" - why were the British aware that an attack was about to happen? (more editor research needed) I also have problems with the lack of mention of the objective of war (for the Japanese): i.e. the oil resources of Dutch and British territories following a US oil embargo - but concede that the article needs to be consistent (but perhaps it fails consistently??). I would give a fuller answer, but have a very full work day today.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the question — why were the British aware that an attack was about to happen? — they weren't. Churchill aware of the possibility because Britain's position in the Pacific was vulnerable.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The British were aware because reconnaissance aircraft spotted the Japanese ships before the landings in Malaya - the dilemma was whether or not to attack them first. We do not know what code intercepts told the British - perhaps that fact went in the big bonfire that Bletchley Park had when the war was over.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What possible relevance does that have to this discussion?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It is relevant to the words "surprise attack", which are part of the wording under consideration. It is only Pearl Harbor where the military at that location were caught by surprise. The Americans in the Philippines had warning (because the Japanese land-based planes were delayed by weather) - not that it really did them any good, due to the military inefficiency of units not geared up to wartime operations. There was some preparation by the British, and the landings were efficiently opposed for a while - but the Japanese assault ultimately secured an effective beach-head. The article needs to be careful to apply surprise attack solely to the Pearl Harbor part of the story. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Simply because you see an attack coming doesn't mean it's not a surprise attack.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This is getting a bit micro, but I agree with ThoughtIdRetired here - the Japanese invasion forces bound for Malaya had been tracked by American, British and Dutch forces, and the Allied forces in the region weren't taken by surprise as a result. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it is called a surprise attack because there was no declaration of war beforehand. However, I don't see any reason for this to be in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Epilogue: reworded the sentence (second sentence of the third paragraph) to read: In December 1941, Japan attacked American and British territories with near-simultaneous offensives against Southeast Asia and the Central Pacific including an attack on the US fleet at Pearl Harbor. Also improved the section at the first link which redirects to Pacific War#Japanese offensives, 1941–42.

-- Whizz40 (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Main Allied Leaders

Question: Should the Main Allied Leaders list in the article's infobox start with Franklin D. Roosevelt followed by Joseph Stalin, thus reversing the current order on the list. --E-960 (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes The list should include FDR first, for the following reasons:

• The main proponent of the current order, user Nick-D, bases the rationale for Stalin being listed first on several sources (provided above on the talk page). However, those sources only cover this topic in the context of the war in Europe not WWII as a whole, and make the claim that the USSR was the most important contributor in the fight against Germany, but those same sources do not say that the USSR was the leader of the Alliance globally (including the Pacific and North African theatres). Also, more importantly those same sources do not address Stalin's leadership role in the Alliance, and as user Nug correctly pointed out those sources "address a faulty premise, that contribution in one theatre of war should determine the overall contribution of the entire war".
• To back up the argument that FDR should be at the top of the list, the following sources address FRD's leadership role in the Alliance directly: 1.) Encyclopedia Britannica[9]: "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." 2.) Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum[10]: "He [FDR] moved to create a "grand alliance" against the Axis powers through "The Declaration of the United Nations," January 1, 1942." 3.) U.S. Department of State’s ShareAmerica Portal[11] "At a dinner toast with Allied leaders during the Tehran Conference in December 1943, Stalin added: 'The United States… is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.' Nikita Khrushchev, who led the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964, agreed with Stalin’s assessment. In his memoirs, Khrushchev described how Stalin stressed the value of Lend-Lease aid: 'He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war'."

Based on the sources favoring FDR, it is clear that the US president was the leading figure in the Alliance and it was him that pieced together individual belligerents (such as the Soviets and China) to formally organize the grand alliance against the Axis Powers. --E-960 (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

No As I've tried to explain above, the current ordering of Allied leaders reflects that of the ordering of the Allied countries, per what reliable sources say such as those I've provided. This is in line with the guidance for how the ordering be handled in infoboxes 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"). It would be nonsensical to use different ordering in the two infobox fields, and the editors proposing this change have totally failed to offer any sources supporting a view that the US made the larger contribution to the war - instead all they can offer is quotes from a tertiary sources and the potted bio of FDR written by his presidential library which only say that FDR moved to set up the UN. As the Oxford Companion to World War II any many other sources note, FDR had little influence over Stalin (who was actually fairly successful in bossing the western Allies around and getting his own way), and the western Allies and USSR only loosely coordinated their efforts. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per the many academic sources listed by Nick-D and the lack of support for E-960's theories in the academic literature.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, did you or Nick-D actually read those books, or was it a search for key words on Google Scholar? Based on the fact that none of those sources say that the Soviets lead the alliance, I'm not sure you actually read through the books, but simply prooftexted a few isolated passages. For example does this tile Europe at War 1939-1945 lend credibility to the claim that the book addresses the Soviets role in WWII on a global level? --E-960 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as listing Roosevelt first would follow populist as opposed to the academic historian view of which countries were most influential in the passage of the war. I do not agree with the military conflict infobox protocol of listing leaders based on the degree of influence of the country they led (surely that just qualifies the leader for listing) - I would prefer ordering by how long each was in that position, though I can live with the rule. Incidentally, I do note from Allenbrooke's and other diaries that there was competition between Churchill and Roosevelt at the "big three" conferences to obtain private access to Stalin - what does that piece of WP:OR tell you about who was most important?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Not much, other than just it being an out of context reference regarding the war in Europe. How about the fact that to this day Japan and the USSR/Russia do not have a peace agreement in place to end WWII? Just tells you how important the USSR was in the Pacific, that Japan did not even bother to sign an agreement with the Soviets. --E-960 (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose because I just walked outside and noticed the sky was blue. This all comes down to preference in my view of the facts in this situation. It could be argued with sources for either being placed at the top in the order of importance. However the current order has been the order for the long term in the creation of this article, and this tells us this is the consensus version. Barring some exceptional argument based on policy and reliable sources, which I do not see here, there's no reason to undo this consensus. June 20, 2018 has the same ordering as today. We should not change any article based solely on nitpicking and that's really the only actual justification I see here to do so.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Nick-D. Moreover, the idea that the US was the leader of the Alliance globally is absurd. Until 1944, global strategy was steered by the British, frequently overriding American preferences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

What sources do you have to back up that overly confident statement? You are just stating an opinion and referencing Nick-D whose own sources only talk about the war in Europe. --E-960 (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Nick-D. Britannica also says, regarding Stalin, that he "emerged, after an unpromising start, as the most successful of the supreme leaders thrown up by the belligerent nations."[12] According to Professor Geoffrey Roberts, 80% of all the combat of World War II took place on the Eastern Front. He goes on to say "During the four years of the Soviet–German struggle the Red Army destroyed 600 enemy divisions (Italian, Hungarian, Romanian, Finnish, Croat, Slovak and Spanish as well as German). The Germans suffered ten million casualties (75% of their total wartime losses), including three million dead, while Hitler’s Axis allies lost another million. The Red Army destroyed 48,000 enemy tanks, 167,000 guns and 77,000 aircraft. In comparison, the contribution of Stalin’s western allies to the defeat of Germany was of secondary importance."[13] The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was a significant (but not decisive) reason for the Japanese surrender, as Nick-D has stated (with excellent sources). Stalin was dominant in the direction of the Red Army, as Nick-D has quoted from The Oxford Companion to World War II. So, Stalin was the most successful leader of all the belligerents in the war (not just the Eastern Front), the dominant leader of the state that engaged in 80% of the combat in WWII, which was not only overwhelmingly against Germany, but it also contributed significantly against Japan at the end of the war. He also led his nation at war for six months longer than Roosevelt. Seems obvious he should be first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Human losses are not a factor, not only because they do not reflect actual "power" a leader had, but in the case of the Soviet Union, only point to the fact that Stalin disregarded human life, everything from refusal to evacuate civilians to his strategy of wave after wave of frontal assaults against German postilion. --E-960 (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The logic of considering casualties is to look at German casualties - where was the most damage done to the Nazi forces? We are told by the post that 75% of German casualties were inflicted by the Stalin's forces. Stalin's attitude to the expendability of his own troops are a different and irrelevant point.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

53% of the 75% of German casualties inflicted by the Soviets was thanks to US made ammunition via Lend-lease, according to Weeks. Roberts is a bit dated now, more recent scholarship is now suggesting the war was far more a contest of air and sea than of land supremacy, according to this source[14]. --Nug (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral as per every editor, who all have made some very cogent and specific points. The bottom line, each method inherently has individual bias. An alternative would be placing a small asterisk in the info box, stating the method deriving the order. This way, the everyday reader is made aware of it. In research, it is done openly and routinely. Sometimes, without saying it, ... sometimes saying it. "I'm using the mean," or, "I'm using a median," or "It's stochastic" ..., etc. This way there is a display of the bias in the research applied. Or, have two info boxes or do away with info boxes entirely. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Tipping to Support - The only reason I would consider having Roosevelt placed in the initial position is that the current order might hint that WW2 was a conflict between two totalitarian regimes with the US and G.B. only supporting one side. Did this thought come to your mind too guys? Otherwise, it does not matter, I believe.... but let me think about a little more.GizzyCatBella🍁 20:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC) (Note added after research) I now support listing Stalin at the last position actually (see discussion section below) - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

That's noted in several of the sources I provided above, and especially Norman Davies' book. The Nazi Germany-Soviet Union conflict was at the heart of the war, with the Soviets winning and their brand of Communism dominating much of the world for the next 40 years as a result. The Western Allies success also meant that much of the world enjoyed their system, but the general view of historians seems to be that the Soviets were the bigger winner, at least until 1989. Davies argues that this demonstrates why the conflict wasn't an unambiguously 'good war' as is often claimed. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, what you are arguing for are minority views, and you keep using weasel statements such as "general view of historians seems to be" not at all, the argument that the "Soviets were the bigger winner, at least until 1989" this is rehabilitation of the Soviet Union's role by only some historians, the Soviets won a Pyrrhic victory in WWII, which inevitably set the stage for the system's collapse just 45 year after the end of the war, the country is no more it collapsed due to the prolonged confrontation with the West and it own idiosyncrasies. Ever hear of Yuri Bezmenov? --E-960 (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

No, economic strength and industrial capacity was the ultimate heart of the war. --Nug (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per more recent scholarship on the topic (for example see How the War Was Won by O-Brien [15]) that shows that air and sea power was the key to allied victory, and that was prioritized as the grand strategy for the war. With air power came the destruction of Germany's capacity to support its war, half of all German armaments were destroyed before it got to the front line. With sea power came massive supplies shipped to Britain and Russia via Lend-lease, over 50% of the ammunition the Red Army used on the Eastern Front was sourced from the USA. The Soviet Union received 400,000 lorries from the USA, while Germany was forced to continue to rely on horse drawn mobility. The opposers claim 80% of the fight in WW2 was on the Eastern Front citing a magazine article's section title but no context is given, and certainly the article World War II does not reflect that proportion. The opposers cite the 10 million German casualties, that includes captured soldiers, but ignore the 5 million German casualties (including captured) from the Western front, and all the casualties in the Pacific War. Much is made of the Soviet Union's 6 million combatants in the last year of the war, how ever the US Army totaled over 11 million in the same period, spread over many fronts. They claim Germany lost 77,000 aircraft on the Eastern Front, but Germany's total war time aircraft losses on all fronts was 76,875! By way of comparison, the UK and USA lost a total of 80,428 aircraft in combat in Europe according to Ellis, and the Soviet Union lost 46,100. And finally, The A-bomb was originally developed to be used against Nazi Germany. Having gained air superiority over Germany the Americans were in a position to use it to end the war if Soviets had failed to break through in the east. It was American economic strength that made the A-bomb possible and the B-29 aircraft to deliver it. Overy sums it up succinctly in the last paragraph in the conclusion of his book Why the Allies Won, on page 399: “The Allies won the Second World War because they turned their economic strength into effective fighting power”. --Nug (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support, User:GizzyCatBella sources are convincing and Stalin's status as an allied leader is questionable as in the first two years of the war he invaded Poland and cooperated with Hitler and in the last year he subjugated entire Eastern Europe.--White Red Banner (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC) <--- — White Red Banner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This is an obvious sockpuppet account (it was created about 20 minutes before making the above post as its second-ever edit). Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Ignore the above support comment Nick-D, I think I know who it is. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC) (Note - WW2 Poland related substance possibly intentionally added into this unrelated discussion by most likely sock puppet account of an indef. banned user - terminating engagement with the account on this note) - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Nick-D, if you feel that this is a sock puppet account than please submit a formal request to have it blocked, I'm not comfortable with you labeling a comment a sock puppet based on a hunch. Unless it is proven that this is the case, the comment should not be disqualified just based on your say or any other editors say. --E-960 (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Put Churchill first because Britain fought on the Allied side both globally and from 3 September 1939. There fore Britain deserves higher billing than the 1941 Johnny-come-latlies. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

What sources list Churchill as a leader of the Allies? Now I have a dilemma... keep thinking about it. Let's say we stay with a current order because of our evaluation or as a result if this voting. Wouldn't that be our WP:OR? I searched for "Allied leaders" and most history books have the following order - Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin. Not all, but most I looked at (see my comments below). Perhaps we should find an answer to why most books have that order first? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

:) I typed this question into google - "who was the leader of the allies in ww2"[16] - the answer ---> Franklin Roosevelt :) maybe I’ll ask Alexa now :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The actual source Google gives for that does not support such a claim. As noted above, the literature on the war stresses that the Allies did not have a leader, with the USSR and Western Allies only loosely coordinating their efforts. Works on the diplomatic history of the war tend to note that Stalin got his way quite often when disputes over strategy and war aims arose (not least at the Yalta and Potsdam conferences) and that the western Allies were frustrated at how little cooperation they got out of the Soviets more broadly. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support – Roosevelt is seated in the center in the photographs of the three at the main allied conferences (Teheran, Yalta, Potsdam), and I have to assume that's in recognition of the US's role. Stalin's acquiescence to Hitler via the non-agression pact is what allowed the invasion of Poland to take place and the war to start. Stalin was Hitler's accomplice. Churchill should be recognized as an early opponent of Hitler, when many were undecided or supportive, and as the representative of the power that got into the war early, on the "right" side, while others held back. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Roosevelt is always seated in the centre (with Churchill and Stalin alternating sides) because the photographs you're looking at were taken by the American official photographer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, what kind of non-sense argument is that? Did a US photographer tell them how to sit? Told FDR to get up and sit in the middle for such photographs? Even at the Tehran and Yalta conferences, which were held at a Soviet embassy in Iran and in Crimea, Soviet Union? Are you familiar with diplomatic protocol? What you just said appears to be totally made up, and these wild speculations have no place in Wikipedia. This photograph at Yalta [17] was taken by a British photographer, so I guess they did not switch seats yet when this photo was taken. --E-960 (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest Roosevelt is always in the centre because he was not able to stand or walk easily due to polio. So this is simply logistical - get Roosevelt moved and sat down, then get the other leaders to walk up to their chairs and sit down when ready. Whilst this opinion is WP:OR (or something close to that) it has equal validity to the idea that the seating arrangements have any sort of authoritarian significance.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article in its current state has a significant pro-western bias, and the current leaders order partially compensates that imbalance. Many modern political journalists are trying to attenuate the fact that WWII was de facto not the war between democracy and totalitarianism, but a battle of two totalitarian/authoritarian camps, which were being assisted by democratic states (on both sides, for Finland was a democratic country too). That is a very worrying tendency, which may lead to future problems, because modern democratic regimes are too optimistic about their capabilities of waging a real full scale war against totalitarian regimes. Democracy can win a peace (what it did during Cold war), but it cannot win a real full scale war against strong totalitarian power(s).

By saying that, I agree that Stalin's name should be removed from the first position after the article will be made more balanced (below, in the discussion section, I provide more detailed explanations). The most neutral and balanced solution is to list the leaders in a chronological order "Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt", and to make that criterion evident by showing the dates (3rd of Sept, 1939, 22nd of June 1941, 7th of Dec, 1941, accordingly) after the names of each Allied and Axis leader.--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Peacemaker67. Regardless of what one thinks of Stalin as a historical figure, the war was decided on the Eastern Front. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

When over 50% of the ammunition used by the Soviet army was manufactured by the USA, I'd say the war was decided on the American factory floor. --Nug (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Nug, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. If you want to push a minority view on an Wikipedia article you will ignore the fact that the sources you present do not actually say what you suggest they say. --E-960 (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but do I understand it correct that 50% of US ammunition and ca 10-20% of war efforts (in terms of manpower losses inflicted on the Axis) outweighs 50% of Soviet ammunition and 50% of war efforts? In addition, do you know that UK got 3 times more economic aid from the US than Soviet Union got, so from those 50% cited by you, only 15-20% were obtained by the USSR.

Albert Weeks states the USA supplied the Soviet Union 53% its ordnance, as well as 57% of its aviation fuel and 427,284 trucks. For a 6 million man army, that is approximately one truck for every 15 soldiers. Mobility and the ability to rapidly exploit breakthroughs was a significant factor in the defeat of the German Army, which being still mostly horse drawn were unable to regroup quickly enough mount an adequate defence. --Nug (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

To insert the correction in this part of the dialogue: the original source (Sokolov) says 53% of all explosives used by the Russians in WW2 was sent from the USA. Explosives does not equal ammunition or ordnance. See Russia's War by Richard Overy for clear citation of Sokolov's research.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

To insert a further correction, Weeks on page 9 of his book Russia’s Life-Saver, Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II, also citing the same original Sokolov source states:

"Ordance (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives): Sokolov found 53 percent of such materials used in the war by Soviet forces had been contributed by Lend-Lease. Soviet propaganda always reduced the figure to a small fraction of this.".

Cleary Overy’s “53 percent of explosives” is an over statement, because if we then include other ordnance then combined total would be well over the “53 percent of ordnance” as cited by Weeks. —Nug (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

And, don't you think that the approach that gives more weight to materal production and ignores human lives is somewhat cynical? --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Not cynical, just reality. One guy with a machine gun will always be more effective against ten guys with five rifles between them, WW1 taught that lesson. Unrecoverable Soviet losses was trending down as the war progressed as they were becoming better equipped. Some 2 million were lost in the first three months of the war compared with 250,000 in the last three months of the war. The USA estimated up to a million dead US soldiers with the invasion of Japan, with fighting expected well into 1946. But instead the USA dropped two atomic bombs and ended the war in August 1945. Which would have been the bigger contribution to ending the war, sacrificing an additional one million dead soldiers, or the industrial capacity that made the A-bombs possible? --Nug (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Not reality but a lack of logic. Even if we assume that 55% of all explosives and aviation fuel were obtained by the Red Army from from the US, and therefore, according to you, more than a half of Soviet war efforts (60% of all Allied efforts according to my estimates, and 80% according to Peacemaker67) should be attributed to the US, how can we deal with the fact that the UK got three times more of American aid than the USSR did? Does it mean British contribution in Allied war efforts was three times greater? Does it mean that, using American lend-lease, Britain and the USSR destroyed the Axis twice (for 50% + 1.5x50% = 200%)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment/Suggestion It is fairly evident to me from the enormormous walls of contentious text above that there will not be agreement on which of the main allies contributed the most - and any ordering based on such metrics will be POV. So, i suggest the following as an attempt at objective NPOV. List the Big Three Allied leaders in the order they joined the conflict : Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt, in that order. I doubt many will go for this idea, but throwing it out there anyway :) Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Firejuggler86's chronological suggestion With a conflict as massive and complex as WWII, it seems profitless to try to decide who was 'leader' of an alliance mainly of convenience. Obviously US industrial capacity played a huge part, but ultimately someone had to do the fighting, killing and dying, and that was principally USSR. UK's role is most significant symbolically and tactically by remaining unconquered. Trying to reduce those complexities to an 'order of importance', seems fruitless at best. Chronology (with footnotes as to when/why they joined) is informative but "my dad is bigger than your dad" isn't IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support' - Stalin was allied with the Nazis for half the war, invaded Poland and other peaceful countries. I propose Stalin be removed all together and replaced with Ignacy Mościcki and Władysław Raczkiewicz who led Poland. Poland should be first, as it fought the longest on the side of the allies. JanetOIIO (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)— JanetOIIO (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • This is a fallacious argument, similar to claiming that Britain and France were "allied" to Nazi Germany when they agreed to a non-aggression pact entailing the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia (and at a time when the Soviet Union was urging strong collective action against Germany). In addition, this is yet another brand-new account created specifically to derail this RfC or possibly to joe job GizzyCatBella among others.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you User:TheTimesAreAChanging, that's what it possibly is. A large number of newly created accounts is following me [18] for a very long time, either immediately challenging my edits or acting to support my position but deliberately inserting material about WW2 Poland to the unrelated discussion understanding that I'm under topic restrictions (imposed three years ago after a charge of the permanently banned user) Above !votes of new accounts should be taken lightly as they are most likely entered here for different intentions. I'm sorry that I carried along with my struggles into this RfC. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nick-D. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment for closing admin (this should be closed by an admin) there are at least three support !votes from accounts that have made few other edits. Looks like meat puppetry to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It looks like there might have been a fourth such vote. It would be interesting to know who the sockmaster/meat puppet organiser is here. Presumably they've also posted in this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I started to work on it Nick-D --> [19]. Once that claim is concluded, I'll have more, much more...GizzyCatBella🍁 09:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
      • That seems to be a report of a different set of accounts, several of which have been blocked for months. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
        • @Nick-D I'll be connecting the dots to this[20] then to this [21] and finally here, but I need that one resolved first. I understand it might not be very clear at the moment. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• List in alphabetical order, this all issue is a madness, never thought such long walloftext and bludgeoning will come out of this...serious waste of precious editing time..Jesus Christ! Those who are basically listed in a common set/category are regarded equal, Main Allied Leaders does not say/imply who is "mainer" (heh)....e.g. Liechtenstein and the U.S. national team would be treated equal and listed alphabetically in soccer WC Qualifier, as well San Marino and Australia. Also main articles about Allied and Axis leaders are listed alphabetically, starting with Albania/Bulgaria respectively. That said, I tell in advance, won't react to any answer in to me concerning this in case, as not willing participate any further on this issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC))
• List in alphabetical order this solution makes sense to me as well. I am deleting my previous comment. Wes sideman (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC) <--- — Wes sideman (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Pointless POV change, the article already relies on western sources for most of its content. The USSR's contribution in manpower shouldn't be ignored, and even though it cannot be denied that the United States played a crucial role in the war that's also the case for the USSR, so I don't think it's a valid argument when comparing the two. Oqwert (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• List in alphabetical order, I can support this approach, and this is a very practical solution. --E-960 (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• List in alphabetical order as the best solution to endless and pointless disputes. You can make a case for any of these leaders being "mainest". Focus on improving the article, people. (t · c) buidhe 07:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I feel like listing in alphabetical order is not a great idea without a general guideline change to accompany it, as it makes no sense that order has a different meaning depending on the article you're reading and may also be potentially misleading. Oqwert (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: the arguments for the change have not been compelling. They were (I paraphrase): editors' analysis of official photographs (FDR is in the centre, so he must be the leader); arguments that it was not PC to list Stalin first because he was a totalitarian dictator; speculations that the US might have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany in August, by which time the war in Europe was over; etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a mis-characterization of the argument for change, you cite tangential discussions while ignoring the central argument that economic power and air superiority of the Western allies was the most important factor in winning the war. As Overy states:

"The Soviet Union did not turn the tide on the Eastern Front on its own. Though for decades Soviet historians played down the role of American and British Lend-Lease aid, its real significance has now been acknowledged. From 1942 a flow of food and raw materials and engineering equipment sustained the Soviet war effort. There was enough food in the end to ensure a square meal for every Soviet soldier; most of the Soviet rail network was supplied with locomotives, wagons and rails made in the USA; one million miles of telephone wire, 14 million pairs of boots, 363, 000 trucks, all helped to keep the Red Army fighting with growing efficiency. Without Allied aid, Stalin later admitted, 'we would not have been able to cope'."

I wonder how the Red Army would have stormed Berlin bare footed? --Nug (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

To quote Overy elsewhere (Russia's War) The Soviet military revival in 1942 and 1943 was inextricably linked to the recovery of the battered industrial economy. The Soviet war effort was saved only by a most remarkable exodus of machines, equipment and manpower from the areas under German attack in 1941. Overy goes on to talk about Russia's war material production exceeding that of Germany's production. (...the same six months of 1941. In these six months Soviet industry turned out as much as, or in some cases more than, the German economy produced during the whole year.)

The inescapable conclusion for anyone reading all of Overy's output is that the Russians manufactured what they had to. If the rest of their war materials arrived in a convoy from their allies, that was fine. So without the volume of lend lease, it is likely/possible that Berlin would have been conquered later, maybe with some question about the nationality of the Allied troops involved. But it would still have been Russian troops continuously involved in fighting on a major front from June 1941. Whilst industrial production is a major part of the history of WW2 (and a significant part of that occurred in Russia), all of that is meaningless if you do not have the troops fighting in the field.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, your comment is down right manipulative and dishonest. You blatantly ignore the main reference sources I presented in the RFC along with the quotes cited from them, which say FDR lead the Alliance, instead focusing an a preceding discussion which contained a lot of initial opinions from everyone. Apparently, the fact that the sources presented by Nick-D do not actually say anything about Stalin's leadership and role in the Alliance is not an issue for you. I really don't know how an editor who displays "Editor of the Week" award can blatantly ignore the fact that the arguments to back up Stain's place on the list are WP:SYNTH, pieced together form several sources, none of which actually address the issue directly. --E-960 (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Chronological or alphabetical order - trying to measure importance of specific leaders is a completely subjective and futile task. We should just list them per date their countries entered WW II or alternatively simply alphabetically.--Staberinde (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps separating the main leaders of the Western and Eastern Fronts in the infobox may be a good approach to solving this issue. Oqwert (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral As per Bigeez. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Do it alphabetically or chronologically, or any other objective criteria. Hell, randomize it for all I care. We aren't a WP:FORUM and there are better uses of editor time. – Anne drew 15:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose based on reams of historical research and academic publication that, like it or not, identify the Soviet Union and its contribution to the Allied war effort as more critical than that of any other. Weird OR arguments about the positioning of the leaders in photographs or about the the distastefulness of Stalin's authoritarianism should be given the (lack of) weight they merit. Grandpallama (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems like blatant POV pushing by a couple or editors and a few sock-looking others. IMHO Stalin, then Churchill should be the order. Would have been very difficult for jonny-come-lately (again) to have had any impact if Britain had fell. Churchill prevented this, and a lot more things as well. the US guy should be third on the list2A00:23C4:215:C500:3822:6DAA:DAF2:ED7D (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that this comment about "editors and a few sock-looking others" comes from a newly created account that only made 2 edits total both on this page. --E-960 (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not a newly created account - it is an IP editor, possibly someone who has already contributed here but forgot to log on before posting.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, perhaps they can re-sign the statement. --E-960 (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Still no one provide any reliable reference sources which say Stalin was the leader of the alliance, only syntheses and opinions. Here are my references, which directly attribute the leadership role to FDR: 1.) Encyclopedia Britannica[22]: "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." 2.) Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum[23]: "He [FDR] moved to create a "grand alliance" against the Axis powers through "The Declaration of the United Nations," January 1, 1942."--E-960 (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

But the point other editors are making, based on sources, is that FDR did not lead the military that made the most significant contribution to the Allied war effort, certainly in Europe and I provided sources (copied below) that support this holds globally as well. I agree that in Western education and popular culture, we tend to be taught and thus think of FDR as the leader of the Allies and the US military as the most significant contributor to WW2, but historians are saying the Eastern front was the most significant globally and Stalin led that for the Allies.

Quoting from How the War Was Won by Phillips Payson O'Brien (2015), pages 6-7:[24]

• Paul Kennedy ... ranges widely over the global war, but it is obvious what he considers to be crucial. He describes the Eastern Front war between Germany and the USSR as "clearly the campaign of all the major struggles of the 1939-45 war."
• The best overall military history of World War II published recently is Williamson Murray and Allan Millett's A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War, released in 2000. Though Murray and Millett see regular improvements in the fighting qualities of all the Allies in the war, it is particularly the USSR that develops the fighting power needed to destroy Nazi Germany.
• Andrew Roberts ... when writing a book devoted to British and American grand strategy, he feels it necessary to mention the supremacy of the Eastern Front. Roberts echoes one of the most important groups of American foreign policy scholars of the past fifty years, the "Revisionists", on the origins of the Cold War. This group partly base their arguments on the understanding that the USSR contributed far more to the destruction of Germany than did the USA and UK.

Quoting from The Western Allies and Soviet Potential in World War II by Martin Khan (2017), pages 1-2: [25]

• Most American and British government observers predicted, when Germany attacked the USSR, that the Red Army shortly would suffer a decisive defeat. If the war had developed in accordance with these pessimistic predictions the British, and - in the long run - the US strategic situation would have been worsened very seriously. There would have been no credible enemy, in terms of military strength, opposing Germany on the European continent, and the overall Japanese strategic situation in the Far East would have improved. The final outcome, however, was different. Since the Red Army defeated the bulk of Germany's military might, the United States and Great Britain were able to fight the war with more flexibility and without sustaining the huge losses suffered by the Soviet and German Armed Forces. The major Soviet effort against Germany limited the Anglo-American need to commit large ground forces, as the British was forced to do in World War I. Averell Harriman, an adviser and personal friend to President Roosevelt, believed that the president had it in his mind "that if the great armies of Russia could stand up to the Germans, this might well make it possible for us to limit our participation largely to naval and air power".

-- Whizz40 (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Whizz40, none of those sources address Stalin and none say that he was the leading figure among the Big 3 allied leaders. You just provided more sources which talk about the USSR and the Eastern Front - in other words SYNTHESYS... "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." --E-960 (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• I provided quotes from a survey of the literature that address the most significant or critical contribution to the global/overall war effort and they call out the USSR of which Stalin was the leader. The meaning in your quotes is weaker in comparison, referring much more narrowly to effort in alliance building, much of which had occurred before the US entered the war. Whizz40 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

All the sources Nick-D presented specifically relate to the Soviet Union's contribution to European theatre of World War II alone, specifically the Eastern Front. But WW2 was more than that, it included the Asia and Pacific comprising of China, South-East Asia, the Pacific (including North and Central Pacific and South-West Pacific) and the Indian Ocean. It also included the Mediterranean and Middle East comprising of North Africa, East Africa, West Africa and Italy, as well as the South America. And of course the Battle of the Atlantic and the Western Front as well as the Anglo-American air campaign which severely impacted Germany's military-industrial capacity. The USA had contributed to almost all of the above listed theaters and campaigns, while the Soviet Union essentially contributed to only one. Of course it is argued that the Soviets essentially annihilated the bulk of the German Army, but this was only possible with significant material assistance from the USA via Lend-lease, which Zhukov later described as fundamental: "When we entered the war, we were still a backward country in the industrial sense as compared to Germany ... one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war...". And in the aftermath of WW2 Roosevelt shaped the post-war world order with the creation of the United Nations. Sources have been presented that explicitly state the leadership of Roosevelt in the Grand Alliance, and other sources on the economic power of the USA as the greatest contributor to the Allied victory. While the Red Army deployed some 6 million combatants on the Eastern Front, the USA had a total of 16 million combatants, 11.2 million in the US Army, 4.2 million in the US Navy and 600,000 Marines, distributed across all the other mentioned campaigns. The infobox relates to the entirety of World War II in its full geographic, political, economic as well as its military scope, the ordering of the combatants should reflect that, not according to the narrower military scope of a single theater to the exclusion of the wider conflict that was WW2. --Nug (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not correct at all - I provided sources demonstrating that historians regard the Soviet Union's role in the Pacific War as being important, as its intervention was one of the main factors which led the Japanese to surrender. The rest of that is your personal opinions being advanced yet again to justify changes to the article, and they contain inaccuracies - for instance, while I'm struggling to find total figures in the sources I own, the statistical tables in David Glantz and Jonathan House's book When Titans Clashed state that the size of the Soviet Forces peaked at 10.3 million in July 1943 (p. 303), were at around this level for much of the war and ended the war at 5.7 million (p. 305) despite the millions of casualties it suffered so the total will be huge. I have no idea what the sources for the figures you claim are, but it appears that you are comparing a point in time figure for the Soviet military at a relatively low ebb against the totals for the US military across the war. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The Soviet Union maintained a non-aggression pact with Japan for much of the war, and only attacked Japan just a day or two before Japan surrendered in wake of the atomic bombing, hardly a significant contribution by any measure. Some historians contend it had an impact on the decision to surrender, others don’t. Historians have also noted that much of the high Soviet casualty figures were in part due to Stalin’s disregard for human life, while the Western allies placed greater value on their military personnel. But you still haven’t explained why contribution in one theatre of war should override the overall contribution in the entire war. --Nug (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As I have pointed out above, 80% of the combat in the war occurred on the Eastern Front, German forces were twice the size of the Japanese ones, they were far more formidable from an industrial perspective, and 75% of their casualties were suffered on the Eastern Front. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Roberts is a bit dated now, more recent scholarship is now suggesting the war was far more a contest of air and sea than of land supremacy, according to this source[26]. --Nug (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the reference you provided? The O'Brien's book is described as "highly provocative", which challenges the "Soviet Union won the Second World War with only minor contributions from the United States and Great Britain." Whereas I tend to agree that the role of the USSR in Allied victory was not as big as some modern Russian propaganda sources say, I think O'Brien's revisionist book is instrumental to bring some balance to this story. However, the WWII article, in its current form is far from the state where additional emphasis of Western Allies efforts is required.

In addition, I found just one review on that book in peer-reviewed journals, and it says:

Now, there is no denying that Allied air and sea power contributed to Allied victory in Europe; the argument seems to be to what extent they did so. Thus, this book is welcome for the depth of detail it provides as fodder for such a debate. That this reviewer is not entirely convinced of the author's arguments does not make this a bad book; it is in fact a very good book, and an extremely welcome addition to the literature on World War II. It provides an enormous amount of information and analysis about the role of air and sea power, which furthers our understanding of the reasons for Allied success. That it causes the questioning of the current orthodoxy is to be applauded, as greater understanding often results from challenges to the status quo.

I don't think O'Brein's book is remotely mainstream.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Larry Sanger recently commented on this phenomenon, and it was reported on by several news outlets, you can write just about anything in an article if you get a group of editors to justify that particular POV. In this case forget about the fact that the sources presented do not address the global war and only talk about the Soviets in terms of the war against Germany. I guess anyone could push the narrative that Stalin respected human rights with enough editor support, by providing sources which say that under the Soviet rule the peasants and factory workers were treated way better, while omiting the fact that Stalin probably murdered more people than anyone else, sending them to gulags or by NKVD (not to mention the Holodomor). I guess the current order will stay but that does not mean the Wikipedia article is presenting the correct information, based on a correct interpretation of the sources presented. --E-960 (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, TheTimesAreAChanging, ThoughtIdRetired, Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67 and Serialjoepsycho, I would like to bring to your attention this quote form Stalin himself at a dinner toast with Allied leaders during the Tehran Conference in 1943: “The United States… is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.” and Nikita Khrushchev, also agreed with Stalin’s assessment. In his memoirs, Khrushchev said how Stalin viewed the Lend-Lease program: “He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war.”[27] Stalin saying the USSR would have lost the war without the US, but I though the USSR was the game changer in WWII, I thought that Stalin was so "successful in bossing the western Allies around and getting his own way"?? --E-960 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:E-960, you are using incomplete logic. You have relied upon statements from Russian leaders saying that without help, they would not have won the war. The same can be said for Britain, as there would have been a long stalemate if there had been no ability to invade Europe, for which the sheer numbers of US soldiers was needed. What is probably not apparent to you is that the USA could not have won the war on their own - if Britain had been defeated, Nazi Germany would have had resources to threaten the US East Coast - as it was, there were concerns about French colonies close to the US. Kriegsmarine forays into the Pacific would have been much greater and the Arctic Russian convoys would have been impossible. If Russia had been defeated, D-Day would have been unfeasible and German resources would have been sufficient to play their part in a linking of Japanese and German territorial gains in India. "What if's" do not make good history, but neither does picking one piece of information in an argument, but then using it in isolation from comparable points that make up the whole picture.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't really a "what if". The A-bomb was originally intended for Nazi Germany. Having gained air superiority over Germany the Americans were in a position to use it to end the war if Soviets had failed to break through in the east.

I really doubt the editors who oppose the change actually read the books cites as reference, more like Google search for key words and prooftexting, blatantly obvious as all the statements quoted by Nick-D from the books refer to the Soviet victory over Germany and not global leadership of the grand alliance by Stalin, but those are just minor details I guess. --E-960 (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

What does this say, quote:

• "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"
• "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."

Do those sources cited by Nick-D say that Stalin was the leader of the Alliance?? No. All of you are breaking basic Wikipedia rules when it comes to content policies, Wikipedia:Inaccuracy and Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein, using several sources which DO NOT say Stalin led the Alliance, but which make general assessments of Soviet contributions in Europe, which are then combined to argue that Stalin was the Leader of the Alliance. --E-960 (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D seems to have cherrypicked Overy while apparently ignoring the main thrust 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) 22:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• comment There's nothing new here that effects my rationale. Please don't ping me again.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I've also had this talk page watchlisted for years, and don't need to be pinged, especially for the disruptive conduct here. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

E-960, your continued attempts to WP:BLUDGEON this process by repeating the same false or misleading statements after they have already been refuted is disruptive; you should take a step back and allow this RfC to play out based on community consensus. Nick–D's sources (among others) demonstrate that the Soviet Union played the single most important role in the Allied victory in World War II, as measured by academic historians; they do not limit themselves to the European theater (although Europe was the most important theater in the war), and there are no sources claiming anything about "global leadership of the grand alliance" because that is a nebulous original research standard of your own invention. (As Nick–D pointed out, "the US-British Empire alliance and the Soviets only loosely coordinated their efforts.") Given that about 84% of Allied Lend-Lease aid reached the USSR only from 1943 onwards, after the tide of the war had shifted in the Red Army's favor, and that the Soviets won the crucial Battle of Moscow in 1941-1942 without large-scale assistance, the impact of Lend-Lease remains controversial and difficult to quantify. (Interestingly, Russian sources are more likely to cite Lend-Lease as a decisive factor in the outcome of the war, whereas relatively few Western historians believe that it was determinative. Glantz p. 285 offers a consensus view: "Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France's Atlantic beaches.") Finally, your personal attack accusing other editors of cherrypicking Google search results and book excerpts based on selectively chosen keywords is unintentionally hilarious coming from a user that has cited extraordinarily low-quality sources such as share.america.gov, the FDR library, and a Victor Davis Hanson opinion column in the American conservative magazine National Review—sources that no editor familiar with Wikipedia's content policies would cite in a discussion of this kind, and that frankly raise serious questions about the criteria by which you select reliable sources for research purposes. (The fact that even those sources fail to support E-960's assertions regarding "global leadership of the grand alliance" is no doubt a good faith error, but points to a general lack of WP:COMPETENCE on the part of the filer.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I doubt Glantz on p. 285 is a consensus view. The A-bomb was originally developed to be used against Nazi Germany. Having gained air superiority over Germany the Americans were in a position to use it to end the war in August 1945 if Soviets were "left to their own devices". --Nug (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you are seeking to dismiss a key source on the grounds of your personal views. When Titans Clashed is one of the standard works on the war, with Glantz being regarding as a leading expert on the Eastern Front in general and the USSR's war effort in particular. The Oxford Companion to World War II also notes that Lend Lease aid to the USSR only "helped" the Soviets achieve victory, as it made up "about 7% of what the USSR produced itself" (p. 533). Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Glantz may be a leading expert according to you, but strange you seem to ignore other historians, particularly Russian historians, that don't quite support Glantz's narrative on Lend-Lease. Albert Weeks writes that Lend-Lease is now recognized by post-Soviet Russian historians as essential to the Soviet war effort. Russian historian Boris Sokolov writes that "without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union, not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition." Big difference between just merely "helped" as you suggest and what Weeks describes as "essential to the the Soviet war effort." --Nug (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Sokolov's main contribution is his highly exaggerated figures of Soviet war losses, which contradict to Western data (Ellman&Maksudov) and to Russian population statistics (Erlikhman). Other historians give more balanced view: US lend-lease was very important in some aspects, especially important were explosives and gunpowder. However, lion's share of support started to come in the second half of the conflict, when it became clear that the USSR ios not losing that war. The lend-lease was very instrumental, but it didn't save the USSR, it helped the USSR to win, but it was not an absolutely important factor. i cerall I already explained that many times, I am disappointed that I have to explain it again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick note - Stalin and the Soviet Union is placed first here also [28] so looks like the current order is consistent with other articles, no? - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, you raised a very good point "current order might hint that WW2 was a conflict between two totalitarian regimes with the US and G.B. only supporting one side" and Nick-D replied to that "The Nazi Germany-Soviet Union conflict was at the heart of the war, Davies argues that this demonstrates why the conflict wasn't an unambiguously 'good war' as is often claimed". Nick-D is pushing a minority view on this article arguing just that, that WWII was a fight mainly between Nazi Germany-Soviet Union, with the US and UK just being side players. --E-960 (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• As for the other articles there appears to be a consistent effort to place USSR at the top of ever infobox on WIkipeida for example Allies of World War II article had the US first until it was changed by user CapLiber on 16 May, 2020[29] with out any disscussion. --E-960 (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm.. Brittanica lists Allied leaders as follow - Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin....[30] so entirely different order, Stalin is last. Let me research more and think about it.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Here too[31] and in USHMM lists it like this "The Allied Powers, led by Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union, defeated the Axis in World War II" [32] CES also "U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Stalin" [33], here too [34] "Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin." As a matter of fact, Stalin is consistently listed at the last position in recurring sources [35]. I just searched for "leaders of the allied powers in ww2" without names. Nick-D, I'm afraid E-960 is right here. The order should be changed with Stalin bumped to the third position, actually. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

As above, the ordering used in the list of leaders is the same as that for the list of countries, which in turn is determined by what RS say about relative contributions to the war to be in line with the infobox guideline - to have different ordering in the different fields would look silly. The sources you are suggesting justify using different ordering in the two fields here include a children's book, and none actually discuss relative contributions to the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, do you not understand that your sources talk about the Soviet Union not Stalin specifically... again not Stalin, the sources I presented and now GizzyCatBella, place FDR at the top or identify him as the leading figure in the grand alliance. In Wikipedia, the rule goes, WHAT DOES THE SOURCE SAY, does your source say Stalin lead the alliance? NO. If you were drafting a statement you can not write Stalin was at the forefront of the alliance and attach a source which say USSR was the most important country in the fight against Germany. That is original research and synthesis. --E-960 (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Establishing relative contributions to the war by us and setting the order accordingly would be our WP:OR, no?. The RS (not children books, come on Nick) certainly hold this order[36] (Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin). Just take a look at yourself[37]. I searched for "leaders of the allied powers in ww2", and that's what I receive - Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin.GizzyCatBella🍁 10:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• There are tags for what you are doing here Nick-D, Template:Failed verification and Template:Dubious, if need be, I'll take your sources to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask if the references you present and a few of the other editors support, actually say that Stalin was the leader of the grand alliance, and if they back up what is actually being discussed the Leaders list, not country contributions. --E-960 (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Here too - Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin [38] and here [39] Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and here [40] Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill and here [41] Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin. Stalin is always at the end in the %90 of sources I could find..... here too[42] "A meeting of the Big Three Allied leaders - Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin" IDK Nick... - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC) FDR here first too [43] and here[44] Rosevelt, Churchill, Stalin. This book lists Stalin first, however, but this is like 1 in a 100. [45] Let's see how this goes, but it's unlikely that I'll change my position after seeing all of these sources. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi GizzyCatBella, many thanks for the references, and to all who have given input. Our problem is the number of other Wiki pages that list Stalin first, such as the Teheran Conference and Yalta Conference for starters, that Nick-D refers to. Who knows how many others there are. As far as conferences, these are the ones where all the big three attended. Do we overhaul all the other pages now on their talk pages? For that reason many are neutral on the issue. If we must have two or three info boxes, then so be it. Illustrate reference points for each, ("Why Stalin/Roosevelt/Churchill is first) and in this way all sides are satisfied. Pick the info box which you like to read, explain why this leader is first in that particular info box, and bingo. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think Stalin's role in WWII is less significant than the role of the USSR. I myself am not too comfortable to see his name at the first position. However, the flag of the USSR should be on the top, opposite to the Nazi flag, for WWII was primarily the war between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, the article creates an opposite impression, and there are two fundamental reasons for that.

• • First. Historically, the Western view of the European theatre of war is Germanocentric, because Soviet archives were not available to Western researchers, whereas Germany was the source of numerous memoirs, archival data, etc. As a result, majority of Cold war era books see the picture through the prism of German sources, whereas Soviet sources were unavailable.

• • Second. Eastern front is seen as just one theatre of war, and it is treated as a single geographical location. Meanwhile, the events in other theatres are scattered among different remote locations and different countries, each of which are expected to be mentioned in this article. As a result, the article tells about numerous petty events that had nearly zero effect on the course of war, whereas many gigantic battles in EF are ignored. Below are several examples.

The "Axis advance stalls (1942–43)" section. What event was central in late 1942-43? Obviously, the battle of Stalingrad. Nether Midway not El Alamein are not comparable with the battle of Stalingrad, both in terms of strategic implications and in therms of human life loss. More Allied solders lost their life in the battle of Stalingrad alone that in all other theatres of war taken together (during the same period of time, from mid 1942 to mid 43). More Soviet solders were killed that Americans during the whole war, in both major theatres. Importantly, Axis losses at Stalingrad were greater than combined losses at the Western front after Normandy till German surrender (excluding POWs taken after Germany's surrender). And, please, tell me frankly: can a reader understand that fact from the article? Obviously, not. The titanic events at the Eastern front in late 1942-early 1943 are described in a small paragraph, whereas the rest of the section tells about such minor events such as Aleutian Islands campaign. The article tells about Operation Pedestal (a help to besieged Malta was delivered, several ships sank, ca 500 people killed), but Sinyavino Offensive (two German armies we attacked by two Soviet armies in a desperate attempt to break a siege of Leningrad, 150,000 casualties from both sides) was ignored. Why? Do you really think strategic implication of earlier lifting of the siege of Leningrad would be less important than saving Malta? Do we really think that the life lost in EF cost less? Meanwhile, Sinyavino offensive was just one out of many EF battles during the same period. Thus, boths battle of Voronezh involved hundreds thousands men from both sides, and immense (by Western standards) casualties. Weren't they important? Actually, Voronezh was a strategically important city, and its capture opened the road to Moscow. Surely, strategic consequences of its capture and retaking were really important, and the human lives lost in these two battles deserve respect. And so on and so forth.

I haven't made a detailed analysis, but even a brief review shows many examples:

- Casablanca conference was presented as the meeting of Allies, whereas that was a meeting to Western Allies;

- the "Big Four" is actually Amiricocentric, for even Churchill disagreed with Roosevelt's view of China). The actual leaders (in Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam) were the Big Three;

- The EF images are systematically removed. Thus, the 1944 was a year when the Red army launched four fantastically successful offensives, which broke the back of the Wehrmacht. Do we see even a single photo? No. We see a photo from Pacific, D-day (no objection, btw), and Dirlewanger's bastards (more pertinent to the war crimes section). Not a single EF photo. Why.

- The Axis collapse section. What event crowns the war? Capture of Berlin. The Berlin photo shows no people who did that, and even the caption says "The German Reichstag after its capture by the Allied forces". Do you really think the caption should be that general? As far as I remember, Reichstag was captured by Soviet forces (who, of course, were the Allies, but...). And why cannot we show people who fought that war, what is the reason to show just a building?

I have no time to list all problems, but I am going to do that in future.

I don't know how exactly should we fix all of that. I don't think significant expansion of the EF part is a solution. In my opinion, the more correct way would be to purge the article from the description of non-essential events in other theatres of war. That will restore the balance.

• Let me reiterate: in terms of the amount of troops involved and human life losses (from both the Axis and Allied sides), and in terms of strategic importance, Eastern front was the major theatre of war, and it exceeded all other theatres taken together. In a modern society, which emphasizes the importance of human life, it would be hardly acceptable to compare the role of those who were fighting (and dying) with the role of those who provided them with supplies. It is odd that that consideration is not so self-evident that I have to remind about that.

Due to COVID-19, I am extremely busy, and I hardly will be able to respond. I wholeheartedly support the idea to move Stalin from the top position, provided that the true role of the USSR in that war is duly represented. Let's think how to do that, and, meanwhile, I suggest to preserve a status quo for a while.

Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I would to some extent agree with this assessment, and at least to remedy the issue, move FDR to the top of the leaders list and include the troops/capitulates numbers in the infobox as presented by user LightandDark2000 to show actual contributions in manpower. --E-960 (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Showing manpower is not a solution, by that criterion China is the second, but its actual military contribution was quite modest. I suggest to keep the status quo (and that is my last post for the next month, cannot talk any more, sorry).--Paul Siebert (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

If manpower is not a solution, Paul Siebert, the number of days that the leader was in charge of a country at war (as suggested above) may be better, especially if the info box states the reason for the ordering (again, as suggested above). As long as the arithmetic is correct, it is an unarguable fact, which might have appeal, based on the volume of discussion shown above. What is unfortunate is that this matter conceals the fact that no country could have defeated the Axis (or even just Nazi Germany) on their own. That point should be clearly made in the article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

As much as I agree with user Paul Siebert that Stalin should not be first and that the Soviet Union played a key role in the fight against Germany, I completely disagree with his assessment that WWII was just centered on Europe and that it was a primarily a fight between two totalitarian regimes, thus marginalizing Western Democracies by citing an exception to the rule, with Finland (you can always find an exception to everything). This is a minority view which is being pushed on this article, by several editors no less, including Nick-D (backed with SYNTH of several sources, which only focus on the war in Europe). You can just as well argue that this war was between the Anglo-American establishment (British Commonwealth included) and the two opposing challengers, Germany and Japan, who tried to overturn the economic/cultural world order of the time (again this is a minority view, which has legitimate backing, however it is not the majority view to be pushed on this mainstream article). --E-960 (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• So, no the article should not be re-worked to show this POV as proposed by user Paul Siebert — it's a minority view. --E-960 (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

E-960, I assume your good faith, but I am reminding you, friendly, that accusation of misbehaviour that lack support is a personal attack. Taking into account that minority POV-pushing is a serious violation, your accusations are de facto accusations of misbehaviour, which implies that they need a serious support. Since your accusation lack any support, that is a personal attack. I believe that was not your intention, but, please, refrain from similar attack of me, Nick-D, or any other user.

As I already explained, I have no time to discuss all of that now, but your post prompted me to spend 2 hours to look at sources. The goal was to check if your assertion was correct. To do that, I made a neutral google scholar search, and got the following results. These are the sources any unbiased reader (i.e. the reader with no previous knowledge of the subject) would have obtained, had they tried to get the answer to the question "What was the most decisive (event, factor, etc) in WWII?" Below I list all relevant sources from the beginning of the list:

-J Prados: "“the most decisive battle of our war in western Europe.” - marginally relevant. No relevance to the question we discuss

- R. H. S. Stolfi: "German dewstruction of the Soviet armed forces (...) would have been the most decisive event of the Second World War." In other words, fall of the USSR would be a catastrophe to all Allies.

- C. Bellamy: (Eastern front) "was a decisive component — arguably the single most decisive component — of the Second World War." No comments.

- L Morton: "Fought quite separately from the war in the West, the Soviet-German war was by all odds the biggest, bloodiest, most decisive theater of World War II, dwarfing the Allied effort in the West and involving vast armies along a front stretching over a thousand miles. "

You can do the same search by yourself, and I am sure you will get the same result: all relevant sources either describe the most decisive battles in the West (or Pacific), or they say that Eastern front was the most decisive. By all our standards, these sources are top reliable sources, and by no means they express minority views, for was not able to find any sources saying otherwise (that EF was less important). That means the view I am advocating is by no means minority view, and, being an honest person, you have to acknowledge that fact and concede you were not right.

You mistake is quite understandable: it seems you don't see a difference between importance and coverage. It is quite natural to expect that much more books, films, or articles are devoted to the events in the West and Pacific, where majority of English speaking people were fighting and dying. However, honest historians always keep in mind that such a picture is one-sided and biased. The earliest example is Churchill's "Second World War", where he says:

"At every point along a far longer front the great masses engaged, with slaughter incomparable to anything which occurred elsewhere during the war. I cannot attempt to do more than refer to the struggle between the German and the Russian Armies as the background of the actions of Britain and the Western Allies. The Russian epic of 1941 and 1942 deserves a detailed and dispassionate study and record in the English language. Even though no facilities for foreigners to narrate the Russian agony and glory might be accorded, the effort should be made. Nor should this impulse be chilled by the fact that the Soviet Government have already claimed all the honour for themselves."

In other words, being a honest man, Churchill openly say: "A am not pretending I can provide a whole picture, I am just telling what I know. The battles in the East were of gigantic scale and importance, and they deserve a separate attention". And that Is exactly what I propose.

Yes, there are just few books in English about the Eastern Front, however, the relative importance depends not on the number of sources, but on reliability. And all mainstream sources agree that EF was the most important theatre, which is underrepresented in this article.

In addition, it seems you ignored my major arguments, such as relative coverage of key events during 1942-43. Why exactly you believe that the relative coverage is adequate, and why exactly you think that Stalingrad (as well as several other key EF battles listed by me) deserve less attention than the events in Africa or Pacific? Why exactly you believe that Malta was more important than Leningrad?

I think, being a honest person, you are expected to give an answer.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

El Alamein was no less important or strategic that Stalingrad, both battles ultimately blocked access to oil fields that Germany desperately needed. Much is made of the huge losses the Germans suffered on the EF, but that was in part due to Hitler's insistence on no retreat and overruling his Generals' advice on the need for tactical withdrawals to consolidate the front line until it was too late. But I think we are getting off-topic with this discussion evolving to the amount of coverage EF is given in this article, and so a new section title is needed. --Nug (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, this is how Encyclopedia Britannica starts off the article on the second world war: "World War II, also called Second World War, conflict that involved virtually every part of the world during the years 1939–45." and this is how Britannica starts off the article on the first world war" "World War I, also called First World War or Great War, an international conflict that in 1914–18 embroiled most of the nations of Europe along with Russia, the United States, the Middle East, and other regions." Please notice the difference, WWI was centered on Europe, WWII was a global conflict. --E-960 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of baseless opinion and frankly US-centric parochial nonsense being spouted in this thread. Much earlier I noted (with a reliable source) that 80% of ALL the combat in WWII (not just in Europe) occurred on the Eastern Front. And Stalin was the supreme commander of the Red Army. None of those arguing for Roosevelt have addressed this. None. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)US-centric parochial nonsense

Peacemaker67 , do you not get that this is the ENGLISH LANGUAGE WIKIPEIDA? For countries such as the US, Britian, Australia, Canada and New Zealand this was a global war fought in two theaters. Figure it out, before making more obnoxious comments like this "US-centric parochial nonsense". This is not the Russian Wikipeida that focuses on the war in Europe and the defeat of Germany, so it's you that's pushing some internationalist nonsense backed by WP:SYNTH no less, from sources which do not say what you claim in your comments they say. --E-960 (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC) (when this comment was responded to, it was signed by an IP)

English Wikipedia is not an American or Australian Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is an international Wikipedia. Incidentally, the majority of English speakers live not in America, but in India. English is a second language for majority of Europeans, who read and contribute to English Wikipedia too. The idea that English Wikipedia should be written from Anglo-American perspective is totally odd, and it demonstrates your deep misunderstanding of our key content policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hilarious. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No Comment? Tells me you know that you are not correct, but despite this you still push a minority POV despite this, using WP:SYNTH no less. Perhaps you should excuse your self from this topic, if you can not address other editors seriously. --E-960 (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Do you seriously think the book cited as reference titled "Europe at War 1939-1945" talks about WWII in a global context, read the title very carefully and let it sink in. --E-960 (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You are seriously beating this horse to death. Drop the stick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I don't think the supporters of this proposal will be persuaded by your arguments, and, frankly, 80% is a little bit too much. I hope the text below may end this dispute.

Whereas it is obvious that this RfC will not support the proposed change, it is equally obvious that similar hot discussions will be restarting regularly in future, because there are serious reasons for that. Below, I tried to summarise the most important arguments. I also propose the solution, which, I believe, will satisfy everybody. The arguments against Stalin are as follows:

• Stalin was definitely "a bad guy" (an uncomfortable truth for those who believe that WWII was the war against the Universal Evil, and, therefore, it was supposed to be led by a "good guy"). Stalin's pact with Hitler is a serious stain on its reputation as a genuine Ally.
• In the Grand Alliance, Stalin was frequently in an opposition to other leaders, and he can hardly be considered as a formal or informal leader of United Nations.
• Stalin was a commander of just one theatre, Eastern Front, whereas the WWII was a global conflict. The importance of EF was lower, in particular because red Army success was mostly due to lend-lease.

Based in that, it was proposed that Stalin had to be removed from the first position and replaced with FDR or Churchill. However, arguments can be put forward against these two leaders too, and these arguments are equally serious.

Thus, the arguments against FDR are:

• FDR joined the coalition only at the very end of 1941, when the two most critical battles (I mean Battle for Britain and Battle of Moscow) were won by future Allies.
• Due to technical problems, the US were incapable of providing a full scale help to other Allies immediately: they needed some time to switch economy to military production. Therefore, American role during the most critical period of the war was less important than many believe.
• FDR's attempts to bring China as a full scale member of the Alliance was not supported neither by Stalin nor Churchill. His role as an central figure that assembled together diverse partners such as China and USSR is overstated by some US-centric sources. Actually, FDR just joined the Anglo-Soviet alliance, which was signed in July 1941. It would be correct to say it was the Churchill-Stalin alliance which served as a seed for the future Grand Alliance.

The arguments against Churchill are:

• Churchill was not a too god guy. Thus, he was responsible for Bengal famine, a totally man-made famine that killed 2-3 million people.
• After FDR joined the Alliance, most strategic decisions of Western allies, such as unconditional surrender concept, the decision to invade Normandy (not Balkans as Churchill proposed) reflected FDR's position, not Churchill's views.
• Britain was the major recipient of lend-lease (she got three times more aid than the USSR did), so a significant part of British war efforts should be attributed to the US.

Clearly, arguments against each of three leaders are strong and convincing, and they may re-appear, with some variations, in future. Similarly, arguments in support of each of three leaders are also strong. Thus,

• Stalin was the leader of the Communist regime that had the longest history of opposition to Nazism. The future Axis predecessor was the Anti-Comintern pact, so the Axis formed primarily around the idea of opposition to Comintern and the USSR. Stalin waged the proxy war with Nazism in Spain, and the war with Japan in Far East, long before the US and even Britain joined the war. Stalin was the only opponent to division of Czechoslovakia, the event that pawed the way to future WWII. Stalin commanded the largest, most important and most bloody theatre of WWII. And these are strong argumemnts in favour of Stalin's first position in the list.
• Churchill was the most persistent opponent of Nazism during the whole period of WWII. He refused to sign peace with Nazism during the darkest time, when Britain was fighting against the Axis alone. He (I mean, Churchill personally) was a real seed for a future Grand Alliance. Without him, there would be probably no Allies and no victory. And that is the serious reason for putting Churchill first.
• Roosevelt was a central political figure of the Grand Alliance during the second half of the war. He controlled enormous resources, his political influence was immense, he significantly shaped the post-war order (including creation of UNO). He also deserves to be first.

Obviously, that situation cannot be resolved in terms of relative importance of these three leaders. The only reasonable solution should be explicitly neutral: put them (as well as the Axis leaders) in a chronological order, and show the dates explicitly, something like that:

• First line: Churchill (from the 3rd of Sept, 1939) --- Hitler (from the 1st of Sept, 1939)
• Second line: Stalin (from the 22nd of June, 1941) --- ... etc ...

The advantage of that approach is obvious: it puts an end to all future discussions of relative importance of Allied leaders, thereby saving our time and efforts for more fruitful discussions.

An important note. If that proposal is accepted, I request that its implementation must be postponed until we restore the balance in the article, because the actual scale and importance of Eastern front is absolutely not evident from it (I provided some concrete examples in one of my previous posts), so the Stalin's first position partially compensates that omission.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, whether someone was a "bad guy" is completely and utterly irrelevant to this question. Secondly, there has been zero evidence produced that refutes the reliably-sourced material that states 80% of the combat in WWII occurred on the Eastern Front. It cannot be dismissed on the basis that you or other editors don't like it or believe it. That is just an opinion, and like the proverbial, everyone has one. I'm all for a simple solution that can be explained, whether it is chronological or whatever, but I consider this is just a way of getting Stalin off the top of the list. Stalin's influence within the three was huge and his influence on the post-war order was also huge. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Stalin's influence not so huge now, the Soviet Union collapsed 50 years later while USA remains as the sole superpower with troops still stationed in Germany and Japan. Clearly the current order is just WP:SYNTH derived from the assertion that 80% of the combat in WWII occurred on the Eastern Front, because GizzyCatBella demonstrated above that the majority of reliable sources actually order the leaders as Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin. --Nug (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk about grasping at straws. He is dead, as is Roosevelt. This happened 75 years ago, and Roosevelt's personal influence isn't massive today either, the UN he created is largely a toothless tiger. My point is about Stalin's influence in the immediate aftermath of the war, when he essentially created a massive Soviet-dominated buffer between the West and the Soviet Union and initiated the Cold War that lasted for forty years. Roosevelt got his UN, but abandoned Poland (and the rest of the Eastern Bloc) to do it, the fact that the US is still a superpower is down to successive administrations (some more, some less), not Roosevelt personally. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I note that you have ignored the substantive part of my reply, being the issue of WP:SYNTH and GizzyCatBella finding a majority of sources indicated an ordering as Roosevelt Churchill Stalin. Google ngram book search confirms this order predominated until 1955, then the order changed to Churchill Roosevelt Stalin from 1955 to the present, while the orderings of Stalin Roosevelt Churchill and Stalin Churchill Roosevelt return no result. See ngram search result. --Nug (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That's because I don't accept there is any SYNTH involved. The "order" argument is a red herring. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Fans of google searches ("was Stalin the most important in WW2" - google suggested most of this text) may value (first search result) [46] where you will find things like "the most successful of the supreme leaders thrown up by the belligerent nations" and "A formidable negotiator, he outwitted these foreign statesmen [Churchill and Roosevelt]; his superior skill has been acclaimed by Anthony Eden, [British Foreign Secretary at the time]". Next google search hit gives "His iron will and deft political skills enabled him to play the loyal ally while never abandoning his vision of an expanded postwar Soviet empire."[47],then "At the Tehran Conference in 1943 and the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences two years later Russian sacrifice and Stalin's imposing diplomatic manner forced Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill to accept Soviet influence in Eastern Europe."[48] and then [49] and so on. If your only source was google searches, you would have little doubt that Stalin was hugely prominent amongst the Allied war leaders. We all know that he was not a nice person, but this is not a popularity contest, it is a decision on which leader had most influence on the conduct of the war.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired, yes fans of "Google searches"... this is how most of the arguments favoring Stalin are made, search for key words on "Google Scholar", without actually reading the book, because obviously how can you use a book titled "Europe at War 1939-1945" to argue that Stalin was the leading figure in the Alliance globally... how, easy... find a phrase witch says that the Soviet union was key in Allied victory against Germany and then just WP:SYNTH that statement to mean Stalin was the leader of the Allied coalition globally in all theaters of the war. --E-960 (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You need to take a deep breath and stop bludgeoning everyone who doesn't vote the way you want. It is tendentious and poor wikibehaviour. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You know, WP:SYNTH is also a bad Wikipedia behavior, and more serious, because it leads to the misrepresentation of facts. --E-960 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

User:E-960, I am no particular fan of google searches or use of google scholar. It is a perennial concern of mine that material that is readily found on the internet biases Wikipedia toward sources that have lower monetary (and so, possibly, intellectual) value, as the publishers are not trying to squeeze every last penny out of their asset before releasing it to free internet access. I raised the point above to counterbalance the google-search-based arguments, favouring Roosevelt first, shown above. You presumably have studied the sources found and disregarded the authority of Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. I note that this search turned up Eden's view of the way Stalin ran rings round both Churchill and Roosevelt (who, in their defence, were neither in the best of health at the time). I have seen this elsewhere, so I presume it originates in Eden's memoirs - which I have not read. Remember, Eden was a capable senior politician, knew a lot about negotiation, and was there at the time.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Stain being successful in negotiations and getting his way in Eastern Europe, is just part of the story. You keep giving arguments form one front (the Eastern Front) and then trying to use that as an argument that Stalin lead the alliance globally. So, Stalin got his way in Eastern Europe and the US/UK got they way in Western Europe, North Africa, and the Pacific. --E-960 (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You might want to amend your statement to address the "loss of China" and establishment of communist, pro-Soviet governments in North Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere in Asia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Sino-Soviet split, China was not a satellite state of the Soviet Union, just like Tito's Yugoslavia. Communist, yes (loss of China, indeed), under Soviet influence, no. Again, giving too much credit to Stalin. --E-960 (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Wanjialing image

I noticed that the first picture of the infobox is of the Battle of Wanjialing, which occurred in late 1938. Shouldn't we change it, seeing as the battle didn't even happen during the timespan of WW2? Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Resistance and Collaboration

Resistance

Main articles: Resistance during World War II and Anti-partisan operations in World War II

Josip Tito, the leader of the Yugoslavian Partisans, pictured with his cabinet, May 1944

Resistance by local populations took many forms, including intelligence gathering and sabotage (railway sabotage, industrial sabotage, etc.), printing illegal newspapers or broadcasting radio announcements. Widespread resistance kept German troops engaged in Poland, Norway, Holland, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, the Soviet Union and later Italy. In Poland, the Polish Resistance formed the Underground State, the Home Army and Żegota, Europe’s only government-founded and sponsored underground organisation dedicated to the rescue of the Jews. In Yugoslavia, Tito's Partisans were Europe's most effective anti-Axis resistance movement, who succeeded in retaking control of large areas of Yugoslav territory. Western Europe’s French communists and nationalists joined forces against the Axis after the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Allied-assisted partisan warfare was the aim of British Special Operations Executive (SOE), and the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS). In Asia, communist movements in China — the New Fourth Army and Eighth Route Army — battled the Japanese, as did the Kuomintang nationalists who defeated the Japanese in the last major battle of the Sino-Japanese War. In French Indochina, the communist Viet Minh gave rise to an anti-Axis partisan movement. This initiated Vietnam’s anti-colonial movement where the OSS became a key player. In Southeast Asia, resistance was still more complex. In the last weeks of the war, the Indonesian independence movement was able to leverage its limited collaboration with the Japanese to gain their support to declare the Netherlands East Indies free and SOE was successful in Burma and in Malaysia, persuading the Burmese to switch sides and trap the Japanese Army.

Collaboration

Main article: Collaboration with the Axis Powers

Wang Jingwei during a parade of the Collaborationist Chinese Army, 1943

During the war, huge territories in the Pacific and Europe were under Axis authority. The Japanese and German armies required some level of collaboration in order to exert a degree of control over the occupied territories. The Japanese presented themselves as liberators of colonial people using an ideological underpinning known as the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. This satisfied Japan’s claim of fighting a war of liberation. It was accepted by some of the local independence movements, but in reality it was bogus as Japan aimed to form its own colonial empire. In the Pacific, collaborators exercised power under pressure from the Japanese. In China, after Manchuria or Manchukuo, Beijing, and Nanjing fell, military conquest shifted to collaboration with minor elites to exercise power, while Wang Jingwei led a new reformed government and army. Communists also colluded with the Japanese and Chinese collaborators. Local nationalist leaders as in Burma and in the Philippines established collaborationist governments. India and Burma each had armies which fought alongside the Japanese. In Europe, collaboration consisted in participation with Nazi Germany. Nazi ideology-driven collaboration was the prime factor, including fascism, antisemitism, anticommunism, or national independence. Collaboration by those who supported Nazi doctrine included Anton Mussert in Netherlands, Marcel Déat in Vichy France, Vidkun Quisling in Norway or Georgios Tsolakoglou in Greece. Another reason for collaboration was antisemitism. Members of the Trawnikimänner or volunteers of the Schutzmannschaft partook in the capture and murder of Jews, and served as guards at Nazi concentration camps. Anti-communism was another reason for collaboration; Soviet atrocities committed in the Baltic states and Ukraine were exploited by German propagandists. Also, foreign volunteers formed Waffen SS divisions. The final reason for collaboration was the desire for independence. Stepan Bandera in Ukraine, and allies of the Axis like Slovakia and Croatia sought independent fascist states.

NOTES

I see no additional criticism/comments, so if no justified objections will follow in the next couple of weeks, I will take a liberty to shorten these sections a little bit and to add to the article. Eli made a big work, and it would be unfair just to ignore in. Any comments?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)