Jump to content

Talk:World War II/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Germany signing Versailles

Current "Background" section reads: " In the aftermath of World War I, a defeated Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles.[4] "

Yesterday I changed the "signed" to "was forced to sign", but this was reverted because it was an undiscussed change, with the note "Germany could have restarted the war" in the comment. (Note, this would put a different light on the clause "defeated Germany" as well)

I propose to make this change again; a basic-level reader might think some German government just volunteered to the draconic Versailles terms... JurSchagen (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The change isn't necessary and seems to present Germany as a victim. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The current text is suggesting a free choice of action which isn't accurate. Germany was defeated and had no choice but signing. Historians tend to agree that Germany WAS a victim here, taking all the blame for a war that was everybody's fault. Since there are no other opinions, changing the text now. JurSchagen (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I've just reverted your change. The current text was developed as part of a re-write of the article involving lots of editors, and you're the only person who wants to change it. More views on this would, of course, be great though. I don't agree that "historians tend to agree" that Germany was a victim; I've read widely on WW1 and its aftermath and haven't noticed any such consensus (some historians argue that the Versailles conditions were relatively mild compared to those suffered by other defeated countries during this historical period, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
When was this rewrite done? I've just been going back to may 2008 and the phrase was there then. It is easy to miss a phrase like this on a rewrite of a large article like this, even with a team of editors; it doesn't necessarily mean that it was a consensus phrasing.
The fact that other nations were treated even harsher doesn't change the fact that the blame was taken to the losing side, and Germany was the major loser. Outside Germany, Versailles revisionism started in Britain as early as the late twenties/early thirties; it was partly why there was no response to flagrant violations of Versailles by Hitler (re-militarization of the Rhineland, creation of the Luftwaffe, etc); this was seen as "Germany having a point". I'd say that today, it is recognized that the Wilson doctrine (nation states created by regional majority votes) wasn't fully applied to peoples of the losing side (e.g. Sudeten, parts of Hungary), that the war damages payment wrecked the German economy, that Weimar had to fail given the limited political maneuvering space, and harsh Versailles measures (damaging German national pride in the process) indirectly led to the rise to power of Hitler. Do you really want me to source that? JurSchagen (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually a former version of the text included a similar phrase. It was removed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&action=historysubmit&diff=204846282&oldid=204600851

This seems to be a period of many edits to the article. I couldn't find any discussion thread on the subject on the talk page in this period. The changing user doesn't appear on a search of the talk page in the period. I'd say this hardly qualifies as a consensus opinion of a team of editors. JurSchagen (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with the edit summary you provide above - this is a POV claim which is marginal to this article's topic, especially as there isn't room to acknowledge that there are different views on Versailles and cover them all. Nick-D (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

New Image

Since the current infobox image has multiple problems,I am proposeing that we change it to an older image (listed in the GAN above). I will wait for 24 hours before makeing the change to let other editor express their opinion on this idea.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the copyright status is OK, that looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
And someone already reverted you. I suspect that best solution would be creating completely new collage for infobox.--Staberinde (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, well I guess that Ill have to make a new set of images soon. (This will be a challenge, getting people to acept the change)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Coldplay Expért, could you please explain me what problems the current collage has in your opinion? (I do not argue that there are some problems with it, however, I am not sure if you and I mean the same things.) --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh I love the current collage. It accurately depics the war in just a few images but the problems that Im talking about are mentioned my Nikimaria in the GAN. That was why I wished to change the image.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Did I understand correct that the problems are unknown copyright status and duplication of images?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct and that is why I changed the image as it was an issue in the current GAN.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Can not free image be in a collage?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think...but im not sure. Im siging off now as it is 11:30 here. Anyway, if possible do you think you can make a new collage as I have tried in the past and failed utterly.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that non-free images can't be used in collages as this would involve modifying the image. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe current collage as particularly good. One image is from pre-war event of German police marching during Anschluss, and that is also the only image about German armed forces, pretty poor choice in my opinion considering the role Germany played in war. Also collage's licensing template seems blatantly wrong considering that it includes non-free image. Finally currently most images in collage are also in article which is pointless duplication. Either collage goes or those images in article should get replaced, there should be no shortage of good World War II related images.--Staberinde (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Well your free to go ahead and make a new one. I would suggest makeing one that involves the german military, the north africa campaign the eastern front, china, pearl harbor, and the london blitz. Something like that may br able to portray the war in 6 pictures.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 14:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually had one ready from earlier times that I hadn't bothered to upload :) It covers frontwise: Eastern Front (twice), North-Africa, China, Pacific, + German surrender which goes just under Europe. Combatant wise we have: Germany (twice, one of them is surrender), USSR, US, UK, Japan. Event type wise we have: 3 inftantry, 1 naval, 1 air warfare, and 1 document signing. I consider it pretty good result for inevitable problems that attempting to demonstrate all aspects of war includes, but obviously others may disagree. Finally all images themselves are awesome in my opinion :) Feel free to add it to article or modify or whatever.--Staberinde (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Three words. I Love It! As long as the images that make up the collage are OK (no borken links, all info ect) You got my support to use it. Fell free to make it the new image :)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this collage is much better than the present one. What caption do you propose for it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's my idea. Clockwise from top left: Japanese troops advanceing during the Battle of Wuhan, British troops attacking during the Second Battle of El Alamein, the German Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front... Thats all I got for now.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 05:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Eastern Front was too large (1/2 of whole WWII), so this caption would be too general. In addition, it is not a Luftwaffe, but five dive-bombers on the picture. What the image's description tells? In general, I would like to see links to the original images before making a final conclusion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I linked to all original images at description of collage, aren't they not visible to you then opening collage (which would indicate that I managed to mess up somewhere)? Anyway here they are: Top left: File:Wuhan 1938 IJA.jpg, Top right: File:El Alamein 1942 - British infantry.jpg, Middle left: File:Soviet soldiers moving at Stalingrad2.jpg, Middle right: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-646-5188-17, Flugzeuge Junkers Ju 87.jpg, Bottom left: File:Wilhelm Keitel Kapitulation.jpg, Bottom right: File:USS Pennsylvania moving into Lingayen Gulf.jpg. Btw, there are 7 dive-bombers on picture, 6 fully + wing of one at left bottom corner :P.--Staberinde (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of caption, I will throw my proposal in, but generally I don't care much about exact wording so feel free to ignore it(+ my grammar is probably not ideal): Clockwise from top left: Japanese forces in the Battle of Wuhan, British troops attacking during the Second Battle of El Alamein, German dive bombers on the Eastern Front winter 1943-1944, US naval force in the Invasion of Lingayen Gulf, Wilhelm Keitel signing the German Surrender, Soviet troops in the Battle of Stalingrad.--Staberinde (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good but perhaps you could be more specific about the eastern front considering that even during that time period (1943-1944) the front was over 1,000 miles. Can you say like where it is (ex the ukraine) and reword it to say: German dive bombers in (whereever they are located) on the Eastern Front during the winter of 1943-1944. other than that I like it the the proposal caption is pretty good. and if any reader wanted to learn more he/she could just click on the image itself. (I still think that the links on the caption is a good idea though). Good job!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 16:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't know location any better than what is given at original image's description that is just "Rußland".--Staberinde (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Pretty good, although might I suggest that the US ship is switched to an Aircraft Carrier - more recognisably American, and reflects their revolutionary importance. Hohum (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any specific carrier picture in mind? I actually thought about it, but I felt that this image's quality and effect is just far superior to any WW II carrier image I have seen on Wikipedia. Considering that it is one of the few WW II related featured pictures it seems that I am not the only one with such opinion.--Staberinde (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree the existing picture is dramatic, but, for me, it's more reminiscent of WWI. Some possibles?: File:USS Langley (CVL-27) and others enter Ulithi.jpg, File:USS Yorktown CV-10 1943 aerial with F6Fs.jpg, File:USS Hancock (CV-19) at Philippines, December 1944.jpg, File:USS Yorktown (CV-5) during the Battle of the Coral Sea, April 1942.jpg, File:Task Force 38 off the coast of Japan 1945.jpg, another thought, not an aircraft carier, but airpower and navy combined: File:Missouri-flyover.jpg. Hohum (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I still prefer current one, but I am possibly biased towards battleships :) So if others also support one of those alternative proposals (that "USS Langley (CVL-27)..." is best among them in my opinion), then change should be doable.--Staberinde (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that the battleship image is just fine. After all they do rule the waves while ACC only carry planes :) But perhaps we could use its a FP and it combines the pacific war with naval warfare adn of course it was a plane that droped the bomb on the USS Shaw.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
WWII was the end of the battleship ;). I'm not dead set against the image, just offering an opinion. In fact, I'm now more bothered by the surrender document picture, it seems a bit out of place stylistically, and why show only that one, and not the Japanese? Hohum (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Well in that case why not the german one if the japanese pic is chosen? You have already got a few pics of the Pacific theater and if my idea of the battle of pearl harbor is used then that would be another one.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain shortly how I reached to this collage firstly, as you probably know this topic has generally had never ending disputes and complaints in style "soviet effort not properly represented", "why no picture of americans in D-Day", "where are chinese?" etc. First major baseline what I picked was 3 Allied centered pictured and 3 Axis centered pictures. Then I figured that appropriate ratio would be 4 for Europe + North-Africa, and 2 for Asia. One Axis related picture obviously needed to be German military and one Japanese military in action, as these essentially led Axis war effort in Europe and Asia respectively. From Asia I figured that most appropriate would be one from China and one from Pacific. From China that Japanese forces in battle of Wuhan picture seemed best, while for pacific I felt it would be appropriate some good Allied naval related picture, and so I picked my personal favourite, which also covered US forces. Now for Europe + North Africa I figured that fighting outside Europe itself shouldn't be ignored, which led to that very good El Alamein photo which also covered British. On other hand considering scale of fighting in Eastern-Front 2 pictures totally needed to be directly from there, for covering Soviet forces this Stalingrad picture seemed best, and for second one I figured that those Stukas would be good to represent both air warfare and German military in general. Finally I still had one unfilled Axis picture, fighting on Western front in Europe was still not covered, but simply picking something from there could had led to complaints that I am giving Western-Allies too much weight compared to massive Eastern-Front. So I felt that this surrender picture was ideal compromise, it covered European theatre in general, gave me 3rd Axis picture, and represented outcome of joint efforts from both Western and Soviet forces. Also it was something different from all those battle pictures. Okay, this explanation became far longer than intended, but I felt that I should explain how I reached to this outcome so that you could take it into consideration with your modification suggestions.--Staberinde (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any strong objections to the proposed image, just playing devils advocate, to a degree. You might want to link to this discussion from the template talk page though. Hohum (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I am ready to change few pictures if more than 1 user supports some alternative (like swapping BBs with some CV picture). But generally I am not particularly interested in making very radical changes, as I consider current outline pretty solid, and also I am not that good in this stuff so it is not totally effortless for me. Btw, I posted link at template talk, technically this discussion probably should take place there too, but here we have better chances for getting input which should be priority now, especially if Coldplay Expert wants to push article to GA.--Staberinde (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Staberinde, I think no changes are needed. Your collage is fine and your rationale is quite reasonable. I fully support replacement of the present collage with your version. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Same here. Im fine with the currnet proposal. It looks good. And it will fix several of the infobox problems that have been brought up at the GAN.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright, replaced the image, I also added caption but I am not sure that it is ideal, so feel free to modify it..--Staberinde (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the old montage because it represented WW2 better. Anyone looking at it could see crystal clear it was an image of WW2 with iconic images. This new collage has ambiguous photos only people familiar with WW2 would recognize. This includes the troops marching (apparently British troops -- troops marching on a white background could be any war as well as the planes and battleship). The old montage was much more identifiable with WW2 than this. -- penubag  (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the old montage photos are unable to be used because of major issues (see the GAN) that and the fact that one image isnt even of ww2. (The only once that shows German troops).--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Replacing old montage was inevitable because its copyright claims are clearly false. It is released in public domain and claims that all images are also public domain which definitely doesn't apply to non-free File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg. Only question was, what should replace it. Also GA requirements seem pretty tough, so that even this collage needs modifying, copy paste from Talk:World War II/GA1:

  • Wuhan_1938_IJA.jpg needs publisher/creator and source

I have no idea what to use for replacing this. It feels silly to ignore fighting in China but I don't see any good image of Japanese forces there that would fulfill requirements.

  • Source link on El Alamein 1942 - British infantry.jpg appears to be broken

This one should be fixable.

  • The first source link for Soviet_soldiers_moving_at_Stalingrad2.jpg‎ is broken. Also, the permissions for that image require a photo credit

I just realized that there is serious lack of very good images for Soviet troops Eastern front that would have everything alright with them. Still, I believe that we can find something to replace it, though I don't know yet what it should be.--Staberinde (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "This includes the troops marching" British troops are highly recognizable (especially their helmets).
Re: "could be any war as well as the planes..." Ju-87 was one of the symbols of WWII.
Re: "and battleship" Probably it makes sense to go back to the carrier photo (if copyright status allows).
Re: "I just realized that there is serious lack of very good images for Soviet troops Eastern front that would have everything alright with them." AFAIK, some Bundesarchiv images have been uploaded to Wikimedia and are in public domain, so this picture could be a good substitute for the present Stalingrad photo [1]
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is pretty good (I assume that those are Soviet troops on picture, my German is practically non-existent :) I found another possible one [2] but yours is probably better. I also found picture of Japanese troops in China which doesn't seem to have any serious problems [3]. About battleships, as I said earlier, if more than one user supports some alternative carrier picture I may change it.--Staberinde (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway I have fixed El Alamein image source link. Also I have new collage version ready to address some problems that have arisen. It is structured:
Top left: File:Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces on the deck board of the IJN xxx, June 11th.jpg
Top right: File:El Alamein 1942 - British infantry.jpg
Middle left: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-P0613-308, Russland, Kesselschlacht Stalingrad.jpg
Middle right File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-646-5188-17, Flugzeuge Junkers Ju 87.jpg
Bottom left: File:Hitlermusso2 edit.jpg
Bottom right: File:USS Pennsylvania moving into Lingayen Gulf.jpg
I changed Keitel picture to solve objections that article has no images of Hitler. If nobody disagrees(or just more agree then disagree) then I will upload this new version of collage tomorrow.--Staberinde (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Embargos

We have the U.S. embargo of steel to Japan listed after the 1940 Japanese invasion, and I see Paul Siebert undid the good faith add of oil to that list (correctly). Didn't the U.S. and other countries embargo both oil and steel in August 1941? This would mean that the U.S. added oil to the list, having previously embargoed steel as noted in the article.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The ref 116 discusses a direct impact of the American oil embargo on the Pacific war's outbreak. It tells nothing about steel. According to the article, only on July 2, 1940 an opportunity was created for serious economic sanctions by permitting of presidential control of crucial exports. According to this source, since that date: "In practice a selective embargo could be enforced by issuing a presidential proclamation requiring licensing of all exports of a given commodity and then granting licenses for the unrestricted export of that commodity to all nations, except those, such as Japan, to which the commodity could not be sent." However, an attempt to impose an oil embargo for Japan using that mechanism failed in 1940, and the source tells nothing about embargoes on other materials for Japan in that year. Interestingly, according to the same source:
The most vehement embargo's proponent was Morgenthau, who believed that "Japan and Germany might be brought to heel if the United States could stop all oil exports on grounds of national defense requirements. Britain could obtain its supplies from the Caribbean, a joint Anglo-American effort could be made to buy up world surpluses, Allied bombing could be concentrated on synthetic oil production in Germany, and the Dutch could be persuaded to destroy the oil wells in the Indies."
However, according to the same source "the fact is that President Franklin D. Roosevelt did not intend to terminate Japan's oil supply when he froze funds in July. Instead, he issued clear instructions that oil shipments should be continued because he believed termination would lead to a Japanese attack on the Indies. Implementation of the order bogged down in a bureaucracy biased against Japan, and a month-long tangle over the release of Japanese funds to pay for the oil congealed into an unplanned de facto embargo which was finally ratified by Roosevelt and Secretary of State Cordell Hull in mid-September. For a month, the administration's position on the termination of Japan's oil supply was merely the result of a bureaucratic reflex rather than the product of a carefully deliberated policy decision."
Anyway, we can speak about a kind of "moral embargo" before July 1940, and we cannot speak about any other embargoes (besides oil) that was able to trigger the war in Pacific.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Paul Siebert here. While oil may have been a factor, the real reason Japan attacked the USA was...
1. Pre-emptive strick
2. In order to diminish US presence in land that Japan had already "laid claim to"
3. In order to conquer many US and British strategic posession in the pacific, Manila, Singapore, malaya ect.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You understood me incorrectly. According to this and other sources, American oil embargo forced Japan to choose between rapid withdrawal from China and an attempt to seize oil fields somewhere by force. Japan initially didn't plan to attack the USA, correctly anticipating that it would be impossible for Japan to defeat the US, however, after oil embargo the attack of the US seemed to be the only reasonable (more precisely, less unreasonable) option. I would say, the casual linkage is broken in your statements.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
True but what about the Tanaka Memorial? it hasnt been proven fake yet has it?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 20:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It was quite normal for XX century military planners to develop various offensive plans (realistic and not too realistic). That was their job, and that simply meant they were doing their job well.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright, hey can you help out with the GAN. Its almost done but there's still a few things that need work.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The "Allied victory" section needs some modification. I posted my proposal on that talk page, however, it went to the archive un-commented. You can find a copy of this post on your talk page. Let's discuss it here. After that, we need to modify the "Tide turns" section, "Concentration camps", probably, also need some work. However, let's finish with the Allied victory first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
PS. If you need a help with sources, feel free to ask.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer. Your help would be greatly appreciated on the GAN. There are about 5 refranceing problems left and a few grammar issues (comas ect.) other than that I think that everything else is fixed but anyhelp is welcome!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Peace treaties

The article reads: "The Treaty of Peace with Japan was not signed until 1951." Said that, it should be noted at the same place that a peace treaty with Germany was not signed until 1990 Two_Plus_Four_Agreement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.22.214 (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Renameing the sections

Well acording to the GAN the titles for the sections are too generic. Are there any ideas to rename them?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are not comments agianst it. In the next 24 hours ill rename the sections to less clique titles.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
What names do you propose?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I had a rew remaned earlier but they were reverted due to my lack of notification on the talk page. I dont think that all of them need to be changed but here's a few
War in China => Invasion of China
The Tide Turns => Axis advances stall
The War becomes global => Well I forgot but this one needs to be changed as it is way to generic.

There may be more but that's what I have found off the top of my head. Anything with the word The at the begining or War in it may need to be changed unless it is required (ie. War breaks out in Europe)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if the new titles are a significant improvement. Anyway, please, post all new titles here and let's discuss them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I support the title changes. They're not perfect, but they're better than their present state. Especially "The Tide Turns". Of course, if anyone has better ideas, put them forward, of course. And while we're on the topic, does "the War" need a capitalised 'W' in "War"? Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
These are just suggestions, however I Strongly Support the change of at least The tide turns to Axis advances stall as it is less generic and is acurate (At that point 1942-1943) the Germans were slowing down on all fronts but were still pushing forward (See Case Blue).--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've got a proposition for "The War becomes global": I think we should break it into two sections as the first is focused on Germany's attacks on the Soviet Union rather than the War becoming global. We can separate it after the line, "The blitzkrieg phase of WWII in Europe had ended." and name the first section, "Assault on the Soviet Union" (or something like that). Still working on what to call the second section, though I think "The War becomes global" might be a little less generic for that section.--Twilight Helryx 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The tide had turned as a result of failures of "Case Blue" and Midway. In other words, the section's name fully reflects what happened in actuality. By contrast, to say that the Axis advance stalled is simply incorrect. Not only the Axis advance stalled, but the Axis sustained enormous losses and had been pushed back in Russia, in Pacific and in Africa. The tide really turned in late 1942-early 1943, and the section's name correctly reflects that fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe, both the start of Barbarossa and the attack of Pearl Harbour marked a start of a global war. In July 1941 the 1914 situation appeared to be reproduced (except France and Romania). Remember, the US were neutral during first years of WWI, however, it was a world war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Here we go a full list of name changes for the sections under "Course of the war":
  1. War breaks out in Europe
  2. Axis advances=>Same
  3. The war becomes global => Invasion of Russia/Entry of the United States
  4. The tide turns => Axis advances stall
  5. Allies gain Momentum => same
  6. Allies close in => same
  7. Axis collapse, Allied victory => same
Also, I support the division of THe war becomes global into two sections.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You didn't address my arguments, so I wait for a response from you before we continue. In addition, splitting sections theatrewise goes against the general article's concept (to show the war in a global scale where it is possible)--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggested that the section be separated because the War wasn't global during the invasion of the Soviet Union and that invasion didn't cause it to go global either.
Coldplay, I would say "Invasion of the Soviet Union" as it wasn't just Russia that got invaded and I don't think "Entry of the United States" would suffice because the UK, as well as Australia and China, also joined.--Twilight Helryx 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Uh...sorry but the UK, Australia and China were at war before 1941. THe UK joined on Sep 3, 1939. Becomeing the first nation to declare war on Germany (Exept Poland of course). After reading the comments but PS. I agree that we should not divide the war becomes global. However we do need to decide on some sort of re-nameing or tell Nikimaria that that wont happen.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm aware of that fact, it's just that for some reason, my WWII knowledge lapsed there. I sometimes get jumbled when I'm not at peak alertness. x.x" --Twilight Helryx 23:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh its OK, Sometimes I still think that Russia is an alternate name for the USSR (As shown above)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
So did I understand correct that the only remained issues are the names for "The War Becomes Global" and "The Tide Turns"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it. Still working on the names.

P.S. I checked this old globe I have that was made before the Soviet Union dissolved. I didn't see it called Russia (as the country's name anyway) and it along with Ukraine, Kazahkstan, and every other country it possessed at the time were collectively called "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". But I could be wrong as I only know as much as I learned from textbooks and documentaries (and few WWII books I've read). And I think the globe was made just before the USSR was dissolved.--Twilight Helryx 23:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)--Twilight Helryx 23:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yess, the USSR was composed of 15 "Soviet Socialist Republics" But it was still refered to a Russia.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah well, like I said, I could be wrong (which I apparently was) so pay no mind to it. As for names, I think we can re-title "The tide turns" with a name that has to do with the Allied victories (still trying to think of one).--Twilight Helryx 23:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
How about "Defeats at Stalingrad, Midway and El Alemein"?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
"Soviet Russia" was/is a colloquial name for the USSR, similar to "America" for the USA and "England" for the UK. Although everyone understand what do these words mean, they are not accurate.
"Defeats at Stalingrad, Midway and El Alemein" Yes, that is essentially what the section is talking about. However, it is not clear whose defeats are meant. In addition, such renaming would require to re-consider all other sections' names.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
We can always just stick "Axis" in front of my proposed title.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Um, "The Allies gain the upper hand"?--Twilight Helryx 03:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede

The second sentence of this fragment

"The start of the war is generally held to be September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by most of the countries in the British Empire and Commonwealth, and by France. Subsequently, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east side. Many countries were already at war before this date, such as Ethiopia and Italy in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War and Nationalist China and Japan in the Second Sino-Japanese War. "

seems redundant and inappropriate. Firstly, it breaks a logical sequence of the events: the first sentence (correctly) states that the start of the war is generally held to be September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland, and the third sentence specified that many countries were already at war before this date (i.e. 1 September). The underlined sentence, that was added later to this text, creates an impression that this date is a Soviet invasion, that was not an intention of those who wrote this text initially, and, more important, is misleading.
Secondly, although the Soviet invasion was an important WWII event, it was just a WWII event, i.e. no more important then the Battle of France, Battle of Britain, invasion of Norway etc. None of these campaigns were mentioned in the lede, and addition of the Soviet invasion in the lede looks like a national POV pushing.
Thirdly, this sentence creates an impression that the USSR became a WWII belligerent in Sept. 1939. That is a POV that is not supported by majority of historians' community by now, therefore, this sentence must be either supplemented with additional explanations (that in impossible here), or removed.
Fourthly, I don't remember if addition of this sentence was discussed on the talk page. Since we achieved a consensus that all significant changes should be discussed on the talk page first, and, since any changes in the lede may be considered significant, this sentence should be removed until the consensus is achieved on that account. I'll be away until Dec 1th, and, if strong arguments supporting this sentence (or the link to the discussion on the WWII talk page) will not be provided I will remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The invasion of poland by the USSR section in the lead does need to be removed. You are right, it was no more important than the Norwegian campaign, the battle of France or even the battle of Denmark or Belgium! It deos seem like a POV-like statment. with this in mind it either needs to be removed, or the battle of france, belgium, the netherlands, denmark and norway artilces need to be mentioned in the lead as well. I would rather go with the later as it would not require rewriting the whole section.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 16:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Why "Nationalist" China? Cyclopaedic (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point; there was only one China at the time (albeit with a very weak government and a significant communist insurgency) Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of its internal stability, it was still one nation and recognized as such. There was no "Communist China" so why have a "Nationalist China"? If no one objects, ill remove the "Nationalist" part out.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed the sentence about Soviet invasion of Poland and changed "Nationalist China" to "Republic of China".--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

References in the lede

According to the WP:LEADCITE editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. None of the statements currently supported by citations are challengeable. They are redundant in such a summary style article. I already proposed to remove them, and we did that, but I see someone added citations again. I propose to remove all citations and to leave a reminder to new editors that citations are not desirable in this concrete article's lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if policy states it then ok. It does seem odd to not have sources in the lead though and several new editors may put some citation needed tags in the lead or try to put them in again.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 16:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It is not a policy, but only guidelines. However, these rules seem to be reasonable. Lede just summarizes the article, it does not and should not contain any new separate information. Since all challengeable statements in the article's body are supposed to be supported with citations, duplication of these citations in the lede is redundant. In addition, it is simply not a good style: as a rule, abstracts in majority scientific articles contain no references.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

images at Axis collapse, Allied victory

Am I only one feeling that "Axis collapse, Allied victory" and beginning of "Aftermath" section are overloaded with images? Especially then compared to the rest of article.--Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and they don't all fit within the section on my 24" monitor. I'd suggest that the Soviet Victory banner and Japanese surrender ceremony images be removed as they're the least important/interesting and possibly the photo of US and Soviet troops meeting as well. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, taking into account that the Khaldei's photo (already present here) makes the red banner picture redundant. Japanese surrender ceremony gives unneeded weight to the Pacific theatre.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
PS. I also propose to place the commanders' picture on the top of the Aftermath section, and Churchill's photo after it. That will reflect the fact that the victory was a result of collective efforts of all Allies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

69.5 billion Reichmarks = ??? USD/GBP

I've managed to add conversions for all measurements except this one. Once this is taken care of, we can knock "add conversions" off the GAN To-Do list. Unfortunately, I don't know how to convert reichmarks, so does anyone here know how?--Twilight Helryx 16:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Although Template:Inflation will help given the time gap between then and now, I'm pretty sure that conversions between currencies have to be done by hand. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations revisionists

You've managed to remove the word "Nazi" from both the lead and the background sections, and even remove all pictures of Hitler from the article. Yes, the kids seeing Keitel surrendering will realize that WWII was nothing special, just another disagreement among gentlemen. Sole Flounder (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing special, eh? "a global military conflict which involved most of the world's nations, including all great powers," "Over seventy million people, the majority civilians, were killed, making it the deadliest conflict in human history." (emphasis mine). Perhaps the link to Germany can be/should be changed to Nazi Germany? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
War was declared on the German state, not the Nazi regime, so that would be a bit imprecise. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
But the German State at the time was ruled by the Nazi regime. And being a German myslef, I think that it is improper to say that Germany or the Germans were the bad guys. No it was Nazi Germany and the Nazis that we were fighting. Some Germans openly opposed the Nazis. (See July 20 Plot). I propose we change Germany to Nazi Germany.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Very few Germans openly opposed the Nazis. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
While technically true, it's important to take into consideration the conditions that they were living under and note that they were not all like him. @Kate (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The key word was "Openly". Yes very few Germans "Openly" opposed the Nazis because they would be killed. Howver a lot of Germans did opose the Nazis one way or another. I propose that we change German to Nazi Germany. I see no reason why not.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I second Coldplay; it would be much more accurate (and less confusing to those who are a little fuzzy on WWII) to say Nazi Germany since it's not quite the same thing as "regular" Germany, despite them being (physically) the same country.--Twilight Helryx 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. With Twilight Helryx and Coldplay Expert. For the same reasons. Nazi Germany is more relevant to WW2 than "regualr" Germany, if you get what I mean. Germany became quite a different country under the Nazi regime, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The Nazi party peaked at 8.5 million members, while Greater Germany under the Nazis peaked at 90 million people, including minors and people from regions that are not now in modern Germany. Some 20–25% of Germanic German adults were Nazis. The majority of Germans who were not Nazi members worked to help Germany conquer its neighbors and wage war. Much of the leadership of the German Army was not Nazi and they fought very well against the Allies. Fighting in North Africa was against Erwin Rommel who was not a Nazi—is that supposed to be called fighting against Nazi Germany? I think that the term "Nazi Germany" should be used in this article a few times when emphasis is appropriate, and "Germany" used in every other instance. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Many of the Allied soldiers and officers voted against Roosevelt and Churchill: shall we also make bizarre allowances for this? Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The one in the lead (which I've just changed) would be one example. The rest, I'll leave up to consensus.--Twilight Helryx 20:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
(od) Saying that 'Nazi Germany' and 'Germany' are different things is patently ridiculous: The Nazis were the legal Government of Germany for the period 1933-1945, and the Allies declared war against Germany, not its government. Saying that Nazi Germany wasn't really Germany is the same as saying that the Roosevelt Administration and United States Government or the Churchill Government and British Government were different things. Anyway, as per normal, if you want to argue that Nazi Germany was somehow completely different from Germany you need to provide sources. Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Like I said before. Being a German myself, I take serious offence to it being German that commited all the horrible crimes under the Nazi Party. At the time there was no "Germany" (Weimar Republic) as it was taken over be the Nazi party. (Nazi Germany) And if you really want to get technical about it, it was Deutsches Reich (German Empire) that was engulfed into Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Empire). Onve again, I cannot stress this enough. It was Nazi Germany not Germany as a whole that killed millions of civilians and soldiers alike. And furthermore, I belive that WP:CONCENSUS would show that most people agree with me.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
As for sources, heres one. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, one of the leading WP:RS's for WWII related articles, uses Third Reich not Germany. Now the Third Reich was Nazi Germany not the nation that preceded it, the Weimar Republic. It would not make since to title it "THe Rise and Fall of Germany" now would it?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty strong convention of saying the country is doing something when the government does it, whether or not there is opposition among the citizens. For example, it's not incorrect to say that the US is waging war against Afghanistan and Iraq--even though there is a great deal of opposition to these wars in the US. delldot ∇. 22:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here is not with how many people oppose or support the Nazi regime, but rather which version of Germany is doing it. Nazi Germany was definitely not the same Germany as it was before (and is now) though it is physically the same.--Twilight Helryx 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Right, but I don't think anyone reading this article is going to make the mistake of thinking we're talking about previous Germany or today's Germany when we say "Britain declared war on Germany" (as opposed to "on Nazi Germany"). It seems to me that the question here is whether Nazi Germany and Germany at the time the events covered here were taking place are the same. And it seems to me that they are. delldot ∇. 22:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Responding to the request for comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I agree that this was a war between nations, not political parties. It would seem inconsistent to continually mention Nazi Germany if we aren't stating a political ideology in front of all the other participant nations as well (which would clearly be unnecessary). That said, political ideology was a major part of this conflict and perhaps could be better recognised in the article. There is a good explanation of Hitler's rise to power at the start, but I do find it odd that (aside from in the infobox) the word Nazi doesn't appear in the article until halfway through, in the casualties and losses section. I also think the wikilink to Germany in the lede should link to Nazi Germany as well, although the current wording of the lede is fine (ie. keep it as "and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by most of the countries in the British Empire and Commonwealth, and by France.") Ranger Steve (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing about the lead. If it's all right with everyone, I'll go right ahead and link it to Nazi Germany.--Twilight Helryx 23:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just undone your change as it was premature given that this discussion is still ongoing. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In a legal sense Nazi Germany was Germany at that time. Also, in the international news reports there wasn't a distinction between Germany and Nazi Germany when talking about the country. (Regime was often specified, as was done also with British or US governments.) By making this distinction you are doing a disservice to all those people who served their country but didn't support nazis. They were the country, not nazis who formed only a small minority, and without them Germany couldn't have succeeded in the things it managed to do in the World War II.

From the current political view, only political group which gains from the strict distinction between Germany and Nazi Germany are far right and neo-nazis: In separation Nazi Germany is made an anomaly, monster of the past, with no continuum in history past and present, so it frees modern far right and neo-nazi parties from the historical ballast they would otherwise suffer.

Oh, well, I oppose making that distinction in general. Only in place where we are talking about the government, it is appropriate. --Whiskey (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the inconsistencies with political affiliations. Nazi Germany was as close to today's Germany as Franco's Spain was as close to the current one. With that being said why does Germany link to Germany? Why not Nazi Germany as it was the, and I quote "The government of Germany at the time". If we are just going to link it to regular and democratic Germany...then whats the point of even haveing a Nazi Germany article if we dont link anything to it? With this in mind I propose that all links to "Germany" in all World War II related articles be linked to "Nazi Germany" instead.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, when we mention the German Empire we dont call it "Germany" we call it "The German Empire" or Second Reich or in German Deutsches Reich. So why would it be any diffrent with Nazi Germany. I agree that Nazi Germany was the legal government of Germany between 1933-1945 but it is imprecise for it to be linked to good old Germany. Don't you guys agree?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No: Germany was ruled by the Nazis from 1933 to 1945 as the legal government at the time. Germany circa 1933-1945 is, legally at least, the same country as modern Germany, though the country's politics and popular attitudes are now totally different. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This may be irrelavent but I want to calme the mood down so it doesnt escalate into an edit war. Nick-D, I belive that you are outnumbered 82,060,000 to 1. Anyway, It doean not make any since that it is linked to modern day Germany when we have a perfectly good artilce on the Germany of that time period. It would'nt make since to link the Rifst French Empire to World War II now would it? The same thing is happening here but the other way around.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
"Nick-D, I belive that you are outnumbered 82,060,000 to 1." - what do you mean by that? Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The majorty of the German people (Includeing myself) do not like to associate their nation with Nazi Germany. Anything that is Fascist related in the county is banned and when the book the rise and fall of the third reich was published, it was poorly recepted in the nation. In short most if not all Germans would probably want this article to say Nazi Germany rather than the nation that they live in or come from. But this has nothing to do with concensus which is what we are trying to reach. It was just a bit of a joke to lighten the atmosphere surrounding this converstion.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: "The majorty of the German people (Includeing myself) do not like to associate their nation with Nazi Germany. " The question is not in what you like.
Re: "Being a German myself, I take serious offence to it being German that commited all the horrible crimes under the Nazi Party." Nuremberg tribunal separated SS and Wehrmacht. Every reasonable person agree that Treblinka or Warsaw Ghetto were Nazi, not German crimes.
From other hand, Wehrmacht itself committed numerous war crimes (especially in the Eastern Front or Yugoslavia, generally as a part of anti-partisan warfare), and neither SS nor Nazi party are directly responsible for that. Note, Wilhelm Keitel was executed for war crimes as a Wehrmacht officer, not as a Nazi party member.
Again, I fully agree that it is highly desirable to separate Nazi from Germans where it is possible, however, sometimes (and, unfortunately, too frequently) it is not easy, if possible at all.
Re: "The key word was "Openly". Yes very few Germans "Openly" opposed the Nazis because they would be killed." I believe by saying that you insulted the whole German nation (unintentionally, of course). By saying so you imply that it was a nation of slaves. Just remember how bravely did they fight, even at the very last days of the war, even when they were badly outnumbered and outgunned, just remember that and ask yourself: "Would it be possible because of the fear of persecution?" Obviously, not. The nation of slaves could not fight so bravely, and such a regime could not be so viable. For instance, although it is well known that Stalin established barrier troops, the less known fact is that these troops had almost never been utilized for their primary purpose: to shoot at the retreating troops. It had been found that the barrier troops had an opposite effect, so this idea was quietly dropped very soon.
Majority of Germans did openly support the regime. And this was true for every viable totalitarian society.
With regards to the country's name, it should not please or offend someone's ear, but be correct. To my understanding, "Nazi Germany" for Third Reich is not more correct than "Communist Russia" for the USSR or "America" for the US. We must use the name that was official during that time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
PS. In addition, it would be incorrect to attribute a Germany's desire to conquest Europe in 1930s exclusively to Hitler's evil ideology. This part of his plan was just a continuation of what Wilhelm II's Germany tried to do in 1910s and couldn't finish for well known reasons. And majority of non-Nazi military personnel fully supported this part of Hitler's program.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
In order
  1. My personal opinions have nothing to do with political and social diffrences between the Germany of WWII and ther Germany of today.
  2. While the Wehrmacht did commit crimes on the Eastern front. Their overall commander was Hitler. And seing that the German military was one of the most efficient and well diciplined fighting machines of all time, they would follow most oders from Hitler.
  3. I just realized my mistake there. Yes I did insult Germany. THey did fight very bravely, especially in the end (Battle of Berlin) however if they were given the chance to voice their opinion, more than likely the German people whold have let their dissatisfaction of the Nazi regime be known.
  4. My foucus is now shifted to the link itself. Yes Nazi Germany's unofficial name was Germany but it needs to be linked to Nazi Germany itself per the reasons stated above.

--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaving all political discussions beyond the scope, the only reasonable question is: what was the official name of the German state during 1933-45 (besides Das Dritte Reich and Third Reich)? Had "Nazi Germany" been frequently utilized in official documents? What about "German Third Reich"? I am asking because I still have a feeling that "Nazi Germany" is no more official than "Communist Russia" (pure slang). In addition, although the ideas of National-Socialism weren't probably supported by majority Germans, the concept of "thousand year Reich" was very attractive for whole German society...--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
PS. Keitel was executed not because he followed Hitler's orders, but because he himself issued cannibal orders (to optimize the effectiveness of German military machine, of course).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
PPS. "if they were given the chance to voice their opinion" It is not sufficient, unfortunately. The opportunity to voice one's opinion is useless when people are misinformed and intellectually non-free. That is why Plato considered democracy and tyranny two sides for the same medal (by contrast to monarchy <-> aristocracy). --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I will agree to keep the name "Germany" as long as it links to the nation that is was at the time Nazi Germany--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Germany, as explained in its article, has a long and varied history. Linking to Germany offers a chance to sort through time and track the development of various governments. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. If no one else objects, ill make the change while still keeping it Germany. Perhaps we can leave a hidden note that says DO NOT CHANGE THIS WITHOUT DISSCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE so thsi will never happen agian.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Support Germany rather than Nazi Germany. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. Piping a link to 'Nazi Germany' when the text says 'Germany' is confusing for readers (who will end up at a different article from the one they expected when they clicked the link) and unnecessary. We also should fix the link to France so it's not piped to the French Third Republic as this is similarly unnecessary and confusing. Nick-D (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
We've got both in the lead now. I do agree that we need at least one Nazi Germany in there. So, we've got this issued settled (for now), right?--Twilight Helryx 02:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
That change was only made a few hours ago in this edit, and seems premature given that this discussion is still going. The text is also confusing - readers without prior knowledge of the war can't be expected to know that the 'Nazi Germany' which invaded Poland and the 'Germany' which Britain, France and other countries declared war on were one and the same. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I have fixed the issue by changeing it to Germany while linking it to the legal government, Nazi Germany. I hope that this will be a good compromise.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it isn't and you should not have made that change given that this discussion is still continuing and other editors are expressing different views and there's no consensus on the issue. I've just reverted your change - please wait for this discussion to conclude (which I'll guess will take at least a day or two) rather than impose your views. Nick-D (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
(In responce to you reverting my edit) hasnt it already concluded and isnt this the best resolution rather than leaving two articles linked that mention two diffrent Germanies?
PS, our edits (Or rather our comments to each other are getting a bit Uncivil) its not my views but rather a temporary fix to the two Germany articles that are linked. As of right now it is wrong to have two linked.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No, the discussion is still continuing; User:Buckshot06 for instance recently posted opposing a link to Nazi Germany and it can be expected that other editors will comment one way or the other. Nick-D (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Support Germany rather than Nazi Germany as long as it links to Nazi Germany.Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The French Third Republic and Nazi Germany were waring factions as the current Fance and germany would never go to war. See Franco-German Cooporation]]. I belive that this article is starting to have a bias against Germany as a whole here. There is no way that you can put Germany in the same category as Nazi Germany. It was not the current German Federal Republic that commitied the halocaust was it? No it was the German government at the time. We have an article on that goverment called Nazi Germany so why not use it??? It was alos on the current French Fith Republic that declared war on Nazi Germany. Rather it was the French Third Republic. In between now and then France has gone through 2 seperate constitution and were serparate Governments. The same goes with Gemany. How would it be confusing for a reader to not know what Nazi Germany was?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems impossible to me to have a lead about WWII in which Nazi Germany is not mentioned. It was Nazi Germany that invaded Poland. And the allies declared war on the entire country. And it was all of Germany that bore the consequences. How can you avoid the word Nazi (besides which that would be a deceptive link)? And how can we avoid referring to all of Germany when it comes to the declarations of war? And why should we avoid it. It's one of the tragedies of the situation as it took place, and the different links will suggest the distinction without getting bogged down in any specific and contentious discussion of it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the reason that it has to be one link is that readers may get confussed. (Which is why I support USEING Nazi Germany, as readers will ger even more confudsed when they are expecting a page about Germany under Hitler and instead they end up at the German Federal Republic.)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Ok, thanks for your time! Sole Flounder (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Coldplay: reread what you wrote. I think he may have misinterpreted. Continuing the discussion: the readers are not the only ones who find it confusing. I don't think anyone has a real understanding of it. Nazi Germany as a part of Germany was awfully real, but amorphous, ill-defined, and constantly changing with more gradations than there were Germans. Even within individuals the beliefs, emotions, allegiances were often in a state of flux, even in some the more die-hard Nazis as the war progressed. It's not an easy issue to deal with. Perhaps we should sleep on it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
WOW! I cant belive I siad that. (By acident of course). Anyway I guess concensus wont come for a while so ill put it to rest. I have this feeling of Revisionist History, 1984 style going on here. I cant stand it when people stereotype a nationality based on something that happened a full generation ago. These kinds of arguemts and the inability to understand that saying Germany and linking everytihng to Germany insults the Entire German Nation and anyone who is of that ansestry. Im german yet according to this article, Britain and the Fith French Republic declared war on the German Rederal Republic. No they did'nt as the current French Repubilc and Germany are good friends now.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 05:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
War is a relationship between nation states, not political parties. During the course of a war the political leadership of the nation state can quite reasonably change, as it did during WWII here in the UK.
Nation states also have a continuity that encompasses the changes in their political positioning over time, we can't separate ourselves from our history, it contributes to who we are now. From a military professional perspective the impact of WWII on the strategic military stance of the German armed forces still shows itself today.
I would oppose moves to try to isolate the Nazi leadership from the state, as observed above that doesn't reflect the actions of a great many who were not party members yet still participated in the conflict willingly.
All that said I do think that the political movements involved probably would benefit from greater prominence in the article, perhaps use the lead to refer to Germany under the leadership of Nazi party?
Also, I'm not convinced that it's helpful or conducive to civilised discourse to call all who disagree with a particular position on this revisionist, it strikes me as a somewhat inflammatory approach.
ALR (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, the present text: "and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by most of the countries" looks ridiculous (although formally correct). The link to the Federal Republic of Germany is quite misleading and absolutely useless. If a reader wants to learn something about the present-days Germany he can type "Germany" by himself. By analogy with the World War I article, that links "Germany" to German Empire, not to FRG, the link should direct to some article that spans the 1933-1945 period of German history, and this link is already present in the article. Therefore, no additional link is needed at all. I propose "and subsequent declarations of war on the German Third Reich by most of the countries", because the official country's name was "the German Third Reich". I do not understand why do we use official names for the US or the UK, and limit ourselves with a slang name when we deal with Germany.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I Support the change as it actually deals with the legal German government at the time instead of the FGR.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 16:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This seems reasonable. Do we have any sources with the actual text of any of the declarations? --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and they exclusively refer to 'Germany' and the 'German Government'. The British ultimatum delivered to Germany refers to the "German Government" and "German attacks upon Poland" and British Prime Minister Chamberlain's radio broadcast announcing that war had broken out states that "consequently this country is at war with Germany". The term 'Third Reich' is not used anywhere in either the ultimatum or radio address. The United States' declaration of war on 11 December 1941 was also made against 'Germany' and the 'German Government' and doesn't mention the 'Third Reich'. Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the Germans themselves referred to their state as the "Deutsches Reich" not "Drittes Reich", so maybe "Third Reich" is not really an official name. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Although the Germany article gives the contemporary name of as "Federal Republic of Germany" the article itself is not solely concerned with that topic. It covers all of German history from pre-Roman to the present, so it's not correct to say the link is to an article about the FRG. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

True. THe English unofficial name for Nazi Germany was the third reich. In reality it was the German Empire. Seieng that we already have a German Empire we should change it to something that deals with that time period. And is as close to the name as possible. "Third Reich" fits both of those categories.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 16:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Although the Germany article gives the contemporary name of as "Federal Republic of Germany" the article itself is not solely concerned with that topic." Formally correct. However, it is not the most appropriate page, because the link should direct to the specific period of the German history, not to Germany in general. In connection to that, German Reich seem to be the most appropriate. AFAIK, "Reich" (Empire) was used without translation only for Nazi Germany (because both Holy Roman or Hohenzollern's Reichs used to be translated completely: "Holy Roman Empire", "Hohenzollern Empire"). Interestingly, that is the case for some other languages: afaik, the Russians also use "Reich" to describe Nazi Germany, and use "Empire" for other period of German history. "German Reich", along with "Germany" is used in official documents, e.g. in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact: [4]:
"For the Government of the German Reich v. Ribbentrop
Plenipotentiary of the Government of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov"
Note, "the U.S.S.R." is a full official name of the country.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
PS. My initial proposal ("Third Reich") is also appropriate. Encyclopaedia Britannica defines the Third Reich as an "official Nazi designation for the regime in Germany from January 1933 to May 1945, as the presumed successor of the medieval and early modern Holy Roman Empire of 800 to 1806 (the First Reich) and the German Empire from 1871 to 1918 (the Second Reich)." It tells: " In 1933 Adolf Hitler became chancellor and established a totalitarian state, the Third Reich, dominated by the Nazi Party."--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Trying to cut to the essential issue here: What article will the typical wiki reader want to go to when clicking on the name of the "German" belligerent in the main WWII article on wikipedia? Nazi Germany or Germany? (My vote is Nazi Germany) Once you answer that question, is it sensible to call the link Germany or Nazi Germany? (My vote is Nazi Germany, to be clear) If it's Nazi Germany for the first few uses (Infobox, lead), should it be abbreviated to Germany, since it's evident from context earlier what is meant, and it saves needless repetition throughout the article. (My vote is abbreviate to Germany)
How many Germans supported the Nazis, what was the official name of the country, what was the wording of the declaration of war - this all seems beside the point. Clarity for the reader is the crux. They will find the answers to all of the preceding questions inside the articles, not via the names of links. Hohum (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Lord Haw Haw did not say nazi Germany calling, he said "Germany calling". But I would opt for third riech.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
We have the link to Nazi Germany (which is the current name of the article that covers that period and seems most appropriate) and Nazi Germany links to Germany in the first sentence, so we don't really have to have to link to Germany. That could be considered "overlinking" as per Wikipedia:Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked, so maybe we can just remove the link Germany but just leave the word, since that was how Chamberlain et al said it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If more people prefer to say "Third Reich" we could pipe the link as Third Reich, but I would favor using the current name of the article. The first sentence on the linked page gives "Third Reich" as the alternative designation in any case. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont care what we call it as long as it links to Nazi Germany. It should be the German Empire but seeing as we already have one Third Reich seems best.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
No. Germany should link to Germany in every instance. If we choose to say Nazi Germany for emphasis, then Nazi Germany should be linked. I don't think we should surprise our readers with unnecessary pipe links. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
We use pipe links All the time (even in this very article) I see no reason why we would "Supprise our readers" in fact, not useing piple links and haveing it link to Germany would confuse our readers as they would obviously expect an article on Nazi Germany.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Germany should link to Germany in every instance." And "China" should link to China, even when we speak e.g. about Tong Dynasty. Did I understand you correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC) 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, in the text of the M-R-pact they use Deutschland. Only at the end comes this Deutsche Reichsregierung. Germany should link to Germany, for Federal Republic of Germany we should have a separate article. --Whiskey (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

section break

Adding a section break, just passing through! I'm too chicken to have an opinion on this, but remember reductio ad hitlerum. SGGH ping! 12:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Look linking Germany to Germany is like linking Ancient Mesopotamia to Iraq. Or Russian Empire to the USSR or Even USSR to Russia. Why link it to a nation whose current governemt was not even in the war? It makes no since.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 13:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
By clicking at the "Germany" link in the sentence:
"...and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by most of the countries in the British Empire and Commonwealth, and by France."
a reader expect to learn more about the state that started WWII. Instead of that he is suggested to read a lot of irrelevant information about present-days FRG. By contrast, by clicking here or here he immediately obtains all needed information.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a historical continuum; One cannot isolate nazi time from the history of the Germany. The current use of the article Germany isn't correct. It should be changed, not the link. The article behind the Germany should contain the general history of the land and the people - not the present occupant of the state. --Whiskey (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: "One cannot isolate nazi time from the history of the Germany. " During the present discussion I already pointed out that, although "it is highly desirable to separate Nazi from Germans where it is possible, however, sometimes (and, unfortunately, too frequently) it is not easy, if possible at all." However, the question is not in separation (or not separation) of Nazi from Germany, but in redirecting a reader to the most appropriate WP page. When we speak about the US in WWII, the most appropriate link is United States, because during last two centuries there were no break in continuity of American statehood. By contrast, when we speak about Turkey or Germany in WWI, we should provide a link to Ottoman Empire and German Empire, not to Turkey or Germany, because a continuity was broken. Similarly, when we speak about WWI, WWII or Ossetian war, the links should be to Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russia, accordingly, because continuity between these three different states was broken in 1917 and 1991.
That is quite obvious.
The idea to link this article to Germany (in general), not to Third Reich is as ridiculous as the idea to link to Periodic table when we need, e.g. Sodium--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Uh, no. The article about Germany gives a fine description of the historic continuity throughout its existence. Thanks for your opinion. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
...and the article about Periodic table gives information about Sodium in one click. With regards to continuity, I meant not historic continuity, but continuity of statehood. It was broken at least two times during XX century: in 1918 and 1945. Pre-1945 and post 1945 Germanies are two absolutely different states.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Paul Siebert. Which "Germany" article are users going to want to connect to from an article about WWII? The most relevant one, not an overview of Germany in general. I simply can't fathom a desire to link anywhere else from a WWII article.Hohum (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought we had some agreement that the link should be to the Nazi Germany article, and the question is really how we want to label the link: either "Nazi Germany" or "Third Reich". The link to the Germany article is in the first sentence of the Nazi Germany article, so according to Wikipedia policy, we don't need to provide a link to the Germany article. It is preferable to link the more specific article. Those who are arguing we should link to the Germany article, please read this. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Assuming there is agreement that the links should go to the Nazi Germany article, I slightly prefer the label to be Third Reich in preference to Nazi Germany. But they are both common names used in english, so both are acceptable. Hohum (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It should say Third Reich and the other link should be delinked as we would already have too many links refering to the nation.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to try to include both terms, Nazi and Third Reich in the lead. For instance we might write something like this: "The start of the war is generally held to be September 1, 1939, with the invasion of Poland by the Third Reich (see Nazi Germany). Within days war was declared on Germany by most of the countries in the British Empire and Commonwealth, and by France." (somewhat like Shirer, who uses both in the title to his book) --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps. However it does seem a little imformal. And even though Shire uses both terms, the title for the entire book uses Third Reich. But first off here are the proposals.

Out of these proposals I support Third Reich as Nazi Germany was an unofficial name. The Third Reich was less unofficial and is used by several notable and very reliable sources. Not only that but it is the closest substitute for the official name of Germany between 1933-1945, German Empire. (We cant use this name as it is associated with the German Empire of 1871-1918)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but not unexpectedly I find your list of choices are too limited, and the last two probably not even in the running. The term "Nazi Germany" is quite common, especially in the press, both today and at the time. I searched the English Wikipedia with Google advanced search for occurrences of the quoted phrases "Third Reich" and "Nazi Germany". The first had about 5,750 hits and the latter 14,200. So they are both quite common. Also, when indexing a book with "Third Reich" in the title, wouldn't the keyword phrase "Nazi Germany" almost certainly be used? --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Another issue we might think about is that unfortunately, the term "Nazi" is often misused. Many of our younger readers, who perhaps have gotten an assignment to learn about WWII for instance, may have never heard of the "Third Reich", but they may be familiar with the term "Nazi" from other contexts, perhaps as a term of abuse, and wondered exactly what it means. If they see it in the link, they may be motivated to click on the link to learn some of the real facts about how it came into the language. Then they can have a better understanding of whether it was being misused or not. At the same time they will have learned a lot more about WWII. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How about:

--Whiskey (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I feel it is a close parallelism between the names "Nazi Germany" and "Communist Russia" : both names are widely used, and both of them had never been used as a self-name. By contrast, "Third Reich" and the "Soviet Union" are the names that were extensively used in official documents and, more importantly, were more correct: both Reich and the USSR were something greater than Germany and, accordingly, Russia. With regards to unfamiliarity of some readers, I believe, WP's goal is to inform readers, not to support existing stereotype.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. However, I think that we should at least make some mention of Nazi Germany. The rest—Third Reich and the like—we can simply wiki-link them, and if readers don't know what those terms are, they can just click on the link.--Twilight Helryx 02:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes whatever the name, the link must be for Nazi Germany or Third Reich. I for one support useing Third Reich for all WWII related articles.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing incorrect about "Nazi Germany". This book is just one of many credible sources:

  • Caplan, Jane (2008). Nazi Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199276875.

I haven't seen a good reason why we cannot represent the different points of view as expressed by different editors on this discussion page by using wording similar to what I suggested above: "Third Reich (see Nazi Germany)". It is not an either-one-or-the-other situation. A compromise on this issue by including both terms seems to me to be the best solution. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously there appear to be more than 14,000 instances of "Nazi Germany" in the English Wikipedia. If you were to undertake an extensive revision of the encyclopedia by changing all of these to "Third Reich" as suggested above, I think you would need several credible sources saying that "Nazi Germany" is incorrect and that it should be changed. So far I haven't seen any sources that say that. Given that ten well-recognized experts in the field published essays in a volume with the title Nazi Germany under the auspices of Oxford University Press in the year 2008, I find it difficult to believe that such a move could be justified at any time in the near future. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are my two cents. If we are going to change the wikilink from Germany to Nazi Germany, or the the Third Rieich, or whatever, then all nations links should be changed only to specify the government at the time of the conflict. If Germany is to link to Germany, then all nation's should link to its current article. It's all or nothing, to only be fair to all nations who were participants of the war. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "then all nations links should be changed only to specify the government at the time of the conflict". Correct. However, war time's Britain or the USA and present the UK and the US are the same states, so no modification of the links are needed. By contrast, "Soviet" should be linked to the USSR, "France" to Third republic, "Czech" to Czechoslovakia, "India" to British Raj, and "Germany" to Third Reich. I don't see what is the problem here.
Re: "... the title Nazi Germany under the auspices of Oxford University Press ..." "Soviet Russia" is also being extensively used by Western historians, however, it is not an official name.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Paul here. Third Reich is considered an official name. Nazi Germany is just another non-official term for the German gov. between 1933-1945. If we are to change everytihng to Third Reich. We probably would want to change the article Nazi Germany to Third Reich as well.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
While consistency is nice, I don't think it's reasonable to decide on a standard rigid inflexibility on all links to countries in this article. They should be decided on a case by case basis. Hohum (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Well im pretty sure that most of us agree that Germany should be Third Reich. And USSR or Soviet Union should stay the same. And it seems logical that France should link ot the Third French Republic as they were the ones fighting in the war. Not the Fith French Republic.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source that says "Third Reich" is the "official" name. It seems to be a hybrid of English and German words, and lacks the identifier "German". Isn't the proper English translation of the official name "Third German Empire" (which was later changed to "Great German Empire")? I don't see how "Third Reich" is any more "official" than "Nazi Germany" which at least includes the important word "Germany". Also Paul Siebert's argument that "Nazi Germany" is stereotyping hasn't been supported with a credible source. And as to consensus, there are at least three editors (perhaps 4) that favor including "Nazi Germany" (Silver Flow, Nick-D, and myself, and maybe Binksternet, although that's not totally clear), so I don't see that we have a real consensus yet on the name. But you might get more consensus, if you would at least consider the compromise I am suggesting on the name. (I do think there is consensus that we should link to the article Nazi Germany). --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I re-read your comment about Third Reich being called the "official" designation in Britannica, so I retract the first sentence above about a lack of source support. However, it could be confusing to simply use Third Reich because of the lack of the German identifier when we go on to say "war was declared on Germany". (Which I was under the impression is preferred because that is how the country is referred to in for instance Chamberlain's radio address and in his speech to Parliament.) Splitting the sentence into two parts also helps, since the allies did not declare war until a day or two after the invasion of Poland, and the first part of the sentence is stating the war started on September 1. Although putting the link to the Nazi Germany article in a parenthetical phrase is somewhat cumbersome it does have the advantage of (1) showing that "Third Reich" refers to Germany; (2) introducing the term "Nazi", which is such an important one in any discussion of WWII; and (3) showing that the linked article is called "Nazi Germany". Since National Socialism is so important to an understanding of Germany in this period, and "Nazi" is the common abbreviated adjective for that movement, it really should be included in the lead. This would also introduce the two most commonly used labels for referring to Germany of that period by historians who write in English. I don't think it's a good idea to try to exclude one or the other ("Third Reich" or "Nazi Germany"). They are both used too frequently in the literature and the reader needs to be aware that they are pretty much synonymous. For similar reasons I would not favor changing the title of the "Nazi Germany" article. We need to include both designations in the encyclopedia. Germany is such a central player at the beginning of the war in Europe, which this part of the lead deals with, introducing the two together would have some advantages. So I am still advocating we write something like this: "The start of the war is generally held to be September 1, 1939, with the invasion of Poland by the Third Reich (Nazi Germany). Within days war was declared on Germany by most of the countries in the British Empire and Commonwealth, and by France."--Robert.Allen (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Isn't the proper English translation of the official name "Third German Empire"" I believe, the word "Reich" (Empire) became an international word, similar to the word "Soviet" (Council). Formally, there is no difference between "soviets" and other parliaments, however, the word "Soviet" is being used to describe a certain form of democratic (pseudo-democratic at later stages) rule specific for the USSR. Similarly, the word "Reich" is used to describe a certain period of history of German Empire. Interestingly, whereas Hohenzollern or Holy Roman Empires are being translated in English (and some other languages), "Third Reich" is not translated as a rule, so most people understand what "Reich" is meant.
I agree that "Nazi Germany" is widely used, however, "Soviet Russia" is also being used widely. My only objection against these two names is that both of them are colloquialism, and we do not use (correctly) "Soviet Russia" in this article (as well as in many others). I believe, we must be consistent.
With regards to the sentence you proposed, since Third Reich redirects to Nazi Germany giving both names may be redundant, however I have no major objections against this wording.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Paul, I appreciate your flexibility. Personally, I sympathize with what you are saying but it seems like the Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what is used in the real world and not what we would like the real world to be. Excluding "Nazi Germany" would almost be like telling historians how to ply their trade. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Your suggestion of a compromise appears to be reasonable.
In regards to the other nations, are we leaving them as is, or changing them to their historical period articles? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure the compromise wording is preferable, and I don't see broad consensus here for the change. At the moment the lead is really ugly, and we have a false compromise with two unofficial names used (Third Reich and Nazi Germany) instead of the proper English name (German Empire or German Reich) or the most common English name (Germany). As the common English name for the state at the time was (and still is) "Germany", that should be used. I'd support using "Nazi Germany" (linked as Nazi Germany or Nazi Germany) as it conveys some more essential information. --hippo43 (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the text which was added (and has just been reverted) was deeply flawed in that it called Germany by three different names in two sentences. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I think there was in fact fairly broad consensus to include one or both of Nazi Germany and Third Reich. They are both very common names at the time and currently, which satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. The official name of a country, or the "proper" english translation or transliteration may be far less commonly used, and more confusing to a reader than the most commonly used one; including it in the article would be needlessly confusing, and a reader can find out official names by clinking on the link anyway.
Things can have several correct, commonly used names; there is absolutely no problem referring to the Germany of WWII by two or three of these, as long as it is still clear what we are talking about; e.g.- "Third Reich, <Name2, etc> (see Nazi Germany)" or a similar, single use list of the options, early in the article, with one linked. Hohum (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hohum, I see consensus to include one for clarity, but not to include both with brackets uglying the place up. WP:COMMONNAME is only satisfied by using the most common English name - in this case, there is really no doubt that the most common name for the country (not the regime) was (and is) "Germany". I inserted the current wording as it includes the word 'Nazi', which covers the significance of Nazism, and the word 'Germany', the common name of the country, and it links to the appropriate article, but I'm open to considering alternatives. --hippo43 (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with the current version. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The current version seems fine to me. Hohum (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Frequency of various terms in WorldCat books catalogued under "National Socialism History"

I was curious how many entries would show up for various terms in WorldCat advanced search. I used the settings "Subject: National socialism History", and "Language: English" for all searches and added Title search terms. Note that if an entry has one of the Title search terms in the Table of contents field it will show up as a hit. The word does not necessarily have to be in the title. These are the results in descending order of frequency.

"Title" search terms No. of entries
(none) 2,921
Nazi 685
Germany 487
German 435
Reich 393
Third 358
Third and Reich 347
National 281
Nazi and Germany 264
Socialism 174
National and Socialism 165
Nazism 154

--Robert.Allen (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well since all these editors are keen on debateing this...why dont we also go to the GAN at the top of the page and work on that as well? We could really use it.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Good idea! And based on these results I would not be opposed changing the article name Nazi Germany to Third Reich, but if that should happen, I would favor just moving the link in the World War II article so it would appear as "Third Reich" (Nazi Germany)" for the same reasons I mentioned in the above section on "Revisionists" (I don't like that word either; I don't think it applies to any of us. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Japan and the war in Europe

Did Japan consider the "Greater East Asia War" and the war in Europe to be part of a single war, or did they consider the two to be separate conflicts? Repdetect117 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II/Archive_36&oldid=1142291938"